|
Post by hibernicus on Mar 18, 2010 12:20:49 GMT
Hylothdaye: a fair enough post and here are some replies: (1) You don't seem to get the point about the Athanasius comparison, perhaps because there is no position within the Church nowadays comparable in stature to the Patriarchs of Antioch, Jerusalem, Alexandria and Constantinople. If we were to draw a parallel with te American Church, Athanasius would be the serving Archbishop of Chicago rebuking the Archbishop of New York, and Lefebvre would be a retired missionary Archbishop doing the same - even that is only an approximation. He was not head of the CSSps when he set up - he was a former head; he had orders but no jurisdiction other than as head of the SSPX for what that was worth. (2) Similarly, there is a difference between material and formal schismatics; Lefebvre performed acts which were prima facie schismatic (whether or not you think his plea of justification covers them) whereas Weakland et al engaged in all sorts of ambiguities. I also think Rome should have moved more firmly against them, but deposing a serving bishop is not a simple task, nor should it be (especially when that bishop would have the support of the secular media). Furthermore, their offences do not justify the commission of offences by LEfebvre. (3) Bishop Ferrario was indeed a nasty piece of work - nevertheless he was the diocesan bishop and only the gravest physical necessity could justify doing what they did. Suppose they had taken their children to an Orthodox bishop instead, surely that would be a schismatic act? (4) I am not trying to be more Catholic than the Pope. I hope the Pixies will be reconciled, but this requires acceptance that they need to be reconciled. The Pope is promoting reconciliation with the Orthodox; that does not mean the Orthodox are above criticism. (5) Perhaps we would not have got Ecclesia Dei without the SSPX, perhaps we might have got it earlier if Lefebvre had not allowed himself to be provoked, perhaps some other way might have been found (the English Indult pre-dates Lefebvre's schism, I think). Perhaps the Incarnation would never have taken place without the Fall, but that doen't make the Fall a good thing. For myself, if the TLM could not have been preserved without schism then it would have been better for it to have perished, just as it would have been better for those Eastern Catholics in the US who became Orthodox over the last hundred years as a result of the disgraceful treatment they received from the bishops (with, I am sorry to say, at the very least the acquiescence of the Vatican) to accept wholesale latinisation rather than go into schism.
|
|
|
Post by hythlodaye on Mar 21, 2010 22:12:06 GMT
In further reply to Hibernicus: 1) I do take your well-made point about my comparison of St Athanasius and Archbishop Lefebvre. However, I think the most important point is not the respective standing of the two men, but whether Athanasius and Lefebvre were both prima facie justified in providing clergy to minister in places where the laity would otherwise have been at the mercy of heretical bishops. (Of course sometimes, as in Dublin, this was not the case.) 2) Heretics such as Weakland (and Arius) always engage in ambiguities, while men like Lefebvre (whether one agrees with them or not) are often too honest for their own good. I don't see the relevance of what the secular media might do or say. 3) You are probably right about the need for "the gravest physical necessity" before resorting to an SSPX bishop in place of someone like Ferrario, but the then Cardinal Ratzinger obviously did not consider this a schismatic act. (He did say it was blameworthy on other counts, but not an excommunicable offence. That was a slap in the face for Ferrario.) 4) I am not saying the Pixies are above criticism: as I thought I made clear, I think they have pitched their demands far too high, and I admire the Holy Father's forebearance, which is stronger than yours. (I am not meaning to be impertinent here) 5) It is abundantly clear that Rome no longer regards the SSPX as schismatic in the strict sense. Canon 751 of the Code describes schism as follows: "Schism is the withdrawal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or from communion with the members of the Church subject to him". It points out that in order to constitute schism there must be a real repudiation of this authority, not just a simple act of disobedience. I am not a canon lawyer, but I don't think the illicit consecrations amounted to schism (although they should not have taken place. ) Therefore I feel the title of this thread is a misnomer and should be changed.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Mar 23, 2010 11:23:47 GMT
Dear Hylothdaye: Thanks for your very clear remarks, which set out your case admirably. I hope you will take my response in the same good humour: (1) Athanasius' acts involved formal withdrawal of communion from the bishops into whose dioceses he intruded, and a declaration that they were not the legitimate bishops of their see at all. Lefebvre never went that far, but I don't see how his actions can be justified except on the supposition that this was the case. Since they remained in formal communion with the pope, whatever their material sins, to break communion with them was to break it with the pope as well. This is why there has been a steady stream of SSPX defections to sedevacantism, and why in a debate with sedes of reasonable intelligence such as Cekada the SSPX generally comes off second best. Lefebvre always opposed sedevacantism, but it is the logical implication of his position - the SSPX are currently having to face up to this, and finally come down on one side or the other of the fence. I do not say that the faithful were bound to obey every command of heterodox bishops, or that they could not legitimately go to great lengths to preserve themselves and their children from heresy, or that the bishops involved (and the Roman authorities insofar as they tolerated such a disgraceful state of affairs) were not highly blameworthy for driving people to the SSPX; but bringing in an intrusive bishop without legitimate faculties is a step too far. (2) Heretics do not always engage in ambiguities - Arius was in fact perfectly clear about what he believed. You are thinking of the Semi-Arians, who were Athanasius' main opponents - that is where the parallel lay. Likewise Lefebvre was generally undiplomatic but that doesn't mean he was unambiguous; see my comments on his relations with sedevacantism above. (3) I agree that Cardinal Ratzinger as he then was did not see the actions of the Hawaii Five as schismatic and I accept that, but I frankly admit that I cannot understand the reasoning behind his decision. Can anyone explain it to me? (4) I am a private commentator without authority; the Pope has actual jurisdiction and must take many factors into account, some of which are unknown to me, so I do not see that when you speak of our "forbearance" you are talking of the same thing. I am not saying I would like to see the Pixies go off into outer darkness; I would like them to be reconciled, but it seems to me that this can only be based on clear understanding. (5) Rome's relations with the Chinese Patriotic Association are pretty ambiguous these days; quite a few CPA bishops are in clandestine communion with the Vatican. That does not mean the CPA was not begun in schism, or that it is not formally schismatic, or that it does not need to regularise its situation. The point about the secular media relates to the question of how the deposition of such bishops would be perceived by the faithful. If their deposition would be widely perceived as an act of injustice (even if it was in fact entirely justified) and scandal were given thereby leading to greater harm to the Church than would come from leaving them in situ, then leaving them could be justified as a prudential act. I do not think it was in fact justified in the most egregious cases, but as I said I am a mere private commentator speaking for myself.
|
|
|
Post by Beinidict Ó Niaidh on Apr 12, 2010 11:04:35 GMT
Pity this discussion lapsed while getting somewhere. I recognise a lot of SSPX arguments in Hydolathe's case, but one would say they need to be answered especially because they are SSPX arguments. The movement for the traditional Mass, however, is older than the SSPX and there were a great many non-SSPX initiatives which pixies disregard. I don't believe the survival of the traditional Mass is posited on Archbishop Lefebvre's achievement. But it is hard to see how far it would have come without him.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Apr 14, 2010 11:22:32 GMT
Benedict; which initiatives do you have in mind? The SSPX do seem on the face of it to have a reasonable case in that they argue that if Archbishop Lefebvre had not founded the Econe seminary the other EF initiatives would just have fizzled out over time - they would have been isolated and died with their founders' generation (as I believe happened to Fr. Gommar De Pauw's group, which was one of the earliest to get started). The case would argue that Lefebvre was too high-profile a figure to ignore, and that when he tested the waters by setting up a seminary specifically to train priests to say the EF he could not be ignored and that by standing firm he was able to force concessions that would not otherwise have been made. The big problem is that they extend this to his schismatic consecration of bishops, and that the fact that he went to that length seems to me to retrospectively turn his earlier ordinations of priests after the withdrawal of official recognition from Econe and the SSPX from an arguable protest against unjust treatment into incipient schism as well. I favour the EF personally but my wider attitude rests on three factors (a) if the EF is necessary for te survival of the Church, it will survive; if it isn't then the Church could survive without it (2) Deliberate schism from Rome is never justified (3) the SSPX has acquired a lot of nasty baggage. This doesn't mean it's untrue - the Lourdes apparition was uhnquestionably genuine and yet its cult rapidly acquired a significant number of vulgar moneychangers and some very unsavoury right-wing and anti-semitic associates (the Assumptionist Fathers who ran the Lourdes shrine were heavily involved in the anti-Dreyfus campaign, basically maintaining that because Captain Dreyfus was a Jew he could never be a frenchman and must have been a spy no matter how dodgy the evidence against him).
|
|
|
Post by Beinidict Ó Niaidh on Apr 14, 2010 12:02:00 GMT
Initiatives.
I would have thought Fr Gommer de Pauw and Fr Fenton (Orthodox Catholic Movement) as examples of nutty independent groups in the US, of which there were many with a few still surviving. The SSPX inherited a lot of this, but the FSSP chapel in New Jersey is an example of this going indult.
But I would number:
1. The foundation of Una Voce in 1964, first in Norway but spreading to many countries (only hitting Ireland in the 1990s though) - an international lay organisation which pre-dates the SSPX.
2. Opus Sacerdotale in France which is the predecessor of the Institute of Christ the King. The members of this said the traditional Mass without any interdict or other sanction for years.
3. A parrallel movement in Spain reported in a recent Brandsma Review article.
4. Petitioners in England behind Cardinal Heenan's 1971 indult for England and Wales (the same year the SSPX was only established. Its first priests worked under this until the Archbishop's suspension in the 1976).
My point is that to attribute the survival of the traditional Mass exclusively to the SSPX would be wrong. In the case of point 4, there was clearly a continuity of permission for the old Mass.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Apr 14, 2010 12:17:09 GMT
I mentioned De Pauw because he was so early and independent of Lefebvre, not because I care for him (from what I heard - and I don't know much detail) he was at least quasi-schismatic. I must say that the extent of what Benedict describes startles me, though I knew about the indult in England and Wales. this may be a problem for traditionalists. THe SSPX have a clear narrative and a central focus on the figure of Lefebvre, and as the original generation who remember what happened dies off this makes it easier for people to equate the SSPX with the whole traditionalist movement. BTW we could do with somebody recording the history of Irish traditionalism/orthodox Catholicism as the generation who went through the last few decades dies off. So much of its history is being written by the Diarmuid Ferriter/John Cooney types and this is now percolating through the school and university curriculum. So many trads seem to exist in a sort of eternal present, in which we do not remember/record our past actions and so cannot learn from them.
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Apr 14, 2010 12:26:05 GMT
I agree with Hibernicus. The dominance the SSPX had in traditional circles between the 70s and 80s feeds their narrative, but as Beinidict points out, there was a lot more going on. One thing that feeds the SSPX school of trad history is the smooth transition from many independent US trad chapels to them and how they were initially unchallenged in many countries, including here.
Yes, we need a historian of the traditional movement.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on May 6, 2010 14:44:30 GMT
The English SSPX critic of Bishop Williamson who formerly blogged as anti-dinoscopus has just started a new blog in which she sets out the history of her SSPX connection and her concerns about Williamson's influence. wwwwithburningsorrow.blogspot.com/2010/05/reticence-set-aside.htmlI found this courtesy of Christopher Pryor, who has moved to a new location. mountainview2.blogspot.com/The following looney paranoid comment posted by a pro-Williamsonite in the comments section of Pryor's post on Mrs. Banks exposes the Williamsonian mindset very succinctly: Eric Jones said... Mrs. Banks is a liberal. She doesn't realize it, but she is. She doesn't wish truth to be spoken where it is seen [NO, SHE DOESN'T WISH LIES TO BE PRESENTED AS PART OF THE FAITH], but rather, she wishes for the faith to be strictly a matter of piety and "religion." She fails to apprehend the fact that the faith is to be part and parcel of our whole selves, our outlook and worldview, and our existence. We have no choice but to take into account true history [BY WHICH IS MEANT HOLOCAUST DENIAL AND SIMILAR ABOMINATIONS], true human nature, etc., alone with, of course, true Catholic teaching, and that we must apply all this knowledge to our everyday lives, making moral judgments about things. Thus, it's quite Catholic, and honest, to say that, for example, 9/11 was probably according to observable evidence an inside job [IF ONE CHERRYPICKS THE ARGUMENTS IN FAVOUR AND TREATS ALL THE EVIDENCE AGAINST AS INADMISSIBLE PER SE], and to then use this as an object lesson about how we should not trust the authorities of the modern world, who threw off the yoke of God's truth several hundred years ago, and who, history shows, do not scruple to use evil methods to accomplish their humanistic and ultimately anti-Catholic goals. This puts us out of "comfortable" mainstream society [I.E. THIS MAKES THEM INTO A SELF-REFERENTIAL PARANOID CULT LIKE THE DONATISTS], and makes our politics Catholic, rather than "comfortably" neo-conservative (a la Reagan) but....Catholics have never been "mainstream," as Our Lord admonished us. [YES, BUT IT DOES NOT FOLLOW THAT EVERYONE WHO IS OUTSIDE THE MAINSTREAM IS THEREBY CATHOLIC] God bless Bp. Williamson [AND GIVE HIM TTHE GRACE TO REPENT]and those who have the courage to speak out in this wasteland we now live in [SUCH AS MRS. BANKS AND THOSE WHO HAVE NOT DRUNK BISHOP WILLIAMSON'S KOOL-AID IN THE MISTAKEN BELIEF THAT IT IS THE CHALICE OF OUR SALVATION]! May 5, 2010 7:01 PM
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on May 13, 2010 13:52:29 GMT
A hopeful sign; Guimaraes and Horvat of Tradition in Action are denouncing the SSPX and Bishop Fellay in particular for selling out to Rome by accepting Vatican II was a legitimate Council. Of course they will not even treat Fellay as sincerely mistaken but accuse him of selling out for worldly gain. It is a good sign that such people are dismayed by the SSPX's moves towards reconciliation. The link below takes you to a rant by a Mexican-based priest who has left the SSPX in protest and who explicitly describes the Pope as antichrist. It must be said, however, that while it is reasssuring to see such people leaving the SSPX it is worrying that they should ever have been admitted into it with such views (or acquired them within it, which would be even more worrying). At the bottom of the article Guimaraes and Co provide links to related articles on their website, including more denunciations of the SSP on smilar grounds. I need hardly say that I provide this link for information only, and do not endorse the views expressed: I utterly repudiate the slanders and ravings of Guimaraes and Co. www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/f029ht_SSPXRanks.htm
|
|
|
Post by father0f3 on May 16, 2010 19:28:40 GMT
The word "OBSESSED" springs to mind re Bishop Williamson and the SSPX on this forum. Not a very Christian attitude displayed by most posters. Kyrie Eleison
|
|
|
Post by father0f3 on May 16, 2010 21:24:40 GMT
|
|
|
Post by monkeyman on May 17, 2010 3:09:41 GMT
The word "OBSESSED" springs to mind re Bishop Williamson and the SSPX on this forum. Not a very Christian attitude displayed by most posters. Kyrie Eleison What and the Angelqueen, Ignis Ardens and other forums don't show obsession either vis a vis Bishop Williamson? The only difference here is that some of us think this man is a danger to the faith and is a wolf rapped up pontificals. Msgr Williamson wouldn't have half the support he does have if he didn't play to the gallery so much and give credence to all the latest crackpot theories about anything from the twin-towers to the "protocols of the elders of zion". Its amazing how many trads lambast unjustly a Bishop of the "conciliar" church on the basis of rumours and hearsay but don't afford the same to the likes of Msgr Williamson who was very publicly disgraced and has shown a long history of this type of thing (anti-semitic cant). Question....is Rome "obsessed" with sex just because it gives perrenial clear teaching and defends the faithful from the perversion of sexual morality ? So attempting to warn people about dangers to the faith now constitutes obsession alegedly...
|
|
|
Post by monkeyman on May 17, 2010 3:27:02 GMT
I mentioned De Pauw because he was so early and independent of Lefebvre, not because I care for him (from what I heard - and I don't know much detail) he was at least quasi-schismatic. I must say that the extent of what Benedict describes startles me, though I knew about the indult in England and Wales. this may be a problem for traditionalists. THe SSPX have a clear narrative and a central focus on the figure of Lefebvre, and as the original generation who remember what happened dies off this makes it easier for people to equate the SSPX with the whole traditionalist movement. BTW we could do with somebody recording the history of Irish traditionalism/orthodox Catholicism as the generation who went through the last few decades dies off. So much of its history is being written by the Diarmuid Ferriter/John Cooney types and this is now percolating through the school and university curriculum. So many trads seem to exist in a sort of eternal present, in which we do not remember/record our past actions and so cannot learn from them. There was a lot more than that going on. There were quite a number of priests who got ordained in diocesan seminaries in Spain as what was then known under the old code of canon law as "family priests". It doesn't exist in the new code but there are quite a few priests from that time still around that say the old Mass in various dioceses around Europe and perhaps elsewhere. Of course the diocese of Avelino in Italy provided another place for tradition- minded candidates to go and get ordained. Several groups, some good, some not so good can be traced to here. Cardinal Siri took several groups under his tutelage. Some were very conservative like the Communaute St Martin while others like Opus Sacerdotal leaned heavily toward tradition.
|
|
|
Post by monkeyman on May 17, 2010 3:37:13 GMT
The word "OBSESSED" springs to mind re Bishop Williamson and the SSPX on this forum. Not a very Christian attitude displayed by most posters. Kyrie Eleison FatherOf3, If, and I hope it does happen, a reconciliation of the SSPX with Rome then I will be the first sining a TE DEUM. I did it for the Transalpine Redemptorists in Scotland. It is however supremely hard to be overflowing with cahrity towards a groups who have said and done sacrilgious things purportedly in the name defending the faith over the last 30 or so years. If you want me to expand on that I will. I am however more than willing to be reconciled with them if they can at least accept that most of us run of the mill catholics have been suffering and "offering it up" for most of our adult lives and that there was and is perhaps more merit in that spiritually than the road which was taken by the SSPX.
|
|