|
The
Society of St. Pius X & the Fraternity of St. Peter
Thanks to columnist Msgr. Pedro Lopez-Gallo, the BC
Catholic is giving us an in-depth report on two organizations
who “came into existence for contradictory reasons, but apparently
for the same motive: to retain the liturgy of the Mass of
St. Pius V.” After years of silence on that topic, the readers
of the BC Catholic should appreciate that someone
with the authority and experience of Msgr. Gallo has made
an attempt to “clarify the situation of these two entities,
especially the misconceptions that both organizations could
have created.” Unfortunately, Msgr. Gallo’s answers are not
relevant, and need to be corrected.
Foundation
of the SSPX: A few years after its foundation,
some observers accused the seminary of Ecône to be a “wildcat
seminary”. Thanks to Msgr. Gallo, the readers of the BC
Catholic are being made aware that Archbishop
Lefebvre’s foundation was initially approved by Rome.
Msgr. Gallo asserts that his years spent in Rome and, in
particular, his time spent as an employee of the Congregation
of the Clergy gave him “good knowledge” of the circumstances
surrounding the first approval of the Society of St. Pius
X in 1970-1971. Yes, indeed, in the early years of his foundation,
Archbishop Lefebvre was able to receive the decree of erection
of the Society of St. Pius X, signed on November 1, 1970,
by Bishop Charrière, the bishop of Fribourg-Lausanne in Switzerland.
Then, on February 18, 1971, a letter of praise was sent by
Cardinal Wright, then prefect of the Congregation of the Clergy
and “boss” of Msgr. Gallo. In the recent articles published
in the BC Catholic, Msgr. Gallo gives the impression
that the Holy See extended this “gesture of good will” in
order to prevent Archbishop Lefebvre from falling into an
open revolt against Pope Paul VI, by encouraging him “to renounce
his errors about the decisions taken by the Ecumenical Council,
Vatican II.”
On
the contrary, the first words of Cardinal Wright’s letter
“With great joy” should be enough to dispel such misconceptions.
There is no reason to doubt that such letter was a true and
sincere approval of the Priestly Society of St. Pius X: “With
great joy I received your letter, in which your Excellency
informs me of your news and especially of the Statutes of
the Priestly Society. As Your Excellency explains, this Association,
which by your action, received on 1 November 1970, the approbation
of His Excellency Francois Charrière, Bishop of Fribourg,
has already exceeded the frontiers of Switzerland, and several
Ordinaries in different parts of the world praise and approve
it. All of this and especially the wisdom of the norms which
direct and govern this Association give much reason to hope
for its success. As for this Sacred Congregation, the Priestly
Society will certainly be able to conform to the end proposed
by the Council, for the distribution of the clergy in the
world.
I
am respectfully, Your Excellency, Yours in the Lord. J. Card.
Wright, Prefect. Rome, February 18, 1971”
The
New Mass: As a matter of fact, 35 years
after the introduction of the New Mass, a number of Catholics
are still upset about it. Why? Being the essential
act of worship in the Catholic Church, the Mass ought to express
the Catholic faith. One may be surprised to learn that 6
Protestant ministers were part of the commission that drafted
the New Order of the Mass, called the Mass of Paul VI. As
a result, most reminders of the Catholic doctrine offensive
to our “separate brethren” were erased from the prayers of
the Mass.
A
number of Catholic priests and faithful were shocked, and
thus refused the reformed liturgy. They stayed with the Mass
of all time, called the Mass of St. Pius V (1570). Among
them, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre (1905-1991), was the most
famous figure. In 1970, he founded the Society of St. Pius
X (SSPX). At first, the Society of St. Pius X enjoyed
full approval from the Roman Catholic Church. However,
it came under fire when Archbishop Lefebvre kept ordaining
priests that would say only the Traditional Latin Mass. Because
they did not follow the New Mass of Paul VI and questioned
the other novelties that followed the Council Vatican II,
traditional Catholics have been outcast by the mainstream
Catholic Church.
Was
Archbishop Lefebvre someone who could not submit to authority?
In his articles, Msgr. Gallo gives a brief summary of the
circumstances that led to the foundation of the Society of
St. Pius X “four years after the closure of Vatican II, in
1970, he (Archbishop Lefebvre) established in Ecône, Switzerland…
to train priests following pre-council ways.” However, I
cannot see how any Church authority could have given any approval
to someone who would be from day one “refusing to submit to
authority”. The articles give also the impression
that, from the days following the council, Archbishop Lefebvre
had planned to found a society whose purpose would be to keep
tradition and “using Latin as a pretext to overcome the authority
of the Holy Father.” It claims also that Archbishop Lefebvre,
“like most dissidents, needed dissident proselytes”. As an
answer to such allegations, let me give a report on a meeting
which took place in 1969, Fribourg, Switzerland,
with a group of seminarians, priests and laymen interested
by a traditional seminary. Archbishop Lefebvre recalled that
meeting at which it was decided to found the Society of St.
Pius X: “They literally took me by the scruff of the neck
and said: “something has to be done for these seminarians!”
It was useless my saying that I was 65 and retired. “Okay,”
I said to them, “I’ll go and see Bishop Charrière. If he
says yes, that will be a sign of Providence.” From
that conversation, it is obvious that Archbishop Lefebvre
had not planned to found a society to foster a revolt against
Church authorities.
Msgr.
Gallo made a parallel between the foundation of the SSPX in
1970 and the foundation of the “Old Catholic Church” in 1870,
by those who refused to admit the newly proclaimed dogma of
the infallibility of the pope. Such parallel is not ironical,
but very tendentious, as the Old Catholics established themselves
as a New Church, with an independent hierarchy that has nothing
to do with the Roman Catholic Church. On the other hand,
the Society of St. Pius X does not deny any dogma of the Church,
and was founded with full Church approval.
Does
the SSPX recognize the pope?
Msgr. Gallo presents Archbishop Lefebvre as someone who “believed
that the true Church had stopped with Pope Pius XII.” Moreover,
he says that the members of the Society of St. Pius X “believe
that the Holy See is vacant and that all the Popes since Pius
XII have been anti-popes.” In all charity, it appears that
Msgr. Gallo was misinformed when he made such statements.
Archbishop Lefebvre and the Society of St. Pius X always recognized
the authority of the successor or St. Peter, including the
present pope, John Paul II. As a matter of fact, Archbishop
Lefebvre said: “I cannot allow individuals in the Society
to refuse to pray for the Holy Father or to refuse to recognize
that there is a Pope.” Personally, I had the opportunity
to write an article
in the SSPX-Canada magazine, in which I
gave the reasons why the Society does not agree with the sedevacantists,
namely those who think that the present popes since the council
completely lost their see, on account of their heresies.
Is
the Magisterium always infallible?
If we recognize Pope John Paul II, it doesn’t mean that we
follow him in every thing he does, or word he says. What
belongs to his Extraordinary Magisterium is infallible, thus
out of discussion. But, what belongs to his Ordinary Magisterium
is infallible only if it is an echo of Tradition. On disciplinary
matters, it is clear that a pope could change and reform what
was done before him; but when it is in matters of faith,
no pope has authority to change or to alter it. The
Council Vatican I affirmed: “For the Holy Spirit was promised
to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his
revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his
assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound
the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles.”
However, it is a matter of fact that, in a number of occasions,
the recent popes took a stand radically different from what
has been the constant teaching of the Church.
The
Faith: This leads
us to the understanding of the key reason why Archbishop Lefebvre
refused the New Mass and the other novelties that followed
the Council Vatican II. Msgr. Gallo makes an interesting statement:
“the members of the Society of St. Pius X are convinced that
they are on the right path and WE are the real heretics.”
For a proper understanding of the stand taken by the
Society of St. Pius X in regard of the liturgical reform,
it is extremely important to talk about doctrinal matters.
In the traditional ritual of the Sacrament of baptism, the
very 1st questions that the priest asks to the
neophyte are as follow: “What do you ask of the Church of
God?” “The faith”. “What does the faith offer you?” “Eternal
life.” These two sentences are very important. What the
faithful are asking to their priests and bishops, it is to
be instructed about the faith, “without which it is impossible
to please God”, and to be fed by the true Sacraments. If
we want to escape hell, and get to heaven, we need to keep
the faith whole and entire till the end of our lives.
Such
truth is more or less ignored or forgotten in the mainstream
Roman Catholic Church. On the contrary, Catholics are being
told that they should not consider other religions (other
faiths) as displeasing God and leading to hell. Now, under
the name of Ecumenism, Catholics are encouraged to be friendly
with other religions. Let us be more precise: how such Ecumenism
is practiced right now in the Church? Recently, an “Old Catholic”
bishop went to Rome, with the sincere desire to amend his
life, and be reconciled with the Church. That bishop had
a meeting with Cardinal Kasper, who told him: “You know,
since the Council things have changed in the Church. Now,
you don’t have to convert.” So, modern Ecumenism
is not looking any more for “the return to the one true Church
of Christ of those who are separated from it, for in the past
they have unhappily left it.” (encyclical letter Mortalium
Animos, from Pius XI, 1928). Rather, it is only looking for
establishing friendly relations with non-Catholics. A true
Catholic who loves the Church and is deeply convinced about
the absolute importance of the salvation of souls will be
devastated to witness the thousands of souls comforted in
their errors and kept away from the true Church by the practice
of modern Ecumenism.
Let
me quote from the declaration of Archbishop Lefebvre, November
21, 1974. It could be considered as the charter of resistance
of traditional Catholics against the novelties in the Church:
“We adhere with our whole heart, and with our whole
soul to Catholic Rome, the guardian
of the Catholic faith and of those traditions necessary for
the maintenance of that faith, to eternal Rome, mistress of
wisdom and truth. Because of this adherence, we refuse
and have always refused to follow the Rome of
neo-modernist and neo-Protestant tendencies, such as were
clearly manifested during the second Vatican Council, and
after the Council in all the resulting reforms.
(…) No authority, even the very highest in the hierarchy,
can constrain us to abandon or to diminish our Catholic faith,
such as it has been clearly expressed and professed by the
Church's Magisterium for nineteen centuries. "But though
we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides
that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema".
(Gal. I, 8) (…) It is for this reason that, without any rebellion,
bitterness or resentment, we pursue our work of the formation
of priests under the star of the age-old Magisterium, in the
conviction that we can thus do no greater service to the holy
Catholic Church, to the Sovereign Pontiff, and to future generations.
(…) Meanwhile, we wait for the true Light of Tradition to
dispel the darkness which obscures the sky of the eternal
Rome.”
Neither
heretical nor schismatic:
There are two ways to consider the Episcopal
consecrations of 1988 by Archbishop Lefebvre, without
pontifical mandate. For those who don’t want to see that
there is a very serious crisis in the Church, such consecrations
were “contrary to the will of the Supreme Pontiff and (…)
incurred the penalty envisaged by canons 1364 and 1382 of
the Code of Canon Law (excommunication).”
But
for Catholics who are aware of the very serious situation
of our Mother the Church, where the official pastors do not
feed their flock with the good “bread of the sane doctrine”,
and are thus found spiritually starving, they understand that
the consecrations done by Archbishop Lefebvre on June
30, 1988 were done for the survival of Catholic tradition.
In the sermon of the day of the consecrations, Archbishop
Lefebvre said: “There is no question of us separating ourselves
from Rome, or of putting ourselves under a foreign government,
nor of establishing a sort of parallel Church as the Bishops
of Palmar de Troya have done in Spain.
They have even elected a pope, formed a college of cardinals...
It is out of the question for us to do such things. Far from
us be this miserable thought to separate ourselves from Rome!
On the contrary, it is in order to manifest our attachment
to Rome that we are performing this ceremony. It is in order
to manifest our attachment to the Eternal Rome, to the Pope,
and to all those who have preceded these last Popes who, unfortunately
since the Second Vatican Council, have thought it their duty
to adhere to grievous errors which are demolishing the Church
and the Catholic Priesthood.” Archbishop Lefebvre was
convinced that there was (and there is still now) a grave
state of necessity in the Church. To answer such
state of necessity, he was convinced that it was his duty
to perform these episcopal consecrations. According to the
provisions of canon 1323, he was then excused from imputability.
Msgr.
Gallo is quoting extensively from Cardinal Hoyos’ report on
the FSSP. He should be interested to learn that the same
Cardinal Hoyos stated to Bishop Fellay that,
after carefully studying what the SSPX members have said and
done, he reached the conclusion that the SSPX is neither
heretical, nor schismatic, and that the whole
matter was only of regularizing a canonical situation. It
is true that the Society of St. Pius X is being labelled as
disobedient, rebellious, excommunicated and schismatic. However,
we do not consider the sentence of excommunication formulated
in the Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei of July 2, 1988 as valid,
because of the state of necessity which prevails now in the
Catholic Church. Also, in spite of the Motu Proprio,
Rome has never dealt with the SSPX as if we were real schismatics.
Here are some proofs: #1: If we were real schismatics, Rome
would have used the Pontifical Council for the Promotion of
Christian Unity to start an “ecumenical dialogue” with us.
Rather, it was Cardinal Hoyos, President of the Ecclesia Dei
Commission, who approached us. #2: Rome had always recognized
both the validity and the lawfulness of holy orders of former
priests of the SSPX who left us. #3: when the priests of
Campos were regularized, there was no word of schism in any
of the official documents, but for years Campos was in the
same situation as the Society of St. Pius X is still now.
True
obedience: Obedience in itself is neither good
nor bad. It can be and act of virtue and it can also be a
vice, sinful. As an example, there is the question of the
obedience of doctors to the Governments who have legalised
abortion. “We have to obey or else we will lose our job.”
Is that a virtuous obedience? Surely not! It is a sinful
act because it is to collaborate with a sinful law, with a
sinful end, destructive of human life. Other examples could
be given of false and of sinful obedience. These principles
apply also inside the Church. One cannot blindly obey priests
who organize sacrilegious ‘Masses’, or who invite their parishioners
to attend non‑Catholic services; one cannot obey Bishops
who encourage heretical Catechisms in the ‘Catholic’ schools.
And one cannot obey even Rome when orders coming from Rome
lead us to abandon or diminish our Faith. “Though we or an
Angel from heaven, preach a Gospel to you besides that which
we have preached to you, let him be anathema” (Gal. 1, 8).
Faith is then greater than obedience. Obedience is at the
service of Faith, not Faith at the service of obedience.
“We ought to obey God rather than men” (Act V, 29).
Valid
Marriages: Quite
obviously, I do not agree with Msgr. Gallo’s reasons, but
I would like to thank him for stating that the marriages
performed in the SSPX church, Christ the King in Langley and
elsewhere in the SSPX, are valid. However this is
not because the SSPX members “had defected from the Church
and were therefore not obliged to follow the canonical form”,
but because we follow the extraordinary form, according to
canon 1116.
The
Fraternity of St. Peter: It is curious to see
that Msgr. Gallo attacks also the ‘approved’ Fraternity of
St. Peter. On that occasion, I would like to make a brief
parallel between this Fraternity and the Society of St. Pius
X. Msgr. Gallo affirms that the Fraternity of St. Peter “was
formed to be a catalyst for those Catholic faithful who rejected
the Lefebvre movement” by giving “a chance not only to those
who repented and desired to come back to the papal authority,
but also to those who felt attached to the Latin tradition.”
Fr. Devillers, superior of the Fraternity St. Peter, precised:
“The reconciliation of such priests (SSPX) with the Church
is part of our mission.”
Msgr.
Gallo affirms something that I never heard, that “Pope John
Paul II was the founder of the Fraternity of St. Peter”, just
to remind Fraternity members that they “should make it a point
to take responsibility for sincerely executing the directives
given to them.” This gives him the occasion to remind them
the directives given by Cardinal Hoyos, president of the Ecclesia
Dei commission, namely that “no superior beneath the Supreme
Pontiff can hinder a priest from following the General Law…,
namely to celebrate in the reformed Rite of Paul VI.”
Msgr.
Gallo is giving a serious warning to the PSSP: “Frequently,
some priests of the Fraternity of St. Peter give the impression
that they are superior to other members of the clergy because
they have the privilege of saying the Mass in Latin. They
segregate themselves from the Corpus Sacerdotale diocesanum
and refuse to concelebrate with the local bishop.” Officials
are afraid to see the Fraternity of St. Peter as an approved
‘clone’ of the Society of St. Pius X. If permission
was given to them to say the Old Mass, it was not to favour
a true restoration of the Latin Mass in the Roman Catholic
Church, but mainly to serve as a half-way house for ‘repentant
Lefebvrists’. If the members of the Fraternity of St. Peter
were to dare to criticize the New Mass or the Council, they
may lose their precarious status.
Wisdom
of Bishop Bernard Fellay: Msgr. Gallo’s articles
are giving us another proof of the wisdom of the decision
of Bishop Fellay, Superior General of the Society of St. Pius
X. In 2000, he was first approached by Cardinal Hoyos, who
was offering a deal to the Society of St. Pius X with full
recognition and a Tridentine Mass Ordinariate. Bishop
Fellay asked for a sign of good will from Rome, that all priests
from the Latin Rite be given the freedom to say the Old Mass
if they wish. So far, we are still waiting for it.
Rev.
Dominique Boulet, SSPX
back
to contents of "Catholics struggle to keep the Latin
Mass"
|
