PRAYERS TO OUR LADY

A matter of justice?

Blog News - Archbishop Lefebvre, Pope Francis, Rome, SSPX - June 11, 2016

Over the past several months, there has been a coalescence around the idea that the Society of St. Pius X has, as a matter of justice, the “right” to be canonically “regularized” by the Conciliar Church.

Louie Verrechio, First Things editor Eliot Milco and Catholic Family News editor John Vennari are all in agreement on this (see here, here and here).

Others are yet to express support for such a position.

Michael Matt from the Remnant has been one of the most skeptical Catholic voices out there regarding a possible deal (of any kind) between the Romans and the SSPX. While commenting on Bp. Galarreta’s sermon from the 2016 ordinations in Winona, Matt wrote the following:

The question many concerned friends of the SSPX are asking now is: What has changed since 1987 when these words were spoken, other than that the situation in Rome has become much worse? Was Archbishop Lefebvre hasty in 1988, perhaps lacking in due prudence and patience? Or was he right not to trust Rome farther than he could throw Rome?”

While the Abp. undoubtedly stayed in touch with Rome up until the ’88 consecrations, his most mature thought on the matter was the following, which is taken from his 1990 book Spiritual Journey:

“It is a strict duty for every [any] priest who wills to remain Catholic to separate off from the conciliar church, as long as she does not recover the Tradition of the Magisterium of the Church and of the Catholic Faith!”

What, then, are we to make of the argument that this so-called “regularization” is a matter of “justice”?

It’s a question that should be open to discussion, one where charity and ideas – not labels, accusations or vindictiveness – should take center stage. I make no claims to infallibility and am genuinely interested in the views of others. Getting this question right is of the highest importance. If I am wrong, I will recant my position. Countless souls are at stake and I only wish to humbly add my voice to the debate, even though there are some who have grappled with this issue longer than I have been alive!

The first thing that comes to my mind is Louie Vueillot’s book The Liberal Illusion. Vueillot was a 19th century French anti-liberal. Among the many excellent points raised in his book, the ones most pertinent to the “regularization” of the Society of St. Pius X are his comments on Liberal Catholicism.

Liberal Catholics, Vueillot writes, “glorify prudent to the point of madness.” They also clamor for “a free Church” in “a free State.” Additionally, they speak of “independence for the Church from the state” but, in reality, they wish to make Catholicism reliant upon “the goodwill of her enemies.”

As I reflect upon these points, what comes to mind is the following analogy. It is similar to one Vueillot uses in his book:

A King who decides to live simply as a commoner under the authority of the revolutionaries that ransacked his palace and then tortured his subjects would disgrace himself. Even if they were to grant him basic property rights and perhaps even address him in the streets as “King,” the only act of justice that could be performed would be to grant him his nobility back.

How does this example apply to the Society of St. Pius X? Well, if you believe that the Society is Tradition, if you believe that Tradition is Catholicism, and if you believe Modernists are the enemies of Tradition, then you can say that in the analogy above, the Society of St. Pius X is “the King” and “the revolutionaries” are the modernist progressives now occupying Rome. If this is true, then a canonical “regularization” of the Society of St. Pius X by the enemies of Roman Catholicism (modernist progressives), is anything but an act of justice. It would be like a King seeking to live as a commoner under the authority of those who overthrew his Kingdom. True justice would be served only when the King (Tradition/SSPX) was granted his nobility back (i.e. when the modernist progressives reject their doctrinal errors and embrace Catholicism).

As far as I can tell, and I may be wrong, Louie Vueillot would have considered the desire to “regularize” the SSPX with the modernist progressives in Rome as an instance of Liberal Catholicism. And he may well have viewed the longing for “regularization” as a desire for “a free Society of St. Pius X” in “a free Conciliar Church” – which is simply an updating of the Liberal Catholic mantra “a free Church” in “a free State”?

Abp. Lefebvre, I believe, may have described this desire to live as a commoner under the revolutionaries as a form of Liberal Catholicism as well. That is why after the consecrations, his focus was solely on doctrine – in other words, on getting “the revolutionaries” to re-instate “the King” to his rightful place. Here are his thoughts while speaking with Fideliter magazine in late 1988:

Supposing that Rome calls for a renewed dialogue, then, I will put conditions. I shall not accept being in the position where I was put during the dialogue. No more. I will place the discussion at the doctrinal level: Do you agree with the great encyclicals of all the popes who preceded you? If you do not accept the doctrine of your predecessors, it is useless to talk! As long as you do not accept the correction of the Council, in consideration of the doctrine of these Popes, your predecessors, no dialogue is possible. It is useless.

Lefebvre believed that anything less than a full conversion by the Romans would spell doom for Tradition, as it would be akin to placing Catholicism into the hands of the revolutionaries. Or, as Veuillot would say, it would be akin to making Catholicism dependent upon “the goodwill of her enemies.”

Abp. Lefebvre also seems to have been given the great blessing to understand that his fight was precisely the one Veuillot was engaged in in the 1800s. In 1990, Lefebvre acknowledged that reality when he said the following:

In the last few weeks (since I am now unemployed!) I have been spending a little time re-reading the book by Emmanuel Barbier on liberal Catholicism. And it is striking to see how our fight now is exactly the same fight as was being fought then by the great Catholics of the 19th century…

We stand exactly where Cardinal Pie, Bishop Freppel, Louis Vueillot stood, and Deputy Keller in Alsace, Cardinal Mermillod in Switzerland, who fought the good fight together with the great majority of the then bishops.

But obviously there were the forces of the Revolution, the heirs of the Revolution, and there was the hand reached out by Dupanloup, Montalembert, Lamennais and others, who offered their hand to the Revolution and who never wanted to invoke the rights of God against the rights of man—“We ask only for the rights of every man, the rights shared by everyone, shared by all men, shared by all religions, not the rights of God,” said these Liberals.

Well, we find ourselves in the same situation. We must not be under any illusions. Consequently we are in the thick of a great fight, a great fight. We are fighting a fight guaranteed by a whole line of popes. Hence, we should have no hesitation or fear, hesitation such as, “Why should we be going on our own? After all, why not join Rome, why not join the pope?” Yes, if Rome and the pope were in line with Tradition, if they were carrying on the work of all the popes of the 19th and the first half of the 20th century, of course.

So we do not have to worry. We must after all trust in the grace of God. “What is going to happen? How is it all going to end?” That is God’s secret. Mystery. But that we must fight the ideas presently fashionable in Rome…

Now, it may be said that Abp. Lefebvre was never promised what the Society is (allegedly) promised today – a unilateral, one-sided “recognition” with no strings attached.

That may be a possibility in our time, but the past couple weeks have shown that that is not Rome’s intentions. Cdl. Muller’s remarks as well as Pope Francis’ indicate that “the revolutionaries” have no desire to let “the King” be recognized as King. “Vatican II,” the Pope says, “has its value.” It is quite obvious that the occupying powers in Rome have always had for their end game the aim of bringing “the King” over to their revolutionary ideas.

As a closing comment, allow me to suppose that some sort of deal will be struck between the Society and Rome (the revolutionaries) in the near future. What will be said then? Will it be an instance of Rome “recognizing” Tradition?

I want to provide you a quote from Bp. Bernard Fellay from March 2002 regarding the Campos-Rome deal. Granted, the Campos-Rome deal will likely be different from anything the current SSPX leadership would ever agree to with Rome, but still, the good Bishop’s words do provide us with some insight:

What kind of Rome do we have when it can sign an agreement with Campos and in the same week can do something like Assisi II? They definitely will not say “We recognize Tradition” in any universal sense. But Campos is contented because Rome has recognized Tradition in Campos. But has it, really? If Rome truly recognized Tradition anywhere it wouldn’t be able to have an Assisi II, the very contrary of Tradition. It is impossible to see in the recognition of Campos a recognition of Tradition.

Let’s update that with what could be written if Rome and the Society come to some sort of an arrangement in 2016:

What kind of Rome do we have when it can sign an agreement with the Society of St. Pius X and in the same year can do something like celebrate the 500th anniversary of the Protestant Reformation? They definitely will not say “We recognize Tradition” in any universal sense. But the SSPX is contented because Rome has recognized Tradition in the Society. But has it, really? If Rome truly recognized Tradition anywhere it wouldn’t celebrate the 500th anniversary of the Protestant Reformation, the very contrary of Tradition. It is impossible to see in the recognition of the Society a recognition of Tradition.

Does that sound like a reality where “justice” has been served?

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Bill on June 11, 2016 at 6:08pm

Y'know, this was very easy for me to settle in my mind-- but really what do I know, I'm just some Joe Schmoe. St Marcel said have nothing to do with Rome until they've converted back to the Catholic Faith.

Two things have changed since St Marcel's death: Rome has gotten worse and the Society has gotten silent.

It was an easy choice for me to shake the dust from my shoes. Not that I didn't shed my fair share of tears, and not that I don't pray for the Society-- I've done and do both. But it was an easy decision. I wish to remain Catholic. Weakling as I am, I need a firm hand to guide me.

How have other Crusaders coped with this? Are you still assisting at SSPX Chapels hoping for the best? Do you have alternatives? What will you do when Bishop Fellay, as honestly motivated, yet, imo misguided, as he is, submits to the modernists?

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dawn Marie on June 12, 2016 at 6:08am

Interesting to call the agreement with Rome a matter of justice. Those were the exact words Bp. Fellay used when asked why he did a crusade for the lifting of the false excommunications. He made a fist in the air and said "it was a matter of justice".

Justice? If he truly thinks that, his mind is upside down. And if he truly thinks that being recognized by Rome is also a "matter of justice" he is sadly very far of the path of true justice. What's worse is he doesn't even see it.