Posted on 03/06/2005 9:45:17 AM PST by Land of the Irish
"Most men feel that the Church's supreme head and shepherd should decide who are Catholics and who are not" (Quartus Supra 8-9, 15)."
Jesus had a better yardstick. He knew some Church leaders would wear sheep's clothing but be ravening wolves underneath. So he warned us to look to their fruits. By this we would be able to discern the real shepherds from the false ones. A good tree bears good fruit. A bad tree bears rotten fruit. Nor can we look to these bad shepherds for guidance in the faith.
Originally it was a suggestion, but that was because the Pope hadn't confirmed it. Cardinal Ratzinger later wrote (May 30, 1988):
Regarding the second point, the Holy Father confirms what I had already indicated to you on his behalf, namely that he is disposed to appoint a member of the [SSPX] as a bishop (in the sense of point II/5.2 of the Protocol), and to accelerate the usual process of nomination, so that the consecration could take place on the closing of the Marian Year, this coming August 15.
The fact is, Msgr. Lefebvre explains clearly in his letter (which he wrote on June 2) to JP II, that he had decided that although he was "assured" that he would have gotten a bishop on August 15, he wanted more and so was going to go ahead and consecrate several bishops on June 30. There was simply no justification for the "state of necessity"; one bishop could have ordained SSPX priests just as well as four could.
On a side note, did you ever get Bishop de Mallerais' biography of Msgr. Lefebvre? What does it say about the consecrations?
the entire future of the Catholic Church hung in the balance
Msgr. Lefebvre couldn't wait 45 days to see? He lived until 1991.
But at least you don't repeat the myth that the Pope promised Lefebvre a bishop of his own choosing.
Right. Msgr. Lefebvre was asked to submit several names from which the Pope would pick one, but he refused.
On the 20th of May, I wrote to the Holy Father, telling him that I had signed the protocol but that I was insistent upon having bishops, and bishops on the 30th of June.But in fact there was no way of coming to an agreement. While I was facing Cardinal Ratzinger with that alternative, and while he was saying that he would give us a bishop on the 15th of August, he was asking me for still more dossiers in order that the Holy See might choose a bishop who would meet the requirements laid down by the Vatican. Now, where was that going to lead us? (Fideliter, July-August 1989)
"even the alleged 'necessity' was deliberately created by Archbishop Lefebvre in order to preserve a posture of separation from the Catholic Church"
What hogwash. Aren't you embarrassed to post such nonsense? Canon 1323 says its up to the individual to decide whether a necessity exists or not. If he decides it does--then there can be no automatic excommunication. That's the law. No amount of second-guessing can erase it. If the Pope had a problem with that, he had every right to convene a tribunal and make formal accusations. He did not. So the canon stands.
In fact, the charge is a blatant smear. The Archbishop not only believed there was a necessity, he wrote about it, he complained loudly to Rome about it, he was interviewed by the press for years about it. There can be no doubt whatsoevr of his honesty in this matter.
What is shocking is the extent to which the Pope's defenders will lie to themselves to twist reality and pretend somehow that the Archbishop was insincere when clearly he was not. He had argued over and over he must preserve the ancient Mass since it was the primary vehicle for transmitting the ancient faith. That this should be so airily dismissed says a lot about Rome's lack of faith these days--and a lot about this Pope.
"Can. 1325 Ignorance which is crass or supine or affected can never be taken into account when applying the provisions of cann. 1323 and 1324. Likewise, drunkenness or other mental disturbances cannot be taken into account if these have been deliberately sought so as to commit the offence or to excuse it; nor can passion which has been deliberately stimulated or nourished."
No such canon could have applied. Is there no nonsense you will not dredge up to support a papal injustice? It is ridiculous to think the Archbishop believed there was a state of emergency because of ignorance, crass or otherwise. On the contrary, the evidence was everywhere. Even Paul VI admitted the Church was in a process of auto-demolition. Mass attendance had collapsed everywhere after the institution of the Novus Ordo. Major dogmas were being ignored and rejected by masses of Catholics. The folly of Assisi I had just occurred. Missions were collapsing. The ancient Mass was almost entirely eliminated and corruption was spreading everywhere. And all this was occuring within the span of a few years since the close of the Council. The crass ignorance was not on the Archbishop's part, believe me--it was on the part of those in full denial of the facts.
Can. 1325 Ignorance which is crass or supine or affected can never be taken into account when applying the provisions of cann. 1323 and 1324.
When ignorance is deliberately aimed at and fostered, it is said to be affected, not because it is pretended, but rather because it is sought for by the agent so that he may not have to relinquish his purpose. Ignorance which practically no effort is made to dispel is termed crass or supine. (Catholic Encyclopedia, "Ignorance")
There was, objectively, no state of necessity. Even granting the premise that there was a necessity for the SSPX to have a bishop, this had been granted and Msgr. Lefebvre himself stated that he was "assured" he would have received this bishop:
That is why we are asking for several bishops chosen from within Catholic Tradition, and for a majority of the members on the projected Roman Commission for Tradition, in order to protect ourselves against all compromise.Given the refusal to consider our requests, and it being evident that the purpose of this reconciliation is not at all the same in the eyes of the Holy See as it is in our eyes, we believe it preferable to wait for times more propitious for the return of Rome to Tradition. That is why we shall give ourselves the means to carry on the work which Providence has entrusted to us, being assured by His Eminence Cardinal Ratzinger's letter of May 30th that the episcopal consecration is not contrary to the will of the Holy See, since it was granted for August 15th.
"Originally it was a suggestion, but that was because the Pope hadn't confirmed it. Cardinal Ratzinger later wrote (May 30, 1988): "Regarding the second point, the Holy Father confirms what I had already indicated to you on his behalf, namely that he is disposed to, etc..."
But Ratzinger's own secretary, in the phony letter drawn up for Lefebvre to sign, repeated the word "suggestion"--which was the final straw for the Archbishop. Besides, how is Ratzinger's comment that the Pope "is disposed" to grant a bishop supposed to be reassuring? How is this any better than entertaining a suggestion? It is a slight movement in the right direction, but still not a promise. It is far less than a commitment. After all, they weren't talking about church architecture. The survival of the ancient Mass was at stake. Why couldn't the Pontiff have simply said yes? He said yes to all of Bernadin's boys. He said yes to Mahoney and worse. The guess was that the Pope was looking for a weak link to be consecrated, somebody easily manipulated. If he couldn't have such an individual, he would mandate no bishops at all. This was why he had already turned down so many names presented by the Archbishop--men of iron commitment to the ancient Mass.
You post so much absurdity it's hard to keep up. You say, "Msgr. Lefebvre was asked to submit several names from which the Pope would pick one, but he refused."
You make it sound rude and obdurate. But he had been playing Rome's game long enough. He had already sent countless dossiers of good honest orthodox priests--none were ever approved. So he understood at this point the fix was in. Yes, he lived four more years--but he was old and ailing. He couldn't have known this. He might have indeed been dead within days for all he knew. He also knew no name would please the Pontiff unless it were of someone easily manipulated--one of the moles who within days after the consecrations went over to the Pope's side and became the Priestly Fraternity.
Mr. Drolesky, as usual, gets it wrong concerning Fr. Schillebeeckx. In 1979 Fr. S. was brought to the Vatican to explain some of his views. The Vatican ruled that some of his views were " at variance with the teaching of the Church." Mr. Drolesky makes it out to seem as though Fr. S. has spent his career unmolested and ignored by the Church. Not so.
Is no one else annoyed by the presence of quotes around the words "Holy Father," as if John Paul II were not actually the Holy Father? Honestly, the level of infantile bad attitude implied by this is really quite remarkable. Perhaps there is a legitimate reason, I am not seeing, which would permit mature adults to behave so?
"There was, objectively, no state of necessity. Even granting the premise that there was a necessity for the SSPX to have a bishop, this had been granted and Msgr. Lefebvre himself stated that he was 'assured' he would have received this bishop."
Look, you're hopelessly obdurate and illogical. Why should it matter whether there was an objective state of necessity? What mattered was that the Archbishop believed there was a necessity. Nor should a temporary hopeful belief in a Vatican "assurance" obscure the fact that there was insufficient trust in Rome's sincerity in the long run. In fact the language of the Protocol Agreement itself only speaks of a "suggestion". We can play this game all night till the wee hours--it's futile. You are committed a priori to see only the Pope's point of view--which ignores Lefebvre's appropriate evocation of canon law. You try to ascribe culpable ignorance to the Archbishop--without any proof whatsoever. From my perspective you are part of the vicious smear that is ongoing, the lies that are continually spread against this fraternity of good priests.
He had sent three (see the Fideliter interview).
someone easily manipulated--one of the moles who within days after the consecrations went over to the Pope's side and became the Priestly Fraternity.
"Moles," ultima? You're assuming that the SSPX was right. If Msgr. Lefebvre was in the wrong, then it was Dom Gerard and the FSSP priests who were the true Catholics.
He might have indeed been dead within days for all he knew.
Then Bishop de Mayer could have done the consecration.
If what you say was true--what was he doing as an "expert" at the Council?
The quote was from a sedevacantist priest formerly of the SSPX. He believes (ridiculously) that the Pope is a heretic and hence deposed and no true Pope.
I did not place the quotation marks around the title Holy Father. I was citing a passage originally posted by gbcdoj. You will have to ask him why the piece he quoted carried quotation marks.
Weren't the FSSP supposed to get a bishop as well? Like that has happened...
This letter was given to Msgr. Lefebvre to send in response to the Pope's letter:
Lastly, I wish to express my gratitude for the intention that you manifested to take into account the particular situation of the Society, proposing to nominate a bishop chosen from its members, and especially in charge of providing for its special needs. Of course, I leave to Your Holiness the decision concerning the person to be chosen and the opportune moment. May I just express the wish that this be in the not too distant future?
Of the letter you refer, Msgr. Lefebvre says:
Indeed, in that letter - I do not have it here - which he brought me from the Holy Father, there is an astonishing sentence. It goes, "It is possible that we consider one day granting you a consecration," as if it was something very vague, a mere possibility, an eventuality. I cannot accept that.
It would seem that he misremembered, as the response prepared for him does not fit with this "possibility".
We've had these quarrels before. They lead nowhere but to an endless labyrinth of citations of documents till everybody's eyes glaze over. Stick to Drolesky's point. Why was Schillebeeck so prominent during the Council. The man was a heretic. He has had a huge influence. Deal with the big picture--the calamity that has befallen the Church--not with tiny bits and pieces of who said what when and why.
"Of course, I leave to Your Holiness the decision, etc."
Sounds like a suggestion to me. Shows where some of Ratzinger's people were coming from. The letter was outrageous and demeaning.
Fr. Schillebeeckx became radicalized after the Council. To give one example, in 1963 he stated of the teaching against contraception: "It is unthinkable that in such an important question of daily life the Church could err in its solemn teaching". But in 1968 he rejected Humanae Vitae.
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.