A HANDBOOK FOR CATHOLICS IN THE CURRENT CRISIS
by the Fathers of Holy Cross Seminary
INTRODUCTION
PART ONE: PRINCIPLES
SOME TEXTS AS GUIDING PRINCIPLES IN TODAY’S CRISIS
PART TWO:QUESTIONS
Q1. WHO WAS ARCHBISHOP MARCEL LEFEBVRE?
Q2WHAT IS THE SOCIETY OF SAINT PIUS X
Q3
WASN’T THE SOCIETY OF ST. PIUS X LAWFULLY SUPPRESSED?
Q4
WASN’T MGR. MARCEL LEFEBVRE SUSPENDED FROM PERFORMING
ALL SACRED FUNCTIONS (AND THE PRIESTS HE ORDAINED ALSO)?
Q5
WHY SHOULD CATHOLICS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE NEW
ORDER OF MASS?
Q6
WHAT IS A CATHOLIC TO THINK OF VATICAN II?
Q7
BUT SHOULDN’T WE BE FOLLOWING POPE JOHN-PAUL II?
Q8
SHOULDN’T WE ACCEPT THE NEW CODE OF CANON LAW?
Q9
DO TRADITIONAL PRIESTS HAVE JURISDICTION?
Q10
CAN WE ATTEND THE INDULT MASS?
Q11
WASN’T ARCHBISHOP LEFEBVRE EXCOMMUNICATED FOR
CONSECRATING BISHOPS
UNLAWFULLY?
Q12
ISN’T THE SOCIETY OF ST. PIUS X SCHISMATIC?
Q13
WHAT ARE WE TO THINK OF THE SOCIETY OF ST. PETER?
Q14
WHAT ARE WE TO THINK OF THE “CATECHISM OF THE
CATHOLIC CHURCH” (1992)?
Q15
WHAT OF THE SEDEVACANTISTS?
APPENDIX
I - “DECLARATION” OF ARCHBISHOP LEFEBVRE (Ecône, 21/11/74)
APPENDIX
II - FURTHER READING
Many Catholics realise
more or less acutely that the Church is passing through a period of confusion,
and they wonder if there aren’t any simple guidelines for seeing them through
it. This booklet tries to present principles, hopefully of solution but
at least of sanity, to be these simple guidelines. They may not yet be
the complete answer; but Our Lord God does not ask us to solve what He
has not given eminent theologians or His chosen friends to solve - He asks
us to save our souls, which we do, with His grace, by living as well as
we can as Catholics, true sons of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic
Church.
When speaking of
a period of confusion, allusion is being made, of course, to the whole
“face-lift” of the Church since the Second Vatican Council. The Church
has a “new look”:
·
new catechisms
·
a new
liturgy - in new churches, around a table, with communion in the
hand, from lay ministers,
aided by altar-girls,
·
new Bibles
& Canon Law
·
involvement
with non-Catholics
·
new orientations:
world “justice”, “peace”,
·
laymen
doing what priests did
·
etc. etc.
And what happened
to:
·
Benediction
of the Blessed Sacrament
·
regular
individual confessions
·
the Way
of the Cross
·
fast &
abstinence
·
prayers
for the Holy Souls,
·
Marian
devotions,
·
And all
those religious in their habits? - etc.
The latter, answers
forthrightly the Society of St. Pius X. (And “schismatic” and “excommunication”
have been revived to meet the case.)
It is a turning away from God and a turning to the world, to man.
The world is not converting to the Church; the “Church” has converted to
the world. In what are modern Catholics very different from non-Catholics
these days?
To judge rightly
these goings-on in the Church, let us look firstly at some general principles
that all Catholics accept (Part I), and then we can evaluate better the
Society of St. Pius X’s reaction to this “crisis” (Part II).
True to our aim at simplicity, we shall try to present clear and
brief answers, in note form rather than in explanatory prose, so that the
Handbook can be consulted for a ready reply rather than read for a full
discussion. For fuller answers,
further reading and study will be necessary (Appendix II); but may this
present little work already fulfill its purpose of providing, to those
who have not the time or means for a longer study, the essence of the replies
of the Society of St Pius X to these important and most asked questions.
NB
-The General Principles will be referred to throughout this booklet
by their number given in Part I (so the twentieth, for example, will be
referred to as P.20). In like manner, the Questions in Part II will be
referred to by their question N°
(so the fifth question will be called Q.5, etc.)
·
The abbreviation
“Dz” refers to Denzinger’s “The Sources of Catholic Dogma”, being a translation
by Roy J. Deferrari from the thirtieth edition of Denzinger’s “Enchiridion
Symbolorum” (except for #1792, poorly translated in the work referred to.)
SOME TEXTS AS GUIDING
PRINCIPLES IN TODAY’S CRISIS
“Moreover, in order
that we may satisfactorily perform the duty of embracing the true faith
and of continuously persevering in it, God, through His only-begotten Son,
has instituted the Church, and provided it with clear signs of His institution,
so that it can be recognised by all as the guardian and teacher of the
revealed word.”
Vatican I (20th
Ecumenical) Dz 1793
“It (the Church)
firmly believes, professes and proclaims that those not living within the
Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics
can not become participants in eternal life, but will depart ‘into everlasting
fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels’[Matt 25:41], unless
before the end of life the same have been added to the flock...”
Florence (17th
Ecumenical) Dz 714
“Moreover, what the
Chief of pastors and the Great Pastor of sheep, the Lord Jesus, established
in the blessed Apostle Peter for the perpetual salvation and perennial
good of the Church, this by the same Author must endure always in the Church
which was founded upon a rock and will endure firm until the end of the
ages.”
“The one Church of
Christ is visible to all, and will remain, according to the Will of its
Author, exactly the same as He instituted it.”
Pius XI - Mortalium
Animos §15
P4
THE CHURCH IS FOUNDED UPON PETER AND HIS SUCCESSORS
FOREVER
“If anyone says that
it is not from the institution of Christ the Lord Himself, or by divine
right, that the blessed Peter has perpetual successors in the primacy over
the universal Church...let him be anathema. ...If anyone thus speaks, that
the same Roman Pontiff has only the office of inspection or direction,
but not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the universal Church,
not only in things which pertain to faith and morals, but also in those
which pertain to the discipline and government of the Church spread over
the whole world...let him be anathema.”
Vat I, Dz 1825,1831
”But it is opposed
to the truth, and in evident contradiction with the divine constitution
of the Church, to hold that while each bishop is individually bound to
obey the authority of the Roman Pontiffs, taken collectively the bishops
are not so bound.”
Leo XIII - Satis
Cognitum
P5
THE POPE HAS POWER ONLY “unto edification and not unto destruction”
(2 Cor 13,10) OF CHRIST’S CHURCH
“For the Holy Spirit
was not promised to the successors of Peter that by His revelation they
might disclose new doctrine, but that by His help they might guard sacredly
the revelation transmitted through the apostles and the deposit of faith,
and might faithfully set it forth.”
“And for these sacraments
instituted by Christ the Lord, in the course of the ages the Church has
not and could not substitute other sacraments, since, as the Council of
Trent teaches, the seven sacraments of the New Law have all been instituted
by Jesus Christ, our Lord, and the Church has no power over the ‘substance
of the sacraments’, that is, over those things which, with the sources
of divine revelation as witnesses, Christ the Lord Himself decreed to be
preserved in a sacramental sign...”
“It is well known
unto all men...with what great care and pastoral vigilance our predecessors
the Roman Pontiffs have discharged the office entrusted by Christ our Lord
to them in the person of the most blessed Peter, Prince of the Apostles;
have unremittingly discharged the duty of feeding the lambs and the sheep;
and have diligently nourished the Lord’s entire flock with the words of
faith, imbued it with salutary doctrine, and guarded it from poisoned pastures.
And those our predecessors, who were the assertors and champions of the
August Catholic religion, of truth and justice, being as they were chiefly
solicitous for the salvation of souls, held nothing to be of so great importance
as the duty of exposing and condemning, in their most wise Letters and
Constitutions, all heresies and errors which are hostile to moral honesty
and to the eternal salvation of mankind...”
Pius IX - Quanta
Cura 51
“Revelation, constituting
the object of Catholic Faith, was not completed with the apostles.”
Condemned by St.
Pius X - Lamentabili - Dz 2021
”Further, by divine
and Catholic faith, all those things must be believed which are contained
in the written word of God and in tradition, and which are proposed by
the Church, either in a solemn pronouncement or in her ordinary and universal
magisterium, to be believed as divinely revealed... Hence also that understanding
of its sacred dogmas must be perpetually retained, which Holy Mother Church
has once declared; and there must never be recession from that meaning
under the specious name of a deeper understanding... ; ...definitions of
the Roman Pontiff from himself, but not from the consensus of the Church,
are unalterable.”
Vatican I - Dz 1792,
1800 & 1839
“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... Therefore it is clear
that such a heretic with regard to one article has no faith in the other
articles, but only a kind of opinion in accordance with his own will.”
St. Thomas Aquinas
- II II q.5 a.3
“Likewise, the liberty
of those who are in authority does not consist in the power to lay unreasonable
and capricious commands upon their subjects... but the binding force of
human law is in this, that they are to be regarded as applications of the
eternal law, and incapable of sanctioning anything which is not contained
in the eternal law, as in the principle of all law.”
Leo XIII - Libertas
§10
“If, then, by any
one in authority, something be sanctioned out of conformity with the principles
of right reason, and consequently hurtful to the commonwealth, such an
enactment can have no binding force of law, as being no rule of justice,
but certain to lead men away from that good which is the very end of civil
society... But where the power to command is wanting, or where a law is
enacted contrary to reason, or to the eternal law, or to some ordinance
of God, obedience is unlawful, lest, while obeying man, we become disobedient
to God.”
Leo XIII - Libertas
§§10,13
a)
WHEN DOUBTFUL - “When there is a doubt of law, laws do not bind
even if they be nullifying and disqualifying ones...” CIC (1917) can. 15;
(1983) can. 14
b)
WHEN RETROACTIVE - “A law comes into existence when it is promulgated.”
CIC (1917) can.
8 §1
(cf can. 17 §2);
(1983) can. 7 (cf can. 16 §2)
c)
WHEN CAN’T (physically or morally) - “No positive law obliges where
there is grave
inconvenience” is
a principle of moral theology. Cf
CIC (1917) can. 2205 §2;
(1983) can. 1323 4°.
And there certainly is such a grave inconvenience when observance
would be detrimental to souls, for the salvation of souls “must always
be the supreme law of the Church.” CIC (1983) can. 1752
“If anyone says that
in the Mass a true and real sacrifice is not offered to God, or that the
act of offering is nothing else than Christ being given to us to eat: let
him be anathema.”
Trent (19th
Ecumenical) - Dz 948
P12
THE MASS IS THE RE-ENACTMENT OF CALVARY (& NOT JUST A
NARRATIVE OF THE LAST SUPPER - itself being
a Pre-enactment of
Calvary)
“He, therefore, our
God and Lord, though He was about to offer Himself once to God the Father
upon the altar of the Cross...nevertheless, that His sacerdotal office
might not come to an end with His death, at the Last Supper, on the night
He was betrayed, so that He might leave to His beloved Spouse the Church
a visible sacrifice (as the nature of man demands), whereby that bloody
sacrifice once to be completed on the Cross might be represented, and the
memory of it remain even to the end of the world...offered to God the Father
His own body and blood under the species of bread and wine...”
Trent Dz 938
“If anyone says that
Masses in which the priest alone communicates sacramentally are illicit
and are therefore to be abrogated: let him be anathema.”
Trent Dz 955 cf P.14
P14
“If anyone says that the rite of the Roman Church, according to
which a part of the canon and the words of consecration are pronounced
in a low tone, is to be condemned or that the Mass ought to be celebrated
in the vernacular only...: let him be anathema.”
Trent - Dz 956
P15
“If anyone denies that the whole Christ is contained in the venerable
sacrament of the Eucharist under each species and under every part of each
species, when the separation has been made: let him be anathema.”
Trent - Dz 885
P16
“If anyone says that in the holy sacrament of the Eucharist the
only-begotten Son of God is not to be adored even outwardly with the worship
of latria...: let him be anathema.”
Trent - Dz 888
P17
“If anyone denies that in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist
there are truly, really and substantially contained the body and blood
together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and therefore
the whole Christ, but shall say that He is in it as by a sign or figure,
or force, let him be anathema.”
- Dz 883
P18
“If anyone says that by these words: ‘Do this for a commemoration
of Me’ Christ did not make the Apostles priests or did not ordain that
they and other priests might offer His own body and blood: let him be anathema.”
Trent - Dz 949
P19
“If anyone says that the holy Catholic Church has not been influenced
by just causes and reasons to give communion under the form of bread only
to laymen and even to clerics when not consecrating, or that she has erred
in this: let him be anathema.”
Trent - Dz 935
a)
in virtue of Quo Primum: “By these present (ordinances) and
by virtue of Our Apostolic Authority, We give and grant in perpetuity that
for the singing or reading of Mass in any church whatsoever this Missal
may be followed absolutely, without any scruple of conscience or fear of
incurring any penalty, judgment or censure, and may be freely and lawfully
used... We likewise order and declare that no one whosoever shall be forced
or coerced into altering this Missal; and that this present constitution
can never be revoked or modified, but shall forever remain valid and have
the force of law...”
St. Pius V - Quo
Primum
b)
as an immemorial custom: “...unless it makes express mention
of centenary or immemorial customs, a law does not revoke them...”
CIC (1917) can. 30; (1983)
can. 28. This is the
case of the Traditional Latin Mass, a custom at least 1500 years old.
c)
because the “New Mass” is not a Catholic alternative (Q.5);
and the Church cannot leave priests without a Mass - cf Pius XII in P.5
above.
Brief History
Nov.
29 1905
Birth of Marcel Lefebvre into a good Catholic family
(five of the
eight children would become priests or nuns).
Sept
21 1929
Marcel Lefebvre is ordained a priest.
1932
- 1946&nbssp;
Joins the Holy Ghost Father as a missionary in Gabon Africa.
Sept
18 1947
Is consecrated a Bishop and appointed Apostolic Vicar of Dakar,
Senegal.
1948
- 1959 &nbbsp;
Named by Pius XII Apostolic Delegate for eighteen African
countries.
Sept
14 1955
He becomes the first Archbishop of Dakar.
1962
Returns to France named Bishop of Tulle.
1962
After 6 months at Tulle he is elected and acts as Superior General
of
the Holy Ghost Fathers.
1968
Resigns rather than implement the changes to
his Congregation that
are forced upon him, and goes into “retirement”.
1969
The Archbishop founds the Priestly Society of St. Pius X.
1970
- 1982&nbssp;
First Superior General of the SSPX.
1970 -
1988 To be faithful to the
grace of his episcopacy he travels the world to
encourage Catholics to hold firmly to the faith and Traditions of
their
fathers, confirming their young, and ordaining for them priests.
June
30 1988
Providing for the future he consecrates bishops to ordain priests
and
give confirmation.
Mar.
25 1991
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre passes before his Eternal Judge.
A Testimony
“Concerning the Archbishop personally, a journalist asked recently what was my outstanding memory of the man. I gave maybe a surprising answer: his objectivity. He had, of course, a uniquely attractive personality because he was a saint - gentle, kind, simple, humble, humorous and so on, without a trace of sentimentality, but that was not the point. Underneath all that lay a great intelligence and faith and firmness of character, but that was still not the print. Essentially he was a man empty of self and full of God. To meet him, to talk to him, was to see - through him - the Truth’ Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Catholic Church. He was like a window on the interests of God. Not he, but Christ, lived within him, and yet that was Marcel Lefebvre and nobody else. And what a marvellous man he was![1]
1969
A “retired” Archbishop, Marcel Lefebvre, agrees to help in their
priestly formation a handful of young seminarians disconcerted by
the
direction being taken in post-Vatican II seminaries. He does this
not
only by undertaking their training but also by founding a Society
aiming at fostering a priestly life according to the wise norms
and
customs of the Church of better days.
Nov.
1 1970
The Society of St. Pius X is officially recognised by the Bishop
of
Lausanne, Geneva and Fribourg, Bishop Charrière.
And so it is truly
a new little branch pushed forth by the Church.
Feb
18 1971
Cardinal Wright, Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Clergy,
writes praising the wisdom of the Society’s statutes.
[June
10 1971
Archbishop Lefebvre announces, together with the staff of the
Seminary of Saint Pius X at Ecône, the refusal to adopt the New
Order
of Mass (cf Q.5).]
1971
- 1974 &nbbsp;
After Cardinal Wright’s decree come other sure signs of Rome’s full
acceptance of the SSPX, such as:
·
allowing
its houses to be canonically erected in two Swiss and one Italian dioceses,
·
allowing
three outside priests to join the Society and be
incardinated[3]
directly into it.
During
the same years the French Episcopal Conference was
manoeuvring to have the Society and its seminary suppressed (Q.3).
Nov.
1 1980
By its tenth anniversary, the Society of St. Pius X has 40 houses
on
two continents.
Nov.
1 1995
By its Silver Jubilee, the SSPX numbers 4 bishops, 332 priests,
50 brothers, 120 sisters & 53 oblate sisters, all living in 140 houses
in 27 countries. Together they seek the goal of the priesthood: the glorification
of God, the continuation of Our Lord’s redemptive work, the salvation of
souls; and this by fidelity to Christ’s testament - the Holy Sacrifice
of the Mass.
Nov. 1 1970
The Society is lawfully and canonically founded (Q2).
1971 -
1974 Nevertheless,
the French bishops, balking at Ecône’s pre-Vatican II
ways, and notably at its non-acceptance of the New Mass (Q5),
calumniate it as “sauvage” (an outlaw, “wildcat”). One of
them, Pope
Paul VI’s Secretary of State, Cardinal Villot, lied to make His
Holiness
believe Archbishop Lefebvre had his priests sign a declaration against
the Pope.[4]
Nov
11-13 1974 An
Apostolic Visitation of the seminary at Ecône takes place.
This is in itself normal procedure; its conclusions, though never
published, were “very favourable”, according to Cardinal Garonne, “except
that you do not use the new liturgy, and there is a somewhat anti-Conciliar
spirit there.”[5]
The Visitors, however, scandalised all by their unorthodox
views, prompting the Archbishop’s so-called DECLARATION (Appendix I).
Feb
13 & Mar 3 1975
Archbishop Lefebvre meets with an improvised Commission
of three Cardinals, nominally to discuss the Apostolic Visitation
but
in fact as a lone defendant before a tribunal attacking his Declaration.
Hehad been given no warning as to the nature of these “trials”,
had no
lawyer and was never allowed a copy of the recorded meetings,
though that at least had been promised him.
May
6 1975
The irregular Commission of Cardinals condemns His Grace, finding
his Declaration “unacceptable on all points” (sic). They
write to
Bishop Mamie (successor of Bishop Charriere at Fribourg) telling
him
to withdraw his predecessor’s approval of the Society of St. Pius
X -
something quite beyond his power. (Once a bishop has approved a
Society, only the Pope can suppress it - CIC can.493)
June
5 1975
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre submits an appeal to the Apostolic
Signature in Rome - in substance: It would be for the Sacred Congregation
for the Doctrine of the Faith to determine whether my Declaration were
at fault. Please provide evidence that this Commission of Cardinals had
been expressly mandated by the Pope (who by his own authority can bypass
the Congregations) to decide as has been done.[6]
And if I be at fault, of course
I can be censured, but not the Society founded in due canonical form!
Cardinal
Villot saw that the appeal was not even accepted; and indeed Cardinal Staffa
was threatened with dismissal if he were to accept an appeal from Archbishop
Lefebvre.[7]
June
29 1975
They get Paul VI to write to the Archbishop that he approved all
the Commission of Cardinals had done. Yet an approbation in June cannot
empower a Commission meeting in the previous February (P.10b).
On the whole process,
Archbishop Lefebvre observes: “...we have been condemned without trial,
without opportunity to defend ourselves, without due warning or written
process and without appeal.”[8]
Q4
WASN’T MGR. MARCEL LEFEBVRE SUSPENDED FROM PERFORMING ALL SACRED
FUNCTIONS (AND THE PRIESTS HE ORDAINED ALSO)?
Oct
27 1975
Cardinal Villot writes to the hierarchies of the world to tell them
not to incardinate[9]
any longer priests from the Society of St. Pius X, as it has been suppressed.[10]
June
12 1976
Mgr. Benelli writes His Grace, telling him not to ordain priests
without their local Bishop’s permission.
June
29 1976
The Archbishop goes ahead with the foreseen ordinations.
July
1 1976
The suspensions of the Archbishop and the newly ordained priests
are declared.
The Church, by approving
the SSPX, approved also that it have the means to live i.e. that it have
all the ordinary means to lead its religious life and fulfill its aim.
This is fundamental when taking into consideration the nullity of its suppression
(Q.3).
·
The Society
of St. Pius X not being suppressed (Q3) it was unjust to try to stop candidates
from joining it.
·
Because
of: - Cardinal Wright’s letter of
praise,
·
the Congregation
for the Clergy allowing religious priests transferring to the Society to
be directly incardinated into it,
·
and the
judgement of Bishop Adam (of Sion where Ecône is located) that the SSPX,
being inter-diocesan, could generalise this procedure,
Archbishop Lefebvre could reasonably presume this right of
incardination.
In the three weeks
before the ordinations to be held on June 29 1976, His Grace was approached
by Rome as many as six times with the request that he establish normal
relations with the Vatican, and that he give proof of this by saying a
Mass according to the new rite. He was told that if the ordination Mass
on the 29th would be with the Missal of Paul VI, then all opposition
would be smoothed over. This offer was brought to the Archbishop on the
Vigil of the Feast. One New Mass and all will be well. Herein we see most
clearly the ONE FUNDAMENTAL REASON FOR THE CAMPAIGN AGAINST ARCHBISHOP
LEFEBVRE AND HIS SOCIETY: EXCLUSIVE ADHERENCE TO THE OLD MASS AND REFUSAL
TO SAY THE NEW.
But:
- the New Mass cannot be said (cf Q 5).
·
and the
Old Mass always can (P 20).
Therefore, the suspensions
are null;
·
canonically:
because unjust,
·
fundamentally:
because engineered to do away with the traditional Latin Mass.
[Mgr. Lefebvre used
to say, tongue in cheek, that he had been lawfully suspended from saying
the new liturgy].
·
if only
the one incurring them were to suffer, then yes, that is the more perfect
way to act,
·
but if
there is a question of depriving innumerable souls of the graces they need
for salvation, then no, one cannot.
Faced with such a
botched up campaign of suppression, the Society of Saint Pius X could only
continue.
Rome, moreover,
has always tacitly recognised:
1)
the Society’s legitimate continuation: e.g. when in May 1988 Cardinal
Ratzinger agreed to the principle of having a bishop consecrated from among
the Society’s priests 2) the nullity of the suspensions e.g. when in Dec.
87 Cardinal Gagnon did not hesitate to attend as a prelate the Mass of
the “suspended” Archbishop.
Q5
WHY SHOULD CATHOLICS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE NEW
ORDER OF MASS?[11]
a)
PRELIMINARY REMARKS
i)
A criticism of the “new rite” cannot be a criticism of the Mass
in itself, for this is the very sacrifice of Our Lord bequeathed to His
Church, but it is an examination whether it is a fit rite, or order of
ceremonies, for embodying and enacting this August Sacrifice.
[Note that the
validity of a Mass and the acceptability of its rite are two different
questions, as is evident in the case of a Black Mass]
ii)
It is difficult for those who have known nothing other than the
NOM to understand of what they have been deprived - and attending a “Latin
Mass” often just seems so alien. To see clearly what it is all about, it
is necessary to have a clear understanding of the defined truths of our
Faith on the Mass (P.ll - P.l9 are some of them). Only in the light of
these can a Rite of Mass be evaluated.
b)
WHAT IS THE NEW MASS? Let us answer this by looking at its
four causes, as the philosophers would say:
(material: what are
its element? (iii)
(intrinsic
(
(
(formal: what is its
nature? (iv)
Cause
(
(
(final: what is its
purpose? (v)
(extrinsic
(
(efficient: who is
its author? (vi)
(iii)
WHAT ARE THE ELEMENTS THAT MAKE UP THE N O M?
Some are Catholic: a priest, bread & wine, genuflections &
signs of the Cross, etc. But
some are Protestant: a table, common-place utensils, communion under both
kinds & in the hand etc.
(iv)
WHAT IS THE NATURE OF THE NEW MASS?
Now, the Novus Ordo Missae so assumes these heterogeneous elements
as to form a liturgy for a modernist religion which would marry
the Church & the world, Catholicism & Protestantism, light &
darkness.[12]
Indeed, the New Mass
presents itself as:
a meal
(vs P.11) [seen by the use of a table, around which gather the people of
God, offering bread & wine (vs P.18), & communicating from rather
common-place utensils often under both kinds (vs P.l9) & usually in
the hand (vs P.16).
Note too the almost
complete deletion of references to sacrifice.]
a
narrative of a past event
(vs P.12) [told out loud by one presiding (vs P.14) who
recounts Our Lord’s words as read in Scripture (rather than pronounces
a sacramental formula) and who doesn’t pause until he has shown the host
to the people.]
a
community gathering
(vs P.13f) with Christ perhaps morally present but physically
ignored (vs P.16 & P.17)
[Notice that:
the celebrant
faces the people from where the tabernacle would have been,
while this is put aside.
Just after the
consecration, all acclaim He “will come again”!
Sacred vessels
are no longer gilt;
Sacred particles
are ignored (vs P.16):
·
the priest
no longer joining thumb & forefinger,
·
the vessels
not being purified,
·
communion
being most frequently given in the hand.
Genuflections
on the part of the priest and kneeling on the part of the faithful
are much reduced.
The people take
over what the priest always did.]
Moreover, the New
Mass defined itself thus: “The Lord’s Supper, or Mass, is a sacred
synaxis, or assembly of the people of God gathered together under the presidency
of the priest to celebrate the memorial of the Lord.” (Institutio Generalis
§7 of the Roman Missal, 1969)
(v)
WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THIS NEW MASS AS A Rite?
“...the intention of Paul VI with regard to what is commonly
called the Mass, was to reform the Catholic liturgy in such a way that
it should almost coincide with the Protestant liturgy...
there was with Paul VI an ecumenical intention to remove, or at least to
correct, or at least to relax, what was too Catholic, in the traditional
sense, in the Mass and, I repeat, to get the Catholic Mass closer to the
Calvinist mass...”[13]
“When I began work
on this trilogy I was concerned at the extent to which the Catholic liturgy
was being Protestantized. The more detailed my study of the Revolution,
the more evident it has become that it has by-passed Protestantism and
its final goal is humanism.”[14]
This latter is a
fair evaluation if one were to consider the changes implemented, the results
achieved and the tendency of modern theology, even papal (cf Q.7).
(vi)
WHO MADE UP THE NEW MASS?
It is the invention of a liturgical commission, the Consilium,
whose guiding light was Fr. Annibale Bugnini (made an Archbishop in 1972
for his services), and which also included six Protestant experts. Fr.
Bugnini (principal author of Vatican II’s Sacrosanctum Concilium) had his
own ideas on popular involvement in the liturgy[15]
, and the Protestant advisors had their own (heretical) ideas on the essence
of the Mass.
But the one on whose
authority the NOM was enforced is Paul VI, who promulgated it by
his constitution “Missale Romanum” (April 3, 1969).
Or did he not?
- In the original version of Missale Romanum, signed by Paul VI,
no mention is made of obliging the NOM nor when it is to be done;
·
so translations
of the constitution mistranslate “cogere et efficere” (to sum up &
draw a conclusion) as “to give force of law”;
- and then the version
in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis has an added
paragraph, “enjoining” the New Missal -but it is in the wrong tense,
the past, and reads “which we have ordered (praescripsimus)” thereby referring
to a past obligation
(not promulgated...); and nothing moreover in “Missale Romanum”
prescribes but
at most permits![16]
c)
JUDGEMENT ON THE NOM
vii)
Looking at the New Mass in itself, with only its official Latin
form before their eyes, Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci could write to Paul
VI: “...the Novus Ordo represents,
both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic
theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session XXIII of the Council
of Trent.” (25/9/69)
Archbishop Marcel
Lefebvre
definitely agreed with them when he wrote: “The New Mass, even when said
with piety and respect for the liturgical rules,... is impregnated with
the spirit of Protestantism. It
bears within it a poison harmful to the faith.”[18]
viii)
BY THEIR FRUITS YOU SHALL KNOW THEM:
We were promised the NOM would renew Catholic fervour, inspire the
young, draw back the lapsed and attract non-Catholics. Who today can pretend
that these are its fruits? Together with the NOM did there not rather come
a dramatic fall in Mass attendance and vocations, an “identity crisis”
amongst priests, a slowing in the rate of conversions and an acceleration
in that of apostasies?
So from the point
of view of its final cause too, the New Mass is not Catholic.
(ix)
CAN WE CALL THE NOM CATHOLIC AT LEAST BECAUSE IT WAS PROMULGATED
BY THE POPE? NO!
Because:
The indefectibility
of the Church guarantees that a Pope cannot force upon the whole Church
what is impious.
But the NOM: - is
impious (vii & viii);
·
is not
forced upon the Church
·
because
it only permits (vi)
·
&
because the Old Mass can always be said (P.20);
- is not regularly
promulgated (vi) and does not engage the Church’s
infallibility.[20]
Therefore, perhaps
we can agree to call it only the official liturgy of the Conciliar Church.
d)
THIS BEING SO, SHOULDN’T WE SAY THE NOM IS INVALID?
This has not been proven, but it can be argued:
(x)
The Novus Ordo does not qualify as a Catholic Rite (iv, vii, viii,
ix). The celebrant must
intend to do what the Church does.
The NOM will no longer guarantee of itself that he has this intention
- that will depend on his personal faithh (generally unknown to those present,
but more and more doubtful as the crisis in the Church goes on and on.)
Therefore, these Masses can be presumed of doubtful validity,
and more so with time.
(xi)
The words of consecration, especially of the wine, have been tampered
with. Has the “substance of the sacrament” (cf Pius XII quoted in P 5)
been respected? This is even more of a problem in Masses in the vernacular,
where “pro multis” (for many) is mistranslated as “for all” Some argue
that this is of such importance as to render these Masses invalid; many
deny that. But it does add to the doubt.
e)
ATTENDANCE
(xii)
The New Mass is hardly a Catholic Mass and so it cannot oblige
nor suffice for one’s Sunday obligation. We must treat the question
of attending it as we would any non-Catholic liturgy (with the important
exception that the NOM has not been authoritatively declared non-Catholic
which means that many who do attend it are unaware of its toxicity
and are exempt from guilt): a Catholic may not attend it except
with a mere physical presence, without positively taking part in it, and
only because of major family reasons (weddings, funerals).
The Second Vatican
Council was a meeting of the world’s two and a half thousand bishops for
four sessions between October 1962 and December 1965. Pope John XXIII,
in his opening speech to the Council (Oct. 11, 1962), declared its aim
to be:
·
that the
Catholic faith should be kept and taught
·
but taught
in the language of modern man by a magisterium “which is pre-
dominantly pastoral in character”
·
and this
without resorting to any condemnations
·
thus appealing
to all peoples.
Pope Paul VI agrees
with his predecessor: “(Vatican II) was the most important (event) because...above
all it sought to meet pastoral needs and, nourishing the flame of
charity, it has made a great effort to reach not only the Christians still
separated from communion with the Holy See, but also the whole human family.”
(Closing Brief - Dec. 8, 1965)
With such ideals,
it is little wonder to find Catholic teaching presented:
·
weakly
(no definitions or condemnations)
·
confusedly
(no technical, scholastic terminology)
·
&
one-sidedly (so as to attract non-Catholics)
All such vague and
ambiguous teaching, already liberal in its method, would be interpreted
in its true liberal sense after the Council.
Consider:
| CONCILIAR
TEACHING[21] |
HOW
INTERPRETED (BY ROME)[22] |
| SC[23]
§9 The liturgy of the word is
stressed
§10 and the banquet aspect
§11, 14 as well as active
participation
§36,54 and therefore the
vernacular |
The
New Mass (cf. Q5) |
| UR[24]
§4,8 Catholics should pray with
Protestants |
Eucharistic
hospitality (cf. Q8) |
| SC
§72 Rite & formulae of Penance
are to be revised |
Face
to face confessions & General Absolution[25] |
| §73,75
Extreme Unction should be
an Anointing of the Sick |
|
| LG[28]
§8 The Church of Christ subsists
in (and not is) the Catholic Church |
It
is also in “separated Churches” - Ut Unum
Sint §11[29] |
| CONCILIAR
TEACHING |
HOW
INTERPRETED (BY ROME) |
| UR
§3 which has separated brethren in
separated “Churches” (sic) UR
§14 which ought to be as sisters.[30] |
All
the baptised are in Christ’s Church Ut
Unum Sint §42 And
so there is no need to convert the Orthodox for example. |
| OT[31]
§15 Seminarians should take into
account modern philosophy and
progress in science
§20 and psychology and sociology |
Studies
in secular universities are encouraged but not the study of Thomism “open”
spiritualities, & subjective
morality... |
| GS[32]
§48, 50 Marriage is equated
with “married love” |
Annulments
fiasco Q8 |
|
§76 The Church renounces any
privileges States have granted
§82 Wish for a World Authority |
The
Catholic religion is no longer to be a religion of State anywhere Full
support for the United Nations |
| ETC |
Any
approved innovation |
More gravely, the
Council was hijacked by the liberal elements within the Church who from
the very beginning got the pre-conciliar preparatory schemes for discussion
rejected and replaced by progressive ones prepared by their own “experts”.
(The liberals were able too to get their members onto the Commissions.)
The new schemes, passed as the Council’s decrees, constitutions and declarations,
contain more or less explicitly DOCTRINAL ERRORS for which liberals in
the past had been condemned.
Let us take by way
of example the following passages:
| VATICAN
II TEACHING |
CATHOLIC
TEACHING |
| GS[33]
§24 “Man is the only creature
on earth that God has wanted
for its own sake”
[§12 and “all things on earth should
be ordained to man” |
“The
Lord hath made all things for Himself” Prov. 16,4 ...to
help him to save his soul] |
|
§22 Moreover, “by his incarnation the Son of God has in a certain
way united himself with each man”
§22 so “Human nature...has
been raised in us also to a dignity
beyond compare” |
God
assumed an individual human nature.
(E.g. Dz 114) ...a
little less than the angels...” Ps 8,6 |
|
§26 and because of “the sublime dignity of the human person”
§26 his “rights and duties are universal
and inviolate”; including: |
Only
he who lives well is worthy. Apoc. 3,4 He
who buries his talent will be stripped of it. Lk 19,24 |
| DH[34]
§2 “The Vatican Council declares
that the human person has a
right to religious freedoom...
(i.e.)
...all men should be immune
from coercion on the part of... every human power so that, within
due limits, nobody is forced to act against his convictions nor is anyone
to be restrained
from acting in accordance with his convictions... |
Liberty
of conscience and of worship is the proper right of every man. Condemned
by Pius IX. ...the
best condition of society is the one in which there is no acknowledge-
ment by the government of the duty of restraining... offenders of the Catholic
religion, except insofar as the public peace demands.
Condemned by Pius IX. |
| VATICAN
II TEACHING |
CATHOLIC
TEACHING |
|
This right of the human person to religious freedom must be given
such recognition in the constitutional order of society as will make it
a civil right.” |
Liberty
of conscience and of worship... should be proclaimed and asserted by
law in every correctly established society...”
Condemned by Pius IX in Quanta Cura |
| UR
§3 “...the Spirit of Christ has not
refrained from using (separated churches) as a means of salvation”,
and so... |
P2 |
| AG[35]
§15 “ecumenical action should be
encouraged so that...Catholics might cooperate with their separated
brethren... by a common profession before the nations of faith in God and
in Jesus Christ...” |
P7 |
| NA[36]
§2 Why, even concerning non-
Christian religions: “The Catholic Church
rejects nothing of what is good and holy in these religions. She
has a high regard for the manner of life and conduct...” |
“All
the gods of the Gentiles are devils.”
Ps 95,5 “...beware
lest thou have
a mind to imitate the abomina- tions
of those nations.” Dt 18,9 |
| LG
§22 “Together with their head, the
Supreme Pontiff, and never apart from him, they (the Bishops) have
supreme and full authority over the Universal Church ...” |
P4 |
|
§21 “Now, episcopal consecration confers, together with the office
of sanctifying,
the duty also of teaching ruling...” |
“This
(episcopal) dignity, in fact, depends immediately on God as to the
power of orders, and on the Apostolic See as to the power of
jurisdiction...” Pius
VI, Deessemus Nos |
The Council itself
both encourages liberal trends (and its encouragement would become post-Conciliar
Vatican policy) and departs from traditional Catholic teaching. But it
has no authority for either (P5f).
Therefore our position must be:
“We...refuse to follow
the Rome of neo-Modernist and neo-Protestant tendencies which were clearly
evident in the Second Vatican Council and, after the Council, in all the
reforms which issued from it.”[37]
And it is neo-Modernist
tendencies that the Council is all about.[38]
- not by reason
of the extraordinary magisterium, for it refused to define. Pope
Paul VI himself, in an audience on Jan. 12, 1966, said it “had avoided
proclaiming in an extraordinary manner dogmas affected by the mark of infallibility.”[39]
·
nor
by reason of the ordinary universal magisterium, because this:
·
is the
marvellous uniformity of the teaching of the bishops when dispersed
throughout the world
(& not when assembled, when they may be subject to pressure groups.)[40]
The “universality”
in question is not just one of place (all bishops) but of time too (always).
Cf Vatican I - (P6.)
- nor even
by reason of the simply authentic magisterium[42],
because the object of all magisterium is the deposit of faith to be sacredly
guarded and faithfully expounded (Vat I - Dz 1836), and not to adopt as
Catholic doctrine the “best expressed values of two centuries of ‘liberal
culture”’, even if they are “purified”. [Card. Ratzinger, Gesu, Nov 1984,
p.72 (cf GS §§11,44)]
And so this Council
was “ecumenical” rather in the modern sense of appealing to the religious
sense of all peoples than in the traditional sense of representing the
entire Teaching Church.
This Pope arouses
various sympathies, some Catholics lauding his stand on moral issues or
that of women priests, others scandalized at the encouragement he gives
all “religions” and his preaching based on the dignity of man. How are
we to understand him?
In the opening address[43]
of his pontificate, Pope John-Paul II declared that his first aim would
be to promote and implement the decrees of Vatican II, and to bring
to light all it contained implicitly. He says the new Code of Canon Law
is an effort to put this conciliar doctrine, and especially its new ecclesiology,
into canonical language. [44]
The Catechism of the Catholic Church is likewise an effort to renew
the life of the Church as desired and begun by Vatican II.[45]
Look at the references in any of his encyclicals: see the preponderance
of the Second Vatican Council and its teachings. The specific teachings
of this Council favouring heresy (Q6), the Pope’s insistence[46]
on them would be bad enough.
But with the prolongation
of his reign and the prolificacy of his writings and discourses, however,
it has become ever more clear that John Paul II is preaching a new religion,
a humanism, a gospel of the intrinsic goodness of man, thanks
to God’s becoming man, with the implied consequence of the salvation of
all men. His starting point is Vatican II (Gaudium et Spes §22): “Human
nature, by the very fact that it was assumed, not absorbed, in him, has
been raised in us also to a dignity beyond compare. For, by his incarnation,
he, the son of God, has in a certain way united himself with each man.”
The Pope is constantly[47]
basing his teachings on these lines of Vatican II using them to illustrate
this novel doctrine of universal salvation.[48]
ACTIONS SPEAK
LOUDER THAN WORDS:
Pope John-Paul II preaches in a Lutheran church (Dec. 11, 1983), psalms
with Jews while visiting the synagogue of Rome (April 13, 1986) and then
invites Catholics and Jews to prepare together the coming of the Messiah
(June 24, 1986), dialogues with the high priests/witch doctors of Voodoo
(Feb 4 1993); takes part in Animist rites in the “Sacred Forest” in Togo
(Aug 8 1985); has the sacred Tilac put on his forehead by a priestess of
Shiva in Bombay (Feb, 2, l986); et cetera; while inviting representatives
of all the “main religions” (and about 130 came) to Assisi to pray for
peace (Oct. 27, 1986). And everywhere and with all he praises their “values”
but fails to tell them that they and their people must convert if they
want to be saved.
THEREFORE, BOTH IN
WORD AND DEED, HE IS PREACHING THAT ALL MEN OF WHATEVER CREED ARE ACCEPTABLE
TO GOD, which is contrary to Catholic dogma (P2).
And so we cannot
follow this Pope’s doctrine but must hold fast to the doctrine constantly
taught by the Church of all time.
·
It is
not for us to judge his culpability in the destruction of the Church,
more devastating now than in any previous pontificate (with the probable
exception of Paul VI’s); in this only God can so judge him.
·
Nor
is it for us to judge him juridically - the Pope has no superior
on earth - nor to declare unquestionably null all his acts.
·
But
we must judge him as our Saviour would have us: “Beware of false
prophets who come to you in the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are
ravening wolves. By their fruits you shall know them.”
We are not to cooperate blindly in the destruction of the Church
by tolerating the implementation of a new religion, or by not doing what
we can to defend our Catholic faith. Archbishop Lefebvre was surely our
model here.
[The Church is
in crisis: if the Pope really wants the aid of heaven, he has only to do
what God wants - and a good first step would be to take seriously all three
parts of the Secret of Our Lady of Fatima, and consecrate Russia as She
has requested. But how can he, when he pretends that the “fall of Communism”
in the USSR is the fulfilment of Our Lady’s promises and the hope of world
peace?[49]
]
BUT ISN’T HE INFALLIBLE
WHEN IMPOSING TEACHING ON THE CHURCH? e.g. the teaching understood by
the new Code of Canon Law? The Pope is infallible primarily in matters
of faith and morals, and secondarily in discipline (legislation for the
Universal Church, canonisations etc.) to the extent that these imply faith
and morals (cf P 4), if imposing for all time definitive teaching.
But the infallible
implies the immutable and irreformable (P 6).
Now, the hallmark
of the Conciliar Popes, like the modernists,[50]
is a spirit of evolution .[51]
To what extent can such minds want irreformably to define or absolutely
to impose? “They cannot” (Archbishop Lefebvre, Econe, June 12 1984). Cf
n 73.
For Pope John-Paul
II, this is evident:
i)
by his understanding of his own authority as presented in Ut Unum
Sint (25/5/95): after summarising the traditional teaching on the Petrine
Office (§§90-94) he goes on (§95) to wonder how to exercise the primacy
in the new situation of recognition of other Christians as in partial communion
with the Catholic Church; how it may “accomplish a service of love recognised
by all” (ibid.); and whether we couldn’t get together with non-Catholics
to learn from them on this score (§96).
ii)
by his own understanding of Ordinatio Sacerdotalis (22/5/94): here,
on a matter of faith & not just discipline, the Pope condemns solemnly
the error of “women priests”. His letter has all the qualities of an ex
cathedra definition.
But he won’t recognise
it himself as such! - See the on-going controversy and the reply of the
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (28/10/95) that we are dealing
only with the ordinary magisterium (“in itself not infallible” comments
the Observatore Romano (22/11/95 - English Ed. p.2))
iii)
even by his acceptance of the new collegial understanding of authority
(New Code cc. 331, 336).
A Code is
a collection of laws, each one being an order of the competent authority:
each canon in the code of 1917 was a law of Benedict XV, and each canon
in the code of 1983 (commonly now called “the new code”) is a law of John-Paul
II.
Now, for Pope John-Paul
II, the purpose of the New Code is to give expression to the Second
Vatican Council’s new ecclesiology (i.e. the new understanding that
the Church has of her nature and mission) in canonical language, and must
be understood always in the light of Conciliar teaching.[52]
But that Council adulterated Catholic teaching. We must, therefore,
suspect the new legislation of codifying the same errors, and so be ready
not to accept all its “laws”,[53]
but only those which do not evidently compromise Catholic teaching on faith
or morals.
[For the most
part, we may regret the loss of clarity, precision & integrity the
Old Code had, but that is insufficient reason to reject altogether these
canons.]
a)
can. 844§4 allows the administration of penance, anointing
of the sick and even holy communion
to non-Catholics who manifest “Catholic faith” (vs P7) in these
sacraments. This used to be considered a MORTAL SIN and was gravely forbidden
[CIC(1917) c731§2] because it implicitly denies the dogma “Outside the
Church, no salvation”(P2).
This is an inadmissible
surrender to modernist ecumenism.
b)
can. 1055§1 no longer defines marriage by its primary end,
the procreation of children, but mentions this only after a secondary end,
the good of the spouses. And this latter, as we can see in the light of
the annulments now given, has become the ESSENCE[54]
of marriage: the partners give each other their whole selves (and not just
“the exclusive and perpetual right over the body of the partner as regards
acts capable in themselves of generating offspring” CIC(1917) c1081 §2)
for their selffulfillment in wedlock (c1057 §2). There is considered to
be no marriage where one spouse cannot provide the other with this help
(c1095 2°
& 3°,
c1098, etc. Cf c1063 4°).
Whence today’s annulments’ fiasco: in the USA, for example, there
were 338 annulments accorded in 1968; but there were 59,030 annulments
accorded in 1992.
The SSPX recognises
no annulments given on non-traditional grounds.
c)
can. 336 codifies the collegiality of Vatican II: the “college
of Bishops”, a twentieth century invention, is now made a permanent subject,
together with the Pope, of supreme and full power over the Universal Church.
A bishop, moreover, participates in this universal jurisdiction
by the mere fact of his consecration (cf c375 §2).[55]
This collegiality tampers with the divine constitution of the Church
(vs P3), derogates from the Pope’s powers and hampers his government of
the Church (against P4), [as well, indeed, as that of the Bishops in their
dioceses.] “Episcopal Conferences” now assume authority, which thus becomes
impersonal and unanswerable.
These are but the
most grave deficiencies; other defective points include:
·
mixed
marriages cc1125, 1127
·
diminution
in censures (excommunication of freemasons, etc.)
·
the teaching
of St. Thomas Aquinas is no longer strictly enjoined in seminaries cc251f
·
general
absolutions are more readily available... cc961-963
·
etc.
In passing, it
is interesting to note that for Pope John-Paul II the 1983 Code has less
weight than a Conciliar constitution.[56]
All of which forces
us to conclude: “The Society of Saint Pius X disagrees profoundly with
the letter and the spirit of this New Code which enshrines the conciliar
views on the Church and the world.”[57]
In virtue of his
ordination, a priest can bless all things and even consecrate bread and
wine in such wise that they become the very Body and Blood of Our Lord
Jesus Christ. But whenever in his ministry he has to deal authoritatively
with people, he needs, over and above the power of Orders, that
of Jurisdiction, which empowers him to judge and rule his flock.
Jurisdiction is necessary, moreover, for the validity itself of the sacraments
of penance and matrimony.
Now, the sacraments
were given by Our Lord as the ordinary and principal means of sanctification
and salvation. The Church,
therefore, whose supreme law is the salvation of souls (c1752),[58]
wants the ready availability of these sacraments, and especially
penance (c968). The Church
wants priests (c1026) and empowers them liberally to hear confessions (c967
§2). This jurisdiction to hear confessions is to be revoked only for a
grave reason (c974 §1).
Jurisdiction is
ordinarily given by
mandate from the Pope or diocesan Bishop, or perhaps delegated by the Parish
Priest. [The priests of the Society of St. Pius X do not have jurisdiction
in this way.] Extraordinarily, however, the Church supplies
jurisdiction without passing by the constituted authorities.
This is foreseen
in the Code:
·
when the
faithful think that the priest has a jurisdiction that he hasn’t [c 144]
·
when there
is a probable and positive doubt that the priest has jurisdiction [c 144]
·
when the
penitent is in danger of death, then any priests, no matter how censured,
may absolve & even if an approved priest is at hand [c 976]
·
etc.
Now, SSPX priests
may and do use habitually the supplied jurisdiction foreseen by common
error and positive & probable doubt (c 144), and that provided for
in danger of death too.[59]
It is more important
to understand the principle of supplied jurisdiction, for the Code may
have been able to foresee certain exceptional cases, but it could not foresee
the Crisis in the Church we are living through.
The Church, wanting the ready availability of penance as She does,
extraordinarily supplies jurisdiction in view of the needs of her children,
and She grants it all the more liberally the greater their need. Why, “for
any just cause whatsoever”
(c1335) the faithful may ask even a suspended priest to hear their
confession, which he will then do validly and licitly.
And so when a priest
has been denied ordinary jurisdiction (vs the ready availability of penance)
for the sole “crime” of fidelity to the Church of all time, and the faithful
on good grounds feel it morally impossible to approach a priest who does
have ordinary jurisdiction, then they can ask for the graces of the sacrament
from a priest whose judgment and advice they can trust (cf P10c); and for
that case he is granted jurisdiction.
Jurisdiction
for marriages
is provided for in c1116 §1:
if the couple can not approach their parish priest “without serious inconvenience”
- and they may consider such his insistiing on having the New Mass for the
wedding, let alone their apprehensions
of his moral teaching in marriage instructions - and if they forsee these
circumstances to last for a month, they can marry before witnesses alone,
and another preist (e.g. of the SSPX) who “must be called upon” if available
(c1116 §2).
Even if one were
to consider the above argument as only probable, then jurisdiction would
still certainly be supplied by the Church - c144.
And so we answer affirmatively: traditional priests do have jurisdiction
that is neither territorial nor personal, but supplied in view of the
needs of the faithful.
Q10
CAN WE ATTEND THE INDULT MASS?[60]
The SSPX could
never profit by Rome’s Indult:
But other priests
have profited by it, some jumping at the chance to say the traditional
Latin Mass, others only because requested by their Bishop, and the odd
one or two who would always say the Old Mass anyway but have accepted to
do so under the auspices of the Indult “for pastoral reasons”.
If we have to
agree to
the doctrinal and juridical value of the Novus Ordo Mass then
NO, for we cannot do evil that good may ensue.
[But beware this
condition may not presented explicitly, but by implication such as:
·
by a priest
using Novus Ordo ways e.g.
·
using
a ciborium consecrated at the NOM,
·
or communion
in the hand,
·
or the
new lectionaries,
·
or Mass
facing the people
(and for that matter,
with what rite was he ordained)
·
by sermons
that are modernist in inspiration (much to be feared if the celebrant
habitually says the NOM).
·
by offering
only the revised forms of the other sacraments
e.g. penance]
This brings up the
whole context of the Indult Mass:
It is
- a ploy to keep people away from the Society of St. Pius X (many
Bishops allow it only where there is a SSPX Mass centre);
·
for those
who feel attached to the Latin Mass, but accept the doctrinal rectitude
and juridical right of the NOM, Vatican II & all corresponding official
post-Conciliar orientations.
Therefore, attending
it, because of the priest’s words or fellow Massgoers’ pressure, or
because of the need to pander to the local Bishop just to have it, inevitably
pushes one to keep quiet on “divisive issues” and distance oneself from
those who do not keep quiet i.e. it pushes one to join the ranks of
those who are destroying the Church. This one cannot do. (cf also Q
13)
The Indult Mass,
therefore, is not for traditional Catholics.
[with
the exception of the case of those priests who happen to be saying the
Old
Mass under the Indult or with a Roman “celebret”,[61]
but would be saying it
anyway if these were denied them.]
Q11
WASN’T ARCHBISHOP LEFEBVRE EXCOMMUNICATED FOR
CONSECRATING BISHOPS
UNLAWFULLY?
19/4/87
and announces that he will do so even without the Pope’s permission.
17/6/88
Cardinal Gantin, Prefect of
the Congregation for Bishops, officially warned the
Archbishop that, in virtue of canon 1382, he and the bishops consecrated
by him would be
excommunicated (because proceeding without pontifical
mandate and thereby infringing
the laws of sacred discipline.)
30/6/88
Archbishop Lefebvre, together with Bishop de Castro Mayer, consecrated
four bishops.
1/7/88
Cardinal Gantin
declared the exconmunication threatened according
to
canon 1382. [He also calls
the consecrations a schismatical act and declares
the corresponding excommunication (c.1364 §1), as well as threatening
anyone
supporting the consecrations with excommunication because of schism.
2/7/88
In Ecclesia Dei
Afflicta, the Pope repeats Cardinal Gantin’s accusation of
schism and threats of generalised excommunications.
see Q12.]
Now, the exconmunication
warned of on 17th June for abuse of episcopal powers (c.1382)
was not incurred because:
1)
A person who violates a law out of necessity[62]
is not subject to a penalty c1323
4º.
Even if there is
no state of necessity ,[63]
- if one inculpably thought there was, hhe would not incur the penalty
(c1323 7º),
and even if one culpably thought there was, he would still incur no automatic
penalties[64]
(c1324 §3 & §1 8°)
2)
No penalty is ever incurred without committing a subjectively imputable
mortal sin (c1321 §1, c1323 7°),
Now, Archbishop Lefebvre made it amply clear that he thought he was bound
in conscience to do what he could do to continue the Catholic priesthood
and that he was obeying God in going ahead with the consecrations.[65]
3)
Most importantly, positive law is at the service of the natural
and eternal law, ecclesiastical law at that of the divine law (P8).
No “authority” (P9) can force a bishop to compromise in his teaching
of Catholic faith or administering of Catholic sacraments; no “law” (P9)
can force him to cooperate in the destruction of the Church. Rome giving
no guarantee of preserving Catholic tradition (i.e. “Catholicism”), the
Archbishop had to do what he could with his God-given episcopal powers
to guarantee its preservation.
4)
The Church, by approving the SSPX (Q2), approved what it needs for
its own survival. This includes firstly, as indeed for the whole Church,
the service of bishops who will certainly maintain Catholic tradition.
Was Archbishop Lefebvre
(along with his co-consecrator and the four bishops consecrated) excommunicated
also[66]
for having done a “schismatic act”?
NO.
A first argument is that already given (Q 11 1°).
·
Not the
mere deed of consecrating bishops without pontifical mandate - the Code
itself lists this offence under Title 3 (abuse of ecclesiastical powers)
and not under Title
1 (offences against religion and the unity of the Church) of its penal
section
(Book 6).
-Nor
to consecrate against the express wish of the Holy Father - that could
amount at
most to disobedience.[67]
But disobedience does not amount to schism, which
requires not recognising the authority itself commanding,
whereas
disobedience consists in not obeying a command, while still acknowledging
the authority of the one commanding. “The child who says ‘I won’t!’
to his
mother does not deny that she is his mother.”[68]
Now,
Archbishop Lefebvre always recognised the Pope’s authority (proved by
his consultations with Rome for a solution to current problems)
and so does the
Society of St. Pius X (see, for example, its support for John-Paul’s
“Ordinatio
Sacerdotalis” against women priests).
Consecrating a bishop
without pontifical mandate would be a schismatic act if one pretended
to confer not just the fulness of the priesthood but also jurisdiction
ie. a governing power over a particular flock. Only the Pope, who has universal
jurisdiction over the whole Church (P4), can appoint a pastor to a flock
and empower him to govern it. But Archbishop Lefebvre never presumed to
confer anything but the full priestly powers of Orders, and in no way did
he grant any jurisdiction (which he himself didn’t even have personally
- cf Q9).
[But with the
new COLLEGIALITY, however, Rome now understands jurisdiction to be conferred
with episcopal consecration and no longer by pontifical mission (c375 §2)
- cf Q8.> This innovation,
contradicting the Church’s 2000 year understanding of what Christ wanted
for His Church, is at the root of calling the consecrations of 30th
June “schismatic”. It is rather
breaking with the Church’s understanding of her own constitution that must
be called schismatic, and not the consecrations.]
As for the FAITHFUL,
threatened by Pope John-Paul II himself with excommunication if they adhere
formally to the schism (Ecclesia Dei Afflicta - 2nd July, 1988),
do they indeed incur any excommunications for going to SSPX priests
for the sacraments?
Not at all.
The Society of St.
Pius X priests are neither excommunicated nor schismatics[69];
so how so any faithful who approach them?
Besides, “Excommunication
is a penalty for those who commit certain crimes with full moral guilt,
not a contagious disease!”[70]
On 1st
May, 1991, Bishop Ferrario of Hawaii “excommunicated” certain Catholics
of his diocese for attending SSPX Masses and receiving a new Society Bishop
for confirmations. Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect of the Congregation for
the Doctrine of the Faith, overturned this decision:
“From the examination
of the case... it did not result that the facts referred to
in the above-mentioned decree, are formal schismatic acts in the
strict sense, as they do not constitute the offense of schism; and therefore
the Congregation holds that
the decree of May 1, 1991 lacks foundation and hence validity.”
(June 28, 1993).
Since the introduction
of the new sacramental rites, Rome had allowed no Society or Congregation
exclusive use of the older ones. Then on the 30th June 1988
Archbishop Lefebvre consecrated four bishops to ensure the survival of
the traditional priesthood and sacraments, and especially of the Old Mass.
Suddenly, within two days, Pope John-Paul II recognised[71]
the “rightful aspirations” for these things (of those who would not support
the Archbishop’s stance) and proceeded to give them what he had always
refused His Grace. A
dozen or so priests of the SSPX accepted this “good will” and broke away
to found the Society of St. Peter.
One can deduce, therefore,
the MORE THAN QUESTIONABLE PRINCIPLES (which not even their members would
accept when so spelled out to them, we trust) UPON WHICH THE SOCIETY OF
ST. PETER IS FOUNDED:
a)
the Conciliar Church[72]
is the Catholic Church (whereas it is so only to the extent that it is
the same Church as the pre-Conciliar Church)[73]
b)
the Pope can excommunicate a bishop who just does what he can to
perpetuate an orthodox episcopacy, knowing Rome gives no guarantee of that.[74]
c)
the Conciliar Church has the power:
·
to take
away the Mass of all time (for the NOM is not another form of this -
Q5)
·
to grant
it to those only who accept the same Conciliar Church’s novel orientations
(in life, belief, structures)
- to declare non-Catholics
those who deny this by word or deed[75]
d)
a Church, which professes[76]
itself in communion with anyone calling himself
“Christian”, can declare itself out of
communion with Catholics (whose sole crime is wanting to remain
Catholics) and remain Catholic itself(!)
And so in practice,
the priests of the Society of St. Peter having to have recourse to any
Novus Ordo bishop willing to perform the traditional rites for them, they
are forced to abandon the fight against the new religion being installed:
a)
they reject the Novus Ordo Missae only because it is not their “spirituality”,
and claim the traditional Latin Mass only in virtue of their “charism”
acknowledged them by the Pope.
b)
they seek to ingratiate themselves with the local bishops praising
them for their least sign of Catholic spirit and keeping quiet[77]
on their modernist deviations, even though by doing the one and the other
they end up encouraging them along their wrong path.
c)
note, for example, the Society of St. Peter’s wholehearted acceptance
of the 1992 Catechism of the Catholic Church (Q14), acceptance of Novus
Ordo professors in their seminaries, and blanket acceptance of the orthodoxy
of the Second Vatican Council (Q6).
This being so, attending
their Mass is:
·
accepting
the compromise on which they are based,
·
accepting
the direction taken by the Conciliar Church and the consequent
destruction of the Catholic Faith and practice,
·
accepting,
in particular, the lawfulness and doctrinal soundness of the New Mass
and Vatican II.
That is why a Catholic
may not attend their Masses (just as it was never lawful to attend those
of schismatics, however ‘holy’ they be otherwise.)
Q14
WHAT ARE WE TO THINK OF THE “CATECHISM OF THE
CATHOLIC CHURCH” (1992)?
This question illustrates
the fundamental differences between the Society of St. Pius X and the conciliar
“traditionalists”, or conservatives.
These latter are often seen defending the Latin Mass and this New
Catechism, but not openly attacking either the New Mass or Vatican II,
while 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.
Conservatives
defend the
Catechism of the Catholic Church for its re-affirmation of teachings silenced
or denied by outrightly modernist catechisms; the Society of St. Pius
X rejects it though because it is an attempt TO FORMALISE AND PROPAGATE
THE TEACHINGS OF VATICAN II. Pope JohnPaul II agrees with this: “The catechism
was also[78]
indispensable, in order that all the richness of the teaching of the Church
following the Second Vatican Council could be preserved in a new synthesis
and be given a new direction.”[79]
One need but consider the 806 quotes from Vatican II, which amounts
on average to one citation every three-and-a-half paragraphs throughout
the 2,865 paragraphs of the Catechism.
In particular, the
Vatican II novelties appear in the following paragraphs:
a)
an infatuation with the dignity of man (§§225, 369, 1700,
1929,...)
·
ALL the
baptised §§1682f
·
even non-Catholics
§818
·
or those
who commit suicide §2283
·
and of
all the UNBAPTISED, - whether
adults §847
·
or infants
§1261;
[including that of
religious liberty §§2106ff]
iii) and such as
to be the motive of all morality §§1706, 1881, 2354, 2402,
2407 ...
b)
a commitment to ecumenism §§820f, 1399, 1401
because all religions
are instruments of salvation §§819, 838-843, 2104
c)
collegiality §§879-885
d)
over-emphasis on the priesthood of the faithful §§873, 1547, 1140f
Now, just as he who
denies but one article of faith loses the faith (cf P7), so a teaching
authority that errs on one point alone proves itself fallible and renders
all it teaches questionable. Just as the Second Vatican Council is not
an authority to quote even where it propounds Catholic teaching (because
this is not known as such by the authority of this Council which also taught
falsehood, but by that of its predecessors), so this Catechism is
not an authority of Catholic belief because of the modern deviations it
encompasses.
Before the scandal
of a Pope who can sign Dignitatis Humanae, radically change the liturgy
of the Mass, codify a new ecclesiology, or make himself the protagonist
for an aberrant ecumenism, etc., some have concluded that the last Popes
cannot have been true Popes, or else lost the pontificate because of such
scandals. They refer to the discussions of the great counter-Reformation
theologians on the loss of the pontificate (through abdication,
insanity, heresy, etc.) and argue thus:
He who is not a member
of the Church, cannot be its head. But a heretic is not a member of the
Church. Now, (John XXIII), Paul VI, John-Paul I & John-Paul II are
heretics. Therefore, they are neither members nor head of the Church. And
so all their acts are to be completely ignored.
[But then again,
the argument continues, the same scandals are true of all the world’s diocesan
bishops, who are also consequently non-members without authority; and the
Catholic Church must be identified cnly with those who have not compromised
their faith and refuse communion with these “Popes” or “Bishops”.
A minority of
these will elect their own “Pope”.[80]
]
The argument’s
strength is
in the real scandal of the conciliar authorities’ impetus given to the
Church’s “new direction”; its weakness is in not being able to prove
that ANY of these authorities are FORMAL heretics.
One would be a “material”
heretic if one were to contradict (objectively)
what God has said;
One would be a “formal”
heretic if one were to do that PERTINACIOUSLY i.e.
knowing that one
was denying God’s word, & wanting it anyway.
Now, the ordinary
way for the Church to ascertain pertinacity (and thence enforce
the social consequences for one’s heresy: 1°
excommunication, 2°
loss of office...) is through authoritative monitions[81]
to the delinquent which he spurns (c.2314 §1)[82]
But nobody can
authoritatively admonish the Pope (c.1556)
(and the bishops
can only be so admonished by their superior, the
Pope (c.1557),
who hasn’t done so.)
Q: But could pertinacity
not be presumed from the insistence of these Popes on the new ways, and
this in the face of all tradition and its present day witnesses?
A: Perhaps; but
not socially i.e. as regards loss of office, etc., which, if societies
are not to collapse, must not be only presumed but also proven.
The argument
does not prove its point, and becomes less probable when you consider
that it is not the only explanation for the “material heretic & still
Pope” question (a); and it becames quite improbable when
you consider its dangers (b) or consequences (c).
(a)
The LIBERAL MIND-SET of a Paul VI or a John-Paul II can explain
their wanting to be Catholics and simultaneous betrayal in practice of
Catholicism. They accept contradictions;
with a subjective and evolutive mentality, this is to be expected.[83]
But such a frame of mind can be convinced of heresy only by way
of authority...
(b)
The Church is INDEFECTIBLE (P3) not only in her faith and means
of sanctification, but also in her monarchical constitution (P4), comprising
governing power i.e. jurisdiction - hence Vatican I’s profession that Peter
will have perpetual successors.
Now, we can understand
a break in the line of the Popes from the death of one to the election
of the next, and that it may drag on [from 304 (St. Marcellinus) to 307
(St. Marcellus I) is the longest we know of.]
But is indefectibility
preserved if there be no Pope since 1962/ 1958 (or 1955, if you’re
talking about liturgical legislation)? Or if there be nobody at all with
ordinary jurisdiction? (Whom can the sedevacantists point out as such?)
The Church is VISIBLE
(P3) and not just a society composed of those who are joined by interior
bonds (state of grace, same faith,...).
And authority
in any society, and the Church too (cf Leo XIII - Satis Cognitum), is a
necessary focal point for the unity of direction and purpose of the society.
(c)
If the Church has not had a Pope since the days of Vatican II, then
there are no more Cardinals legitimately created. But then how is the Church
to get a Pope again, as the current discipline grants only Cardinals the
power to elect a Pope?
[The Church could
have ordained that non-Cardinal “electors of the Pope” be capable of doing
it, but we cannot go by any other way than the current discipline which
ordains that Cardinals elect him.]
[A few “less serious”
sedevacantists hold that he has been/will be directly designated by private
revelation from heaven.]
There are also spiritual
consequences of sedevacantism:
i)
Sedevacantism is a theological opinion, and not a certitude. To
treat it as a certitude leads to condemning with asperity those who disagree
(who from “maybe wrong” become “heretics”);
ii)
and invariably it leads to recognising no spiritual superiors on
earth. Each becomes, in practice,
his own little “pope”, the rule of faith and orthodoxy, judge of the validity
of sacraments,[84]
...
This being so, can
we ASSOCIATE[85]
with them?
·
with those
who realise that sedevacantism is only a theological opinion - yes;
·
with those
who hold it as a theological certitude - if needs be and if that can he
done without pressure to think like them (otherwise - no);
·
with those
who hold it as a truth of faith - no;
·
with those
who set up their own “pope” - definitely not.
“We hold fast, with
all our heart and with all our soul, to Catholic Rome, Guardian of the
Catholic faith and of the traditions necessary to preserve this faith,
to Eternal Rome, Mistress of wisdom and truth.
We refuse, on the
other hand, and have always refused to follow the Rome of neo-Modernist
and neo-Protestant tendencies which were clearly evident in the Second
Vatican Council and, after the Council, in all the reforms which issued
from it.
All these reforms,
indeed, have contributed and are still contributing to the destruction
of the Church, to the ruin of the priesthood, to the abolition of the Sacrifice
of the Mass and of the sacraments, to the disappearance of religious life,
to a naturalist and Teilhardian teaching in universities, seminaries and
catechetics; a teaching derived from Liberalism and Protestantism, many
times condemned by the solemn Magisterium of the Church.
No authority, not
even the highest in the hierarchy, can force us to abandon or diminish
our Catholic faith, so clearly expressed and professed by the Church’s
Magisterium for nineteen centuries.
‘But though we’ says
St. Paul ‘or an angel from heaven preach a gospel to you besides that which
we have preached to you, let him be anathema.’ (Gal. I,8).
Is it not this that
the Holy Father is repeating to us today?[86]
And if we can discern a certain contradiction in his words and deeds,
as well as in those of the dicasteries, well we choose what was always
taught and we turn a deaf ear to the novelties destroying the Church.
It is impossible
to modify profoundly the ‘lex orandi’ without modifying the ‘lex credendi’.
To the New Mass correspond a new catechism, a new priesthood, new seminaries,
a charismatic Pentecostal Church - all things opposed to orthodoxy and
the perennial teaching of the Church.
This Reformation,
born of Liberalism and Modernism, is poisoned through and through; it derives
from heresy and ends in heresy, even if all its acts are not formally heretical.
It is therefore impossible for any conscientious and faithful Catholic
to espouse this Reformation or to submit to it in any way whatsoever.
The only attitude
of faithfulness to the Church and Catholic doctrine, in view of our salvation,
is a categorical refusal to accept this Reformation.
That is why, without
any spirit of rebellion, bitterness or resentment, we pursue our work of
forming priests, with the timeless Magisterium as our guide. We are persuaded
that we can render no greater service to the Holy Catholic Church, to the
Sovereign Pontiff and to posterity.
That is why we hold
firmly to all that has been believed and practised in the faith, morals,
liturgy, teaching of the catechism, formation of the priest and institution
of the Church, by the Church of all time; to all these things as codified
in those books which saw day before the Modernist influence of the Council.
This we shall do until such time that the true light of Tradition dissipates
the darkness obscuring the sky of Eternal Rome,
By doing this, with
the grace of God and the help of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and that of St.
Joseph and St. Pius X, we are assured of remaining faithful to the Roman
Catholic Church and to all the successors of Peter, and of being the ‘fideles
dispensatores mysteriorum Domini Nostri Jesu Christi in Spiritu Sancto
'’
Amen,”
Ludwigg Ott -
Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma - Tan 1974
Trent - The Catechism
of the Council of Trent - Tan 1982
St. Pius X -
The Catechism of Pope St. Pius X - Instauratio Press 1993
Denzinger - The
Sources of Catholic Dogma - Marian House, Powers Lake
(= translation
of 30th edition of Denzinger’s “Enchiridion Symbolorum”)
Archbishop Marcel
Lefebvre - A Bishop Speaks - Angelus 1987
Archbishop Marcel
Lefebvre - Open Letter to Confused Catholics - Angelus 1986
Archbishop Marcel
Lefebvre - They have Uncrowned Him - Angelus 1988
Romano Amerio
- Iota Unum: A Study of Changes in the CCatholic Church in the 20th
Century - Sarto House 1996
Jose Hanu - Vatican
Encounter - Sheed Andrews and McMeel 1978
Michael Davies
- Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre, Part Onee - Angelus 1979
(Various) - Is
Tradition Excommunicated? - Angelus 1993
Francois Pivert
- Schism or Not? The 1988 Episcopal Conssecrations of Archbishop Lefebvre
- Angelus 1995
Francois Laisney
- Archbishop Lefebvre & the Vatican - Angelus 1988
Ralph Wiltgen
- The Rhine Flows into the Tiber - Hawthhorn Books 1967
Archbishop Lefebvre
- I Accuse the Council - Angelus 1982
E. Schillebeeckx
(sic) - Vatican II: The Real Achievement - Sheed & Ward 1967
Michael Davies
- Pope John’s Council - Angelus 1980
Michael Davies
- The Second Vatican Council and Religioous Liberty - Neumann Press 1992
Fr. Pierre-Marie
- Religious Liberty: Is Dignitatis Humannae Compatible with Tradition? -
Pace Print 1994
Franz Schmidberger
- The Catholic Church and Vatican II - AAngelus
Michael Davies
- Pope Paul’s New Mass - Angelus 1980
Rama P. Coomaraswamy
- The Problems with the New Mass - Tan 11990
Anthony Cekada
- The Problems with the Prayers of the MModern Mass - Tan 1991
(Ottaviani etc)-
Roman Theologians take a look at the New Order of Mass: A Sharp Critique
- David Macdonald Ltd. 1970
Daniel Le Roux
- Peter, Lovest Thou Me? - Instauratio PPress 1989
Johannes Dormann
- Pope John-Paul II’s Theological Journeey to the Prayer Meeting of Religions
in Assisi: Part One (From the Second Vatican Council to the Papal Elections)
- Angelus 1994, and Part Two,
Volume One (The “Trinitarian Trilogy”) - Angelus 1996
[1]Bishop
Williamson, The Angelus, May-June 1991, p.2
[2]Also
called in this handbook: “SSPX” or “The Society”
[3]Incardinated
= accepted by the Church as being a cleric of either a diocese or religious
institute. Without incardination
a cleric is a “vagabond” having no right to exercise his orders or ministry.
[4]Mgr.
Lefebvre, Fideliter #59 pp. 68-70
[5]Ibid. p. 67
[6]This
evidence was never produced. A
doubt about the validity of a law excuses from observing it (P.10a).
How much the more does doubt about the authority of the legislator!
[7]Jose
Hanu - Vatican Encounter - Sheed Andrews & McMeel (1978) p. 185 &
191.
[8]Mgr. Lefebvre’s Open Letter to Confused Catholics, p. 145
[9]
cf.
n.3
[10] cf Apologia I Michael Davies p. 136
[11]Also known as the “Novus Ordo Missae”, “NOM”, “New Mass”, “Mass of Paul VI”... the Mass of 1969
[12]Hence Archbishop’s Lefebvre’s expression: “messe bâtarde” “illegitimate Mass”
[13]Jean Guitton (19/12/93) Apropos (17) p. 8f [Christian Order Oct 1994]. Jean Guitton was an intimate friend of Paul VI who had 116 of his books and had made marginal study notes in 17 of them.
[14]Michael Davies Pope Paul’s New Mass (Angelus Press 1980) p.137 (cf p.149)
[15]A. Bugnini La Riforma Liturgica (Centro Liturgico Vincenziano 1983)
[16]cf. Fr. Laisney, Angelus 1997, p.35
[17] It is known, moreover, that Paul VI signed the Institutio Generalis without reading it and without ensuring that it had been checked out by the Holy Office.
[18]Open Letter to Confused Catholics (Mgr Lefebvre) p. 36
[19]Archbishop Lefebvre himself preferred to avoid the term “intrinsically evil” because it does lend itself to misrepresentation. Cf.. CATHOLIC Nov. 1996. p.6
[20] Let us remember that a pope, unless just repeating what has been taught "always, everywhere and by all", engages his infallibility when teaching on faith or morals (or legislating on what is necessarily connected with them) with full pontifical authority and definitively (cf Vatican I, Dz 1839). But as regards the New Order of Mass, Pope Paul VI has stated (19/11/69): "...the rite and its related rubric are not in themselves a dogmatic definition. They are capable of various theological qualifications, depending on the liturgical context to which they relate. They are gestures and terms relating to a lived and living religious action which involves the ineffable mystery of God's presence; it is an action that is not always carried out in the exact same form, an action that only theological analysis can examine and express in doctrinal formulas that are logically satisfying."
[21]The Vatican II documents are referred to by their initial Latin words as are papal encyclicals.
[22]How Rome's guidelines are further interpreted as seen in the parishes is an entirely different story
[23] Sacrosanctum Concilium
[24]Unitatis Redintegratio
[25]Does this affect the "substance of the sacraments" over which the Church has no power (cf Pius XII quoted in P5 above)
[26] Ibid
[27]ibid.
[28]Lumen Gentium
[29]Ut Unum Sint: Pope John-Paul II - 25/5/1995
[30]Cf The Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church (sic) - Balamand, Lebanon - June 17-24, '93
[31]Optatam Totius
[32]Gaudium et Spes
[33]Gaudium et Spes
[34]Dignitatis
Humanae
[35]Ad Gentes
[36]Nostra Ætate
[37]Archbishop Lefebvre’s Declaration Appendix I
[38]"...Pope John-Paul II makes not Holy Scripture, but rather Assisi, the shibboleth for the correct 'understanding of the Council"' Dormann, Part I, p 46 (Appendix II)
[39]Cf
the declaration of the Theological commission of March 6 1964 & repeated
by the Council's General Secretary on Nov 16 1964: “In view of conciliar
practice and the pastoral purpose of the present Council, this sacred Synod
defines matters on faith or morals as binding on the Church only when the
Synod itself openly declares so”.
And it never did.
[40]Eglise
et Contre-Eglise pp. 255-285 Courrier de Rome, 1996
[41]ibid.
pp. 287-325
[42]ibid.
pp. 287-325
[43]Acta Apostolicae Sedis (LXX) p. 920f
[44]Sacrae Disciplinae Leges (25/1/83)
[45]Fidei Depositum (11/10/92
[46]Certain theologians (de Lubac, Von Baltasar, Congar,...) have been named cardinals by John Paul II for the very teachings that saw them admonished by the pre-conciliar magisterium.
[47]By way of example: Redemptor Hominis §§8, 13, 18; Evangelium Vitae §§2, 104; Tertio Millennio Adveniente §4; Sign of contradiction, p. 101f, Karol Wojtyla (Geoffrey Chapman Australia 1979)
[48]Pope John-Paul II's Theological Journey to the Prayer Meeting of Religions in Assisi: Part 1, pp.78-95 (Angelus Press 1994)
[49]Fatima: Tragedy & Triumph, pp.209-217 - Fr. Francois de Marie des Anges Immaculate Heart Press
[50]Pascendi §26
[51] From John XXIII's "aggiornamento" (updating) to John-Paul's "adaptive renewal" [cf Appendix II: Pope John's Council, p.8; Dorman 1, p.15-19]
[52]Sacrae Disciplinae Leges (25/1/83)
[53]cf P.9
[54] vs P5 & P6
[55]This becomes all the more disconcerting when you consider the recognition now given by the Vatican to the Orthodox Bishops. Cf Paul VI: "It is on the heads of the Churches, of their hierarchy, that the obligation rests to guide the Churches along the way that leads to full communion again. They ought to do this by recognising and respecting each other as pastors of that part of the flock of Christ entrusted to them..." (Quoted at Balamand, by the Joint International Commission for the meological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, Final Statement §18. Cf §14; Ut Unum Sint §§50-63.)
[56]Angelus March 1997, p.34
[57]Fr. Ramon Angles - "The Validity of Confessions & Marriages in the Chapels of the Society of Saint Pius X" p.7 (Angelus 1997)
[58]c = canon of the Code of 1983 (used by those who answer Q.9 negatively).
[59]Fr Angles op. cit. (Q.8 n.3) pp. 9-18
[60]The Old Mass as allowed by “Quattuor Abhinc Annos” (1984) & “Ecclesia Dei Afflicta” (1988)
[61]Permissions
given for the 1962 Missal to priests applying to the Ecclesia Dei Conmission,
in the wake of the 1988 consecration of Bishops by Archbishop Lefebvre
(Qll).
[62] "The state of necessity, as it is explained by jurists, is a state in which the necessary goods for natural or supernatural life are so threatened that one is morally compelled to break the law in order to save them." Is Tradition Excommunicated? p.26 (Appendix II)
[63]And yet objectively there is. Ibid. pp. 27-36
[64]Excommunications for unlawful consecrations (c1382) or for schism (c1364) are of this kind
[65]Cf
the sermon of 30/6/88 - Archbishop Lefebvre & the Vatican p.136 (Appendix
II)
[66]As well as consecrating without a pontifical mandate - Q11
[67]But there is not even disobedience - cf An Open Letter to Confused Catholics p 129-136. Cf "The act of consecrating a bishop (without the Pope's permission) is not in itself a schismatic act." Cardinal Lara, President of the Pontifical Commission for the Authentic Interpretation of Canon Law - in La Repubblica, Oct. 7, 1988
[68]Fr. Glover, in Is Tradition Excommunicated - p99 (Appendix II
[69]Is Tradition Excommunicated? ppl-39 (Appendix II)
[70]Fr. Glover, ibid. p. 100
[71]Ecclesia Dei Afflicta - 2/July/88
[72]A phrase of Mgr. Benelli's (in a letter to Archbishop Lefebvre - 25/6/76)
[73]Cf the Declaration - Appendix I
[74]NB the Society of St. Peter still do not have a bishop of their own
[75]An interpretation of: "Everyone should be aware that formal adherence to the schism (of Mgr. Lefebvre) is a grave offense against God and carries the penalty of excommunication." - Ecclesia Dei Afflicta
[76]Vatican II - e.g. LG §15, UR §3
[77]Unless perhaps it it a question of a diocese where they've no hopes of starting up
[78]ie. as well as the new Code of Canon Law
[79]John-Paul
II, "Crossing the Threshold of Hope" p.l64, Johnathan Cape, London
1994
[80]e.g. the communities at Palmar de Troya, Spain, or St Jovite, Canada.
[81]To have canonical force, they must come from one's superior cf c.2233. [The point is that not only the crime but also its imputability must be notorious - cc2195, 2197]
[82]c = canon of the 1917 Code (Sedevacantists, of course, not recognising that of 1983)
[83]A little example: "At the Second Vatican Council, the Catholic Church committed herself irrevocably to following the path of the ecumenical venture, thus heeding the Spirit of the Lord, who teaches people to interpret carefully the 'signs of the times'." John-Paul II, Ut Unum Sint §3. If it is because of the "signs of the times" that the Conciliar Church has launched herself into ecumenism, how are we to know that the venture will be irrevocable? What does a John-Paul II mean by such absolute terms?
[84]Consider
the argument from Bishop Vezelis, the Schuckardt movement, etc.: It is
said that Cardinal Liénart, who ordained Archbishop Lefebvre a priest and
consecrated him a bishop, was a Freemason, and so all ordinations of His
Grace were invalid; and so we must consider invalid all the sacraments
of those he ordained, & of those they ordained...
WHEREAS:
that Liénart was a Freemason is only the unproven allegation of one writer;
and
Church teaching is that we must accept as valid his sacraments anyway,
if he used the correct external rite (the exception being if he had revealed
a contrary internal intention - which he didn't); and he did;
Marcel Lefebvre, moreover, was consecrated by three Bishops in 1947, which sacrament was surely therefore valid (and note that that would still probably be true even if one were not yet a priest - the fulness of the priesthood including the lower degrees.)
[85]i.e. administer sacraments to them or receive them from them.
[86]A reference to Paul VI's "Credo of the People of God"
| Prayers | FAQ,s | Understanding the Scriptures | Sacred Heart | Links | E-mail |