Rorate Caeli is reporting an eye-witness rumor of the following:
"There will be no return to Rome. The Superior of the Lefebvrians for Spain and Portugal, [Fr.] Juan María Montagut, will inform the faithful, after the 11 AM Mass, that the hierarchy of the SSPX, assembled in Écône, has decided to say "no" to the Vatican.
The followers of [Abp.] Marcel Lefebvre do not return to the Roman fold. Mainly because they are not willing to accept the Second Vatican Council in all its farthermost points.
The Vatican, by way of the [then] Prefect for the Doctrinal of the Faith, Cardinal Levada, had asked from them "the full acceptance of the Council". And the Lefebvrians are not willing to return under this condition. They believe that accepting the Council would imply accepting its errors that, according to them, are particularly centered in the chapters on "religious liberty, ecumenism, and conciliarism" [? - Collegiality?...]"
Thus by rejecting the Supreme Pastor's (Pontiff's) initiatives to bring this group back into the full communion of the truth of the true Church and true faith, have they thus reiterated their "false religion" status?
It is very serious for any Catholic or group of Catholics to reject the authority of the pope in the areas of faith, morals, and canon law (Church discipline) and to do so indicates that such people or groups of people do not have the fullness of truth when it comes to the true religion, causing them to form their own "false" religion no matter how much or how little of the truth they have--like Protestants, they become neo-Protestants, thus a "false" religion.
To reject the authority of the popes and an Ecumenical Council also seems to be a decision for schism similar to the Old Catholics just after Vatican I and its definition of Papal Infallibility.
Wikipedia's definition of Old Catholics certainly can be applied to the SSPX:
The term Old Catholic Church is commonly used to describe a number of Ultrajectine Christian churches that originated from Catholics after the Pope declared certain doctrines within the Roman Church. The Old Catholic Church remained faithful to the original teachings of the Church and the Roman Church split from the Old Catholic Church over certain doctrines, most importantly that of Papal Infallibility. These churches are not in communion with the Holy See of Rome, but their Union of Utrecht of Old Catholic Churches is in full communion with the Anglican Communion[1] and a member of the World Council of Churches.[2] The formation of the Old Catholic communion of Germans, Austrians and Swiss began in 1870 at a public meeting held in Nuremberg under the leadership of A. Döllinger, following the First Vatican Council. Four years later episcopal succession was established with the ordination of an Old Catholic German bishop by a prelate of the Church of Utrecht. In line with the "Declaration of Utrecht" of 1889, they accept the first seven ecumenical councils and doctrine formulated before 1054, but reject communion with the pope and a number of other Roman Catholic doctrines and practices. The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church notes that since 1925 they have recognized Anglican ordinations, that they have full communion with the Church of England since 1932 and have taken part in the ordination of Anglican bishops.[3]
The term "Old Catholic" was first used in 1853 to describe the members of the See of Utrecht who did not recognize any claimed "infallible" papal authority. Later Catholics who disagreed with the doctrine of Papal Infallibility as made official by the First Vatican Council (1870) had no bishop and so joined with Utrecht to form the Union of Utrecht.
22 comments:
I don't believe this is the first time this comparison has been tried.
There are two ways in which it would be 'outside' the Church.
Heresy or Schism.
The Old Catholics denied the Infallibility of the Pope and setup their own hierarchy. They have since acquired further heresies and moved further away (theologically) from the Church.
Given that the SSPX does not reject any dogma/infallibly declared doctrine - there is no heresy.
Schism will be harder to prove even with a declaration, as they have not setup their own hierarchy. It is necessary to show that there is more than disobedience in order to have a substantiated claim of schism.
In essence, the root issue is found in 4 sections of the documents of the Second Vatican Council.
A good reference would be John Lamonts paper "A Theologian's Questions".
Yes, I do attend Mass at an SSPX Chapel.
Apparently, the term "full acceptance of the Council" is a code word for acceptance of interpretations that go well beyond magisterial doctrines of the faith. If so, I can understand the SSPX's rejection of an offensive demand that they profess "full acceptance of the Council", when virtually no one in the Church actually practices "full acceptance of the Council", and no one else is required to profess it explicitly.
Although about as middle-of-the-road in the Church as one could be, participating fully and devotedly in both OF and EF, I myself would react negatively to any requirement that I declare publicly pig-in-the-poke acceptance of the Council, without specification of what doctrinal beliefs this implies.
In any event, I suspect (and hope and pray) that this latest maneuver is just another step toward full reunion, so the SSPX can work within rather than without to support our Holy Father's call for authentic reinterpretation of the Council.
If the rumors are true it will be the Church's loss not the SSPX's.
The Church KNOWS in it's heart or hearts what the problems with V2 are, but rather than come out and admit it and fix it, they pussy foot around with nuance and spin doctoring about continuity.
In the Pope's own words: What was sacred then, is sacred now.
I hope the Pope over rules his Cardinal's who are shamefully obstructing his efforts. I hope he tells Levada (or Muller) to shut up and give the SSPX the same rights to disagree on non-Dogmatic issues. After all, we have loos galore that are currently "in the church" who disagree are real Dogma (LCWR anyone) and we don't call them "outside the Church" or "not in full Communion".
The only position not tolerated by Rome today is the Traditionalist position: Anglicans - fine; NeoCatechumenate Way - fine; ultra-ecumenist Assissi - fine; Pope says liturgy with schismatic Orthodox - fine; Modernists in the Curia and amongst the cardinals - fine; holding to the Traditional Faith as it existed prior to VII - not in "full communion".
So much more I could say about this blog post, but I will hold my tongue.
Tradical (nice name, by the way), are you in Georgia?
Even IF (and that's a big "if") the SSPX rejects the Vatican's current offer, the negotiations are not over. It is absolutely absurd to look at the heretics and loonies who continue to hold places of honor in some quarters of the Church (like Hans Kung or the leaders of the LCWR) who reject so much of what our Church teaches, and still remain in alleged "full Communion" with the Church yet somehow the SSPX is "out of Communion" because of one defiant act of their founder. These people have shown more loyalty to the current pope than just about anyone I can think of.
And, the Holy Father himself has publicly asserted that Vatican II was strictly pastoral and it defined no new dogmas. If it has no dogmas for them to reject, sooner or later there is going to have to be a reckoning. I strongly believe that the Holy Father faces obstacles within his own house that prevent him from implementing the kind of renewal he wants to achieve. It may take another generation or another pontificate for this to be solved, since there is still a radical contingent in the Vatican that holds the party line about the great "renewal" we have experienced from Vatican II--a renewal that has been disastrous in loss of vocations and worse, loss of souls.
Is it Vatican II's fault or the way Vatican II has been read and forced upon us? I am not qualified to say, but the 40 year experiment is a huge failure--that is beyond dispute. The SSPX has been the most faithful group in holding fast to what we have always been. To say they are outside the Church may be technically correct (with regard to their "suspended" status), but there is also something dishonest about calling them schismatics. In a way, they could claim that they did not leave the Catholic Church, but the Catholic Church left them. Come to think of it, that's how a lot of us feel sometimes.
I really hate to hear this if it means a final split. Once again, Marc speaks my mind...
I hope I am right in my belief that it is not over yet as to the regularization of the SSPX. . .
Now for some really GOOD news (news to me anyway as I just discovered and experienced it!). Northeast Floridian Catholics (and their Southeast Georgian neighbors) now have another place to find a regular (weekly) Sunday Extraordinary Form Latin Mass--and the Church itself is a very suitable venue. The old St. Joseph Church on Loretto Rd. (corner of Old St. Augustine Rd. and Loretto Rd.) on the south side of the St. John's River in Jacksonville has a weekly 11:15 a.m. TLM! The Church is a wooden frame 1880's "cracker" Gothic style with the old high altar still being used for this Mass and the Communion rail is still in place on the heart-pine sanctuary floor. The priest today was an older priest called Father Joseph (I believe he is from Poland-with his very strong accent noticeable in the sermon). Today he wore Roman "fiddleback" vestments and even a biretta. There were a lot of young adults and teenagers at this Mass as well as a few older people.
From where I live in Waycross, this means starting out at about 9:00 a.m. and taking U.S. 1 to I-295, crossing the St. John's River, and exiting just across the river on Old St. Augustine Rd. The Church is on the right within sight of I-295. For me, this is still almost 2 hours away but it is much easier to get to than our Cathedral in Savannah (no driving in the city itself and parking is just behind the Church on Church property). My only complaint is the kneelers--they have only about 1/2" of padding and are a kind of temporal punishment to kneel on through most of the Mass!
To my knowledge, they are still having the 8:00 a.m. TLM at Immaculate Conception in downtown Jacksonville as well but that's too early (and too much downtown driving for a country boy like me)to be much of an option. I have been to that Mass twice. At least greater Jacksonville now has two Sunday TLM's (not counting the SSPX, which I believe may also have a presence there--I am not sure). Anyway, check it out!
No, the SSPX is not a false religion. ABL was wrongly excommunicated for preserving Catholic Tradition. There is no doubt, as soon as this crisis is over, this courageous man will be declared a saint. Read the Biography of Marcel Lefebvre, by Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, to learn about this kind, but stern, holy man of God. Thank you, Archbishop Lefebvre!
I use false religion as Marc does and therefore one sees how insulting it is if you have an investment at least in some of the falsehoods of a group of people who might have a great deal of truth. I would use the term false religion very judiciously. Certainly the disobedience of the SSPX to the person of the Holy Father and their intransigence on what is asked is part and parcel of a movement toward a false religion. Make no mistake about it, the true religion is where Peter is. LCWR has false teachings but they haven't ordained anyone yet, deacon, priest or bishop. A Maryknoll priest was excommunicated for participating in a mock ordination of a woman.
I think implying that SSPX is a "false religion" is kinda' strong...
No, Father, you did not use "false religion" as I do (or as the Catholic Church does). What you are saying is starting to sound a bit like indifferentism... although I'm sure you do not intend it that way.
There are three requirements to be Catholic (and therefore hold the True Faith): (1) proper belief and baptism; (2) acknowledge the authority of the hierarchy; and (3) canonical right to Communion, i.e. not excommunicated as a heretic or schismatic.
While Protestants have valid baptism (as Gene pointed out), they lack proper belief, acknowledgement of the hierarchy, and are material heretics. Modern day Jews lack even baptism.
You would argue, I am certain, that the SSPX has either failed to acknowledge the hierarchy or is schismatic (and maybe even excommunicated). However, you would be wrong in such assertions. If they denied the hierarchy, they would not be in discussions with the Apostolic See in the first place. Furthermore, they are not excommunicated and have not been determined to be schismatic by the Holy Father, who is the only one to levy such a censure. Finally, I will not as others have previously, that they are more faithful to the teachings of the Church and the Holy Father than many, many other groups who are not "canonically irregular."
You say that "the true religion is where Peter is." Therefore, you yourself appear to hold the same view as I do (in continuity with Catholic Tradition) that those outside the visible Catholic Church are not of the True Religion.
Again, I do have "an investment in some of the falsehoods" of these groups having converted from a false religion and my wife and I being the only Catholics in our families. It pains me that our families are outside the Church. We are playing with "live ammunition" here - will I go to my family and tell them they believe in a false religion? Of course not because I recognize the importance of their converting to the true religion. When commenting on this blog discussing Catholic doctrine will I use these technical phrases where we all presumably understand the meaning (having read Mystici Corporis Christi and other things)? Of course and why not? These phrases should not be provocative to other Catholics who profess belief in what the Church is and teaches!
"Certainly the disobedience of the SSPX to the person of the Holy Father"
An odd statement, this. In their discussions to determine what is the authentic content of Vatican II that must be accepted, I sense no such disobedience, rather, a profound respect for both the papacy as an office and for the person of the present Holy Father.
One that, frankly, in today's Church is quite refreshing. Would that the pope enjoyed the same support from the much more prevalent Church groups represented (even in many chanceries) by some of your favorite blogsters.
The Pope supports the SSPX position, and the SSPX respects and supports the Pope, not to mention expressing outright Filial Loyalty to him. The Pope's Curia on the other hand is quentionable and have proven time and again that their agenda is not always the same as the Pope's.
Here's the latest from His Excellency, Bishop Fellay, Superior General of the SSPX:
It is not us who will break with Rome, the Eternal Rome, mistress of wisdom and truth. Nevertheless, it would be unrealistic to deny that there is a modernist and liberal influence in the Church since the Second Vatican Council and its subsequent reforms. In a word, we maintain the faith in the primacy of the Roman Pontiff and in the Church founded upon Peter, but we refuse all which contributes to the “self-demolition of the Church” acknowledged by Paul VI himself since 1968.
This is the heart of the matter for me personally: obedience to the Holy Father and not just the current Holy Father, but the living Tradition of the Church manifested by the infallible writings of all the preceding Popes, or "Eternal Rome."
The situation is analogous to a human father who orders his child to touch a hot stove knowing the child will be burned: a good father should not make such an unreasonable requests of his children. If a human father does so, despite his legitimate authority over the child, the child is obliged to disregard that unreasonable request.
The analogy is not perfect, but it states the issue at least partially.
Marc, upon reflection, I think the "hot stove" analogy is more appplicable than it may seem at first.
The SSPX, in its determination to remain fully faithful to Eternal Rome, may well conclude from recent history that it should fear being "burned" if it accepts a juridical arrangement that does not include adequate "insulation" from those with administrative authority in the hierarchy who patently are not so faithful.
Except that most of the problems caused by V2 burn our eyes and hearts not our hands. LOL
Henry, that is what I really do not understand about this situation with the SSPX. Why is this group singled out amongst all groups within the Church to submit to a doctrinal preamble? Why not the Jesuits or the LCWR or the NeoCats or any number of other "liberal" groups influencing the Church?
There is no even-handed application going on here: the only position not tolerated is the Traditionalist position.
Why must the SSPX sign an agreement that they believe things stated in VII, which is not a doctrinal council, when everyone else in the Church seems to have forgotten about Trent, which is the apex of ecumenical councils in terms of the amount and clarity of doctrine defined?
Clearly, there are major forces in the Church who are terrified of the Traditionalists.
Marc Lefebrve defied a direct order off Pope John Paul and ordained 3 bishops thus incurring public excommunion forhim and the 3 bishops. In effect he did what the Chinese government does and the national Chinese government church is quite pre -Vatican 2. It was an act of defiance of such gravity and potential for schism
First, it is debatable whether Abp. Lefebvre was actually excommunicated for ordaining the bishops.
Second, any excommunication, if it existed, was lifted from the bishops he ordained.
Third, I agree ordaining the bishops was a very grave situation. But, I don't understand the connection between what I posted and your comment about the excommunications... I think I'm missing something! Sorry!
But does pointing to an act of disobedience a quarter of century ago imply any such act by present parties at the present time? I myself, following all this as closely as I can, am not aware of any act--or attitude--of disobedience or disrespect by Bishop Fellay to our Holy Father in the present discussion.
This whole (recent) drawn-out affair is so very sad.
Archbishop Lefebvre did have permission to have one bishop ordained. The only reason Archbishop Lefebvre did the controversial act was so the Society itself could function. The man knew he was going to die. And, of course, there was a reason why only one bishop was permitted: to hurt the hierarchal functions of the Society (to control the hemorrhage). It is not as if Archbishop Lefebvre created a whole separate hierarchy out-of-thin-air (even though some of the appointments, I personally, find distasteful).
I admit the fact that I have no deep rooted sympathies for the Society. The whole French/political, etc. aspects of the Society I find unsympathetic. But I do think this comes down to the fact that the Society will not give in to the pressures of some very powerful people who out-right despise them and the Holy Father’s hands are tied – even though I firmly believe he is not THAT sympathetic; he is a man of justice.
It reminds me of Cardinal Pole (the Society) vs. Pope Julius III (certain members of the Curia). Faith and words used to cover a personal animosity. (AND nowhere am I saying Pope Benedict is being compared to Julius III).
Father,
Some clarifications:
"... incurring public excommunion..."
They incurred a latae sententiae excommunication. ie due to breaking the law.
"... In effect he did what the Chinese government does ..."
This is only half-true. He consecrated Bishops without Pontifical mandate, but did not setup an independent hierarchy as the CPA has done.
As an aside, I wonder if the CPA consecrated Bishops during the reign of John Paul II. I found this article of interst:
http://www.fatimaperspectives.com/ds/perspective400.asp
"... act of defiance of such gravity and potential for schism ..."
In reading the sermon given by Archbishop Lefebvre, I don't think you will find it has the tone of defiance that is found in the CPA.
http://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Episcopal-Consecration.htm
Post a Comment