Tag: doctrinal discussions

Faith First

Faith First posted in Eleison Comments on November 23, 2013

The great lesson taught by Archbishop Lefebvre (1905–1991) to Catholics who had ears to hear was that the Faith is higher than obedience. The sad lesson we have learned since is that obedience keeps on being rated higher than the Faith. These “Comments,” driven continually by today’s confusion in Church, world and Society of St Pius X to get back to basics, have often attempted to explain why the Faith must come first.

Take for instance the arguments of an honourable SSPX priest who recently sent me an e-mail, accusing me of wrongly assessing the present state of the SSPX. My resistance to the – as I call it – Newsociety is, he says, 1) too personally motivated, 2) forgetting the good of the Church, 3) inconsistent with positions I have taken before, 4) lacking Catholic realism, 5) against Church indefectibility, 6) for each man being his own Pope, 7) for a modernist vision of the Church, 8) Protestant, 9) against union with Rome, and finally 10) pushing souls away from the Church.

Now, I am no Archbishop Lefebvre, and I do not pretend to be, but does my colleague realize that all of these arguments (except the third) he could have applied thirty years ago to the Archbishop’s resistance to the official Church authorities in Rome? Yet the Archbishop’s resistance was 1) motivated only by the urgent need to defend the Faith, 2) for the good of the Universal Church, 4) in a completely realistic way (as the Catholic fruits of his Society proved), 5) not disproving but proving, by his very resistance, the Church’s indefectibility, 6) for the Church of all time being the measure of the Popes, 7) against all craziness of neo-modernism, 8) against modernism’s renewal of Protestantism, 9) for union with the Catholic Rome of all time, and finally 10) helping many truly Catholic souls to keep the Faith instead of losing it.

And what justified the Archbishop’s resistance back then? What proved then that he was not, despite the appearances, a rebel like Luther, but truly Catholic, and a great servant of the Church? His doctrine, his doctrine, his doctrine! Whereas Luther denied a mass of Catholic teachings, the Archbishop affirmed every one of them. It was in the name of the doctrine of the Faith that the Archbishop took his stand against the Conciliar Popes and Church authorities who were radically undermining that doctrine by renewing and adopting the dreadful errors of modernism.

So what justifies now a certain resistance to the leadership of the SSPX? How can those who resist claim to be the truest servants of the SSPX? Doctrine, doctrine, doctrine! The mid-April Declaration of 2012 was proof of an appalling doctrinal deficiency at the top of the SSPX, and while the Declaration was withdrawn, its contents have not been retracted but even defended, as being for instance “too subtle”! Nor have the official SSPX documents of July 14, 2012 or June 27, 2013 properly undone the damage. The proof is that the governing policy of SSPX HQ has not changed. Dear colleague, your own Society was founded on putting Faith before apparent obedience, and now you want to defend that Society by putting apparent obedience to the Society before the Faith? Study the documents, and watch the actions!

Kyrie eleison.P.S. Meanwhile does anybody have a complete set of Spanish or French translations of this “Commentary” from when they began to appear, in the early EC 100’s? Please let us know.

Fatal Moment

Fatal Moment posted in Eleison Comments on October 5, 2013

Most readers of these “Comments” have probably understood by now the grave problem that is paralysing the defence of the Faith by the Society of St Pius X, and they might rather read of other things. But such is the mess created in millions of people’s minds by the global falling away from the Faith that I think one can hardly analyse too much today the nature of the Faith, the need of the Faith and how it gets undermined. Let me then, without wishing to harp on the SSPX’s recent misfortunes or misdemeanours, borrow one more example from its history of last year.

The Society’s General Chapter of July, 2012, was hailed immediately afterwards by many of its participants as a triumph of Society unity over the distress and tensions of the several previous months. Since that time however, a more sober view of the Chapter has taken over from the euphoria, and a number of those who took part in it see it rather as having been a disaster for the Society. One of the participants, or capitulants as they are called, has described the fatal moment when the Society’s leading 39 priests (myself excluded) put their own Society and Superiors in front of the doctrine of the Faith, just as the mass of Catholic bishops had done at Vatican II.

The Chapter’s deliberations proper opened with a serious doctrinal attack by the Rector of the SSPX seminary in Écône on the mid-April Doctrinal Declaration by which the SSPX had officially been ready to compromise with the neo-modernists in Rome on the Council, on the New Mass, on the New Code of Canon Law and on Pope Benedict’s “hermeneutic of continuity.” The attack was expressed in moderate and respectful terms, but it was most grave in substance. It meant in effect that whoever had drafted the Declaration, or encouraged its being submitted to Rome, was incompetent in Catholic doctrine. If they were consciously incompetent, they were traitors to the Faith. If unconsciously, they were unfit to be at the head of a Catholic Congregation founded to defend the Faith. So a hush fell upon the Chapter as capitulants began to realize how grave was the implicit accusation against their Superiors.

But then the Rector of the Society’s seminary in Argentina broke the hush by saying that the Chapter could not possibly administer a slap to its Superior General by requiring of him to retract his Declaration. That retraction, he said, would be implicit in the Chapter’s final Declaration. Then some other capitulant raised a different point, and the Chapter slid on to other business. However, the doctrinal problem of the treacherous mid-April Declaration was properly resolved neither by the Chapter’s final Declaration or six Conditions for a future agreement with Rome, nor by any clear subsequent retraction on the part of the Superior General himself, on the contrary. And the Society continues to be led in practice in accordance with the same policy of being gentle with the enemies of the Faith in Rome, who tear to pieces the Faith and with it the Church.

How could the capitulants not see that “respect for Superiors” was being put in front of the Faith? How could they not insist that the doctrinal problem, by far the most important problem in front of the whole Chapter, should be made clear, until all of them could fully grasp what action needed to be taken immediately, and not cleverly postponed until the end of the Chapter? The answer must be that collectively they were, like the bishops of Vatican II, children of the modern world for whom the doctrine of the Faith is not a vital necessity, but just something one learns in the seminary to become a priest, and then honours, but more or less disregards. Readers, read!

Kyrie eleison.

Continuing Damage – I

Continuing Damage – I posted in Eleison Comments on July 27, 2013

When people wish to defend the very bad Doctrinal Declaration (DD) officially submitted by the Society of St Pius X to the Roman authorities in mid-April of last year as the basis for a practical agreement between Rome and the SSPX, they will often argue that since Rome refused the DD, the DD is of no further interest and may be forgotten. But in this month’s issue of the “Recusant,” newly arisen magazine of the Resistance in England, there appears a contrary argument which deserves careful attention. Here it is, either quoted directly from the original, or summarized:—

“The DD, as both its name and its contents make clear, is a statement saying that a number of doctrinal positions on questions of the greatest importance in the present crisis in the Church are acceptable to the SSPX. The problem is that several of the positions expressed in the DD are not acceptable.” For instance the SSPX’s General Chapter of last July was told by a leading theologian of the SSPX that “This Declaration is ( . . .) profoundly ambiguous and sins by omission against the duty to denounce clearly the principal errors which are still raging within the Church and are destroying the faith of Catholics. As it stands, this Declaration gives the impression that we would accept the ‘hermeneutic of continuity’.” “The harm done by the DD is therefore that of a doctrinally dubious public statement. Nor has it, as such, been “withdrawn” or “renounced.” In fact Bishop Fellay consistently refuses to admit that there is anything doctrinally dubious about his Declaration. At the very most he admits to having tried to be “too subtle,” but he does not admit that such subtlety is highly objectionable in matters pertaining to the defence of the Faith. Bishop Fellay complains that the whole problem is that he “has not been properly understood” even by theologically very skilled members of the SSPX. He allows, among others, Fr Themann in the USA to defend the Declaration in public conferences that have been recorded and are being distributed among the faithful.”

It is true that matters might have been worse if Rome had accepted the DD, but that does not lessen the standing damage wrought by the DD’s manifestation of what is doctrinally acceptable to the SSPX. For if Bishop Fellay says that he “withdraws” and “renounces” the DD, he certainly seems to mean no more than that it was inopportune at that moment, as being liable to cause division in the SSPX. “He has never as much as suggested that the DD is doctrinally dubious and unacceptable. And that is where the real issue has been all along, and that is the issue that is far from being solved: the Superior General seems to refuse to make any unambiguous profession of the SSPX’s position.”

In conclusion, the scandal caused by the DD has still not been repaired “Trying to downplay the seriousness of the matter for the purpose of maintaining or regaining peace and quiet among the faithful risks encouraging the mentality that doctrine does not matter all that much, as long as things run smoothly and we can keep the true Mass, etc.” Such downplaying will only make the scandal worse (End of the article in the “Recusant”).

This article states very moderately the problem of the DD not being publicly recanted or retracted by Bishop Fellay. But how can any Catholic Congregation keep and serve the Truth when it is led by a Superior who so obstinately plays at ducks and drakes with the Truth? If the SSPX is a lifeboat, either it gets rid of this deluded Captain who constantly seeks to drill holes in the floor of the lifeboat, or the SSPX turns into a deathboat. May God in his mercy open the SSPX’s eyes.

Kyrie eleison.

Lively Debate

Lively Debate posted in Eleison Comments on July 6, 2013

The problem of crippled authority (see these “Comments” of June 1 and 29) is rousing some lively reactions amongst readers. On the one hand valiant Catholics tell me that I AM a bishop, therefore I must ACT as a bishop by taking command of the “Resistance” movement. On the other hand a valiant priest with long experience of “sedevacantism” warns me not to let loose parallel churches by consecrating any more bishops, except in the case of World War, physical persecution or paralytic old age (well, there are those who would claim that the last has already set in . . .).

Of course the problem goes back to Vatican II, when at the bottom end of a 700-year slide the Conciliar churchmen by abandoning Church doctrine split Catholic Truth from Catholic Authority, and by so doing so discredited official Church authority that souls like those mentioned above no longer see the need for it. But central Church authority, given the natural diversity and original sin of all mankind, is absolutely necessary to ensure Church unity (and therewith survival) not only in the Truth but also in the sacraments and in Church government.

That is why a bishop or priest needs not only the sacramental power of his Orders, power he can never lose for all eternity, but also the power of jurisdiction, which is the power of saying (dictio) what goes, or what is right (ius, iuris). This second power does not go with his Orders, and he cannot give it to himself, he can only receive it from on high, from a Church Superior, ultimately from the Pope, and the Pope from God. Hence when valiant souls tell me that I AM a bishop (by my Orders) so that I am delinquent if I do not ACT as such by telling (dictio) the “Resistance” what to do (ius), most likely they are confusing the two distinct powers of the bishop.

However, they may be instinctively hitting upon another doctrine of the Church and of common sense, namely that of supplied jurisdiction: in an emergency where for whatever reason the Superiors are not providing the jurisdiction needed for the salvation of souls, the Church supplies it. For instance, a priest may have no jurisdiction as is normally needed to hear Confessions, but if a penitent asks him to hear his Confession, then in case of need the priest may hear it and the sacrament will be valid. Now for sure and certain the vast emergency created in the Church by Vatican II has even been aggravated by the notorious mid-April Doctrinal Declaration from SSPX HQ, which is documentary proof of the crumbling of the last standing fortress of the true Faith.

But supplied jurisdiction has a weakness, because not being official, it is much more open to dispute. For instance, Conciliar Rome denies that there is any such thing as a Church emergency created by Vatican II, and they put corresponding pressure, all too successful, on the Society of St Pius X to submit itself to Conciliar authority. Such is the need for authority to be official. Even Archbishop Lefebvre lost maybe a quarter of the priests that he ordained, because he had no power to stop them from simply walking away. Such is this unbelievable crisis of the Church. So if a priest or layman asks me to give him commands, he may himself dispute it a few months later, or as soon as he receives what he considers to be a command he need not obey.

But the crisis remains real, and it is only going to get worse until God intervenes to bring the Pope to his Catholic senses, which God will do when enough Catholics are begging him to open the Pope’s eyes. Between now and then the sharpening emergency is set fair more and more to fortify unofficial authority, but may Almighty God help us to avoid unnecessary anarchy.

Kyrie eleison.

Authority Crippled – II

Authority Crippled – II posted in Eleison Comments on June 29, 2013

Again I am being urged by a valiant participant in today’s Catholic “Resistance” to put myself at the head of it. The reason given continues to be that I am the only bishop yet taking any part in this movement of opposition to the internal collapse of the Society of St Pius X. But God gave the dying breath of true Church authority to Archbishop Lefebvre, whose successors have cruelly abused it. Why should he give it again? The crisis of the Church has far advanced between the 1970’s and the 2010’s. At the risk of annoying many of you, here are the good soul’s main arguments, with answers which I propose to anybody but impose on nobody –

1 The wide diversity of opinion amongst Resistance priests confuses the laity.* But to control opinions requires authority (see above). And maybe Catholics deserve to be confused after so many blindly followed Vatican II, and are now blindly following the SSPX. Maybe God has had enough of blind obedience. Maybe he wants Catholics to use their heads and think for themselves, and not just blindly “obey,” as a lazy way to Heaven.

2 In particular there is confusion over whether to jump ship, i.e. stop attending SSPX masses.* But why should one opinion fit all cases? All kinds of different circumstances can bear on such a question. Granted, to stay with the SSPX on its present false course involves a real danger of gradually sliding, but souls need sacraments, and by no means all SSPX priests are yet traitors. In France recently the first edition of a 350-page book, 90% of which consists of quotations from Archbishop Lefebvre, sold out in two weeks. It was put together by an SSPX priest, Fr. François Pivert. That is a positive sign of hope. God bless him!

3 The friction between Resistance priests could make the Resistance self-destroy.* There has always been, and there always will be, personal friction amongst priests. Doctrinal friction is much graver. It is doctrinal fidelity that mainly held the SSPX together until now, and doctrinal infidelity that is now destroying it. It is doctrinal fidelity that will guarantee our one and only Faith which is the basis of whatever will survive of Catholicism in the Church, or in the SSPX, or in the “Resistance.”

4 There is no Church without a head or hierarchy. God wants us organized.* Normally indeed there is no Church without head or hierarchy, but modern man has created an abnormal situation. Whereas the pagan centurion in the Gospels (Mt.VIII, 6–10) had a natural sense of how to command and how to obey (the two go together), “democratic” man has, in the name of liberty, wilfully unlearned how to do either. Thus arbitrary commands and excessive obedience are presently destroying the SSPX, as they have largely destroyed the mainstream Church. This is because both rulers and ruled lack the sense and love of that objective truth which is above both of them, and which when heeded has no difficulty in harmonizing their authority and obedience. Perhaps God wishes us to pursue doctrine rather than organization.

In conclusion, this exceptional trial of the Church will last for as long as God needs it to last for the purification of his Church. Meanwhile in the early 21st century there seems to me to be just not enough Catholic straw left to make a Catholic brick like the SSPX of the late 20th century. Patience. God will have his way. It is his Church, and he is looking after it. Patience.

Kyrie eleison.

Horrible Fall – II

Horrible Fall – II posted in Eleison Comments on June 22, 2013

“Horror” may seem too strong a word for the change of direction within the Society of St Pius X that at last became clear one year ago. However, if Hell is horrible; if one cannot avoid it without the faith; if the Faith came into grave danger in a Church disabled by Vatican II, but a fortress of the true Faith was miraculously established within that disabled Church; and finally if that fortress is now also being disabled, then “horror” may not be too strong a word.

The SSPX has not yet fallen completely, but it has fallen a long way and it may fall all the way. The leadership that has skilfully promoted that fall over the last 15 years is still in power. It followed Archbishop Lefebvre while he lived, but it never understood, or it chose to cease understanding, why he founded the Society in the first place, namely to resist the downfall of Conciliar churchmen seeking to bring the Church into line with the glamorous but corrupt modern world. Once he was no longer there, these leaders were all too soon re-possessed by the glamour.

Right now they are dragging down with them a number of older SSPX priests, and they are deforming the younger ones. As for the older priests, just like after Vatican II, those shaped under the Archbishop can be in torment from the Newsociety’s bending them out of shape, unless and until they make the decision to go with the flow, but thereupon their conscience has to be anaesthetized. As for the younger priests, just like after Vatican II, having been normally mis-shaped in the new direction, only by themselves can they find the old direction, because they are not being taught what the Archbishop was really about. In effect, the SSPX seminaries are slowly being turned into newseminaries. Care must be taken in recommending them for vocations.

And towards the top of the SSPX? Here is the recent thinking of one who is thoroughly familiar with the doctrinal stand of the Archbishop. For a long time he was its defender, but since the Doctrinal Discussions of 2009 to 2011 proved that Rome was persevering in its doctrinal error, now he too, in 2013, approves of the Society’s collapse of principle at the Chapter of 2012 when it renounced a doctrinal agreement and set conditions for a merely practical agreement. Yet he is glad that in practice the collapse bore no fruit! Surely this was only because the Romans did not yet think the collapse was complete enough, yet he looks forward to the SSPX leaders renewing contacts with the new Pope, as though, having half collapsed, they do not risk collapsing completely when they crawl back to Rome in pursuit of canonical recognition for the SSPX.

What has happened to his mind? Just like many good priests under the tyrannical Paul VI after Vatican II, he has loosened it from divine doctrine and is making it go with the human flow. His conscience cannot be easy, but probably his will is getting set upon preferring the apparent good of the SSPX to the real good of the Faith, which is incompatible with submission to its powerful enemies. By pronouncing his solidarity with the Society leaders who want such a submission, he may not lose the faith himself, but by his new softness towards the Roman apostates he risks at the least making it somewhat easier for a number of other souls to begin losing the true faith.

As for the SSPX leaders, they are mired in duplicity because they still have to deceive themselves and others that they are faithful to the old religion of God and of Archbishop Lefebvre, when in reality they are wanting to belong to the mainstream Church dedicated to the new religion of man. The loss of souls and the duplicity are a double horror.

Kyrie eleison.