July 1990 Print

Frank Denke

 

From time to time, it may help to reflect upon current events from the point of view of common sense. The immediate inspiration for these thoughts was the written subject matter of a conference given recently in Denver by Mary Ann Clampitt. The purpose of her conference was to claim that those attending Traditional Masses offered by priests of the canonically established St. Pius X Society were out of the Church.

Such a wholesale "excommunication" of Catholics is reminiscent of the desire of Pope St. Victor to excommunicate the Asian Catholics who, in spite of his command, held to their custom of celebrating Easter on a different date than the rest of the Church. This "excommunication", of Catholics for preserving a custom that had no bearing on the Faith, was opposed by St. Ireneus who prevailed. What about Catholics who, in spite of a papal command, act to preserve the Faith itself? Can they be any less attached to the Church whose Faith they defend than those Asian Catholics before them?

Except for Ecclesia Dei, each of the documents quoted by Mary Ann Clampitt was written by a pope whose reign as a Defender of the Faith has been verified by the passage of time. Not all popes can claim this title.

Pope Pius IX is selectively quoted throughout her paper. Interestingly, it was the same pontiff who defended the Church by condemning the following:

(1) "Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true" (i.e., a universal right of "religious liberty", to practice false religions doesn't exist).

"Man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation, and arrive at eternal salvation" (i.e., the basis of false "ecumenism" is defined and condemned)... propositions 15 and 16 of Pius IX's "Syllabus".

But Vatican II's "Religious Liberty", by defending as a "right" men's desire to freely profess any religion they choose, visibly contradicts what Pius IX taught. Who today believes that Rome's ecumenical policy of union without conversion was ever the missionary spirit of the Catholic Church.

We see that ecumenism destroys what tradition has built. We hear that rights once related to doing God's will should now be related to doing man's will, and, while looking at the rubble of the Church we love, we are told by its leaders that it's better this way.

It is noteworthy that after more than 20 years since Vatican II, the Pope in Ecclesia Dei is still asking theologians for the impossible: to try to and "reveal the Council's continuity with Tradition, especially in points of doctrine which, because they are new, have not yet been well understood..." ("How's a Catholic to understand that, for him, "religious Liberty" means he's not to worship God the way his parents did?") I don't recall that popes following the Council of Trent made similar requests of their theologians to "reveal" that Council's continuity with the traditional teaching of the Church...

Modernists Remain...

Pius IX's Syllabus of Errors said it was opposed to the Catholic Faith to hold that "Christ did not always posses the consciousness of His Messianic dignity," or that "The Resurrection of the Savior is not properly a fact of the historical order..."

One need only read Hans Kung's book, "On Being a Christian", wherein he states that the "resurrection of Jesus was not a historical event," repeated in his book "Eternal Life", and sadly wonder at the orientation of the current Pontiff who allows this and similar "Catholic theologians" to be considered within the Church and to licitly retain their priestly faculties.

Unfortunately, not one of the documents quoted by Mary Ann Clampitt addresses the limits of what one should obey in the face of a general apostasy from the faith in which Rome appears involved. If the grace of Confirmation could speak, would it not say "resist"?

"Schism"... What is it?

Mary Ann Clampitt defines "schism" as the "rejection of the pope's authority and refusal to communicate with faithful members of the Church." If an archbishop were to truly reject Rome's authority, would he tell his bishops "to remain attached to the See of Peter, to the Roman Church..."¹ and reserve to the Holy See the territorial and jurisdictional assignments of these same bishops? Does the truly schismatic Russian Orthodox Church withhold jurisdiction from their bishops, look to our Pope as the only authority to make such assignments, and instruct their members to remain attached to the See of Peter?

In this light, one must answer the question posed by Archbishop Lefebvre's reserving to the Holy See the territorial and jurisdictional assignments of his new bishops. If Archbishop Lefebvre is called "schismatic" because he "rejects papal authority," what is he to be called when he reserves to that same papal authority the jurisdictional assignment of his bishops?

The Archbishop would willingly accept a Dogma of Faith infallibly promulgated by the current Pontiff. What non-Catholic prelate do you know of who does this? In short, the Archbishop's position doesn't match the total break in unity with Church or Pope that is implied in the definition of "schism".

Disobedience vs. Schism

"Ecclesia Dei" attempts to equate "disobedience" with "schism". Regarding this matter, an interesting point is made by Fr. Yves Congar. Fr. Congar, among many others, notes that "schism" only takes place when a prelate denies the office of the Pope. He continues by saying an act of disobedience to the Pope does not make one schismatic but only disobedient. Specifically, the "Dictionary of Catholic Theology" states: "Schism involves a refusal to accept the existence of legitimate authority in the Church," (pg.403) while "disobedience" involves "the refusal to accept a decision of that authority in a particular instance" (pg. 404).

So... What About Schism?

When interviewed about the Archbishop's episcopal consecration, Canon Lawyer and Professor Geringer of the Faculty of Theology, University of Munich, stated that "with the episcopal consecration, Archbishop Lefebvre was by NO means creating a schism," a view shared by Fr. Patrick Valdrini, Dean of the faculty of Canon Law, Catholic Institute of Paris, who further argued "that since Archbishop Lefebvre had not given the consecrated bishops any jurisdiction or territory, the consecration did not constitute an act of schism"². Even Cardinal Castillo Lara, President of the Pontifical Commission for the authentic Interpretation of Canon Law, expressed the same idea ("Republica" 8/07/88).

And What About Obedience?

Have you never as a parent instructed your children that they were not to obey your command to do something they sincerely believed was harmful? Did you think that by obeying this precept they would be rejecting your rightful authority? This simply shows the teaching of the Church concerning the limits of obedience due to one's superior. Both common sense and Canon Law respect this limit.

For example, canonists cite codes 1323 and 1324 to show that the threat of "ipso facto" excommunication, for an unauthorized consecration, would not apply to the Archbishop. In brief, these codes of Canon Law say that if a prelate perceives in his own eyes an emergency situation in the Church, and acts in good faith to defend the Church, yet against a code of Canon Law (even though he be objectively wrong in his judgment of the situation), he cannot be punished by excommunication for "disobedience." In short, the Archbishop, protected by Canon Laws 1323 and 1324, cannot be excommunicated under code 1354 as a "schismatic" nor under 1382 for "disobedience"³... nor can you.

 

Can Papal Condemnations Be In Error?

While some Catholic apologists have attempted to prove that Pope Liberius did not confirm the excommunication of St. Athanasius, there is no longer any doubt that it is an historical fact. That this was the case is supported by a fourfold cord of evidence: testimonies of St. Athanasius, St. Hilary, Sozomen, and St. Jerome. These accounts were independent and consistent with each other⁴. According to "A Catholic Dictionary of Theology" (1971), The excommunication (of St. Athanasius) was unjust. Would anyone argue that St. Athanasius was actually separated from the Church by this unjust condemnation, or that God was "bound" by it?

The case of Pope Honorius poses an interesting problem for those who still claim there should be no limit on obeying the pope. Honorius was accused of favoring heresy, and was subsequently condemned by Pope Leo II and by subsequent popes "and anathematised" (DS 563), "to be cast forth from the holy church of God" (6th ecumenical Council, DS 552). If Honorius did not really favor heresy, then Leo II erred in condemning him. But if Leo II did not err in his condemnation, then Honorius was guilty of favoring heresy⁵. Who would argue that it was better to obey Honorius than to defend the Faith?

Blind Obedience and the Abuse of Authority...

There may be a great difference between a legal right and a moral right. In the 1200's Popes had the legal right to appoint whomever they wished to fill vacant canonries. Nepotism, although legally permitted, was an obvious abuse of this legal right. Bishop Grosseteste refused to obey Pope Innocent IV's legal command to appoint the Pope's nephew to a canonry in the Bishop's diocese, because continued Papal nepotism was harming the Church. The Pope wanted to imprison his bishop. Would he have been acting within his legal capacity to have done so? Yes, but by such an act he would have been abusing the moral dimension of his authority.

Moral theologians have written that a person who fails to oppose an abuse of authority becomes a party to it. Does this justify blind obedience to the non-infallible decisions of a pope? Would anyone argue that no Pope has ever made a decision harmful to the Church?

The Pope is given his authority by God to build the Church⁶. Therefore, Papal acts which diminish or harm the Church, or which withhold something good from her, are an abuse of papal authority, and may be opposed. Does this sound "un-Catholic?" Was it "un-Catholic" for St. Paul to oppose St. Peter?

Related Questions

The Pope has made it clear that there are to be no altar girls. The constant teaching of the Church on the historical Resurrection of Christ and against artificial birth control is well known. Vatican II declared "the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites" (and that Gregorian Chant was to be given "pride of place"). The Pope in Ecclesia Dei, regarding the Traditional Mass in its "typical edition of 1962," called upon the bishops (commonly regarded as being in communion with him) for a "wide and generous application" of its availability and forbids any mixing of the two rites. All of this should be well known by Catholics and by their bishops. You can bet the Archbishop supports the Pope in all this.

If your local bishop within his jurisdiction (1) allows altar girls, (2) does not enforce the Church's teaching on artificial birth control, (3) refuses a "wide and generous" availability of the "Latin liturgical tradition," (4) forces people to attend vernacular-only Masses by restricting masses in Latin (we won't mention Gregorian Chant) or (5) allows Kung's books to be used to "teach the faith" anywhere in his diocese, who will claim that such a bishop is not disobedient to Pope, Church and Council? Further, if your local bishop maintains in positions of authority people who campaign for women priests, or who are allowed in other ways to harm the Church by opposing her traditional teaching, on what basis and to what extent do you justify remaining in communion with him, or with his priests?

While the canonical status and faith of Archbishop Lefebvre can be easily argued in his favor, can one claim the same about a bishop who rejects or fails to enforce the Church's teaching on artificial birth control, the historical Resurrection of Christ, or the prohibition against women "priests"?

Those who argue against the Archbishop can't have it both ways. If they think disobedience to Pope or Council equals "schism" (even though it doesn't), when their own local bishop is disobedient to any of the above, what way can they claim to be avoiding their own definition of "schism" and justify "defending the Faith" by attending masses in his diocese?

Old Catholics

Mary Ann Clampitt, as have others, would like us to draw a comparison between the Old Catholics and Archbishop Lefebvre...

Once upon a time there was a group of Catholics who wanted to reform the Church, claiming it should return to the purity of the "ancient faith" as practiced by the early Christians. Their platform included planks to prepare the way for the reunion (not conversion) of all Christian confessions, a reform of the position of the clergy, a reform of the Church with constitutional participation of the laity, the forming of parish communities, the abolition of celibacy (due to the shortage of priests), the abandoning of confession and the use of the vernacular in the "service of the altar." Protestants were included in their theological faculty. Their congress was attended by three Anglican Bishops and members of the Russian clergy (ref., 1911 edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia). They also refused to accept the infallibility of the Pope in defining dogmas. Now my question for you is this: does the above description describe Old Catholics, New Catholics... or both? It certainly doesn't describe Catholic Catholics.

One can better align the Archbishop's position with that of the Church when it condemned and refused to accept the above tendencies as anti-Catholic, than with the "New Church" which allows most of them to flourish among the faithful. Let the reader judge the extent to which much of the above is going on or being petitioned for by the clergy (and hierarchy) of his own diocese. Must one not ultimately decide if it is Catholic to remain in communion with such priests and bishops?

Living Tradition: C'est Moi...

We are told that if we oppose the current orientations of post Vatican II Rome, we do "not take into sufficient account the living character of Tradition..." (Ecclesia Dei).

If the term "living tradition" is used to justify the destruction of our Catholic traditions, this term has lost its Catholic meaning. The only Catholic meaning of "living tradition" can be to define the obligation of Rome to protect and transmit throughout time the "Deposit of Faith," as entrusted to the Church by Our Lord. This is done by defending the faithful against errors AND orientations pernicious to the Faith, and by deepening our understanding of what the Church has always taught. Common sense says tradition is abandoned by the introduction of novel interpretations, orientations or innovations into the life of the Church. The Pope, himself, is duty-bound to Tradition and to the moral dimensions of our traditions. Our Pope doesn't "make tradition." He is its guardian.

As far as the Faith is concerned, a Rome that doesn't defend tradition is most kindly described as "dead."

If The Pope Does It, So Will I...

...is an argument used to defend ones remaining in their "updated" parishes, and perceived by some as an outward sign of fidelity to the Church, but is "the pope does it" a valid argument?

Was the current Pontiff faithful to the Bride of Christ when he:

(1) Publicly praised (11/17/80) the "profound religiosity and spiritual inheritance" of a man (Luther) known in his time for his blasphemous speech, his justification of infidelity in marriage and other excesses, his war on celibacy, his hatred of the Mass, the Catholic priesthood, the Papacy and the Church...

(2) Took part (12/11/83) in a Lutheran ceremony, reciting a "prayer" by Luther...

(3) Assisted (8/8/85) at Animist (pagan) rites while in Togo's "Sacred Forest." (recall that the gods of pagans are devils)...

(3) Received from a Hindu priestess the "Testa, sign of Tilak..." (2/8/86)

(4) Organized a meeting of world religions where Buddhist monks adored their Dalai Lama (the reincarnation of Buddha), while sitting with their backs towards the Blessed Sacrament, and where an idol of Buddha was later placed upon the tabernacle of the main altar to be adored (10/28/86). The Pope has justified Assisi to his bishops, saying it reflected the true implementation of Vatican II. We must, therefore, conclude that Assisi was not a misunderstanding of, but rather an explanation of Vatican II.

Is a Catholic who wishes to defend the Faith he loves to follow in these footsteps? Dom Gueranger (in his "Liturgical Year") insists that when the Faith is compromised by someone in authority in the Church, the true Christian is the one who makes a stand for the faith rather than the one who does nothing under the "specious pretext" of submission to lawful authority.

The Pope's policy of enculturation, where the customs of the local people prevail at Mass, could lead to some interesting events. How would you react to reports of the Pope's offering a Mass where the female lector wore nothing from the waist up? Admittedly this would first occur in a culture different from ours, but would it not set an interesting precedence for our country if the Pope accepts local dress codes as appropriate for Mass participation in place of traditional Christian modesty? Preposterous? This took place at the Papal Mass on May 8th, 1984. In our Country Fr. Griese, after 47 years of service to the Church, was recently discharged as pastor by his bishop for his anti-enculturation policy of prohibiting shorts, tank tops, mini skirts and halters at Mass.

Fr. Griese, by being obedient to the norms of Christian modesty, was certainly disobedient to Rome's policy of enculturation and to his local bishop. Those who argue "total obedience to Rome and bishop" should feel right at home supporting this bishop's condemnation of his Catholic priest.

It was recently reported by Solange Hertz (in the April 30 "Remnant") that, due to enculturation, the Pope has now permitted corn wine ("fruit of the vine?") and cakes made of cassava root to replace bread and wine in the Africanized Novus Ordo. In our country, Cardinal Bernardin is allowed by Rome to use a sweetened cookie mix to bake his "sacred species⁷." Cookies, anyone... for the Sacrifice of Calvary?

Pause for a moment to consider the following. Would even one of the above events have been acceptable to St. Peter... or St. Gregory the Great, St. Pius V (who defended the Church against the Moslems), St. Pius X (who defended the Church against Modernism)... or to even one of the saints in the glorious history of the Church? The extent to which modern day Rome has deviated from the Faith of our fathers is measured by your response.

To label those who oppose such abuses as being "disloyal to the pope" who allows them, when their opposition is rooted in their love of the Church and Her traditions (Pope included), is as unjust as it is untrue. Who does more for the salvation of souls: a person who goes along with unjust or harmful papal policies, or one who, by refusing to acquiesce, urges the pope to abandon such novelties that breed nothing but contempt for the Church, the Papacy and for Our Lord's presence in the Blessed Sacrament. A humble pope, at the time of St. Catherine of Siena, could be admonished and commanded by his subject to return to the will of Christ, and to fulfill the abandoned duties of his office. It can happen again. To this end we must pray as taught by the traditional Easter Rogation Day prayer:

"Almighty, everlasting God, have mercy upon Thy servant John Paul II, our sovereign pontiff, and direct him according to Thy clemency into the way of everlasting salvation, that by Thy grace he may both desire those things that are pleasing to Thee, and perform them with all his strength."

In the Meantime Prayer and Common Sense...

Our Faith is not contradicted by Common Sense.

Those of us who had the privilege of being raised in the relative purity of the Faith generally KNOW or sense when something is not Catholic. When the reverence due to Our Lord's presence in the Blessed Sacrament is missing, we are offended. The casual attire and practice of the "updated" during Mass disturbs us, because we still consider the Mass to be the Sacrifice of Calvary, not "just the celebration of the Last Supper" as perceived by our protestantized neighbors. A vernacular "celebration" on a table facing the people instead of priestly sacrifice being offered upon an altar adorned with the relic of a saint, while facing God beneath a crucifix, is more Protestant than Catholic...

As change after change rolls out in an attempt to alter the texture of our Faith and is imposed upon us, our Catholic nature is offended and often angered. Do we submit out of "obedience" as we are told to do by those imposing the changes, while they remove the foundations of Catholic reverence from around us?

Common sense tells us it is wrong to participate in what we know is harming the Faith and Church we love. Common sense reminds us that obedience to what is wrong is not a virtue. And common sense tells us we don't have an obligation to accustom our families to liturgical services that are more Protestant than Catholic.

Pope Paul VI claimed the Church was undergoing an "auto-demolition." It is not the nature of the Church to destroy itself. It is being destroyed by its enemies from within.

As Catholics who love their Faith and all that goes with it, we would love nothing better than to see Rome put an end to those policies that are fueling this destruction. The Archbishop has indicated his sincere desire to submit his entire Society to such a Rome once again fully Catholic.

In the meantime, while wolves in sheep's clothing abound, one final observation:

Traditional Catholics are but a remnant within the Church, yet they maintain for future generations the Faith of their fathers. The vast majority of the faithful have submitted to the post-conciliar orientation of Rome. It is obvious in which group the "auto-demolition" of the Church is occurring. If you wish to maintain the full practice of your Catholic Faith, don't abandon common sense. Honor God by praying to Him as did the saints before you. Pray for the Pope while thanking God for at least one Archbishop and his priests whose proper understanding of obedience frustrates the designs of those who, wittingly or unwittingly, work to deprive us and our children of our Catholic heritage.

A Story...

Once upon a time there was a world famous family, known for more than 1000 years as a family of doctors who could cure the most stubborn and deadly diseases. For generation after generation the sons of this family had successfully healed the sick with medicines which, by Divine Providence, naturally flourished in the surrounding hills.

But as happens, some generations ago men from different families began to develop a different school of medicine called "Protestantiatic Healing" which, however, treated symptoms rather than causes of disease. As a result of curiosity, some members of the venerable old family of doctors broke away from their traditional method of curing and took up the practice of "Protestantia." These sons, in order to disassociate themselves from the old medical practices, even abandoned their family name.

It came to be that one generation of this family, having kept its ancient name and practice, was blessed with many sons. But these were now modern times, and most of these sons decided to study in the school of "protestantiatic healing" which were everywhere. Even the father of this family decided to accept protestatiatic medicine in order to "keep up" with his sons and become more relevant to the world. Only one son attended the old school that had trained generations of his family before him.

Now the father loved his wife, and the sons loved their mother. After all, had it not been at their mother's knee that they had received the foundation for their love of healing?

One son showed a special love for his mother, putting up with even the most difficult of situations in the most difficult of places to please her. Wherever she had asked him to go and cure, he had gone and cured, using always the ancient medicines which she loved and the wisdom he had learned at her knee when young. His whole way of life thus became that of curing the sick in the way that pleased his mother.

One day the father decided his spouse needed a check-up, so he called home all his sons to examine their mother's health. They looked here and there and finally decided (as doctors do) that their mother might benefit from a new health program. After all, they said, she had been their mother for many many years.

Except for the one son who loved the wisdom and purity of the traditional way, the family decided their mother's health program ought to include strong and frequent doses of "protestantia." The father concurred, and the treatments began.

Unfortunately, while the mother's health had been reasonably good before starting this new program, it now took a serious turn for the worse. In fact, she so rapidly lost her strength that her friends felt she might not recover. The one son begged his father to abandon his "protestantiatic treatments" and return to the wisdom of time-tested cures that would restore his mother's health, but the father, supported by his other sons, refused. This one son then begged his father to be allowed to treat his own mother with the medicines she so loved, but that also was refused, and he was told he would have to first agree that the new medicines being used by his father and brothers were not the cause of their mother's sickness. The son would not lie, and so nothing was resolved. In the meantime, the mother's health steadily declined.

Finally, this son could no longer bear seeing his stricken mother deprived of the medicines which he knew she needed. It was not an easy decision to come to, but he decided that, as a doctor, he had a greater obligation to help cure his mother than to do nothing for her out of obedience to his father and respect for his brothers.

He began to treat her, and many saw that her health was visibly improved as a result, although she was still subjected to regular doses of "protestantia."

When the other sons, however, saw what had happened, they angrily persuaded their father to not only put an end to their brother's medical practice, but to disown him.

Now which of you would say he was truly a faithless son who, as a result of refusing to abandon his mother in need, should no longer be allowed under her roof, nor to continue the art of healing which he had faithfully practiced during his entire life out of love for her?

The ultimate question is: If your mother were seriously sick, which kind of son would you be... and what kind of medicine would you practice?

 

If You Don't Pray The Way You Believe, You Will Believe The Way You Pray.

 

 

---