Newsletter of the District
of Asia
Jan
- June 2006
On
Rome and the Society of Saint Pius X
A
Joint Statement from The
Remnant and Catholic Family News
by Michael J. Matt, Editor, The Remnant
and John Vennari, Editor, Catholic Family News
Rumors
and more rumors now ricochet throughout the press and internet
about present negotiations between Rome and the Society of
Saint Pius X. Some individual broadcast alleged authoritative
statements about these negotiations when it is obvious they
do not have full possession of facts.
Bishop
Bernard Fellay, Superior General of the Society of Saint Pius
X, has publicly stated that contrary to various allegations,
there is no immediate reconciliation in the works.1
Most
SSPX supporters breathe a sigh of relief at this news, as
do many non-SSPX adherents who are cognizant of the fact that
the SSPX is the counterweight to the entire “approved” traditionalist
movement.2
Other Catholics are chagrined that Bishop Fellay appears to
be passing up an olive branch extended by the Vatican.
The
writers of this document, as editors of two widely-distributed
traditional Catholic journals, wish to go on record in support
of Bishop Fellay and the Society of Saint Pius X exercising
utmost caution in any negotiations with present-day Rome at
this most perilous moment in history. In this Statement we
intend to present our reasons for concluding that, alas, the
time has not yet come for the SSPX to make a deal. |
“To Guarantee our Future”
Three years
ago, Bishop Fellay advanced wise criteria for negotiations with
today’s Vatican. In his January 3, 2003 “Letter to Friends and Benefactors”,
Bishop Felky cautioned:
“To guarantee
our future, we must obtain from today’s Rome clear proof of its
attachment to the Rome of yesterday. When the Roman authorities
have re-stated with actions speaking louder than words that ‘there
must be no innovations outside of Tradition’, then ‘we’ [the SSPX]
shall no longer be a problem.”3
Based on this
prudent criteria, we fail to see how any present-day negotiations
will guarantee the future of the Society of Saint Pius X, since
today’s Rome provides no clear proof of its attachment to the Rome
of yesterday; no evidence by actions that speak louder than words
that “there must be no innovations outside of Tradition”. We see,
in fact, the contrary; so much so that many who initially celebrated
Cardinal Ratzinger’s election to the papacy, including a number
of Novus Ordo Catholics, are now crestfallen at Pope Benedict XVI’s
first nine months of office.
Pope Benedict
XVI, whose first allegiance has always been to the modernist New
Theology, appears to be no different from the Cardinal Ratzinger
who praised Vatican II as a counter-syllabus, and who stated emphatically,
“there must be no return to the syllabus”.4
This was particularly evident in his December 22, 2005 speech to
the Roman Curia where he continually praised Vatican H’s religious
liberty as the new gold standard for Church-State relations.5
The allegiance to Vatican II’s new world view is also evident from
other papal addresses in which he calls for a “healthy secularity”,
which could not be more repugnant to the Social Kingship of Jesus
Christ as advanced by the pre-Vatican II Papal Magisterium.
|
|
|
Pope
Benedict XVI’s solution to the present problems of the Church
is to go back to discover again the true teaching of Vatican
II. On this photo we can see Fr. Ratzinger and Fr. Rahner
during the Council as major and most radical theologians inspiring
the Bishops. |
The fact that
this December 22 speech denounced the “hermeneutic of discontinuity
and rupture” is nothing on which to pin much hope. For years, Cardinal
Ratzinger has lamented various bad interpretations of the Council.
But Cardinal Ratzinger’s solution has never been a return to pre-Vatican
II tradition. Rather, time and time again, his answer is to go back
to discover the “true” teaching of Vatican II. Cardinal Ratzinger’s
—and now Pope Benedict XVI’s — solution to the present upheaval
is to return Catholics to the same liberal, ambiguous Vatican II
documents that produced the crisis in the first place.
A return to
Qttas Primas, a return to the Oath Against Modernism, a return
to Blessed Pius E’s Syllabus of Errors plays no part in any
“restoration” Pope Benedict may advocate. The Benedict XVI of today
is the same Cardinal Ratzinger of yesterday. The New Theology of
Vatican II is still the center of his universe.
Thus, the question
forms on the lips of concerned Catholics: How would a “reconciled”
SSPX be able to operate freely under the aegis of the modernist
New Theology, when the entire reason for the SSPX’s existence is
to publicly oppose this destructive New Theology?
This indeed
is a sticking point, and one that would be fatal for the SSPX to
compromise on in any way. Yet there seems little doubt that the
SSPX would be expected to “give a little” to the Vatican regarding
acceptance of the Council.
There can be
no question that the SSPX (which is not in formal schism as even
admitted by Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos of the Pontifical Commission
Ecclesia Dei, and which is not sedevacantist) cannot maintain its
“irregular” canonical status indefinitely. Ultimately, the SSPX
will return to Peter’s full embrace, presumably after Rome has abandoned
the failed policies of Vatican II, something we are convinced must
(and will) happen in God’s good time.
It is our considered
opinion, however, that the “state of emergency” at this point, far
from having subsided, has become so firmly entrenched in the human
element of the Church that nothing short of divine intervention
can restore Holy Mother Church. We are, as the late Michael Davies
noted shortly before his death, “beyond crisis” since the Church
is no longer even able to generate the priestly vocations necessary
to provide the faithful with the sacraments. The rise in the number
of “priestless parishes” is a grim reminder of this reality.
Vatican
II
After Bishop
Fellay’s August 29 meeting with Pope Benedict XVI, Cardinal Francesco
Pompedda, the former prefect of the Apostolic Signatura, told the
Italian daily La Stampa that the Society of St. Pius X could
only be reconciled to the Holy See if it recognizes the validity
of Vatican II decrees.
Likewise National
Catholic Reported John Allen — somewhat inaccurately — listed
the “four conditions posed by the leadership of the SSPX for reunion:
1) Wider permission for celebration of the pre-Vatican II Mass;
2) lifting the excommunications for the four bishops consecrated
by Archbishop Lefebvre in 1988; 3) recognizing a right to criticize
certain aspects of Vatican II, especially its teaching on religious
liberty; 4) a canonical structure to provide traditionalists with
some autonomy, such as an apostolic administration.”
Regarding the
first two points: the Society of Saint Pius X is not requesting
a more widespread “permission” for the Tridentine Mass, since no
such permission is necessary. The SSPX merely wants, as does every
true Catholic, the Vatican to admit the truth that the Tridentine
Mass has never been forbidden and all priests are free to celebrate
it without a special “indult” from the bishops.
In similar
vein, the SSPX is not asking the Vatican to “lift” the excommunications
of 1988, since the SSPX does not recognize any such excommunications
exist. Again, the SSPX only wants Rome to admit the truth of
the situation and declare the excommunications null.
Further, the
SSPX does not pose these first two points as a condition for reunion,
but only as a condition for starting negotiations that
may lead to regularization. But the SSPX first asks that the Vatican
speak honestly about these two important points. If the Vatican
is not willing to admit the truth — and if any organization has
a duty to admit truth, it is the Vatican — then negotiations are
rather useless.
Regarding the
all-important third point, which would be an absolute condition
of the SSPX for regularization, John Allen wrote, “One Vatican Cardinal
who spoke to NCR February 2 said he doubted the Holy See
could accept the conditions posed by the Society for returning,
especially a right to disagreement with elements of Vatican II.
‘That would have very serious implications for the unity of
the Church,’ the Cardinal said. The unnamed prelate further stated
he believes the Pope ‘understands this very well’ and would thus
be cautious about moving forward.”6
Attachment
to the Rome of Yesterday?
Pope Benedict
XVI, however, has not been cautious about moving forward the post-Conciliar
revolution. A brief review of some of the most poignant moments
of his pontificate shows him as a man with little “attachment to
the Rome of yesterday.”
-
At Pope John
Paul H’s funeral Mass (see picture right), eleven days
before he was elected Pope, Cardinal Ratzinger gave Communion
in the hand to Brother Roger Shultz of Taize, a man whom he knew
to be Protestant. Subsequent news stories reported that this was
not the first time Cardinal Ratzinger practiced intercommunion
with non-Catholics.7
- During the
same Mass, Cardinal Ratzinger spoke of John Paul II “standing
at the window of the Father’s house”, indicating that John Paul
II is already in Heaven, thus virtually bypassing Purgatory and
providing a kind of instant canonization;8
- In his first
Papal homily, Benedict XVI said, “Therefore, in preparing myself
also for the service that is proper to the Successor of Peter,
I wish to affirm strongly my determination to continue the commitment
to implement the Second Vatican Council...” He pledged to continue
the ecumenical dialogue championed by Pope John Paul II.9
|
Cardinal
W. Kasper, in charge of ecumenical dialogue with other Christian
confessions:
as active as he was before the election of Benedict XVI. |
- In May 2005,
Pope Benedict appointed the liberal Archbishop William Levada
as Prefect for the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the
Faith. Not only has Levada a history of covering up clerical-homosexual
activity in his respective U.S. dioceses, but he was one of the
most ecumenical prelates in the United States. He was the first
U.S. bishop to visit a synagogue after Pope John Paul H’s initial
1986 synagogue visit. Levada also sponsored “Spirit of Assisi”
events in his cathedral, which included Jews, Muslims, Buddhists,
Hindus and other sects.10
This is the same Archbishop who told Father Eugene Heidt that
Transubstantiation is a “long and difficult term” and “we don’t
use that term any more”.11
Yet Levada is the man hand-picked by Pope Benedict to be the alleged
“doctrinal watchdog” of the Church worldwide. Levada was also
allowed to name his own successor in San Francisco — Bishop George
Niederauer — a man who just recently praised the homosexual film
Brokeback Mountain.
- On May 13,
2005, Pope Benedict placed the beatification of Pope John Paul
II on the fast track by bypassing the prudent five-year waiting
period. This can only serve to “canonize” Pope John Paul H’s disastrous
pan-religious policies; the revolution is preparing to canonize
its own.
- On August
17, Pope Benedict practically canonized the murdered Protestant
Brother Roger of Taize in a public speech, calling him a “faithful
servant” of the Lord who is now “in the Hands of Eternal Goodness”.12
- On August
19, Pope Benedict visited a synagogue in Cologne for the purpose
of interreligious relations, not for the purpose of exhorting
Jews to convert to Jesus Christ; this he did in Cologne while
a million young people from around the world had converged on
that city for World Youth Day. (How does one begin to evaluate
scandal on such a scale?)
- On the same
day, Pope Benedict gave an address at an ecumenical meeting in
which he spoke of ecumenism as a good thing that does not have
as its goal a “return” of non-Catholics to the one true Church
of Christ, thus undermining the infallible Catholic dogma, “Outside
the Church there is no salvation”(see picture below);13
Some
meaningful moments of the visit of Benedict XVI to the Synagogue
of Cologne:
above while he is listening to the sermon of the Rabbi;
below, receiving gifts from the Jews.
|
|
|
|
|
|
- Pope Benedict,
in October of 2005, lauded Father Hans Urs von Balthasar at a
conference honoring this liberal theologian.14
Von Balthasar taught, contrary to the clear teaching of Scripture,
that a Catholic may “hope” that all men are saved. Thus the Pope
gave unqualified praise to the man who, in effect, was one of
the world’s foremost proponents of universal salvation;
- Under Pope
Benedict XVI, the Catholic doctrine of Limbo is being “re-studied”,
and is likely to be jettisoned as outdated teaching. This undertaking
by a Commission of theologians under the Sacred Congregation for
the Doc trine of the Faith enjoys Pope Benedict’s full support.
This comes as no surprise, since Cardinal Ratzinger himself previously
indicated his own disbelief in Limbo, saying he would “let it
drop”. News of Pope Benedict’s Commission on Limbo even rattled
conservative Novus Ordo priests.15
- On November
29, 2005,16 Pope
Benedict issued a pathetic document on Seminary formation that,
for the first time in Church history, said that those who engage
in homosexual activity should be “profoundly respected”; the document
allows a homosexual to become a priest provided he has been celibate
for three years. This led a number of Novus Ordo Catholics to
regard Pope Benedict as even more liberal than Pope John XXIII
in who in a 1961 document banned homosexuals from the priesthood
because of their “evil tendencies”.
More examples
could be given but we think the point is made. To repeat Bishop
Fellay’s wise criteria, for any reconciliation of the SSPX with
Rome to be possible, Rome must give “clear proof of its attachment
to the Rome of yesterday”. Pope Benedict XVI has shown that this
criteria for a return to Tradition does not exist. Even non-Traditionalist
publications lament this aspect of Pope Benedict’s pontificate.
Dale Vree,
editor of the New Oxford Review, did not conceal his disappointment
with the Pope’s first nine months:
“This document
[on homosexuals in the seminary] is Pope Benedict’s defining moment,
and he flubbed it. Likewise, his appointment of William Levadato
be Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was
the most important appointment Benedict would make, and he flubbed
that, too.”
After noting
that Pope Benedict’s cordial four-hour visit with Hans Küng only
served to give respectability to Küng’s heretical ideas and projects,
Mr. Vree said:
“The latest
outrage is Benedict’s appointment of Bishop George Niederauer to
be Archbishop of San Francisco. Niederauer is clearly ‘gay’-friendly.
He pastored a parish in West Hollywood with a large ‘gay’ congregation,
where he said that homosexuals are ‘wonderful’. As Bishop of Salt
Lake City, he opposed a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage.
He denies that there is a link between homosexual priests and the
molestation and rape of boys. He helped found the Coalition of Concerned
Religious Leaders in Utah, which supports ‘tolerance’ for homosexuals.
Topping it off, he has been praised by Sam Sinnet, head of Dignity-USA,
and Francis DeBernardo, head of New Ways Ministry — both groups
being composed of proud ‘gay’ lesbian Catholics.”17
Mr. Vree’s
complaint is all the more warranted when we consider that Joseph
Cardinal Ratzinger was Prefect of the Vatican’s Congregation for
the Doctrine of the Faith for twenty-four years and must have
known the history of this gay-friendly bishop! Yet Bishop Niederauer
is the man he appointed to head — of all places — the diocese
of San Francisco.
Thus at a time
when even conservative Novus Ordo Catholics see the downward spiral
of Pope Benedict’s pontificate, it behooves the Society of Saint
Pius X to proceed with extreme caution in any negotiations with
a Pope who has failed to show “with actions that speak louder than
words that there must be no innovations outside of Tradition”. Under
such a Pope, it seems clear that the future of the SSPX could not
be guaranteed.
Let us make
one thing clear: Our position vis-a-vis rapprochement between the
SSPX and the Vatican is here premised on the presumption that the
SSPX is not in schism. Were the SSPX in schism then their bishops
and priests would, objectively speaking, be guilty of the mortal
sin of schism and we would have no truck with that. As has been
vigorously contended since 1988, however, the canonical standing
of the SSPX, though admittedly “irregular”, has never risen to the
level of formal schism. The priests of the SSPX pray for Pope Benedict
as well as their respective local ordinaries in every Mass they
offer; the bishops of the SSPX have no territorial jurisdiction
and so have gone to great lengths to avoid even the appearance
of establishing the “petite eglise”; the SSPX has never denied
the Pope’s authority, but, rather, citing provisions out of the
new Code of Canon Law itself for legal recourse that can be taken
in the case of necessity, the so-called “state of emergency” clause,
have chosen to withhold obedience to that which would compromise
the Faith itself. In addition to this, however, there has been no
stronger defender of the modern popes against the charges of the
so-called sedevacantists than the Society of St. Pius X. That there
is not (and never was) formal schism in the SSPX has been borne
out many times since 1988, most notably, perhaps, by Cardinal Ratzinger
himself in 1993 with respect to the case of Pat Merely and the Hawaii
Six, and, most recently, by the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei
president himself, Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos.
This fact notwithstanding,
it is a cause of no small concern that the Pope’s chosen instrument
for conducting negotiations with the SSPX happens to be the very
same Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos, a man who, in many cases in his
dealing with traditional Catholics, seems to have gone out of his
way to demonstrate himself as untrustworthy.
page 2
Notes:
1.“No
Compromise With Vatican, SSPX Leader Says”, Catholic World News,
February 7, 2006 (www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=42289)
See also “Press Conference of Bishop Fellay to the Journalists for
Religious Information”, posted by Did, February 2, 2006 (www.dici.org/actualite
read.php?id=747&loc=US).
2.
As the motu proprio Ecclesia Dei makes perfectly clear —
no SSPX, no Indult!
3.
On web at: http://www.sspx.org/Superior%20Generals%20Ltrs/supgen
6.3.htm
4.
Jospeh Cardinal Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology, (San
Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1989), p. 391.
5.
See “An Interview with Bishop Williamson on Pope Benedict XVTs Christmas
Address to the Curia”, Catholic Family News, February 2006.
On web at: http://www.cfnews.%20org/bw-dec22.htm See also, Christopher
Ferrara, ‘“Holy Revolution’ or Wholly Revolutionary”, The Remnant,
Jan. 31, 2006. On web at: www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/archive-2006-0110-whollyrevolution.htm
6.
“The Word from Rome”, John Allen, February 4, 2006. Emphasis added.
On web at: http:// www.nationalcatholicreporter.org/word/word020306.htm.
7.
“Pope Benedict XVI and Eucharistic Sacrilege”, J. Vennari, Catholic
Family News, Sept., 2005. On web at www.cfnews.org/RatzRoger.htm
The author also demonstrates that contrary to various false reports,
Brother Roger did not convert to the Catholic Faith, but died a
Protestant. This was confirmed by the author by means of two telephone
calls to the community of Taize, one before Brother Roger’s death,
and the other after his death.
8.
“Cardinal Ratzinger’s Homily at John Paul’s Funeral Mass”, Zenit,
April 8, 2005.
9.
Zenit news, April 20, 2005: www.zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=69626.
10.
“Ecumenical Archbishop Levada to Head Sacred Congregation for the
Doctrine of the Faith”, J. Vennari, Catholic Family News, June,
2005. On web at: www.cfnews.org/ LevadaCDF.htm. See also “New San
Francisco Archbishop Thinks Gay Propaganda Film Brokeback Mountain
is ‘Very Powerful’” , Lifesite, February 13, 2005. On web
at: www.lifesite.net/Idn/2006/feb/06021306.html.
11.
See Priest Where is Thy Mass? Mass Where is Thy Priest?, (Kansas
City, Angelus, 2004), p. 64.
12.
“Pope Mourns Murder of Taize’s Brother Roger: Founder ‘Has Attained
Eternal Joy,’ Says Benedict XVI”, Zenit, August 17, 2005.
13.
Pope Benedict said, “On the other hand, this unity does not mean
what could be called ecumenism of the return: that is, to deny and
to reject one’s own faith history. Absolutely not!” Ecumenical Meeting:
Cologne, August 19, 2005. Address of the Pope on Vatican webpage:
www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2005/august/documents/hf_ben-xvi_
spe_20050819_ecumenical-meeting_en.html.
14.
“Pope Praises Von Balthasar and His Theology”, Zenit, October
10, 2005.
15.
For example, see “Can Limbo Be Abolished?”, Father Brian Harrison,
The Remnant, Dec. 31, 2005. On web at: www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/archive-2005-1215-hmbo.htm
16.
In a painful irony, Pope Benedict released this appalling document
on the centenary of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre (Born November 29,
1905).
17.
“Homosexuals in the Seminary: Why the Priesthood Will Continue to
Become a ‘Gay’ Profession”, Dale Vree, New Oxford Review, February
2006, p. 4.
page 2
contents
|