Concerning Ecumenism

Ravenonthecross said:

I'm probably going to have to suffer through my half-way decent NO masses, rather than go to the SSPX. I think I can wait a while longer, until I can obtain Transportation's to the FSSP's TLM.

Click to expand...

I think that would be the most meritorious path. Patience makes saints. The SSPX was founded on impatience. As St. Robert Bellarmine said: "True patience enables us to bear the misfortune of suffering without incurring the misfortune of sin."

Or, as St. Catherine of Siena says, "Consider that the love of divine charity is so closely joined in the soul with perfect patience, that neither can leave the soul without the other."

and in another place:

"The sign that you have this virtue [of obedience] is patience, and impatience the sign that you have it not, and you will find that this is indeed so, when I speak to you further concerning this virtue...When He returned to Me, rising to Heaven from the conversation of men at the Ascension, He left you this sweet key of obedience; for as you know He left His vicar, the Christ, on earth, whom you are all obliged to obey until death, and whoever is outside His obedience is in a state of damnation, as I have already told you in another place." (and this was a time when the papacy was a mess in general).

Archbishop Lefebrve was commanded to ordain only one bishop--this is not contrary to divine law--and yet he was impatient and so he sinned. He was scared that he would die and the faith would be lost with out additional bishops. He forgot about the will of God and that it is Christ who is the head of the Church. In his haste he forgot that when we act through the lawful channels God will make sure the right end will work its way out--even if this may take time (requiring additional patience). If Archbishop Lefebrve would have acted with more patience and mildness, showing forth the fire of charity--because as St. Pius X said, "charity wearies not with waiting"--things would be in a better state than they are now. There would be fewer excuses to fear traditional movements and the old missal, it wouldn't have the baggage it has now. The bitterness has done more harm than good. It has hardened hearts to the cause, rather than softening them.

Sts. Athanasius and Basil were even persecuted by the Church, but they gave the evil hiearchy and indifferent Pope (at least in the case of Basil) no reason to place them in a negative light--Athanasius was unjustly excommunicated, but he never committed any acts that merited that penalty. They bore the persecution patiently, and things worked out as the orthodox believers supplanted the heretical, as new Popes rose to the chair, and as the Holy Spirit did His work.

A different, but no less important story, is that of St. Hippolytus. He was in a similar situation as Archbishop Lefebrve. He was one of the top theologians and bishops of his time--a great success in spreading the faith and defending it. St. Hippolytus also fell into a similar trap. He was dismayed that the Pope (St. Callixtus) was not taking any action against heretics--and in fact seemed to be favoring them. Feeling his way was better, the way he knew was more traditional, he went out and did things on his own. He attracted a great many followers too who are also dismayed with the state of the Roman Church. Glory to God, he repented of that decision and reconciled with Pope St. Pontianus in the salt mines (they were both persecuted by the Romans) and wrote to his followers to reconcile as well. He died a martyr and is counted among the Saints. This fork in the path is still available for those who are on a similar path that St. Hippolytus was on. It takes such incredible humility and patience, that it is surely to be almost supremely sanctifying.

kepha31 said:

Plainswolf, you are dead wrong. It is the Cardinals opinion that the SSPX are not in FORMAL schism, he is NOT saying no schism exists.

Half a schism? Does the canonists opinions appear in any Apostolic Letter or from the Congregation of Bishops, which the SSpx doesn't recognize anyway?

Click to expand...

Cardinal Hoyos does not make such a distinction, he does not say "they are in schism, just not a formal one", he simply says: "One cannot say in correct and exact terms that there is a schism".

Furthermore, other canonists have voiced similar position:

CARDINAL CASTILLO LARA,
President of the Pontifical Commission for the Authentic Interpretation of Canon Law, explained that, "The act of consecrating a bishop (without the Pope's permission) is not in itself a schismatic act" (La Repubblica, October 7, 1988).

COUNT NERI CAPPONI, D.Cn.L., LL.D
The retired Professor of Canon Law at the University of Florence, well-known in Vatican legal circles and accredited to argue cases before Rome's highest juridical body, the Apostolic Signatura, explains that for a schismatic act, it is not enough to merely consecrate a bishop without papal permission. "He must do something more. For instance, had he set up a hierarchy of his own, then it would have been a schismatic act. The fact is that Msgr. Lefebvre said 'I am creating bishops in order that my priestly order can continue. They do not take the place of other bishops. I am not creating a parallel church.' Therefore this act was not, per se, schismatic" (Latin Mass Magazine, May-June 1993)

PROFESSOR GERINGER,
Canon Lawyer at the University of Munich:
"With the Episcopal consecrations, Archbishop Lefebvre was by no means creating a schism."

FR.PATRICK VALDINI,
Dean of the Faculty of Canon Law at the Catholic Institute of Paris said that Archbishop Lefebvre did not commit a schismatic act by the consecrations, for he didn't deny the Pope's primacy. "It is not the consecration of a bishop which creates the schism. What makes the schism is to give the bishop an apostolic mission." Which is something Archbishop Lefebvre never did. (Question de Droit ou de confiance, L'Homme Nouveau, Feb.17, 1988).

kepha31 said:

You mean St. Patrick didn't have a cell phone. It is erroneous to compare St. Patrick with an excommunicated schismatic rebel who, for years, defied the Pope.

Click to expand...

The reason St. Patrick consecrated the bishops he did was due to "grave neccessity" which is also the reason Lefebvre did so. Archbishop Lefebvre, probably the greatest missionary of the 20th century and so highly favored by Pope Pius XII had been promised for several years that he could consecrate a bishop, yet the permission was constantly withdrawn for various reason until finally, in 1988, he was informed his permission to do so was going to be delayed indefinitely. At this time he was also very old and was dying of cancer and witnessing the Church in the throes of the worst crisis it has ever faced, "greater than the Arian crisis of the fourth century" according to Deitrich von Hildebrand, Romano Amerio-(V II Peritus) and others - his enemies in high places (liberals and progressivists) who were all around the Popes and wanted to wait him out.







+

QuantaCura said:

I think that would be the most meritorious path. Patience makes saints. The SSPX was founded on impatience. As St. Robert Bellarmine said: "True patience enables us to bear the misfortune of suffering without incurring the misfortune of sin."

Or, as St. Catherine of Siena says, "Consider that the love of divine charity is so closely joined in the soul with perfect patience, that neither can leave the soul without the other."

and in another place:

"The sign that you have this virtue [of obedience] is patience, and impatience the sign that you have it not, and you will find that this is indeed so, when I speak to you further concerning this virtue...When He returned to Me, rising to Heaven from the conversation of men at the Ascension, He left you this sweet key of obedience; for as you know He left His vicar, the Christ, on earth, whom you are all obliged to obey until death, and whoever is outside His obedience is in a state of damnation, as I have already told you in another place." (and this was a time when the papacy was a mess in general).

Archbishop Lefebrve was commanded to ordain only one bishop--this is not contrary to divine law--and yet he was impatient and so he sinned. He was scared that he would die and the faith would be lost with out additional bishops. He forgot about the will of God and that it is Christ who is the head of the Church. In his haste he forgot that when we act through the lawful channels God will make sure the right end will work its way out--even if this may take time (requiring additional patience). If Archbishop Lefebrve would have acted with more patience and mildness, showing forth the fire of charity--because as St. Pius X said, "charity wearies not with waiting"--things would be in a better state than they are now. There would be fewer excuses to fear traditional movements and the old missal, it wouldn't have the baggage it has now. The bitterness has done more harm than good. It has hardened hearts to the cause, rather than softening them.

Sts. Athanasius and Basil were even persecuted by the Church, but they gave the evil hiearchy and indifferent Pope (at least in the case of Basil) no reason to place them in a negative light--Athanasius was unjustly excommunicated, but he never committed any acts that merited that penalty. They bore the persecution patiently, and things worked out as the orthodox believers supplanted the heretical, as new Popes rose to the chair, and as the Holy Spirit did His work.

A different, but no less important story, is that of St. Hippolytus. He was in a similar situation as Archbishop Lefebrve. He was one of the top theologians and bishops of his time--a great success in spreading the faith and defending it. St. Hippolytus also fell into a similar trap. He was dismayed that the Pope (St. Callixtus) was not taking any action against heretics--and in fact seemed to be favoring them. Feeling his way was better, the way he knew was more traditional, he went out and did things on his own. He attracted a great many followers too who are also dismayed with the state of the Roman Church. Glory to God, he repented of that decision and reconciled with Pope St. Pontianus in the salt mines (they were both persecuted by the Romans) and wrote to his followers to reconcile as well. He died a martyr and is counted among the Saints. This fork in the path is still available for those who are on a similar path that St. Hippolytus was on. It takes such incredible humility and patience, that it is surely to be almost supremely sanctifying.

Click to expand...

I'll agree he's probably better off going to the FSSP Mass, but as for the rest.

You might want to include St. Athanasius in your quotes also



+



+

Archbishop Lefebrve was commanded to ordain only one bishop--this is not contrary to divine law--and yet he was impatient and so he sinned. He was scared that he would die and the faith would be lost with out additional bishops. He forgot about the will of God and that it is Christ who is the head of the Church. In his haste he forgot that when we act through the lawful channels God will make sure the right end will work its way out--even if this may take time (requiring additional patience). If Archbishop Lefebrve would have acted with more patience and mildness, showing forth the fire of charity--because as St. Pius X said, "charity wearies not with waiting"--things would be in a better state than they are now. There would be fewer excuses to fear traditional movements and the old missal, it wouldn't have the baggage it has now. The bitterness has done more harm than good. It has hardened hearts to the cause, rather than softening them.

Click to expand...

This is all conjecture. Msgr. Lefebvre (of happy memory) did not forget about the will of God. Rather he believed that God requires human cooperation for his purposes.

Yes, God could raise up his Church again, even if every Bishop on the planet were an apostate. But on what basis does that necessitate that God would will such a thing? Msgr. Lefebvre said at the ordinations in 88 that he could not in good conscience leave his seminarians as orphans, that he would be failing in his duties before God, and I absolutely agree with him.

One of the facts you seem to consistently forget is that the FSSPX was unjustly persecuted by the authorities before the ordinations were ever considered. The French Episcopate had been trying to shut down Econe since the early 70s, because all of the French seminaries were fleeing the rot of conciliar France for the oasis of traditional spirituality offered by Msgr. Lefebvre at Econe. Lefebvre was "suspended" for some supposed disobedience to the Pope and the Council, largely because he was being calumnied by members of the Curia. They told the Pope that Lefebvre was having his seminarians sign statements of opposition to the Pope, which was a flat lie.

One of the issues of contention between Rome and the FSSPX was over the Mass. Msgr. Lefebvre always maintained that the true Roman Mass was never abrogated, and that every Roman priest had an unconditional right to continue using the old Missal. Until recently the Roman authorities maintained that priests must have an indult for the old Mass, but now the Pope himself has vindicated the FSSPX, stating in Summorum Pontificum that the old Mass was never abrogated!

I must say that I was personally unsure of whether the FSSPX was right on this issue before the Motu Proprio. I leaned in that direction. It was what my spiritual father told me. And I had some debates with people such as yourself that maintained that the old Mass was unlawful without the indult. And I thought some of the arguments were plausible.

But now we find out that what was hitherto considered a radical traditionalist position, is in fact the reality. The Bishops and religious superiors who attempted to suppress the old Mass had absolutely no right to do so.

Now I wonder what else Rome will determine in the future.

I am convinced that Msgr. Lefebvre was a saint. He preached the love of Jesus Christ and salvation of souls without apology. He was a true shepherd of the flock.

Servus Iesu said:

One of the issues of contention between Rome and the FSSPX was over the Mass. Msgr. Lefebvre always maintained that the true Roman Mass was never abrogated, and that every Roman priest had an unconditional right to continue using the old Missal. Until recently the Roman authorities maintained that priests must have an indult for the old Mass, but now the Pope himself has vindicated the FSSPX, stating in Summorum Pontificum that the old Mass was never abrogated!

Click to expand...

When I read the English translation of Summorum Pontificum, reading that the old mass was never abrogated was the thing that really made my jaw drop, and, in some respects, perhaps the most significant thing in the document. I always thought it was fairly obvious that it was abrogated and, obviously, from a traditional Roman Catholic perspective, that would have rendered the SSPX movement fairly clearly "in the wrong" from the perspective of canon law and such.

But with what the Pope wrote, all of the sudden, the SSPX appears, in some respects, to now have been the target of unjust persecution in violation of the church's teachings. Granted, there are still arguments to be made that SSPX does not truly practice traditional Roman Catholicism (Disobedience to the Pope in other matters, illicit consecrations and ordinations, some clergy and members rejecting the authority of an ecumencial council, etc..), but all of the sudden with that one sentence of Summorum Pontificum, their position gets a lot more defensible and a lot better arguments can be made. The Pope just told them they were right on a very key matter which it looked like to most folks they were wrong on.

I think a lot of news outlets missed the real point of the "story", which was, above all else, that sentence, in a lot of respects.

You are very perceptive. The Holy Father's frank admission that the old Mass was never abrogated is the key to the entire document. One could almost miss that it is even in there if they weren't reading closely, and the Pope does not draw out the implications of this admission, but the ramifications are earth-shattering nonetheless. There are Bishops and religious superiors everywhere in the Church who suddenly have egg on their face, yet they don't seem to realize it or care.

My spiritual father uses the old Missal. Before the Motu Proprio was published, he was told several times by his superiors that he was going to have to use the new Missal instead. He told them unambiguously that they had no right and they couldn't stop him from using the old Missal.

Many people would have said that he was disregarding his vow of obedience. But he maintained that Quo Primum was the only permission he needed to offer the Roman Mass of tradition. Now the Roman Pontiff himself has vindicated him 100%. His superiors were abusing their authority.

As I said before, I even personally found plausible at times the arguments that the old Missal was abrogated. Now that the Pope has endorsed a critical position of the FSSPX, isn't it right to wonder whether the Pope may at some point move further toward the Society? Might Rome take a new look at Msgr. Lefebvre himself, and his supposedly disobedient and schismatic acts?

That is the problem with the "More loyal to the Pope than thou" crowd. They have subsituted the doctrine of Vatican I for a kind of papolatry, where everything that proceeds from the mouth of the Pope is an oracle of God.

That isn't Catholicism. Catholicism is an objective set of truths and doctrines about God. The Ecclesiastical authorities exist to serve and safeguard that deposit of faith. They serve the faith, the faith doesn't serve them.

Clearly, we must always have a high degree of deference to the God-imposed authorities of the Church, and we must give them the benefit of the doubt before contradicting them. It is not something to be taken lightly. But God has given us an intellect with which to examine the objective rightfulness or wrongfulness of the words and deeds of the ecclesiastical authorities.

Msgr. Lefebvre kept the light of tradition flickering in the darkness. He did what he did because he believed it was what God required of him, not because he was a renegade intent on setting up a parallel Church. He said at the episcopal consecrations "Far be it from me to make myself some kind of Pope." Lefebvre was a man of the Church and a man of God. Someday I believe it will be widely recognized that he was obedient to the truth, and thus ultimately to the Church.

Servus Iesu said:

Msgr. Lefebvre kept the light of tradition flickering in the darkness. He did what he did because he believed it was what God required of him, not because he was a renegade intent on setting up a parallel Church. He said at the episcopal consecrations "Far be it from me to make myself some kind of Pope." Lefebvre was a man of the Church and a man of God. Someday I believe it will be widely recognized that he was obedient to the truth, and thus ultimately to the Church.

Click to expand...

I would not have thought that a possibility until this recent document was released. Now, though, I would not rule it out. By implying that Archbishop Lefebvre was correct in his fundamental assertion that the mass was never abrogated and that his society thus was within the bounds of the law of the Church by continuing it, it casts everything that followed into a potentially different light. Suddenly, it is not a schism over the refusal to accept an ecumenical council, but potentially could be viewed as a faithful group asserting a privilege which they were justly accorded by the Church and being unfairly denied it by bishops who held mistaken views as to the status of the old missal. It still leaves the issue of the consecrations and ordinations, and certain comments attributed to the Archbishop about the council and so forth, but suddenly the ground for reconciliation looks a lot firmer, because a potential resolution could come with the the admission by the Vatican that significant mistakes were made on both sides.

Fish and Bread said:

I would not have thought that a possibility until this recent document was released. Now, though, I would not rule it out. By implying that Archbishop Lefebvre was correct in his fundamental assertion that the mass was never abrogated and that his society thus was within the bounds of the law of the Church by continuing it, it casts everything that followed into a potentially different light. Suddenly, it is not a schism over the refusal to accept an ecumenical council, but potentially could be viewed as a faithful group asserting a privilege which they were justly accorded by the Church and being unfairly denied it by bishops who held mistaken views as to the status of the old missal. It still leaves the issue of the consecrations and ordinations, and certain comments attributed to the Archbishop about the council and so forth, but suddenly the ground for reconciliation looks a lot firmer, because a potential resolution could come with the the admission by the Vatican that significant mistakes were made on both sides.

Click to expand...

For the SSPX, it's not really about the liturgy (although, that is one complaint). Their issues run much deeper.

Servus Iesus said:

Msgr. Lefebvre kept the light of tradition flickering in the darkness. He did what he did because he believed it was what God required of him, not because he was a renegade intent on setting up a parallel Church. He said at the episcopal consecrations "Far be it from me to make myself some kind of Pope." Lefebvre was a man of the Church and a man of God. Someday I believe it will be widely recognized that he was obedient to the truth, and thus ultimately to the Church.

Click to expand...

Others were and are keeping the light flickering the right way--and Lefebrve and the SSPX were given the opportunity to do the same. What ever he believed, he did essentially set up a parallel Church--the SSPX act completely independent from the Pope and bishops of the Catholic Church (in fact, if you read the letter from the nine priests who would later be expelled from the SSPX and form the SSPV, they make a good case that he and the Society were assuming perogatives and powers reserved to the Roman Pontiff alone--ruling definitively on speculative theological questions, threatening with "excommunication" and eternal damnation those who did not agree woth those judgments, making changes to the liturgy, etc.) No one who does such things sees themselves as in the wrong--they all think they are doing God's will (again, if you read that letter, you will see the same attitude used to create a split with the SSPX). I think others will be recognized one day, but not Lefebrve or his followers. It would set a dangerous standard justifying complete disregard for ecclesiastical authority when a person or group believes it is a time of crisis--I also don't think his writings would pass muster--they have many bitter rants and name-calling that should not be held up for veneration or models of sanctity.

QuantaCura said:

Others were and are keeping the light flickering the right way--and Lefebrve and the SSPX were given the opportunity to do the same. What ever he believed, he did essentially set up a parallel Church--the SSPX act completely independent from the Pope and bishops of the Catholic Church (in fact, if you read the letter from the nine priests who would later be expelled from the SSPX and form the SSPV, they make a good case that he and the Society were assuming perogatives and powers reserved to the Roman Pontiff alone--ruling definitively on speculative theological questions, threatening with "excommunication" and eternal damnation those who did not agree woth those judgments, making changes to the liturgy, etc.) No one who does such things sees themselves as in the wrong--they all think they are doing God's will (again, if you read that letter, you will see the same attitude used to create a split with the SSPX). I think others will be recognized one day, but not Lefebrve or his followers. It would set a dangerous standard justifying complete disregard for ecclesiastical authority when a person or group believes it is a time of crisis--I also don't think his writings would pass muster--they have many bitter rants and name-calling that should not be held up for veneration or models of sanctity.

Click to expand...

Ever read St. Jerome? Against Helvidius is down right vicious in many places. In my reading of the Church Fathers, I've found quite a few passages that make Msgr. Lefebvre look tame in comparison.

I don't believe the FSSPX is perfect. For example, I think it is bogus that they grant anullments. I see no justification or authority for that. But there have been many complicated situations in church history, and they didn't always have cut and dry, black and white, obey and all is well kind of answers.

As for the SSPV, I know that there have been divisions in the Society. One of the FSSPX priests even admitted that in a Q and A. He said that without strong papal leadership, divisions are to be expected. But take a quick survey of the 'official' Church. It cuts both ways.

Ravenonthecross said:

If SSPX is obedient to the Pope and in communion with him, why don't their bishops report to Rome, receive guidance and counsel from the Holy Pontiff, and confer with him as to his wishes. Being as their still "In communion" with the Bishop of Rome, then obedience in all manner of directives and actions must be observed by the FSSPX.

Click to expand...

I understand what you're getting at, but also remember there are many bishops 'within' the Church who disregard papal directives and what the pope says. In this manner there is hardly a difference between them and Lefebvre.

Servus Iesu said:

Ever read St. Jerome? Against Helvidius is down right vicious in many places. In my reading of the Church Fathers, I've found quite a few passages that make Msgr. Lefebvre look tame in comparison.

I don't believe the FSSPX is perfect. For example, I think it is bogus that they grant anullments. I see no justification or authority for that. But there have been many complicated situations in church history, and they didn't always have cut and dry, black and white, obey and all is well kind of answers.

As for the SSPV, I know that there have been divisions in the Society. One of the FSSPX priests even admitted that in a Q and A. He said that without strong papal leadership, divisions are to be expected. But take a quick survey of the 'official' Church. It cuts both ways.

Click to expand...

I quite agree with your analysis. You also touch on a good point, that this is a very unique time in Church history, and as such things done in response to this crisis will not correspond excactly to past periods of crisis. We're charting new territory here, and it will be very interesting to see how history judges this period and the people involved.



+