Posted on 05/13/2005 1:15:36 PM PDT by NYer
KANSAS CITY, Mo. - For all its disagreements with the Roman Catholic Church - and the list is long - the Society of St. Pius X has always maintained its loyalty to the papacy.
Now, with the election of Pope Benedict XVI, the ultra-traditionalist priestly society - considered a breakaway group by the Vatican - sees "a gleam of hope" that the changes wrought by the Second Vatican Council will be undone.
One Catholic scholar doubts that will happen, though - especially given that the last time the society dealt with then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, he was trying to persuade its founder to accept those changes.
"To try to reconcile the traditionalists with the church would be an implicit rejection of Vatican II, and that's not going to happen," said William Dinges, associate professor of theology and religious studies at the Catholic University of America.
The Society of St. Pius X, founded in Switzerland in 1969 and first recognized by the Vatican in 1970, maintains its American headquarters in Kansas City. The movement, named for the pope who wrote against modernism in a 1907 encyclical, claims between 1 million and 2 million lay adherents worldwide, 20,000 to 30,000 in the United States.
The society's Superior General, Bishop Bernard Fellay, welcomed Ratzinger's election in a statement issued April 19 from the society's international headquarters in Menzingen, Switzerland.
The statement, which appears on the society's American and international Web sites, said Fellay "sees there a gleam of hope that we may find a way out of the profound crisis which is shaking the Catholic Church, of which some aspects have been spoken of by the former Head for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith."
A subsequent statement reiterates the order's loyalty to Benedict.
A lay secretary in Kansas City, who asked that his name not be used because of the society's rules, said the society would have no comment beyond anything published on the society's Web sites and in its newsletters.
"He knows who we are, and we know who he is," the secretary said of Benedict.
The Society of St. Pius X's profession of loyalty to the pope sets it apart from most other traditionalist movements, who either consider the position vacant or have elected "popes" of their own.
A former society seminarian, David Allan Bawden, has claimed to be "Pope Michael I" since 1990 and maintains his "Vatican in Exile" in Delia, Kan., about 90 minutes west of Kansas City.
Still, even a cursory review of the Society of Saint Pius X's positions shows how deep the divide runs between it and the post-Vatican II church.
The order's late founder, French-born Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, publicly rejected the church's new Mass, which replaced the 16th-century Tridentine Mass in 1971.
The new Mass may be celebrated in any language, while the Tridentine rite is celebrated only in Latin.
There are other differences: In the Tridentine Mass, the priest faces the altar - away from worshippers - and communion is given only in the mouth, never in the hand. There are no lay readers or communion servers.
The Society of St. Pius also opposes the Vatican's efforts to reach out to Orthodox and Protestant Christians and other religions. One statement on its Web site defends the Inquisition, while another expresses support for capital punishment.
The Vatican banned the Tridentine rite from 1971 to 1984, although Lefebre's followers and other traditionalist groups continued to use it. In 1984, Pope John Paul II said the Tridentine rite could be used in special circumstances.
The Society of St. Pius X dismissed the Vatican's move as a ploy to undermine traditionalists. Still, more than three dozen of the society's priests and seminarians did leave in 1988 to reconcile with the Vatican and form the Fraternity of St. Peter, which emphasizes the Tridentine Mass.
Lefebvre was suspended by Pope Paul VI in 1976, along with his newly ordained priests, and excommunicated in 1988 after consecrating four bishops - also excommunicated, along with a Catholic bishop who supported Lefebvre - against Pope John Paul II's orders.
Several months earlier, the archbishop and Ratzinger signed a protocol that made reconciliation with the Vatican seem imminent, but Lefebvre rejected the accord over a clause that gave Vatican representatives the majority on a commission to settle differences in interpretation of Vatican II documents.
He and his followers' excommunication is considered the church's first major schism since the "Old Catholics" broke from the Vatican after its proclamation of the doctrine of papal infallibility in 1870. The society denies a schism exists, however, saying Lefebvre's disobedience was necessary to deal with a crisis in the church and did not constitute an outright rejection of the pope's authority.
The Society of St. Pius X also contends that as a cardinal, Benedict agreed in principle in 1988 that the order had the right to ordain priests and bishops for service to the larger church.
However, in a 1986 letter, Ratzinger insisted that Lefebvre accept the reforms of Vatican II, "the texts of which are magisterial and enjoy the highest doctrinal authority."
And there, Dinges said, lies the stumbling block for traditionalists.
"The society is intransigent on the liturgy issue and the (Vatican) council issue," he said. "Those are two - in my mind - insurmountable issues to any long-term reconciliation."
ON THE NET
U.S. site: http://www.sspx.org
International site: http://www.fsspx.org
Society's international news site: http://www.dici.org
I can tell that this post of yours is only the first of many I will admire. Good for you!
The reason to avoid the SSPX and all of its works and pomps is because Catholics promise in confession to avoid the near occasion of sin which schismatic websites certainly are. It is the same reason why we avoid the National (anti)Catholic Reporter or The Remnant.
1. Who is in charge of the Catholic Church?
2. Who has the sole authority to appoint or approve appointment of bishops and allow them to be consecrated as bishops?
The Catholic answer to each of these questions is: The pope. The schismatic answer is any malcontent with an agenda and a prior valid consecration of himself as a bishop. Rational minds call the schismatic view what it is: anarchy.
There are, no doubt, other differences but those two will certainly suffice.
1) Archbishop Lefebvre served on the Roman Rota, which is false.
2) That Fr. Martin was not a priest in good standing, also proven false.
3) The catechism My Catholic Faith has a "schismatic publisher" and author, and editor, which is also false and easily verifiable.
These are just things I remember off the top of my head, I'd bet a search of your posts would reveal much more. Given your track record on spewing falsehoods, why anyone would take your word on something is beyond me.
Better yet, let's go to the Vatican for their opinion.
a. The Pope is the supreme legislator in the Church. In an Apostolic Letter which he issued motu proprio (on his own initiative) he declared that
Mons. Lefebvre and the priests Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta, have incurred the grave penalty of excommunication envisaged by ecclesiastical law. (Cf. Code of Canon Law, can. 1382).
Those mentioned above who are still living and have not asked pardon from the Church for the ill which they have caused are still under the censure of excommunication.
b. While the priests of the Society of St. Pius X are validly ordained, they are also suspended a divinis, that is they are forbidden by the Church from celebrating the Mass and the sacraments because of their illicit (or illegal) ordination to the diaconate and the priesthood without proper incardination (cf. canon 265). In the strict sense there are no "lay members" of the Society of St. Pius X, only those who frequent their Masses and receive the sacraments from them.
While it is true that participation in the Mass at the chapels of the Society of St. Pius X does not of itself constitute "formal adherence to the schism", such adherence can come about over a period of time as one slowly imbibes a schismatic mentality which separates itself from the teaching of the Supreme Pontiff and the entire Catholic Church classically exemplified in A Rome and Econe Handbook which states in response to question 14 that the SSPX defends the traditional catechisms and therefore the Old Mass, and so attacks the Novus Ordo, the Second Vatican Council and the New Catechism, all of which more or less undermine our unchangeable Catholic faith.
It is precisely because of this schismatic mentality that this Pontifical Commission has consistently discouraged the faithful from attending Masses celebrated under the aegis of the Society of St. Pius X.
b. Thus far the Church has not officially declared what Constitutes "formal adherence to the schism" inaugurated by the late Archbishop Lefebvre (cf. Ecclesia Dei 5, c), but the Code of Canon Law defines schism as "refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him" (canon 751). The above citation together with the other documentation which you have included in your dossier and your own exchange of correspondence with Father Violette clearly indicate the extent to which many in authority in the Society of St. Pius X corroborate that definition.
FULL TEXT
Like others before him, Archbishop Lefebvre separated himself from the Magisterium with what he perceived to be noble and good intentions. And, like others before him, he recognized the ramifications of that decision as he lay dieing, repenting on his deathbed.
Like other groups that have separated themselves from the Magisterium, the SSPX no longer resembles the vision of its founder.
Vatican II and it's aftermath has been nothing short of a disaster for the church. What other recourse did he have? The difference with SSPX from those "schismatics" you refered to is that this society wanted to adhere to Church teachings AS THEY WERE as a deposit of faith-and not Change as the Protestants, Anglicans to name a few did. The church stood up to Henry VIII for a divorce-today they would in their spirit of Ecumenism just hand him one of the 60,000 annulments that they dole out every year for the right price. Even Ted Kennedy got one after 12 years of marriage and children, the church annuled his marriage.
The Post V2 church is nothing short of a joke and has lost all credability. If there was a Traditional chapel and a Novus Ordo chapel side by side in every city, the Novus Ordo church would probably be 25% filled and the other 75% would go to the real mass and not some mass that allows clown masses and rock music
Best source yet.
**b. While the priests of the Society of St. Pius X are validly ordained, they are also suspended a divinis, that is they are forbidden by the Church from celebrating the Mass and the sacraments because of their illicit (or illegal) ordination to the diaconate and the priesthood without proper incardination (cf. canon 265).**
**It is precisely because of this schismatic mentality that this Pontifical Commission has consistently discouraged the faithful from attending Masses celebrated under the aegis of the Society of St. Pius X.**
I thought these two facts needed to be repeated.
On the contrary. The Catholic Church now stands at 1.1 billion and is growing in leaps and bounds. Those who live in 3rd world countries, like Africa, are flocking to Holy Mother Church. Some of the most highely educated protestant theologians are abandoning their faiths and crossing the Tiber. You seem to have fallen prey to some misguided statistics.
Where has this been "proven false"?
"In 1965, Mr. Martin received a dispensation from all privileges and obligations deriving from his vows as a Jesuit and from priestly ordination." [Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life, 25 June 1997, Prot. N. 04300/65]
3) The catechism My Catholic Faith has a "schismatic publisher"
Angelus Press is an organism of the SSPX schismatics.
and author
You are referring to this post, but I'm missing the part about "claimed and insisted repeatedly"?
This is not correct. Msgr. Lefebvre never retracted, at least publicly.
What's really a "joke" is the idea that "clown masses" are at all common.
Black Elk knows what I'm talking about, you may not but you weren't included in that discussion. But you do know what I'm talking about when I say repeatedly. Black Elk likes to proclaim things, then he's proven wrong, but that doesn't stop him from proclaiming something else when he doesn't have the facts.
Once again, like in the case of the "great thumb" you are trying to defend the indefensible. Why are you jumping in here anyway? Didn't you deem that I was too intellectually inferior to have a discussion with? Let him fight his own battles. He's the one that picks fights with me, I never ping him unless it's to respond to a ridiculous accusation that he pings to me. Oh, and have a nice day.
Better yet, let's go to the Vatican for their opinion
Well, that would be an excellent source, if she asked what "the Vatican" says about the SSPX and those who assist at their masses, but not if Mega Silver wants to find out what the SSPX says they disagree with. After all that is what she asked.
In any case, when investigating "the Vatican's" opinion about the status of those who assist at SSPX masses, you would surely want to include Pope Benedict XVI's opinion and judgment regarding the Hawaii 6 case, when he was still Cardinal Ratzinger:
DECREE OF THE SACRED CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH (THE "HONOLULU" DECISION)
[Mrs. Morley and five other Traditional Catholics in the Diocese of Honolulu, known as "The Honolulu Six," were "excommunicated" by the Bishop of Honolulu on the grounds that they:
* established a traditional chapel in the diocese
* impugned the lawfulness and doctrinal soundness of the New Mass for four years on a religious radio program
* invited independent and SSPX priests to celebrate the Traditional Latin Mass at the chapel
* invited an SSPX bishop to administer the Sacrament of Confirmation at the chapel
* disobeyed the bishop
[Even in the face of all these acts on the part of The Honolulu Six, the Vatican decreed that the six did not commit the crime of "schism" and declared that the bishop's action in "excommunicating" them was null and void. Subsequently, the bishop was removed from office by the Vatican on a morals charge.
[In clear violation of the Vatican's decree, the Bishop of Lincoln, Nebraska, later threatened with "excommunication" any Catholics in his diocese attending the Traditional Latin Mass at independent and SSPX chapels. Although the threat was given much publicity, the bishop in the end backed down when his bluff was called and declined to take any such illegal action.]
LETTER
On July 3, 1991, Mrs. Patricia Morley had recourse to this Congregation against the Decree of the Bishop of Honolulu issued on May 1, 1991.
His Excellency, the Most Reverend Joseph Anthony Ferrario, with aforesaid Decree declared Mrs. Morely excommunicated on the grounds that she had committed the crime of schism and thus had incurred the "latae sententiae" penalty as provided for in canon 1364.1 of the Code of Canon Law [1983].
This Congregation has examined carefully all the available documentation and has ascertained that the activities engaged in by the Petitioner, though blameworthy on various accounts, are not sufficient to constitute the crime of schism.
Since Mrs. Morley did not, in fact, commit the crime of schism and thus did not incur the "latae sententiae" penalty, it is clear that the Decree of the Bishop lacks the precondition on which it is founded.
This Congregation, noting all of the above, is obliged to declare null and void the aforesaid Decree of the Ordinary of Honolulu.
Joseph Card. Ratzinger,
Prefect Alberto Bovone,
Secretary
Vatican City, June 4, 1993
I have seen those documents before, but I have examined them again. I cannot see anything which proves the Decree of the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life to be false. Assertions, yes. Proofs, no. "In 1965, Mr. Martin received a dispensation from all privileges and obligations deriving from his vows as a Jesuit and from priestly ordination."
like in the case of the "great thumb" you are trying to defend the indefensible
I asked why the whole prayer was never quoted. You couldn't give a decent answer - in fact, it is the spreading of this "great thumb" nonsense which seems to me indefensible. Perhaps it was because a clearly metaphorical reference to the limitlessness of Divine Authority was being misrepresented as what would be a gross idolatry? Again - why is the "great thumb" part referred to but not the "Almighty God" which begins the prayer?
Didn't you deem that I was too intellectually inferior to have a discussion with?
I'm still waiting for your response on Garrigou-Lagrange.
LOL! More SSPX "canon law expertise". Bishop Bruskewitz's actions against members of the SSPX were made on the basis of a diocesan law enacted by himself, not the excommunication for formal adherence as explained in "Ecclesia Dei". He never backed down. There was certainly no violation of Ratzinger's judgment here - firstly, because Ratzinger was judging that these persons did not belong to the SSPX and therefore weren't excommunicated, and secondly, because Bruskewitz's actions were under the section of Canon Law which allows a bishop to excommunicate under his own laws, (cans. 1315-1319) unlike the Bishop of Honolulu who attempted to declare an excommunication had been incurred due to schism.
Are you a canon lawyer? Just what is your level of expertise? I for one am sick of watching you abuse people with your drivel.
Then you are calling Fr. Fiore a liar who states publicly:
Malachi Martin never left the Catholic priesthood, but was personally dispensed from his vows of poverty and obedience by Paul VI on leaving the Jesuits in 1964. I have seen and authenticated his dispensation papers. He did not seek release from his vow of chastity. When he came to New York, Cardinal Cooke gave him priestly faculties, and advised him to find lodging with a family rather than live alone as he initially did.
as well as Fr Martin. Fr. Fiore gives his address, write him and take it up with him.
Perhaps it was because a clearly metaphorical reference to the limitlessness of Divine Authority was being misrepresented as what would be ...blah blah blah
There you go with that "clearly" again. Do you think because you preface everything you say with "clearly" that it transforms the convoluted equivocal statements into something clear? [that was rhetorical] That was one of the good things about Fr. Martin, although he was far superior in intellectual ability to the average schmo like myself, he could communicate complicated ideas in ways I could understand. He was never arrogant about his intelligence or scholarship either. And his complete and utter devotion to the faith showed in all of his words, whether spoken or written. Something I find suspiciously lacking in your explanations, but that's just the opinion of this schmo layperson.
I'm still waiting for your response on Garrigou-Lagrange.
Don't hold your breath, you're too deep for me. I'm far too intellectually inferior to be a suitable sparring partner. I guess that's just your cross to bear, having to suffer fools. And frankly, I used to find you mildly amusing, but lately you've become quite obnoxious.
Can. 1315 §1 Whoever has legislative power can also make penal laws. A legislator can, however, by laws of his own, reinforce with a fitting penalty a divine law or an ecclesiastical law of a higher authority, observing the limits of his competence in respect of territory or persons.As for "abusing" people: I think Traditio can manage for itself. What's with the leftist rhetoric about disagreement being "abuse", anyway? Ever read the Epistle of +Jude, or how about St. Augustine's arguments against the Donatists that you quoted elsewhere just recently?Can. 1318 A legislator is not to threaten latae sententiae penalties, except perhaps for some outstanding and malicious offences which may be either more grave by reason of scandal or such that they cannot be effectively punished by ferendae sententiae penalties. He is not, however, to constitute censures, especially excommunication, except with the greatest moderation, and only for the more grave offences.
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.