Thursday, April 19, 2012

Possible Reunification of SSPX and the Vatican

There is great hope and optimism that the Society of St. Pius X, which has been separated from the Vatican since 1988, may very well be reunified with Rome in the near future.

The Vatican has confirmed receipt of a positive response from the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) to the “doctrinal preamble” that could form the basis for reconciliation between the traditionalist group and the Holy See. 
The Ecclesia Dei commission, which is responsible for relations with traditionalist Catholics, announced on April 18 that it had received a response from Bishop Bernard Fellay, the SSPX leader. That response will be reviewed by the Ecclesia Dei commission, and by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and then forwarded to Pope Benedict XVI for a final decision that could result in the lifting of suspensions of SSPX bishops.
The Post Vatican II Mass, created in 1969,
is the only Mass known by millions of Catholics
The whole deal could still go south, but it seems the Vatican and the Society are thisclose to a deal that will result in reconciliation.  This is great cause for rejoicing.  I feel that reunification of the Vatican and the SSPX will greatly increase the Church members' spirituality.  Society members are very serious about their religious beliefs, and their traditional practices will introduce millions of post-Vatican II Catholics to the Catholic Church as it was for almost 2000 years before Vatican II.  Many Catholic for the first time will find out just what is truly different about the Catholic Church, what makes her unique and why she is so vital to both the physical and, much more importantly, spiritual salvation of the world.  They will see Catholic tradition in all its beauty and glory.  This is especially important at this time as the Church is coming under attack more and more.  It is imperative that Catholics know what they believe and why in order to stand up under these diabolical attacks.

An SSPX Mass at Lourdes
Here is just one example of the spirituality of the SSPX and what they can accomplish from
The Society of St. Pius X credits Pope Benedict XVI for the motu proprio, and for the lifting of the “excommunications”. Indeed it is probably true that no other cardinal elected to the Papacy in 2005 would have both freed the old Mass and removed the unjust stigma laid upon the SSPX bishops.

But the SSPX primarily credits Our Blessed Mother. The Society organized two Rosary Crusades to which SSPX supporters worldwide responded with generous enthusiasm.

Two and a half million Rosaries were prayed in the first Rosary Crusade for the freeing of the Tridentine Mass. In the second, SSPX supporters offered one million, seven-hundred-three thousand Rosaries in less than two months. These are impressive numbers for those who are a minority in the Church.

The SSPX’s Father David Hewko, in his February 1 homily at Our Lady of the Rosary Chapel in South Buffalo, New York, told the congregation, “Look what Our Lady did through the Rosary in only two years!”
The Lefebvre Family
I think it is very important to know the story behind the Society of St. Pius X.  The founder of the Society was Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.  Marcel Lefebvre was born in Tourcoing, France, November 29, 1905 from a family which gave almost fifty of its members to the Church since 1738, amongst them a cardinal, a few bishops and many priests and religious. After the baptism of her newborn child, Mrs. Lefebvre embraced him and said: "This one will have a great role in Rome, close to the Holy Father." Of her eight children, two became missionary Priests, three girls entered in different religious congregations and the other three founded large Catholic families.  Archbishop LeFebvre was ordained a priest in 1929.  He entered the Holy Ghost Fathers in 1931 and became a missionary to Africa (he was inspired by his brother, who was also a missionary priest), establishing schools and hospitals among his many other works. 

Here is a very brief biography of this most holy man from
Archbishop Lefebvre in Africa
Marcel Lefebvre's (1905-91) career saw him make a meteoric rise through the ranks. At age 42, this missionary priest was appointed bishop in Senegal by Pope Pius XII. One year later, he was named as the Holy See's Apostolic Delegate for French-speaking Africa. In 1962 he was elected Superior General of the 5,000-member Holy Ghost Fathers. Pope John XXIII made him an Assistant to the Papal Throne and a member of the Preparatory Commission for the Second Vatican Council.

In 1968 he felt obliged to resign from his post as Superior General, and on November 1, 1970, he founded the Society of St. Pius X in Econe, Switzerland with canonical approval. He gradually became well-known throughout the world because of his adherence to the "Latin Mass," his opposition to some of the innovations of Vatican II (1962-65), and his disagreements with Pope Paul VI.
After the Vatican sanctioned him and the Society, he celebrated a "forbidden Mass" in Lille, France (1976), before 10,000 Catholics and 400 journalists, an event that brought him and his convictions international status. In 1988 he made headlines again when he consecrated four bishops without the permission of Pope John Paul II.
All Catholics, particularly those attached to the Tridentine Mass, owe a huge debt of gratitude to this man who was so extraordinarily sure of himself only because he was absolutely sure of God.
Archbishop LeFebvre and Padre Pio
So how did this good and holy priest end up being excommunicated by the Church that he so deeply loved and served?  As state above, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre founded the Society of St. Pius X in 1970.  He had actually retired in 1968, but was approached by a group of French seminarians who felt persecuted for their adherence to such things as the Traditional Latin Mass, now called the Extraordinary Form of the Mass.  After a series of events, Archbishop LeFebvre requested to set up his own religious society, and the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X was born.  The SSPX, as it came to be known, was hated by many priests and bishops from its inception, and suffered much persecution.

In 1988, Archbishop Lefebvre became concerned that when he died, the Society would be under the authority of bishops who would not be reliable and orthodox.  So he made the decision to ordain bishops who would be faithful to the Society.  The archbishop was warned that if he did the consecrations, he would be excommunicated. 

From, John Salza writes the following in an article entitled "Was Archbishop Lefebvre Excommunicated?":
Above: "Operation Survival" on June 30th 1988.From left to right: Bishops de Galarreta, Tissier de Mallerais, de Castro Mayer, Archbishop Lefebvre, and Bishops Williamson and Fellay
Now, let’s look at the canonical issues regarding the excommunication of Archbishop Lefebvre and the four bishops (Williamson, de Galarreta,Tissier de Mallerais and Fellay). Lefebvre consecrated the bishops on June 30, 1988, and on July 1, 1988 Cardinal Gantin sent a decree of excommunication to Lefebvre and the other bishops. Lefebvre was accused of consecrating bishops without pontifical mandate in violation of canon 1382, as well as being a schismatic under canon 1364,1 – both of which impose a latae sententiae excommunication for those violations. This means the perpetrator excommunicates himself by virtue of the act; the Church does not excommunicate the offender.

It is true that Archbishop Lefebvre disobeyed Pope John Paul II by consecrating bishops without pontifical mandate in violation of canon 1382. It is also true that John Paul II said that the archbishop excommunicated himself. Because John Paul II was the supreme legislator of the Church, we must presume that his interpretation of the law was accurate and binding. However, that is not the end of the story. First, we know from history that a pope may abuse his authority in excommunicating a Catholic, for example, by making an error in judgment, as was the case with Pope Victor’s excommunication of the Asiatic churches, or being pressured or succumbing to weakness, as was the case of Pope Liberius’ wrongful excommunication of Athanasius, who became a great saint and doctor of the Church. This is not common, but it does happen. The pope’s authority must always be at the service of Tradition.
Second, canon law mitigates or eliminates canonical penalties under certain circumstances. For example, canon 1323,4 provides that one is not liable to a penalty who, when violating a law, “acted under the compulsion of grave fear, even if only relative, or by reason of necessity or grave inconvenience, unless, however, the act is intrinsically evil or tends to be harmful to souls.” As applied here, the Archbishop made it clear in his sermon on June 30, 1988 that he believed he was acting out of necessity in consecrating the bishops to retain the traditional priesthood and Mass which was all but abandoned by the bishops at that time.  
The archbishop was concerned about the Modernism that had ravaged the Church (remember these consecrations took place shortly after the scandalous Assisi prayer meeting) and was genuinely worried that, without traditional bishops, he would have orphaned his seminarians. When one reads his sermon, it is clear that the last thing the archbishop wanted to do was separate himself from Eternal Rome. Of course, the act of consecrating a bishop is not intrinsically evil, nor is it harmful to souls (especially when Lefebvre wasn’t purporting to grant the bishops jurisdiction or set up an ecclesial structure in opposition to the Church).
As we have said, the pope is the supreme legislator of the Church. We also conclude that the pope disagreed with Lefebvre about there being a “reason of necessity” to go forward with the consecrations. Those opposed to Lefebvre’s actions argue that the pope’s judgment that there was no necessity settles the matter. However, canon law regards what is in the mind of the offender, not the pope. Canon 1323,7 says that no one is liable to a penalty who, when violating a law or precept, “thought, through no person fault, that one of the circumstances mentioned (i.e., necessity) existed..” In other words, if Lefebvre (not the pope) “thought, through no personal fault,” that a “reason of necessity” existed to consecrate the four bishops, then he would not incur excommunication under canon 1382.

Can anyone credibly argue that Archbishop Lefebvre did not really think there was a “reason of necessity” or “grave inconvenience” which motivated his consecrations? I don’t think so. I think any honest Catholic would conclude that the archbishop truly believed, “through no personal fault,” that he had a case of necessity or grave inconvenience. But even if one wants to accuse the archbishop of being culpably erroneous in his assessments, canon 1324,1 says that the penalty is diminished for one who (8) “erroneously, but culpably, thought that one of the circumstances [necessity] existed,” and (3) where the penalty is diminished, “the offender is not bound by latae sententiae penalty.” Thus, even if the archbishop was culpably wrong in his assessments, canon 1324 would diminish his canonical penalty to something less than excommunication.

Thus, on a purely canonical basis, I don’t see how the excommunications stick. With this analysis, I mean no disrespect to Pope John Paul II. I am simply applying the law to the facts. Many reputable canon lawyers and theologians have reached this same conclusion. The canon law enacted by John Paul II looks to the mind of the perpetrator in determining whether a “reason of necessity” or “grave inconvenience” mitigates or eliminates a canonical penalty. Archbishop Lefebvre knew canon law. He based his decision to consecrate the four bishops on this law providing for “reason of necessity” and “grave inconvenience.” If Catholics cannot rely upon canon law to govern their actions, then we have an absolute monarchy and not the Catholic Church.
* * * 
It seems very strange to me that when we have heretical priests pushing for women's ordination, abortion, even denying the resurrection of Christ, etc., the one who is picked on and singled out is Archbishop Lefebvre and the Society of St. Pius X.  If not for the SSPX, the Traditional Latin Mass probably would have been completely wiped out, as many tried to do.  But they were the ones who kept it alive and protected it against all those who tried to destroy it, and I firmly believe that one day Archbishop Lefebvre will be declared a saint, after those who persecuted him are long gone and forgotten.

The Church needs the Society of St. Pius X, and they need to be reunified with the rest of the Church.  Since becoming pope, Pope Benedict XVI has worked very hard to bring the Society back into union with the rest of the Catholic Church.  It seems that we are now very close to that actually becoming a reality.  There are many enemies of the Church, both inside and outside, who will try very hard to stop this reunification.  We must pray that they are not successful.  We need each other more than ever as the world descends into an evil abyss. 

The Society of St. Pius X

Sunday, April 15, 2012

Where Did That Health and Wealth Gospel Go?

Jesus appearing to St. Faustina
Today in the contemporary Liturgical Calendar, it is Divine Mercy Sunday, a beautiful day given to us through the diary of St. Faustina, a Polish nun to whom Christ appeared in the 1930's to announce his great message of Divine Mercy.  In her diary, St. Faustina wrote these words of our Lord:
My image already is in your soul. I desire that there be a Feast of Mercy. I want this image, which you will paint with a brush, to be solemnly blessed on the first Sunday after Easter; that Sunday is to be the Feast of Mercy.
This day was instituted by Blessed John Paul II in 2000 when St. Faustina was canonized.  It is a wonderful feast day with many blessings attached to it.
But I am concentrating today on the readings from the Traditional Breviary.  The Gospel for the Traditional Calendar today is from John 20:19-31In this passage, the apostles are hiding out from the Jews in fear of their lives a week after Christ's crucifixion, even though most of them have seen the risen Christ.  One who had not seen the risen Christ at this point was Thomas, Doubting Thomas as we call him.  Christ appears and Thomas now believes and utters those words that lay people still utter at the consecration in the Holy Mass:  "My Lord and My God!"
19 Now when it was late that same day, the first of the week, and the doors were shut, where the disciples were gathered together for fear of the Jews: Jesus came and stood in the midst, and said to them; Peace be to you.

20 And when he had said this, he shewed them his hands, and his side. The disciples, therefore, were glad, when they saw the Lord.

21 He said therefore to them again; Peace be to you. As the Father hath sent me, I also send you.

22 When he had said this, he breathed on them, and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost:

23 Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them: and whose you shall retain, they are retained.

24 Now Thomas, one of the twelve, who is called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came.

25 The other disciples, therefore, said to him; We have seen the Lord. But he said to them; Unless I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the place of the nails, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe.

26 And after eight days, his disciples were again within, and Thomas with them. Jesus cometh, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said; Peace be to you.

27 Then he saith to Thomas; Put in thy finger hither, and see my hands, and bring hither thy hand, and put it into my side: and be not incredulous, but faithful.

28 Thomas answered, and said to him; My Lord, and my God.

29 Jesus saith to him; Because thou hast seen me, Thomas, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and have believed.

30 Many other signs also did Jesus in the sight of his disciples, which are not written in this book.

31 But these are written that you may believe, that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God: and that believing, you may have life in his name.
As we were reminded at the Mass I attended yesterday, this day also marks the institution of the Sacrament of Confession, as noted in verses 22:23:
When he had said this, he breathed on them, and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost:  Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them: and whose you shall retain, they are retained." 

There is yet another lesson from this passage that St. Augustine brought out and which was used in the readings for the Traditional Breviary.   In verse 21, Christ said to the Apostles:
As the Father hath sent me, I also send you.
This is a very short statement packed with tremendous meaning, as was everything Christ said.  St. Augustine gives us an excellent explanation, and it is not in keeping with the world's understanding of what it means to be a Christian:
Christ Instructing Apostles
Then said Jesus unto them again : Peace be unto you ; as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you. That is, As my Father, who is God, hath sent me, who am God, even so do I, who am Man, send you, who are men. The Father sent the Son, whom he appointed to be made man for the redemption of man. Him he willed to send into the world to suffer, albeit this Jesus whom he sent to suffer was the Son whom he loved. And the Lord Jesus sendeth his chosen Apostles into the world, not to be happy in the world, but, as he had been himself sent, to suffer. As the Father loveth the Son and yet sendeth him to suffer, even so doth the Lord love his disciples, albeit he sendeth them unto the world, to suffer therein. And therefore it is well said : As my Father hath sent me, even so send I you. That is, Even though I send you into the wild storm of persecution, I do love you all the same ; yea, I not only do have a love for you ; but I love you with a love like unto that wherewith the Father loveth me, who sent me into the world to bear agony therein.
In our modern world, we are far too often taught that to be a Christian means to enjoy the great physical blessings of God, i.e., health and wealth.  How many times have we heard, God wants you to be happy!  He doesn't want you to live in poverty and suffer.  In fact, if you are not physically blessed, that means you are doing something wrong and you must be a great sinner!  Well, that is not what our Lord said, and not what the great saints of the Church have told us. 

The Grotto at Lourdes
The greatest saints in the Church all suffered in this life.  One prime example is St. Bernadette, the visionary at Lourdes, which is renowned for all those who have been healed there.  Yet, St. Bernadette suffered terribly in her short life.  From a short autobiography of St. Bernadette:
Even from her earliest years at Nevers she had been a victim of a tubercular condition of the right knee, but this developed into an abcess in 1877, which left her in constant and agonizing pain. In 1879 she became much weaker, was hardly able to eat and became quite emaciated. She was also tormented by painful sores on all her limbs. On 28 March she was anointed for the fourth and final time, dying on 16 April.
Her comment was that the healing at Lourdes was for others, not for her. Was she bitter about this? The following are quotes from this beloved saint:
It is so good, so sweet and above all, so beneficial to suffer. 
I'm happier with my crucifix on my bed of pain than a queen on her throne. 
O Jesus and Mary, let my entire consolation in this world be to love you and to suffer for sinners. 
O Jesus, I would rather die a thousand deaths than be unfaithful to you! 
I must die to myself continually and accept trials without complaining. I work, I suffer and I love with no other witness than his heart. Anyone who is not prepared to suffer all for the Beloved and to do his will in all things is not worthy of the sweet name of Friend, for here below, Love without suffering does not exist.

I shall spend every moment loving. One who loves does not notice her trials; or perhaps more accurately, she is able to love them. 
O my Mother, to you I sacrifice all other attachments so that my heart may belong entirely to you and to my Jesus. 
I shall do everything for Heaven, my true home. There I shall find my Mother in all the splendor of her glory. I shall delight with her in the joy of Jesus himself in perfect safety. 
From this moment on, anything concerning me is no longer of any interest to me. I must belong entirely to God and God alone. Never to myself.
Are we willing to suffer for the Kingdom of God?  There is no easy road to heaven.  Our Lord was the example for us, just as St. Augustine wrote:
The Father sent the Son, whom he appointed to be made man for the redemption of man. Him he willed to send into the world to suffer, albeit this Jesus whom he sent to suffer was the Son whom he loved. And the Lord Jesus sendeth his chosen Apostles into the world, not to be happy in the world, but, as he had been himself sent, to suffer.
Our first Pope wrote in I Peter 2:21-23:
For to this you have been called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving you an example that you should follow his steps.  Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth:  Who when he was reviled, did not revile: when he suffered, he threatened not: but delivered himself to him that judged him unjustly. 
And in I Peter 4:12-13:
Dearly beloved, think not strange the burning heat which is to try you, as if some new thing happened to you: But partaking of the sufferings of Christ, rejoice that also in the revelation of his glory ye may rejoice with exultation.
Let us take up our Crosses, rejoicing and thanking Our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ, as we follow him into the Kingdom of Heaven.

Related Posts  0