Posted on 08/25/2004 1:51:22 PM PDT by Mershon
THE PROTOCOL AGREEMENT OF THE VATICAN AND ARCHBISHOP LEFEBVRE
Signed by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre on May 5, 1988
I, Marcel Lefebvre, archbishop-bishop emeritus of Tulle, along with the members of the Priestly Society of St. Pius X, which I founded:
1. We promise always to be faithful to the Catholic Church and to the Roman Pontiff, its supreme pastor, the vicar of Christ, successor of blessed Peter in his primacy and head of the body of bishops.
2. We declare that we will accept the doctrine contained in No. 25 of the Second Vatican Council's dogmatic constitution, "Lumen Gentium" on the ecclesiastical magisterium and the adherence owed it.
3. Regarding certain points taught by the Second Vatican Council or concerning subsequent reforms of the liturgy and law which appear difficult to reconcile with tradition, we commit ourselves to a positive attitude of study and of communication with the Apostolic See, avoiding all polemics.
4. We declare moreover that we will recognize the validity of the sacrifice of the Mass and of the sacraments celebrated with the intention of doing what the Church does and according to the rites in the typical editions of the missal and rituals of the sacraments promulgated by Popes Paul VI and John Paul II.
5. Last, we promise to respect the common discipline of the Church and the ecclesiastical laws, particularly those contained in the Code of Canon Law promulgated by Pope John Paul II, except for the special discipline conceded to the fraternity by particular law.
II. JURIDICAL QUESTIONS
Taking into consideration the fact that the Priestly Society of St. Pius X has been formed for 18 years as a society of common life - and based on a study of suggestions by Archbishop Lefebvre and the conclusions of the visit made by His Eminence Cardinal Gagnon - the most suitable canonical model is that of a society of apostolic life.
1. Society of Apostolic Life.
It is a canonically possible solution, with the advantage of the possibility of bringing laity into the clerical society of apostolic life (for example, coadjutor brothers).
According to the Code of Canon Law promulgated in 1983, Canons 731-746, this society has full autonomy, can form its members, can incardinate priests and assures the common life of all its members.
In its own statutes, with flexibility and creative possibility in the light of the known models of these societies of apostolic life, one anticipates a certain exemption in regard to diocesan bishops (cf. Canon 591) in what concerns public worship, the 'cura animarum' and other apostolic activities, taking into consideration Canons 679-683. As for jurisdiction regarding the faithful who seek out the priests of the society, it will be conferred on them by the local ordinaries or by the Apostolic See.
2. Roman Commission.
A commission to coordinate relations among the diverse dicasteries and the diocesan bishops as well as to resolve eventual problems and contentions will be established by the Holy See and given the necessary faculties to treat the above-indicated questions (for example, the establishment at the request of the faithful of a place of worship in a place where there is no house of the society, 'ad mentem,' Canon 383.2).
3. Condition of People Linked to the Society.
3.1 The members of the clerical society of apostolic life (priests and coadjutor lay brothers): They are governed by the statutes of the society of pontifical right.
3.2 Men and women oblates, with or without private vows, and members of the Third Order linked to the society: They belong to an association of the faithful linked to the society in terms of Canon 303, and they collaborate with it.
3.3 The sisters (that is, the congregation founded by Archbishop Lefebvre) who make public vows: They will constitute a true institute of consecrated life, with its own structure and autonomy, even if one foresees a certain link for the unity of spirituality with the superior of the society. This congregation - at least at the beginning - will be responsible to the Roman Commission instead of the Congregation for Religious.
3.4 Members of communities living by the rule of diverse religious institutes (Carmelites, Benedictines, Dominicans, etc.) and morally linked with the society: It is fitting to accord them, case by case, a particular status regulating their relations with their respective order.
3.5 Priests who as individuals are morally linked with the fraternity will receive a personal status, taking into account their aspirations, and, at the same time, the obligations resulting from their incardination. Other particular cases of this kind will be examined and resolved by the Roman commission.
In what concerns lay people who seek the pastoral help of the society's communities: They remain under the jurisdiction of the diocesan bishops but - notably for the liturgical rites of the society's communities - can look to these communities for the administration of the sacraments (for the sacraments of baptism, confirmation and marriage, notification of their own parish remains necessary; canons 878, 896, 1122).
NOTE: There is reason to consider the particular complexity:
1. Of the question of the reception by the laity of the sacraments of baptism, confirmation, marriage, in the communities of the society.
2. Of the question of communities practicing - without being connected to them - the rule of this or that religious institute.
It is for the Roman commission to resolve these items.
4. Ordinations.
For ordinations, it is necessary to distinguish two phases:
4.1 Immediately: For the ordinations planned shortly, Archbishop Lefebvre would be authorized to confer them or, if he couldn't, another bishop agreed to by him.
4.2 Once established, the society of apostolic life:
4.2.1 When possible, in the judgment of the Superior General, follows the normal procedure: remitting the dimissorial letters to a bishop who agrees to ordain members of the society.
4.2.2 Because of the particular situation of the fraternity (cf. infra): ordination by a bishop of the society who, among other tasks, would have that of proceeding with ordinations.
5. Problem of a Bishop.
5.1 At the doctrinal level (ecclesiological), the guarantee of stability and maintenance of the life and activity of the society is assured by its erection as a society of apostolic life of pontifical right and approval of its statutes by the Holy Father.
5.2 But, for practical and psychological reasons, the consecration of a bishop member of the society appears useful. This is why, in the context of the doctrinal and canonical solution of the reconciliation, we will suggest to the Holy Father that he name a bishop chosen in the society, proposed by Archbishop Lefebvre. As a consequence of the principle indicated above (5.1), this bishop is not normally superior general of the society. But it would be good that he be a member of the Roman commission.
6. Particular Problems to Resolve by Decree or Declaration.
-- Lifting the 'suspensio a divinis' of Archbishop Lefebvre and dispensing the irregularities incurred through ordinations.
Anticipation of an "amnesty" and an agreement for the society's houses and places of worship erected -- or used -- until now without authorization by bishops
***In the scenario you posit (a Pope unambiguously denying the sinfulness of idolatry or any other article of faith), the proper thing to do would be to remonstrate with him privately***
How could YOU determine the Pope was wrong?
Now it is manifest that he who adheres to the teaching of the Church, as to an infallible rule, assents to whatever the Church teaches; otherwise, if, of the things taught by the Church, he holds what he chooses to hold, and rejects what he chooses to reject, he no longer adheres to the teaching of the Church as to an infallible rule, but to his own will. (St. Thomas, II-II, q. 5 a. 3)
It's been done already.
Do the work of making religious liberty out to be a doctrine. This I've got to see.
Now, the core doctrinal development to be gleaned or deduced from Dignitatis Humanae (§2 and §7) - that is, the main doctrinal thesis which had never previously been made explicit by the Magisterium -has been set out at the beginning of this review article, and can be repeated here in a slightly more succinct form: all human persons as such (including, therefore, non-Catholics) have a right to immunity from human coercion in the public practice of their own religion, to the extent that this does not violate the rights of other citizens ... The above proposition is certainly affirmed as a natural right by Dignitatis Humanae ("founded on the dignity of the human person"), and therefore as a permanently and universally valid doctrinal teaching.
In hindsight, Archbishop Lefebvre's apprehensions with the modernists of Rome have been vindicated.
The mayhem that was then still just simmering under the surface is now in full view.
Instead of at long last moving to reign in liberal heretics, hypocrites at the Vatican spend their energies organizing Woodstock-style events around the world and trying everything in their power to suppress the growth of the traditional Faith.
What little credibility they had left was lost in their brutal treatment of the FSSP leadership - once again in favor of the liberals.
It's "pluralistic." And there is nothing "doctrinal" about political arrangements.
A pluralistic society seems to work well in the United States.
No state religions. Please.
The Church is infallible in faith and morals, not politics.
***Petronius, because his professed opinion manifestly contradicted a definition of the Church.***
So you could determine the Pope was wrong by using your own personal faculties of judgement and conscience.
And you are saying you could know he was wrong based on comparing his teachings to the Magisterium's interpretation of Scripture.
Why not read the link, pascendi? It is to an article (a review of Michael Davies' book on religious liberty) by Rev. Brian W. Harrison, O.S., M.A., S.T.D., Professor of Theology at the Pontifical University of Puerto Rico.
The Declaration on Religious Liberty affirms the Syllabus' teaching in #77:
Therefore it leaves untouched traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion and toward the one Church of Christ. (§1)
The relator, Bp. de Smedt, explained the passage as follows:
Some Fathers affirm that the Declaration does not sufficiently show how our doctrine is not opposed to ecclesiastical documents up till the time of the Supreme Pontiff Leo XIII. As we said in the last relatio, this is a matter for future theological and historical studies to bring to light more fully. As regards the substance of the problem, the point should be made that, while the papal documents up to Leo XIII insisted more on the moral duty of public authorities towards the true religion, the recent Supreme Pontiffs, while retaining this doctrine, complement it by highlighting another duty of the same authorities, namely, that of observing the exigencies of the dignity of the human person in religious matters, as a necessary element of the common good. The text before you today recalls more clearly the duties of the public authority towards the true religion (officia potestatis publicae erga veram religionem); from which it is manifest that this part of the doctrine has not been overlooked. However, the special object of our Declaration is to clarify the second part of the doctrine of recent Supreme Pontiffs - that dealing with the rights and duties which emerge from a consideration of the dignity of the human person. (Acta Synodalia S. Conc. Vat. II, Vol. IV, Part VI, p. 719)
No. 79 is not affirmed by the Declaration - Fr. Harrison shows that No. 78 is not either. Read the article.
The Social Kingship of Christ is a moral issue.
That the State must be separated from the Church is a thesis absolutely false, a most pernicious error. Based, as it is, on the principle that the State must not recognize any religious cult, it is in the first place guilty of a great injustice to God; for the Creator of man is also the Founder of human societies, and preserves their existence as He preserves our own. We owe Him, therefore, not only a private cult, but a public and social worship to honor Him. (St. Pius X, Vehementer nos, 3)
Couldn't have been said better by Luther or Calvin himself. You have convicted yourself with your own words.
So you agree with the heretic, Walter Kasper?
I'm not surprised. Blind obedience and all that.
Reconciling DH with the Syllabus of Errors has already been done by Father Brian Harrison and Fr. William Most. There is also a compilation of books by a French priest (I believe who is with St. Vincent Ferrer)which Ratzinger says is the most thorough and best treatment on the subject to date.
But of course, it wouldn't really matter what it said, you have already made up your minds. The more I read the posts from the SSPX adherents and the twisted logic and inversion of authority, the more I am reminded of debates with Protestant fundamentalists. "You twist the sacred scriptures [AND theological texts] to your own destruction. Your magisterium is either Lefebvre, SSPX or your own consciences. This should be evident to all. This agreement was sound and very attractive, by any objective measure. You can nitpick the LG 25 text all you want, butthe bottom line is that authoritative magisterial texts are not defined by the individual Catholic--they are defined by the magisterium--of which the SSPX has no voice because they refuse to do theology in full communion with the Church. You guys all have your common themes and propaganda lines down consistently though. I will have to give you that. You are "on message" as we say in the PR world.
I agree with Kasper on what? You are not even making sense. And no, I do not practice "blind obedience," but this is another nice term you SSPX adherents like to use as a kind of rhetorical device.
Today's Gospel from the traditional missal has all I need to read on this subject. It is clear in the Baltimore Catechism (which I would suggest the SSPX adherents re-read).
"You are Peter. And on this Rock I will build my Church. And the gates of hell will not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven. Whatsover you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
That pretty much sums it up--all of your individual prognostications aside. Last I checked, Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX were NOT the magisterium.
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.