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.”
Is this referring to the Orthodox?
Yes.
The lady I talked to about studying for confirmation told me that the Latin Mass was history. I found this to be funny as I was attending it weekly at the time, it a beautiful church, with about 100 other congregants.
John Paul II discovered a level of piety and zeal in the youth undreamed of by the church before his papacy. Now Benedict has a chance to discover a level of zeal for the Holy Roman Catholic Church and what she has stood for for 2000 years as symbolized by those Rites that she has borne through the ages.
I really believe that the ancient rites represent the ancient values and morals that the legitimate members of the Holy Laity do NOT and WILL not compromise on. Those that still call for more and more "moderanization" of the church are still those who will be the first to fall away when the winds blow and the rain beats down.
Do you know where in the Old Testament (Torah) the prophecies of Jesus the Christ coming into the world are?
Thanking you and any other freeper that can help me.
thanks for ping and good thread with balanced arguments as opposed to the usual "schismatic" vs "NO is evil" dialectic.
The Cardinal makes very good sense to me--the view he espouses matches very closely my own. "A schismatic attitude"--that I can believe. They are not like the Greek Orthodox, true schismatics
Yet it is true that some of their arguments against the official NO are very technical and have little pastoral use and are thus very counterproductive
Here's to hoping they can accept VII "in light of tradition", so they can be in complete communion. Then let them argue their interpretation of VII via their piety, good works , and missionary zeal. No doubt that VII has been completely and accurately interpreted; a little help from the SSPX over the next 50 years will be a great help.
The first one is here:
Gen 3,14 "And the Lord God said to the serpent: Because thou hast done this thing, thou art cursed among all cattle, and beasts of the earth: upon thy breast shalt thou go, and earth shalt thou eat all the days of thy life. 15 I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: he/she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for his/her heel."
Being referred to by God as the "seed (spermatos) of the woman" foretold that the Messiah would be born of a virgin (parthenos).
"Here's to hoping they can accept VII "in light of tradition""
Here's to hoping that Rome will first remember Tradition so that there is something to interpret VII in the light of!
touche, lol
"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."
Since it wasn't a dogmatic Council, it doesn't have to be accepted as dogma. As the pendulum of time swings back towards Tradition (and away from the Clown Masses) it will be easier for all to put this Council into perspective.
In theory, that shouldn't be too big a deal, especially since their founder, Archbishop Lefebvre himself signed off on them.
The fact that they contain no new dogma is not really an issue.
Prayerful bumpus ad summum
The sspx has no intention of a reconciliation. They desire Rome submit to them - the real church- and do public penance for excomunicating the Saviour of Christianity, Lefebvre; they desire Rome reject an Ecumenical Council, they insist the normative mass is evil..they teach that the Jews as a race are cursed...the sspx is a schismatic hell-hole that only belongs right where it is - Extra Ecclesia Nulla Salus.
Holy Mother Church has turned the corner. One of the reasons it has successfully turned the corner is that these lunatics have been excommunicated and their malign "theology" and many heresies and hatreds were excised from the Body of Christ.
Let them return, one at a time, as many have. But corporately? Please. We have far more important and sane things to do and their corporate return would bring their war back inside the Church and there would be hell to pay
Do you mean the whole OT or just the Torah?
"I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel." (Gen. 3:15)
"Juda, thee shall thy brethren praise: thy hands shall be on the necks of thy enemies: the sons of thy father shall bow down to thee. Juda is a lion's whelp: to the prey, my son, thou art gone up: resting thou hast couched as a lion, and as a lioness, who shall rouse him? The sceptre shall not be taken away from Juda, nor a ruler from his thigh, till he come that is to be sent, and he shall be the expectation of nations." (Gen. 49:8-10)
"Therefore taking up his parable, again he said: Balaam the son of Beor hath said: The man whose eye is stopped up, hath said: The hearer of the words of God hath said, who knoweth the doctrine of the Highest, and seeth the visions of the Almighty, who falling hath his eyes opened: I shall see him, but not now: I shall behold him, but not near. A STAR SHALL RISE out of Jacob and a sceptre shall spring up from Israel: and shall strike the chiefs of Moab, and shall waste all the children of Seth." (Num. 24:15-17)
"The Lord thy God will raise up to thee a PROPHET of thy nation and of thy brethren like unto me: him thou shalt hear:" (Deut. 19:15)
"For a CHILD IS BORN to us, and a son is given to us, and the government is upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called, Wonderful, Counsellor, God the Mighty, the Father of the world to come, the Prince of Peace." (Isaiah 9:6)
"AND THOU, BETHLEHEM Ephrata, art a little one among the thousands of Juda: out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be the ruler in Israel: and his going forth is from the beginning, from the days of eternity." (Micah 5:12)
Even when John Paul II was still alive, you still got similar statements.
"Question though, if the SSPX doesn't advocate its invalidity, why does this claim arise so often from some of its adherents?"
I cannot answer this as I do not know.
"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."
Should we blame the Novus Ordo and Novus Ordo priests for the fact that 90%-plus of all Catholics contracept AND that nearly all deny the dogma, "Outside the Church, there is no salvation?
As I said in the article. We cannot judge the individual predispositions of SSPX priests or bishops or those laymen who attend their chapels. However, canonically, it appears that the SSPX is in "imperfect communion," which is all I was trying to get across in the article, based upon my understanding of Cardinal Hoyos' recent comments. I thought Fr. Newman's analysis in his article was helpful. As I indicated, I am NOT a canon lawyer.
2. I would think the Cardinal Journet quote would apply even MORE to many of the SSPX priests, bishops and lay adherents than even to the Orthodox. I'm not sure of the point, but I think it is valid.
3. You asked: Is it really helpful to tell those outside the Church that they may be in greater communion with her than those who are "inside"?
Again, "outside" and "inside" the Church, and "membership" as far as I can tell, are preconciliar terms that are NOT used in the Vatican II documents as far as I can tell. It does not mean they are not valid, just that they are not part of the post-Conciliar theology or of canon law. I am merely trying to use the terms the Church appears to be using. I think they apply equally (at least the concepts do!) for Catholics as well. At least by analogy, if not by fact.
We are all "more or less perfectly connected" as none of us has perfect Faith, Hope and Charity.
"I think any reunion with these nuts would do grave harm to the Church."
Just as I predicted months ago. Thank you for your charity and hope and true sense of ecumenism here.
The thing speaks for itself. I hope and pray you will be proven wrong. I cannot wait until Bishop Fellay and all the 500 priests of the SSPX are reconciled with the Church--in the spirit of TRUE ecumenism.
"The Pope declared it a schism. So, despite the personal opinions of a Cardinal or a freeper, it IS a schism."
It appears the current Pope disagrees. Cardinal Hoyos represents the Holy See in these matters. He chose his words (repeatedly in two separate interviews) very carefully.
We are to obey the "living Magisterium." See the Catholic Encyclopedia for an explanation.
I think you really misunderstand the degree of adherence to the supposed "schism" SSPX members hold.
Yes, there are the "purists" therein who I doubt would reunify with Rome even if Fellay and (wishful thinking) Williamson were to regularize their situation. But what of the folks who simply cannot abide the liturgical nonsense that goes on their local parishes, and attend an SSPX chapel simply to retain their sanity? Even if there's an indult nearby, you can't always be so faulting of these folks, as (being from a fully established indult Latin Mass community myself), there is absolutely *no comparison* between a full parish life around the Latin Mass and a once-a-week, throw-the-peasants-a-bone indult of the type I have also attended.
Second of all, as has been repeatedly asserted by Rome, though the bishops were excommunicated, the laity of the SSPX (and I think even the priests) are *NOT* in schism. The SSPX was not condemned by Rome *as a group*. There is, I agree, antisemitism in the SSPX. And yet, there's also antisemitism among liberal Catholics.
There is, I agree, lunacy in the SSPX. And yet, there's a whole lot more lunacy in the Church at large.
There is, I agree, some distrust of the magisterium in the SSPX (I have never seen hatred personally). And yet, there is much much more open and flagrant hatred, contempt, and downright disobedience among the majority of Mass-going Catholics who claim to be Catholic yet refuse to accept this or that teaching. I know it first hand--my family is riddled with far more contempt for Rome's authority than anyone I've met in the SSPX.
Intellectually, yes, they do look with fondness--perhaps too much fondness--to a particular time in Church history. And yet, every liberal does the same--communion on the hand, the Mass versus populum, standing instead of kneeling-*all* defended by a supposed deference to antiquity and the Apostolic Era.
And yet, the liberal nuts are allowed to run free in the church. Grave abuses of the liturgy go on every day without even so much as a peep. And I'm not talking clown Masses, I'm talking in your average parish, where Eucharistic ministers tromp all over the altar, the blessed Sacrament is treated appallingly, and the music reads like a Marty Haugen tribute instead of the venerable chant and old hymns that Vatican II expressly called for.
Have some charity for our brothers and sisters in the SSPX. They are defending the Church the only way they know how. And I, for one, want every single one of them fighting side-by-side with me to reverse this 40 years of madness that has overtaken the American church.
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.