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
Looked at from a particular pre-existing bias or dare I say it, paranoia, one could read into these points whatever one wishes.
For instance, you write on point #1 that "it absolutely requires assent" and that there is "absolutely" no problem with the statement as written. Good. I agree.
However, you then go on to say that of course, it's only there because they want to "abuse authority".
Do you not see how far down the road of personal judgement and subjectivism you've traveled? You claim to be able to read the hearts of the authors. Yes, the words they've written are correct but their reasons for writing them are not honorable.
Of course, it becomes obvious at this point that criticism of the Holy See is now not only restricted to so called "errors" of fact and doctrine which you claim they make but also to statements of indisputable fact. Yes the statement is correct but the motives for making it are all wrong. You've got them over a barrel, don't you? Whatever they say or do, you'll find fault with it somewhere or somehow.
And so it goes on through the other points.
The statements written above are terse, clear and unambiguous. Your interpretations are a stretch, by any reasonable standards. They betray an over-arching pride and a mind wracked by bitternes.
You said: "It's a trap..."
You have repeated the Lefebvrist propaganda line well. And what you wrote is called a lack of trust in the authority whom Jesus Christ gave "the keys to the kingdom of heaven."
You lack trust, and thereby by implication, the theological virtue of hope.
You know, pascendi, just because you are paranoid doesn't mean people aren't out to get you.
If you are familiar with the Confiteor, you MAY recall the phrase "holy Apostles Peter and Paul.."
Paul was an Apostle, confirmed by Tradition.
It would have been much better as Lefebvre Renegs on SSPX Agreement.
"You sure know a lot of things that are beyond one's capability to know."
When one publicly recites over and over and over and over and over and over and over again the same self-justifying, personal interpretations of Church teaching to justify disobedience and try to drum up a cause for the SSPX, whose founder ordained four bishops against the express will of the Holy Father, then try to sit as teacher of the Catholic Faith--which my 14-year-old daughter, by reciting her Baltimore Catechism, could refute--I would say that you lack trust in the magisterium. This indeed is not something to be taken lightly, as the Pope, like him or not, is Jesus Christ's VICAR on earth. Your attempts to lead Catholics toward the SSPX could be very detrimental to many people's Faith, thus causing grave scandal. I know you do not see it this way, but lots of other traditional Catholics who post here do see it that way. While Pascendi is an important document, and much of it infallible, it is NOT the only magisterial document (nor is Unam Sanctam or any of the other documents that are favorites of traditionalists)with the same level of authority. JPII's doctrinal encyclicals are of the same authority as all of the Popes prior to him. Have you read any of those? Much of them obviously repeat (albeit in a different style and language) much of the previous teaching of the Popes and the Church as a whole. Ever read them? Or will you read them so you dissect them and show us their "errors." SSPX gave weeklong "retreats" on the errors of JPII's encylclicals. What a spiritually edifying retreat! I'm certain Luther did the same. Where does the authority of the SSPX derive from? Directly from God himself, or through his appointed vicar on earth?
But then it would be a spelling trainwreck. It is "reneges" NOT renegs. Nice attempt though.
"Thank you, by the way, for once again making manifest that the conciliar Catholic is generally guilty of all claims made.
All contained within the context of a virtual void of knowing any real Catholic theology."
And Pascendi, the all knowing theologian, who is not part of the "conciliar Catholic" Church (I thought it was post-Conciliar?)will expound genuine Catholic doctrine that borders on sede vacantist theories, whether he recognizes it or not. Pascendi, the all knowing SSPX adherent, who does more harm than good to their cause, is the almighty theologian with credentials. Listen to him!
"Hey Dad. I recognize you as my Father. But I am not going to give you honor nor obedience as the 4th Commandment clearly commands. In fact, for YOUR own good and the good of our family, I am going to deliberately disobey you and disregard any disciplinary or punitive sanctions you might take against me. I will publicly criticize you and hold you up to ridicule and mock you and scorn you. But it will all be for the good of our family, and for your good as well Dad. And most of all, it will be for the salvation of souls that I am doing this. I love you Dad. And I recognize you as my Dad. But I cannot, in good conscience, obey you."
Now, WHO does this sound like. Put the Pope in place of "Dad" and you'll get the picture.
Neither version is correct, but my misspelling does not repair the poor grammar in the title.
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.