« Is it possible? | Main | Who controls the family? »
August 29, 2005
First Word
First word on the meeting between the Pope and the head of the St. Pius X Society:
Vatican spokesman Joaquin Navarro-Valls said the meeting between the pope and Monsignor Bernard Fellay, secretary general of the Society of St. Pius X, was held "in a climate of love for the church and a desire to arrive at perfect communion."
"While knowing the difficulties, the desire to proceed by degrees and in reasonable time was shown," Navarro-Valls said in a statement.
Papabile has a bit more, and some comments
Posted by Amy Welborn | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451be0d69e200d8348c907369e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference First Word:
Comments
In theory, I wouldn't be surprised if the excommunication were lifted. Benedict has spoken positively in the past about Paul VI's lifting of the excommunication with Patriarch Athenogoras. Though I believe the Holy See recently confirmed Bishop Bruskewitz's excommunication of all who join the SSPX. It's a tough situation, because unlike the Eastern Churches, the SSPX is Latin and has direct impact on the mostly-Latin Catholic Church. What would be their status in the Church? Could Catholics attend their chapels?
Posted by: Jason at Aug 29, 2005 8:45:45 AM
"Benedict has spoken positively in the past about Paul VI's lifting of the excommunication with Patriarch Athenogoras."
Not at all a valid comparison.
The "lifiting of the anathemas" by Paul VI was merely a symbolic gesture of goodwill, and did nothing to change the schismatic status of the Eastern Orthodox Churches.
Posted by: Eric Giunta at Aug 29, 2005 9:10:53 AM
Eric,
There is no such thing as a "symbolic" lifting of excommunication.
The lifting of the excommunications with Patriarch Athenogoras may not have changed our relational status, but it was a real lifting. If it changed nothing for East and West, then it would not change anything for West and West, except to inaugurate a new push for dialogue.
Posted by: Jason at Aug 29, 2005 9:21:23 AM
Can someone fill in a nonCatholic about what the logical outcomes are to this meeting and why it's important? I'm interested in this because I have never heard about it before, and it seems to be viewed as pretty important, yet I can't sense what that importance might be. If the talks with this group and the Vatican go smoothly, what happens next, and what could be the ultimate outcome? Why is that important to anyone? I ask all these questions in utter ignorance but with a sincere desire to understand what all the fuss is about with these SPXX people. :)
(Amy, I noticed on the SPXX homep age taht there's a church in Fort Wayne affiliated with them -- is that a Catholic church or would it be considered very much not-Catholic)?
Posted by: mtk at Aug 29, 2005 9:49:16 AM
And besides, a lifting of Lefebvre's excommunication would be an admission that Lefebre was right in ordaining bishops against the express forbiddance of Rome. This simply is not the case, from a Catholic position.
The fact that these schismatics would dare to place "conditions" on their reversion to Catholicism shows that they do not currently have the dispositions necessary to reneter the true Church.
I find these rad-trads most damnable . . .
Posted by: Eric Giunta at Aug 29, 2005 9:57:40 AM
. . . insofar as they reject some very key tenets of Catholic ecclesiology while at the same time claiming that they are, in fact, true Catholics.
At least the Protestants and Eastern Orthodox admit they aren't Catholic.
Posted by: Eric Giunta at Aug 29, 2005 9:59:19 AM
MTK,
The Vatican stated in 2002 that it is not a sin to attend Masses at SSPX chapels, as long as your attendance was not for the purpose of separating yourself from communion with the pope. Such masses are indeed Catholic and attendance at such Masses satisfies a Catholic's obligation to attend Sunday Mass. Here is the link: http://www.unavoce.org/articles/2003/perl-011803.htm
Posted by: Bill at Aug 29, 2005 10:03:47 AM
Bill:
Not so.
The particular response in question was made to a particular individual, whose circumstances we simply do not know.
In previous responses, the Church has amde clear, emphatically, that we are not to attend such chapels.
Not to mention that this is in complete accord with the Catholic tradition on this subject . . .
Posted by: Eric Giunta at Aug 29, 2005 10:08:11 AM
Regarding Paul VI and the then-Ecumenical Patriarch - Didn't they only "lift" the excommunications of the folks back at the time of the schism? And if you unanathematize someone who's been dead for centuries, is that more than symbolic?
Posted by: Kevin Miller at Aug 29, 2005 10:12:59 AM
Eric,
The position of the SSPX since 1988 has been that the ordinations of bishops were the result of necessity and that the standard under Canon Law for necessity of ordaining bishops without papal mandate is a subjective one. The SSPX did not and does not purport to confer territorial jursisdiction on any of their bishops, but merely ordained bishops for the purpose of being able to ordain priests (of which they currently have some 450, most ordained since 1988). The SSPX poses no challenge to "Catholic ecclesiology."
Posted by: Bill at Aug 29, 2005 10:13:29 AM
Bill: When the pope himself knows of a situation, and refuses to allow ordinations of bishops in that situation, then it is contrary to Catholic ecclesiology to claim that one is justified by "necessity" (i.e., a Catholic can't appeal to "necessity" over the pope, but rather, only when the pope is unable to intervene). Furthermore, when one rejects Vatican II the way the SSPX does, that is also contrary to Catholic ecclesiology.
Posted by: Kevin Miller at Aug 29, 2005 10:16:35 AM
Eric,
If you have any evidence to back up your extraordinary statement that the Church has made it "clear, emphatically" that Catholics were not to attend SSPX chapels, I'd like to hear about it. Anecdotally, I can tell you that Cardinal Stickler stated at a conference in the mid-1990s that absolutely no one in the Vatican considered it forbidden for Catholics to attend Masses celebrated by SSPX priests.
Posted by: Bill at Aug 29, 2005 10:20:33 AM
Kevin,
I know you are weak on providing substantive responses. (I'm still not sure what exactly you think the development of doctrine was with respect to Dignitatis Humanae and how you reconcile it with prior papal statements.) However, if you really want to delve into this, the "necessity" I'm speaking about deals with the validity of the purported excommunications, which were allegedly incurred automatically by virtue of the disobedient act of ordaining bishops. Without being able to quote chapter and verse, the SSPX claims that Canon Law allows for ordinations without papal mandate in the case of necessity, as subjectively determined by the bishop doing the ordination. Thus, even if Abp Lefebvre was wrong about the existence of an actual necessity, he would not have been automatically excommunicated, so long as he subjectively believed an emergency situation to exist. At this point, I don't think anyone challenges Lefebvre's good faith belief that there was a state of emergency in the Church in 1988 and that he believed he was acting out of necessity. If you doubt any of the foregoing, I'd be happy to do a google search for you.
Posted by: Bill at Aug 29, 2005 10:34:30 AM
Eric,
"In previous responses, the Church has amde clear, emphatically, that we are not to attend such chapels."
Not so. For an official and generally applicable Vatican statement, see
http://www.unavoce.org/articles/2003/perl-011803.htm
"Points 1 and 3 in our letter of 27 September 2002 to this correspondent are accurately reported. His first question was 'Can I fulfill my Sunday obligation by attending a Pius X Mass' and our response was:"
"In the strict sense you may fulfill your Sunday obligation by attending a Mass celebrated by a priest of the Society of St. Pius X."
"His second question was 'Is it a sin for me to attend a Pius X Mass' and we responded stating:"
"2. We have already told you that we cannot recommend your attendance at such a Mass and have explained the reason why. If your primary reason for attending were to manifest your desire to separate yourself from communion with the Roman Pontiff and those in communion with him, it would be a sin. If your intention is simply to participate in a Mass according to the 1962 Missal for the sake of devotion, this would not be a sin."
Posted by: Henry at Aug 29, 2005 10:45:36 AM
So what if a bishop who had a crying need for priests (an impossible situation, of course!) and saw no relief in sight, decided out of necessity to ordain some married men, or even women? He would, of course, believe that he was acting out of necessity. Would that be OK?
Posted by: Jimmy Mac at Aug 29, 2005 10:48:15 AM
The Catholic-Orthodox question is exceedingly complex, and fascinating, but often obscure.
There is a tantalizing question, which -- even to raise it here will raise hackles too -- but it is this: was there, in fact, ever a formal schism? I.e., except for the bull of AD 1054 --the legality and real force of which is in question -- the schism may be understood to have been de facto, arising gradually, over time, but not necessitated either by theological substance or even legal act.
We do know that communicatio in sacris (sharing of sacraments) between East and West continued well after AD 1054, after the Sack of Constantinople, even into the 18th Century. There was waxing and waning, although obviously waning eventually prevailed. The division became much more apparent by the time reconciliation was sought (unsuccessfully) in two ecumenical councils, in AD 1274 and 1439, respectively.
I refer you to Thomas Bokenkotter's account for further consideration. (Yes, I know: "but he's a LIBERAL!" That's an ad hominem, not a refuation.)
Posted by: Septimus at Aug 29, 2005 11:04:26 AM
Bill is correct in the substance of his posts, it is a possible conclusion that Bp. Lefebvre's subjective intent may have prevented an automatic, latae setentiae (sp?) excommunication. It would be different if it were a positive decree of excommunication, ferae sententiae (sp?). I myself haven't decided for myself, in case that matters. What I do know is that he would have been better off to refrain from the ordinations, because it is heady stuff to think that you know better than the Pope. I do believe his intentions were good, but the decision was bad. The only reason for the comment is to further the comments of Bill that it may have an effect on whether he was in fact excommunicated.
Jimmy Mac, Of course, if a validly ordained Bishop ordained a married man, it would be valid, even if illicit. If he attempted to "ordain" a woman, it would of course be invalid, since it is an impossibility to do so. See Ordinatio Sacerdotalis and prior consistent teaching.
MTK, the importance is that if the SSPX is reintegrated, it could provide for a real availability of the Traditional Mass on a widely available basis. If you haven't attended one, you may wish to explore it.
Finally, one thing I don't understand is the hostility that many good and faithful Catholics show to those who are attached to the Traditional Mass. I don't understand how it affects you if you don't go. To lay my cards on the table, I am 37 and a product of Vatican II. I love John Paul. I discovered the Traditional Mass and began attending daily about 4 months ago. It is the most sublime and beautiful thing I have witnessed. It is the way we as Catholics have worshipped for at least 1500 years. As Benedict himself stated, how can that somehow now be wrong? Impossible. If you don't wish to go, you certainly don't have to. Luckily, in St. Louis we have a parish dedicated to the Traditional Rite, so I can avoid the SSPX chapels. Others in the US and elsewhere don't have this option. Please don't be quick to judge them. I sometimes wonder if those attached to the Pauline Rite fear that if the Traditional Rite were allowed side-by-side, that the comparison by Catholics in the pews might be such that the Pauline Rite would be, in time, in danger of dying out.
As the Church moves forward to try to reconcile the Eastern Churches, which are in schism, pray also for the return of the SSPX, which has done much to keep alive the beauty of the Traditional Mass. Note I am not commenting on whether any of their actions have been justified, but only as a nod to the fact that the "indult" Masses are around perhaps because of them.
Posted by: Tim at Aug 29, 2005 11:24:51 AM
Jimmy,
If you are asking what the appropriate Church sanction would be for a bishop who ordained a married man a priest and then ordained him a bishop without papal mandate or for a bishop who purported to ordain a woman, I don't have an answer for you. My point about the SSPX ordinations in 1988 was to show that the stance of the SSPX does not threaten "Catholic ecclesiology." Even if you think that the SSPX was wrong about the existence of necessity and further was wrong about subjective necessity barring automatic excommunication, it should be clear that the SSPX is not trying to set up a counter-Church. A statement by the Church that Lefebvre, Castro Meyer and the four current SSPX bishops are not excommunicated would not pose any ecclesiastical difficulties.
Posted by: Bill at Aug 29, 2005 11:25:32 AM
So what if a bishop who had a crying need for priests (an impossible situation, of course!) and saw no relief in sight, decided out of necessity to ordain some married men, or even women? He would, of course, believe that he was acting out of necessity. Would that be OK?
My understanding is that married men were indeed ordained behind the Iron Curtain (because unmarried men tended to attract suspicion). So yes, out of necessity, married men might be ordained.
Women are not 'fit matter' for the priesthood and hence could not be ordained no matter what the scenario. Of course, one might take the 'state of necessity' into account when contemplating a sanction for a bishop who attempted such a thing.
Posted by: dcs at Aug 29, 2005 11:31:06 AM
The canons you speak of, Bill, simply do not apply to the Lefebvre scenario. See:
http://www.ourladyswarriors.org/articles/lefebvre.htm
By Lefebvrist doctrine, any bishop would be justified in ordaining any bishop without papal approval, so long as he personally felt it was necessary.
This is Modernism at its best.
As for Lefebre's personal, subjective culpability; the facts speak of themselves. He had no excuse, unless he was a retard or otherwise mentally defective.
The more of his writings I read, the more I am inclined to believe this, actually.
Posted by: Eric Giunta at Aug 29, 2005 11:42:21 AM
Tim
"Finally, one thing I don't understand is the hostility that many good and faithful Catholics show to those who are attached to the Traditional Mass."
I doubt its really that many; I would think considerably less than 10% of Catholics in this country are even aware of them (except perhaps vaguely through the Mel Gibson brouhaha a year and a half ago, but I doubt the half-life of that awareness was more than a few hours).
The phenomenon at St Blog's tends to have an echo chamber effect that distorts perceptions. St Blog's steers significantly to the right as compared to average US Catholics (yes, including the not so good or not so faithful ones). I suspect there is a selection bias that means we have an disproportionate number of folks who have experienced the less-than-thrilling attitudes some traditionalists bear towards those who have not embraced their agenda lock, stock and barrel.
So I suspect its more an issue of distorted context rather than reality.
You wanna see spleen, just raise the topic of liturgical music...(please don't, I beg of you).
Posted by: Liam at Aug 29, 2005 11:49:57 AM
Tim:
The Traditional Latin Mass is not the main problem with SSPX and its fellow travelers. Try speaking with any of them about Vatican II's "Declaration on Religious Liberty" or the more recent declaration on the Jews, "Nostra Aetate," and you'll see what I mean. They should be required to take an oath of allegiance to each of these documents before being admitted back into full communion with the Church, much as they would require restoration of the Oath Against Modernism for our liberals.
Posted by: Celine at Aug 29, 2005 12:12:54 PM
Eric,
Leaving aside the question of whether Lefebvre automatically excommunicated himself, the Vatican can lift the excommunication anyway if they are satisfied that the SSPX will be obedient from now on.
The biggest news here is that a universal indult for the celebration of the old Rite, if granted, could have a very widely reaching effect. It would be affirmation to hundreds of priests and tens of thousands of laymen who have been rudely and terribly treated by other priests and Bishops who have lied to them and persecuted them on the basis of their devotion to the old Rite. It would also open the doors to priests introducing a Mass in latin into their parishes without having to get the permission of a recalcitrant Bishop: many bishops won't allow the use of the new Rite in Latin, or strictly limit it (and yes, I KNOW this isn't something they have formal authority to do, but they do it anyway). With no vernacular version of the old Rite available, the recatechesis of the people to a more universal and traditional liturgy could then be allowed to proceed.
Posted by: Mark Wyman at Aug 29, 2005 12:17:17 PM
Celine,
Yeah, that'd be fair -- and are they going to start extracting sworn oaths to uphold Humanae Vitae from all the priests and Bishops in the US, then? Certainly some crazy SSPXers talk wildly and inaccurately about the documents of Vatican II. But among the SSPX Bishops, only Williamson regularly says such crazy things, but he's unlikely to join any reconciliation anyway; the others seem to understand the subtleties involved. Have you read Mortalium Animos, the Encyclical of Pope Pius XI on the subject of religious unity? If not, give it a spin and see if it doesn't leave you grasping for a more unified teaching on the subject. Reject Vatican II? Impossible for any Catholic! Respect the necessity of interpreting its documents in light of the traditional teachings of the Church? Something every Catholic should do!
I've often quoted this here before, but it seems right to do so again: The Second Vatican Council has not been treated as a part of the entire living Tradition of the Church, but as an end of Tradition, a new start from zero. The truth is that this particular Council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council; and yet many treat it as though it had made itself into a sort of superdogma which takes away the importance of all the rest. source: then-Cdl. Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI.
Posted by: Mark Wyman at Aug 29, 2005 12:25:31 PM
Just to entice people to read the entire thing, here's an apposite selection from the above-cited encyclical, Mortalium Animos:
Is it not right, it is often repeated, indeed, even consonant with duty, that all who invoke the name of Christ should abstain from mutual reproaches and at long last be united in mutual charity? Who would dare to say that he loved Christ, unless he worked with all his might to carry out the desires of Him, Who asked His Father that His disciples might be "one."[1] And did not the same Christ will that His disciples should be marked out and distinguished from others by this characteristic, namely that they loved one another: "By this shall all men know that you are my disciples, if you have love one for another"?[2] All Christians, they add, should be as "one": for then they would be much more powerful in driving out the pest of irreligion, which like a serpent daily creeps further and becomes more widely spread, and prepares to rob the Gospel of its strength. These things and others that class of men who are known as pan-Christians continually repeat and amplify; and these men, so far from being quite few and scattered, have increased to the dimensions of an entire class, and have grouped themselves into widely spread societies, most of which are directed by non-Catholics, although they are imbued with varying doctrines concerning the things of faith. This undertaking is so actively promoted as in many places to win for itself the adhesion of a number of citizens, and it even takes possession of the minds of very many Catholics and allures them with the hope of bringing about such a union as would be agreeable to the desires of Holy Mother Church, who has indeed nothing more at heart than to recall her erring sons and to lead them back to her bosom. But in reality beneath these enticing words and blandishments lies hid a most grave error, by which the foundations of the Catholic faith are completely destroyed.
Posted by: Mark Wyman at Aug 29, 2005 12:31:04 PM
