Posted on 12/12/2005 8:56:21 AM PST by Pyro7480
"In Light Of Tradition"... The Society Of St. Pius X And Vatican II
By Brian Mershon
Dec 12, 2005
For those vaguely familiar with traditional Catholic circles, two recent articles by Dario Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos, curial prefect for the Clergy and for the Ecclesia Dei Commission, might not seem meaningful.
Admittedly, even within circles of those who keep tabs on Church issues, this story has not received much press. Many recognize a cordial dialogue took place between the Society of St. Pius X superior general, Bishop Bernard Fellay, on August 29 with the Holy Father. In November, Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos appeared on Italian television, and in an interview, made the following statement:
“We are not facing a heresy. One cannot say in correct, exact, precise terms that there is a schism [here]. There is a schismatic attitude in the consecration of bishops without a pontifical mandate. They are inside the Church; there is only lacking a full, a more perfect -- as was said in the meeting with Msgr. Fellay --a fuller communion, because there is communion” ().
Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos declared that both the bishops and the priests of the Society of St. Pius X are within the body of the Church, even if not in full communion. An analogy would be that they may reside within the body of the Church, but not necessarily within its heart.
Of course, this particular situation would need to be applied individually to each and every Catholic, bishop, and priest within the Society of St. Pius X. This distinction, although perhaps somewhat technical, was expressed by St. Augustine, as well as the theology and canonical law emanating after the Second Vatican Council.
Despite the illicit consecrations by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre in 1988, and recognized as such through the declaration of Ecclesia Dei Adflicta, a document issued by, and signed by the late Pope John Paul II, the clerical traditionalist followers of Archbishop Lefebvre are not necessarily in schism, but may be in imperfect communion.
Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos made this same point in a little-known September interview in 30 Days, a well-respected Italian publication. “Unfortunately, Msgr. Lefebvre went ahead with the consecration and hence the situation of separation came about, even if it was not a formal schism” ().
Now, even within educated Catholic circles, the new ecclesiological outlook of the 1983 Code of Canon Law (of which I am not an expert), based upon the documents of the Second Vatican Council, makes differentiations of perfect and imperfect communion much more often than declarations of non-Catholic Christians being “outside” or “within” or “members” of the Church. Lumen Gentium, following St. Augustine, declares: “Even though incorporated into the Church, one who does not persevere in charity is not saved. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but in body, not in heart” (n. 14).
To avoid turning this into a theological tract, let me clarify some points that might raise some questions, both from sincere Catholics sympathetic to the traditionalist viewpoints of the Society of St. Pius X, as well as those who are vehemently opposed to them. The dialogue toward regularization, begun anew August 29, reveals that the Society of St. Pius X bishops and priests recognize Pope Benedict XVI as the Sovereign Pontiff. Whether or not certain Society of St. Pius X priests or lay adherents all recognize the Sovereign Pontiff and obey him would be the topic of another article.
As we are painfully aware, there are several dioceses in the U.S. where juridical, theological, and moral dissent against the established teachings of the Church reign. This is present in priests, laymen, and unfortunately, even in some bishops. They too, despite what some might claim (their dissent is tolerated), may be in less full communion de facto, than even laity who regularly attend Society of St. Pius X chapels. The Society of St. Pius X is not a case of heresy, according to Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos.
That being said, this does not necessarily mean that laymen should regularly attend Society of St. Pius X chapels. This does not mean that certain priests, laymen, or even bishops of the Society of St. Pius X do not harbor schismatic attitudes. Some may.
In fact, to recognize the Holy Father as St. Peter’s Successor requires all Catholics to obey him, not only in matters of faith and morals, but in matters of governance. A Catholic cannot judge the individual dispositions of the priests and/or bishops of the SSPX who offer Catholics refuge by providing sacraments, moral teaching, and authentic Catholic doctrine in certain dioceses where the bishop has not provided “wide and generous” access to the Traditional Latin Mass, as requested in Ecclesia Dei Adflicta, by Pope John Paul II.
Catholics must not only recognize the authority of the Pope and the bishops of the Church vested with authority by Jesus Christ; they must obey them as well. Vatican I makes this very clear regarding the Pope’s right to govern.
Reconciliation
But recent statements by Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos, as well as an interview with Jorge Cardinal Medina Estevez shortly after the Fellay/Benedict XVI meeting, show a serious effort on the part of the Vatican to reconcile with the 500 priests and four auxiliary bishops (meaning they claim no specific canonical jurisdiction). Of course, the then Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, in an audience with the bishops of Chile in 1988, called for a renewed effort to understand the Second Vatican Council’s teachings “in light of Tradition.” The serious theology done by some Society of St. Pius X priests could assist in this important endeavor (http://www.unavoce.org/cardinal_ratzinger_chile.htm).
A canonically approved Society of St. Pius X, working with the traditional priests of Campos, Brazil, the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter, and the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest, could bring much theological clarity in order to harmonize some of the misinterpretations of the council’s teachings, as well as its “less than clear points,” as Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos admitted, in the light of Tradition. This is how all councils must be interpreted.
Fr. Jay Scott Newman, JCL, pastor of St. Mary’s Catholic Church in Greenville, S.C., asked the following question in this “Lecture Addressed to the Theological Students Association of The Catholic University of America,” in Washington, D.C., in 2001. While it is clear that Fr. Newman did not have in mind the Society of St. Pius X situation when he authored this lecture, I believe its contents are instructive.
We must remember, that when Edward Cardinal Cassidy, the former prefect for Ecumenism, was questioned as to why theological dialogue did not take place regularly with the Society of St. Pius X if they were indeed in schism, Cardinal Cassidy replied that the situation was an “internal matter” of the Catholic Church. Fr. Newman opined:
“Expanding on the precept of St. Augustine that unless he persevere in charity, a Catholic can remain bound to the Church in body but not in heart, I wonder if it is not now possible to describe circumstances in which some non-Catholic Christians have a greater degree of fullness of communion with the one Church of Christ than do some Catholic Christians because of their stubborn refusal to believe doctrines of the faith which must be definitively held.”
“I suspect that such a prospect is a logical consequence of the substantial newness of ecclesiology in Vatican II, namely, that one is not either in or out of the Church, but rather that all the baptized are joined in real communion with the Church by some degree of fullness. In other words, it is now clear that the road of communion with the Catholic Church by degrees of fullness is a two-way street.”
In other words, the modernists who clearly reject doctrines of the faith, even if not excommunicated, are not in perfect nor “full communion” with the Church. And a bishop, priest, or layman who identifies himself with the Society of St. Pius X could be in more or less communion with the Church, when compared to many of the bishops, priests, or laymen who pride themselves in being within (de jure, but not de facto) the Church.
An Examination Of Conscience
Speaking to the bishops of Chile in 1988, shortly after the illicit consecrations of Archbishop Lefebvre, our current Pope gave all Catholics sufficient words of reflection to ponder:
“We must reflect on this fact: that a large number of Catholics, far beyond the narrow circle of the Fraternity of Lefebvre, see this man as a guide, in some sense, or at least as a useful ally. It will not do to attribute everything to political motives, to nostalgia, or to cultural factors of minor importance.”
“These causes are not capable of explaining the attraction which is felt even by the young, and especially by the young, who come from many quite different nations, and who are surrounded by completely distinct political and cultural realities.”
“Indeed they show what is from any point of view a restricted and one-sided outlook; but there is no doubt whatever that a phenomenon of this sort would be inconceivable unless there were good elements at work here, which in general do not find sufficient opportunity to live within the Church of today.”
“For all these reasons, we ought to see this matter primarily as the occasion for an examination of conscience. We should allow ourselves to ask fundamental questions, about the defects in the pastoral life of the Church, which are exposed by these events.”
Ping!
Catholic ping!
The Holy Father is offering what amounts to a generous face-saving opportunity for the SSPX, essentially stating this as an issue of obedience rather than schism.
If the SSPX is willing to accept this olive branch, this could go well. I would love to see more faithful orthodox traditional Catholics back in the fold. We NEED them to help keep the hippy-dippy New Agers under control . . .
Indeed! BADLY.
Liturgical abominations abound, and an extra-episcopal organization like the SSPX might be, could be a great way to force the hand of bishops who see no fruit from the Latin Mass movement.
This sentence says that the two things being requested by the Society is the lifting of the excommunication and the liberalization of the Latin Mass, according to the antique Tridentine Rite. I'm assuming antique means the Mass of Pope Pius V, right?
What is conspicuous by its absence is the demand regarding Vatican II, alluded to in the French interview with Bishop Fellay. That's a good thing, in my opinion. Because if anything will keep the reunion from going forth, it is the Society pressing for Rome to abandon, or even obliquely disavow the Council. If they do not accept it's authenticity, the split will remain, and grow worse, if that's possible.
>> If the SSPX is willing to accept this olive branch, this could go well. I would love to see more faithful orthodox traditional Catholics back in the fold. We NEED them to help keep the hippy-dippy New Agers under control . . .<<
Awwww, ya made me spit my coffee!
You have this so right!
Mother Angelica calls it the "Electric Church" Everytime you go, you get a shock!
God Bless her!
At the very least, a regularized SSPX will allow (hopefully) for a better geographical distribution of the TLM. With a wider availability, those wayward bishops know very well the fruits which will come about, and they will be on the losing end of that deal.
How wonderful it would be if the FSSP, SSPX, and/or the ICR were in Maryland. Such a presence would make my moving to NJ moot (well almost, I like Jersey for other reasons:) )
Anyone know why the SSPX never set up shop in Maryland nor DC? Especially considering that the SSPV has a mission church in South Baltimore.
Went to Mass at a different MA parish this week, and the priest actually mentioned Boston Mayor Tom Menino by name and raked him over the coals for some off-hand remarks about the faith, that were actually mild errors in comparison to what goes by without comment. The priest also ripped Menino over his stance on abortion.
My wife and I were pinching ourselves. It was soooooooo refreshing.
Not only will SSPX not demand that the Church disavow the Council, they themselves will be asked to accept it, in return for a lifting of excommunications and a granting of a universal indult.
This, IMHO, is the main stumbling block to reconciliation. A major part of the SSPX job description is trashing the Council. To have that taken away, would leave many of them with a feeling similar to that which afflicts the genuinely unemployed and would lead almost inevitably to a split in their ranks.
Media accounts always focus on the SSPX demands, mainly because the SSPX are so vocal about them. You can be sure that the Vatican also has its own conditions, but Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos, being the class act that he is, does not bang a loud drum. He is discreet, charitable and unassuming and approaches this situation in a way that does not publicly constrain or embarrass the other party in the negotiations.
I think I said as much, when I said they must accept its authenticity.
I'm for the reunion. The Church could be strengthened by their re-incorporation. That being said, it is my opinion that the Society has not had astute men leading it. If they had been astute, they'd have lived the Faith without feeling compelled to tear down those they are at odds with. Renunion would have probably already concerned, if they'd understood that.
Cardinal Hoyos, who is very much a class act (he has the face of an a natural born aristocrat, doesn't he?) in his last communique before this one was asked about the crudeness of language that the Society employed when making their case against the things they considered wrong with the present Church, and he was very diplomatic about it. He basically said that where there's tension there's inflammatory rhetoric. The Society has a dear friend in Cardinal Hoyos, hopefully they will heed his counsel.
Finally, in addition to what we've spoken of concerning acceptance of the Council, they must drop the NO isn't valid bullshit (pardon my french?). As Kramer said to Jerry once: "that's kooky talk."
concerned=happened
I pray for a reconciliation. I would like to see the SSPX in full communion with Rome.
"Finally, in addition to what we've spoken of concerning acceptance of the Council, they must drop the NO isn't valid bullshit (pardon my french?)."
The SSPX recognizes the validity of the Novus Ordo missae. You are misinformed.
Well, it wouldn't be the first time.
I shouldn't have said the SSPX, I should have said some its adherents, and if I'm not mistaken, I've witnessed you arguing against the inanity of that claim.
Question though, if the SSPX doesn't advocate its invalidity, why does this claim arise so often from some of its adherents? Also, is the poison soup analogy that's bandied about something that emanates from the Society, or is that also something coming from the Society's members? Quesion is a serious one, not rhetorical.
Mershon,
Interesting article. A few comments:
1. To say that the SSPX is "in the body" but not "in the heart" seems to me a very harsh judgment. To be "in the heart" here refers to being in the state of grace: "The bonds which bind men to the Church in a visible way are profession of faith, the sacraments, and ecclesiastical government and communion. He is not saved, however, who, though part of the body of the Church, does not persevere in charity. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but, as it were, only in a 'bodily' manner and not 'in his heart.'" (LG 14)
2. As far as I can tell, the notion of imperfect communion is predicated on the presumption of ignorance on the part of non-Catholics (UR 3). Thus Cardinal Journet remarks before the Council:
"Other things being equal—that is to say, supposing an equal intensity of charity everywhere—membership of the Church by desire possesses a greater and greater degree of perfection as we pass from the non-baptized just to those of the traditionalist Protestant Churches, and then to those of the Graeco-Russian Churches."
3. Is it really helpful to tell those outside the Church that they may be in greater communion with her than those who are "inside"? Besides finding this notion dubious, it seems to me to provide an excuse for them not to return.
A lot of the SSPX adherents on the internet cast doubt on the validity of the revised rite. I think this may have more to do with the kind of person who wants to argue about such issues on the Internet than with the position itself of the SSPX.
On the other hand, it's an easy jump from the SSPX position that the new rite is intrinsically evil to the position that it's invalid, since the arguments that it's evil are based on claims such as "the New Mass must be conceived as a meeting and a meal, centered around the people, and not a true sacrifice offered to God." If it's not a sacrifice to God, one wonders at the point of a token claim of validity. Likewise: "Indeed, the Novus Ordo Missae presents itself as ... A narrative of a past event (vs. PRINCIPLE 12). This told out loud by the one presiding (vs. PRINCIPLE 14), who recounts Our Lord’s words as read in Scripture (rather than pronouncing a sacramental formula) and who makes no pause until he has shown the Host to the people. ... The Novus Ordo Missae will no longer in and of itself guarantee that the celebrant has this intention. That will depend on his personal faith (generally unknown to those assisting, but more and more doubtful as the crisis in the Church is prolonged). Therefore, these Masses can be of doubtful validity, and more so with time. The words of consecration, especially of the wine, have been tampered with. Has the “substance of the sacrament” (cf., Pope Pius XII quoted in PRINCIPLE 5) been respected?"
Sorry, this link should be: http://www.sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/q5_novusordo.htm.
I thought so, but wasn't sure. But, if poison kills, what's he really saying?
A lot of the SSPX adherents on the internet cast doubt on the validity of the revised rite. I think this may have more to do with the kind of person who wants to argue about such issues on the Internet than with the position itself of the SSPX.
That's probably true.
On the other hand, it's an easy jump from the SSPX position that the new rite is intrinsically evil to the position that it's invalid, since the arguments that it's evil are based on claims such as "the New Mass must be conceived as a meeting and a meal, centered around the people, and not a true sacrifice offered to God." If it's not a sacrifice to God, one wonders at the point of a token claim of validity.
I guess that's the leap that I made, but it was the poison soup comment that made me think that validity hadn't really been 'settled.' It always rang hollow as an argument for it, like a technicality or something.
Anyway, insofar as reunion is concerned, I hope the Lord blesses them with an influx of sober leadership, so that it will come to fruition and be a true unity.
Maybe the crypto-orthodox feel emboldened to let fly under B16? I sure hope so! :)
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.