Forces of evil gather against the Holy Father
and against his mission of unity.
Let us pray for the Successor of Peter.
Oremus
pro
Pontifice nostro Benedicto.
Dominus conservet eum, et vivificet eum,
et
beatum faciat eum in terra,
et
non tradat eum in animam inimicorum eius.
Much
is being made of the SSPX having to “accept” the Second Vatican
Council. Yet, it is difficult to understand the question. First, as a
whole,
the SSPX has never rejected the Council, especially considering that
Blessed
Pope John XXIII appointed Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre as a member of the
Ante-Preparatory Commission of Vatican II. Second, it is sufficient to
simply
resuscitate the 1988 Protocol of Accord (printed below) between the
Holy See
and Archbishop Lefebvre.
We
must, however, remember several points. First, the Archbishop did not
withdraw
his signature from the Protocol due to its contents. Second, when Pope
John
Paul II received the Archbishop in private audience, the Holy Father
asked him
whether he accepted the Council “in the light of tradition.” When the
Pope received an unambiguously affirmative reply, he stated that there
was no
problem. It is in that light that Archbishop Lefebvre signed the
documents of
the Council. Any subsequent reservations that were expressed must, I
believe,
be interpreted in context. The more we move away from the Council in
time and
until parts of the reign of John Paul II, the more one sees “experts”
attribute ideologies which had nothing to do with the Council to it.
Therefore,
subsequent ‘’rejections” of the Council emanating from the
Archbishop are to be interpreted as rejections of the ideologies with
which the
Council was erroneously interpreted. For example, it is silly to
believe, as
the recent statement of the Diocese of Stockholm declares, that
Catholics no
longer convert non-Catholics. What do they think Our Lord became man;
to go on
holiday from the two other Persons of the Trinity?!
I
also feel uneasy about going on and on about the SSPX “returning to
full
communion” with the Church. Apart from the fact that no one (no one who
matters, i.e. The Pope under whom the excommunication was implied) ever
said
that the SSPX ever left the Church in the first place, since
excommunication
does not imply a sinful action, what do they think its lifting implies
in the
case of the SSPX, if not full
communion.
I say this because if one continues harping about “full communion”
as if the SSPX spent a period under the Dalai Lama, it will strengthen
the
hardliners within the SSPX. I fail to understand why we, Catholics, are
fare
more diplomatic in wooing the Orthodox than the SSPX.
The
dancing
Finally,
I am evil at ease regarding the reactions to the Bishop Richard
Williamson
interview. He stated his personal opinion based on his study of the
matter in
reply to a silly, provocative question posed by a frivolous journalist
(the
adjective seems superfluous). He neither preaches nor teaches about the
Holocaust, he is free, white and (over) twenty-one. Is he to be denied
rights
granted by
A)
Discredit
the SSPX,
B)
Divide
the SSPX bishops,
C)
Divide
and conquer the SSPX
Besides,
ever since the Evangelist Matthew informed us about the reaction of the
Apostles to the Crucifixion, Fugerunt
Omnes
(“They all fled”), bishops have done and said all sorts of things
not necessarily clever. So why on earth would anyone be particularly
surprised.
If one thinks that Bishop Williamson’s academic conclusions are faulty,
one has only to say so without re-staging the Camille
scene (cr. La
Dame aux
Camélias or the Violet
Valéry character in La Traviata).
+
[A Catholic Prelate]
Incidentally,
in case
my attempt at wit seems obscure, one can see one of the most famous
dramatisations
of the Camille scene at this link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQsPmMcQtAU
1988 PROTOCOL OF ACCORD
BETWEEN THE APOSTOLIC SEE AND ARCHBISHOP
MARCEL LEFEBVRE
I. Text of the Doctrinal Declaration
I, Marcel Lefebvre, Archbishop-Bishop emeritus
of Tulle,
as well as the members of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X founded
by me:
1. Promise to be always faithful to the Catholic Church and the
Roman Pontiff, her Supreme Pastor, Vicar of Christ,
Successor of
Blessed Peter in his primacy as Head of the Body of Bishops.
2. We declare our
acceptance of
the doctrine contained in number 25 of the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen
Gentium
of the Second Vatican Council on the ecclesial Magisterium and the adherence which is due to that magisterium.
3. With regard to certain points taught by the Second
Vatican
Council or concerning later reforms of the liturgy and law, and which
seem to
us able to be reconciled with the
Tradition
only with difficulty, we commit ourselves to have a positive
attitude of study and of communication with the Holy See, avoiding all
polemics.
4. We declare in addition to recognize the validity of
the
Sacrifice of the Mass and of the Sacraments celebrated with the
intention of
doing that which the Church does and according to the rites indicated
in the
typical editions of the Roman Missal and the Rituals of the Sacraments
promulgated by Popes Paul VI and John Paul II.
5. Finally, we promise to respect the common discipline
of the
Church and ecclesiastical laws, especially those contained in the Code
of Canon
Law promulgated by Pope John Paul II, without
prejudice to the special discipline granted to the Society by
particular law.
II. Juridical Questions
Keeping in mind the fact that the Priestly
Society of St.
Pius X has been conceived for 18 years as a society of common life -
and after
studying the propositions formulated by His Excellency Marcel Lefebvre
and of
the conclusions of the Apostolic Visitation carried out by His Eminence
Cardinal Gagnon - the most suitable canonical form is that of a Society
of
apostolic life.
1. Society of apostolic life
This is a solution which is possible under
canon law, and
it has the advantage of allowing the insertion of lay people into the
clerical
Society of apostolic life (for example, cooperating Brothers).
According to the Code of Canon Law promulgated
in 1983,
canons 731-746, this Society
enjoys full
autonomy, can form its members, can incardinate clerics, and can assure
the
common life of its members.
In the proper Statutes, with flexibility and
inventive
possibility with respect to the known models of these Societies of
apostolic
life, a certain exemption is foreseen with regard to the diocesan
bishops (cf.
can 591) in matters having to do with public worship, the cura animarum
(care
of souls) and other apostolic activities, keeping in mind canons
679-683.
As for jurisdiction with regard to the faithful
who have
recourse to the priests of the Society, it will be conferred on these
priests
either by the local Ordinaries or by the Apostolic See.
2. The Roman Commission
A commission to coordinate relations with the
different
Dicasteries and diocesan bishops, as well as to resolve eventual
problems and
disputes, will be constituted through the care of the Holy See, and
will be
empowered with the necessary faculties to deal with the questions
indicated
above (for example, implantation of a place of worship, at the request
of the
faithful, where there is no house of the Society, ad mentem can. 683,
par. 2)
This commission will be composed of a
President, a
Vice-President and five members, of whom two will be from the Society.
Among other things it would have the function
of
exercising vigilance and lending assistance to consolidate the work of
reconciliation and to regulate questions relative to the religious
communities
having a juridical or moral bond with the Society.
3. Condition of Persons Connected to the
Society
3.1 The members of the clerical Society of
apostolic life
(priests and cooperating lay brothers) are governed by the Statutes of
the
Society of Pontifical Right.
3.2 The oblates, both male and female, whether
they have
taken private vows or not, and the members of the Third Order connected
to the
Society, all belong to an Association of the faithful connected with
the
Society according to the terms of Canon 303, and collaborate with it.
3.3 The sisters (that is, the Congregation
founded by
3.4 The members of the community living
according to the
rule of various religious institutes (Carmelites, Benedictines,
Dominicans,
etc.) and who are morally bound to the Society; these are to be given,
case by
case, a particular statute which will regulate their relations with
their
respective Orders.
3.5 The priests who, as individuals, are
morally
connected to the Society, will receive a personal statute taking into
account
their aspirations and, at the same time, the obligations deriving from
their
incardination. The other particular case of the same nature will be
examined
and resolved by the Roman commission.
As for the lay people who request the pastoral
assistance
of the communities of the Society: they will remain under the
jurisdiction of
the diocesan bishop, but - notably by reason of the liturgical rites of
the
communities of the Society - they will be able to turn to them for the
administration of the sacraments (for the Sacraments of Baptism,
Confirmation
and Marriage, the usual notifications must still be given to their
proper
parish priest; (cf. can 878, 896, 1122).
Note: The particular complexity of two
questions must be
kept in mind:
1. The question of the reception by lay people
of the
sacraments of Baptism, Confirmation and Marriage in the communities of
the
Society.
2. The question of the communities which
practice the
rule of this or that religious institute without belonging to it. It
will be in
the competence of the Roman commission to resolve these problems.
4. Ordinations
For ordinations, two phases must be
distinguished:
4.1 Immediately:
For the
ordinations
scheduled to take place in the immediate future, Archbishop Lefebvre
would be
authorized to confer them or, if they were unable, another bishop
accepted by
him will be authorized.
4.2 After
the erection
of the Society of apostolic life:
4.2.1 In so far as possible, and within the
judgement of
the Superior General, the normal path is to be followed: to send
dimissorial
letters to a bishop who agrees to ordain members of the Society.
4.2.2 In light of the particular situation of
the Society
(cf. infra): the ordination of a member of the Society as a bishop,
who, among
other responsibilities, would also be able to proceed with ordinations.
5. The
Problem of the
Bishop
5.1 On the doctrinal (ecclesiological) level,
the
guarantee of stability and maintenance of the life and activity of the
Society
is assured by its erection as a Society of apostolic life of pontifical
right,
and the approval of its Statutes by the Holy Father.
5.2 But, for practical and psychological
reasons, the
consecration of a member of the Society as a bishop seems useful. This
is why,
in the context of the doctrinal and canonical solution of
reconciliation, we
suggest to the Holy Father that he name a bishop chosen from among the
members
of the Society, presented by Archbishop Lefebvre. In consequence of the
principle indicated above (5.1), this bishop as a rule is not the
Superior
General of the Society. But it seems opportune that he be a member of
the Roman
commission.
6. Particular Problems
(to be resolved by decree or declaration)
- Lifting of the suspensio a divinis on
Archbishop
Lefebvre and dispensation from the irregularities incurred by the fact
of the
ordinations.
- Sanatio in radice, at least ad cautelam, of
the
marriages already celebrated by the priests of the Society without the
required
delegation.
- Provision for an "amnesty" and an accord for
the houses and places of worship erected - or used - by the Society,
until now
without the authorization of the bishops.
Joseph
Cardinal Ratzinger
Mgr Marcel Lefebvre