Church's teaching on religious freedom

Following on yesterday's post about the story of the process of reason which led Brian back into full communion with Rome, I found a very good link in the comments section of his blog.

One of the biggest obstacles to SSPX's return to full communion with Rome is Vatican II's Declaration on Religious Freedom "Dignitatis Humanae."

K Gurries gave a link to his blog where he has a series of posts showing a consistancy between the Church teachings of the past and Vatican II.

On Religious Freedom (Part I)
On Religious Freedom (Part II)
On Religious Freedom (Part III)
On Religious Freedom (Part IV)

RS

A man's return to full communion after leaving SSPX circles

I saw this over at Fr. Z.'s blog and found the full article very interesting and quite valuable.

As I say, it is hard now to retrace every step of that path but I want to give a structure to the considerations that follow, so I will organise them very much in the order which they occurred to me. My initial considerations concerned the episcopal consecrations of 1988 and so were connected to canonical issues. The second body of considerations concerned theological points of controversy, and were connected to the Church’s teachings and to Vatican II. My final considerations concerned the liturgy, and were thus connected to the Church’s worship. What horrified many of my friends and family at the time was not merely my separating from the SSPX, but my questioning the SSPX theses almost right across the board. What they did not understand was my realisation that, in each of these three areas – canonical, theological, liturgical - the SSPX had, albeit very worthily and with serious reasons, made the same false step. That at least is my opinion. I hope to make their false step clearer in due course.

Definitely worth reading the full post here:

Confessions of a Nobody or why I quit the SSPX milieu

RS

Explanation of the current SSPX situation

I found this post at Fr. Z's blog What Does The Prayer Really Say to be very detailed, clear, (and most importantly) authoritative, regarding the CURRENT status (as of the date of this post) and situation of the Society of Saint Pius X and those who affiliate themselves with it. However, this is important for all Catholics to read so they understand the situation, as it is has not been explained well not only by the media, but also by many priests and bishops within the Church.

Full post:

GUEST CONTRIBUTION: Q&A with the Pont. Comm. Ecclesia Dei about SSPX, schism and sacraments

An important point from the article:

[Response from the Pontificial Commission of Ecclesia Dei]: “The bishops of the Society of St. Pius X are excommunicated according to the prescription of canon 1382 of the Code of Canon Law which states that “A bishop who consecrates someone a bishop without pontifical mandate and the person who receives the consecration from him incur a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See.” Archbishop Lefebvre was duly reminded of this before his conferral of Episcopal ordination on 30 June 1988 and the Holy Father confirmed that this penalty had been incurred in his Apostolic Letter Ecclesia Dei, #3 [cf. AAS 80 (1988) 1495-1498; English translation in L’Osservatore Romano English edition of 11 July 1988, p. 1].

“The priests of the Society of St. Pius X are validly ordained, but suspended, that is prohibited from exercising their priestly functions because they are not properly incardinated in a diocese of religious institute in full communion with the Holy See (cf. Code of Canon Law, canon 265) and also because those ordained after the schismatic Episcopal ordinations were ordained by an excommunicated bishop.

“Concretely, this means that the Masses offered by the priests of the Society of St. Pius X are valid, but illicit, i.e., contrary to Canon Law. The Sacraments of Penance and Matrimony, however, require that the priest enjoys the faculties of the diocese or has proper delegation. Since that is not the case with these priests, these sacraments are invalid.

Please do read the whole article, with Fr. Z.'s commentary which further clarifies some points and shows some important subtilties in the practice of this.

And also please pray for the SSPX (and other traditional groups who are not enjoying full communion with the Church). This is a great time of grace having a pope who is so actively seeking their full return to the fold. We are already seeing some grace filled results with the lifting of the sensures on the Transalpine Redemptorists' priests. However, keep praying for them as they seek to canonically regularize their status in the Church.

EDIT - Since I made an error in one of my comments at Fr. Z.'s blog, but he closed the comments before I could admit my mistake, I'll just post it here.

I had said that "marriage is not valid until consummation." However, I was incorrect. Discussion about marriage needs precision, so I'll just quote Canon Law and correct my error:

Can. 1061 §1. A valid marriage between the baptized is called ratum tantum if it has not been consummated; it is called ratum et consummatum if the spouses have performed between themselves in a human fashion a conjugal act which is suitable in itself for the procreation of offspring, to which marriage is ordered by its nature and by which the spouses become one flesh.

The reason for this comment was that several people were in a tizzy about the statement that SSPX marriages are being declared invalid by the PCED. I think it boils down to a priest needing legal faculties from the local ordinary.

Can. 1108 §1. Only those marriages are valid which are contracted before the local ordinary, pastor, or a priest or deacon delegated by either of them, who assist, and before two witnesses according to the rules expressed in the following canons and without prejudice to the exceptions mentioned in cann. 144, 1112, §1, 1116, and 1127, §§1-2.

SSPX have no legal faculties for confession and marriage. None of their priests are under a local ordinary bishop. Legally the SSPX priests cannot represent the Church, (except in danger of death). Thus the form is not valid, invalidating the marriage.

I wish Dr. Ed Peters would comment on this. I respect his opinion more than anonymous posts of people claiming to be canon lawyers in an internet blog commments section. It probably doesn't help that I have only dabbled in canon law myself.

Marriage is a very complex Sacrament theologically and even more so legally.

RS

Quick thoughts on Summorum Pontificum

Well, I just finished reading "Summorum Pontificum" and the accompanying letter from Pope Benedict to the bishops explaining the motu proprio. I have to say, the document and letter were very well written and very clear. Let us pray that they are also well read and/or read well.

First, we need to get some language straight. The "Tridentine" and the "Novus Ordo" are not two different rites. They are both of the Roman rite, however they are two different "uses" within the Roman rite. This can also be understood by looking at the Anglican use, which is the form of Mass used by former Anglicans who have come into the Catholic Church. The Anglican use is also within the Roman rite. So, these are not different rites, but rather different uses. Thus I will try to now refer to them as the "Mass of Bl. John XXIII" (="Tridentine" since the 1962 Missal was promulgated under Bl. John XXIII) and the "Mass of Paul VI" (="Novus Ordo" which was promulgated under Pope Paul VI).

And so, my summary:

I would say the most important point is that the old use ("use" will be the new way to describe either form) was NEVER ABROGATED.

The Mass of Paul VI will be the ordinary form of the Roman rite, and the Mass of Bl. John XXIII will be the extraordinary form of the Roman rite. However, all priests of the Roman rite, whether ordained before or after the liturgical reform, who are qualified (i.e. properly trained) in the Mass of John XXIII and are juridically allowed (that means they are allowed to say Mass) may say the Mass of John XXIII.
Both uses are to be held with equal respect.

The motu proprio has been officially promulgated and will take effect September 14th, 2007 (the Feast of the Exultation of the Holy Cross).

Bishops are to be very cooperative in supporting the desire of those who wish to have this Mass and are to make every effort possible. [This could be one bottleneck in the legitimate carrying out of this motu proprio].

The pope's accomanying letter clarifies things well. He addresses the two greatest negative reations or "fears" about the motu proprio "Summorum Pontificum."

1st is the fear that the document detracts from the authority of the Second Vatican Council. "This fear is unfounded," according to the pope. The ordinary form is still the Mass of Paul VI. However, the Mass of Bl. John XXIII was never juridically abrogated. Vatican II never forbade the Mass of Bl. John XXIII. The pope shows that there are many within the Church who are attracted to the older Mass and have learned much of the Faith and are able to better worship God within the older Mass. Basically, Vatican II called for a renewal and more authentic worship of all the faithful, not just those who are attracted to the Mass of Paul VI.

2nd is the fear that the motu proprio will cause divisions within parishes. The pope says, "this fear also strikes me as quite unfounded." Again, the Mass of Paul VI is the ordinary Mass, and the motu proprio in no way says that the Mass of Bl. John XXIII can be forced upon the faithful. Although, it should also be noted that this goes both ways. Priests cannot as a matter of principle exclude celebrating according to the new books, especially in places where the Mass of Paul VI is regularly celebrated.

The biggest problem I see is not the motu proprio, or either use of the Rite, rather, the biggest problem will be with the priests who celebrate either use. This will be due to the "mindset" that many priests have in the post-conciliar era that you can make changes to the Mass. Often this is said to be done for "pastoral" reasons, but really that is often a cop out to change things to make it easier or to do things the way the priest wants to do them.

My liturgical attitude is this: I should not want to do things my way, I should not want to do things your way, but I should want to do them the Church's way. Who am I to impose my own way of doing things on the liturgy? Rather, I should respect the liturgy so much, that I would not add anything or take away anything from the liturgy. This would go with even pious things. Just because they are pious, does not mean they are appropriate. Canon law says that priests may not add to or take away anything from the Mass. They are to follow the liturgical books. As someone who serves at Mass, I also should respect the rite. I may not always like some of the things in the Mass of Paul VI, but who am I to change them? This is our rite, this is the ritual, I should stick to it OUT OF RESPECT FOR THE RITE, OUT OF RESPECT FOR THE RITUAL, AND OUT OF RESPECT FOR THE MASS.

Even the pope acknoledges this: "in many places celebrations were not faithful to the prescriptions of the new Missal, but the latter actually was understood as authorizing or even requiring creativity, which frequently led to deformations of the liturgy which were hard to bear ... And even I [Pope Benedict XVI] have seen how arbitrary deformations of the liturgy caused deep pain to individuals totally rooted in the faith of the Church."

Both uses have their proper rite and ritual and are to be followed. No matter which use, the Mass of Bl. John XXIII or the Mass of Paul VI, we should always carry out the Mass according to the way the Church tells us. The we can be obedient and offer proper sacrifice, prayer, and glory to God.

However, let us rejoice at this motu proprio, and the reasonable solution it gives to the seeming dichotomy of the last 40 years.
The "Te Deum" is traditionally sung in thanksgiving to God for prayers answered. I list here the simple version since it is the one with which I am most familiar.

you'll definitely need to click the music to make it bigger
Overall, the motu proprio and the pope's accompanying letter are addressing an erronious mindset, something which may be an uphill battle, but will certainly be worth it overall in the Chruch.

RS

Against the ultra traditionalists

Father Edward McNamara answers the tired, old argument of "ultra traditionalists" that the current Mass is invalid.

Likewise, legal expressions such as "which shall have the force of law in perpetuity, We order and enjoin under pain of Our displeasure that nothing be added to Our newly published Missal, nothing omitted therefrom, and nothing whatsoever altered therein" cannot be literally interpreted as binding on possible later actions of Pope St. Pius V or upon his successors. The strictures fall only upon those who act without due authority.

If it were otherwise, then Pope St. Pius V would have excommunicated himself a couple of years after publishing "Quo Primum" when he added the feast of Our Lady of the Rosary to the missal following the Battle of Lepanto in 1571, not to mention Pope Clement XI who canonized Pius V in 1712, thus altering the missal.

Read the full article over at Zenit.

RS