Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Pope speaks about SSPX in General Audience
Before greeting the Italian pilgrims, I still have three announcements.
The first.
I have learned with great joy the election of Metropolitan Kirill as new Patriarch of Moscow and all the Russias. I invoke upon him the light of the Holy Ghost for a generous service to the Russian Orthodox Church, trusting him to the special protection of the Mother of God
The second.
In the homily pronounced on the occasion of the solemn inauguration of my Pontificate, I said that it is the "explicit" duty of the Pastor "the call to unity", and, commenting upon the Gospel words regarding the miraculous catch of fish, I said, "although there were so many, the net was not torn"; I continued after these Gospel words, "Alas, beloved Lord, with sorrow we must now acknowledge that it has been torn!". And I continued, "But no - we must not be sad! Let us rejoice because of your promise, which does not disappoint, and let us do all we can to pursue the path towards the unity you have promised. Let us remember it in our prayer to the Lord, as we plead with him: yes, Lord, remember your promise. Grant that we may be one flock and one shepherd! Do not allow your net to be torn, help us to be servants of unity!"
Precisely in the accomplishment of this service of unity, which qualifies, in a specific way, my ministry as Successor of Peter, I decided, a few days ago, to grant the remission of the excommunication in which the four bishops ordained by Archbishop Lefebvre in 1988, without pontifical mandate, had incurred. I fulfilled this act of fatherly mercy because those prelates repeatedly manifested to me their deep suffering for the situation in which they found themselves. I hope that this gesture of mine will be followed by the solicitous effort by them to accomplish the ulterior steps necessary to accomplish full communion with the Church, thus testifying true fidelity and true recognition of the Magisterium and of the authority of the Pope and of the Second Vatican Council.
The third announcement.
While I renew with affection the expression of my full and unquestionable solidarity with our brothers receivers of the First Covenant, I hope that the memory of the Shoah leads mankind to reflect on the unpredictable power of evil when it conquers the heart of man. May the Shoah be for all a warning against forgetfulness, against denial or reductionism, because the violence against a single human being is violence against all. No man is an island, a famous poet write. The Shoah particularly teaches, both old an the new generations, that only the tiresome path of listening and dialogue, of love and of forgiveness lead the peoples, the cultures, and the religions of the world to the hoped-for goal of fraternity and peace in truth. May violence never again crush the dignity of man!
Benedict XVI
General Audience
January 28, 2009
This leads to three inquiries.
The first.
In 1917, the Mother of God asked for the pope to consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. Why would she grant her protection to an anti-Catholic KGB agent?
The second.
The pope lifted the excommunications, yet hopes for "full communion." What is "full communion?" Why doesn't he hope for "full communion" with the Russian Orthodox and the Jews?
The third.
Our Lord fulfilled the covenant with Abraham. Are we not therefore the true members of the first covenant? Are we to call all men to the covenant in Christ, or to lead the "religions of the world to the hoped-for goal of fraternity and peace in truth"?
First peace and fraternity and then conversion. I heard that the Holy Father expects to have things all wrapped up with the SSPX by Feb 2, 2009!
Mary
Which things?
"First peace and fraternity and then conversion."
Was that St. John Chrysostom?
Things: You're referring to the article http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/2009-0128-mershon-vatican_insider_projects_speedy.htm ?
A unilateral "regularization" sounds nice, for the sake of the faithful. But it sweeps a lot under the rug. Is this, then, "full communion"? Is it simply a favor granted by the Holy Father? Or does it require something further?
The "things" which have to be 'wrapped up' are the 'things' in VII which cause the Archbishop Lefebvre's stand in the first place. These are the inconsistancies and breaks with the theology of the Tradition of the Church contained within the VII documents. They also are the misinter-
pretations of VII documents by bishops, priests, layity which are evident to anyone attending 'Sunday worship' in many Catholic churches. VII was NOT a dogmatic council, and no new doctrines or new proclaimations were made. One does NOT have to accept the documents of VII in order to be a Catholic, or even a priest. So, it is almost a formality to acknowledge that the SSPX is in full communion with Rome. After the 'release' of the TLM for all priests,and the withdrawing of the 'excommunication' of the bishops, the only condition left for talks to begin with Rome, is that SSPX does NOT have to adhere to the vagaries of VII. Contrary to Ciprian's statement, NOTHING is being 'swept under the rug'. It all has been out in the open since 1970. You can read all about it in the Archbishop's writings, in those of Michael Davies, and many others. It is generally known that SSPX has ALWAYS been in 'communion with Rome' in matters of Faith, Morals,Sacraments, etc., and it may have been in fact some of those IN Rome who were the real ones who LEFT Rome. There may have been something 'swept under the rug' but it was not the doings of SSPX.
Thanks Elizabeth. I should have been more clear about what would be swept under the rug.
First, "full communion" has occurred. The pope's use of "full communion" seems to be an arbitrary standard.
Second, it's the pope who would sweeping Vatican II under the rug. The SSPX is fully Catholic in that regard, as you well noted.
Third, what I was thinking of, was settling the 1988 denial of the jurisdiction of Peter, and whether it will happen again. As much as some protest that Abp. Lefebvre was justified, he was absolutely not justified (Vatican I), and this is the problem. And his children may still be infected with his disregard for the final authority of Peter.
Fourth, there must be a review of the Society's priests ordained since 1988 and the "annulments" granted. This is for the sake of the faithful. Yes, I put annulments in quotes, for the argument of supplied jurisdiction is dubious, and must be cleared up with the true authority.
Just to be clear, cleaning up the legalities is good for the SSPX and all who would attend their Masses. As it is now, there is still a cloud hanging over the SSPX, and the neoCaths and "indult trads" (to coin a phrase) feel free to dump on them. To foster unity, wouldn't it be best if Rome seriously reviews the SSPX ordinations and annulments, and confirms them by Her authority?
I suspect the big issue, whether you can tell the pope to go fly a kite, will take a long time to iron out.
Cyprian seems to believe that the bishops of SSPX told the Pope to "go fly a kite". Humerous, but not true. The Code of Canon Law allows, in time of great need, the suspension of the approval of Rome for something of which there is dire need and no permission. Permission for a Bishop was asked for again and again by the
Archbishop, and put off several times by Rome. The ABp,when he was very old, ordained the Bishops for the continuance of the TLM which was all but defunct. Hey, if he didn't do it, there would be no TLM or priests to offer it today! He saw a great need and acted boldly. No thumbing the nose at Rome, only thinking of the preservation of a dying Catholic Tradition. This is why the language of the latest Rome declaration on Jan 21 acknowledged the 'excommunications' to be 'withdrawn'. If a defrocked priest says a Mass without 'jurisdiction' is the Host consecrated if he had the right intention? Yes. If a bishop ordains men as bishops without 'jusisdiction' are they ordained? If a priest marries two persons and does not get the permission of the priest of those persons parishes are they married? One is about Church Law, the other about the power of the priesthood.
Thanks Anonymous. You weave your words well, but obfuscate the heart of the matter. There is a necessity clause, yes. But the first thing necessary is to obey all the de fide teachings of the Church and the legitimate orders of the pope. Abp. Lefebvre failed on both counts, the more serious of which was the denial of the dogma of immediate jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff (Vatican I). You, and the SSPX, would make it sound as if A.L. was in outer Mongolia and couldn't expect word from the pope before death. A.L. was well informed of the pope's negative decision, which is why the SSPX pulls up the "necessity" clause.
What must be claimed is some incapacity of the pope that rendered his orders null. The sedevacantists are more than happy to go there. The SSPX doesn't go there, thankfully.
As for "Hey, if he didn't do it, there would be no TLM or priests to offer it today!" That's pure speculation. Do you imagine that God had no other means than A.L. to propogate the traditions of the Faith?