SSPX: First freedom our foot.
It comes as no surprise that the ultra-traditionalist Society of St. Pius X is less than elated by the U.S. Catholic bishops' latest salvo in the religious-freedom wars, "Our First, Most Cherished Liberty." The U.S. District of SSPX has issued a stern rebuttal to the bishops' statement, calling it "problematic." And then some. In case the bishops forgot, SSPX helpfully reminds them that
In the first place, the Faith teaches that our most cherished liberty is our liberation from Original Sin and the consequences that follow (eternal death), which Our Savior and Lord Jesus Christ has obtained for us through His Passion, Death, and Resurrection.
Sure, according to SSPX, there are other sorts of liberties -- like, for example, the freedom to reject an ecumenical council of the church -- but not them's that do evil:
Or as the Catechism asks: Why did God create you? Thus error never has any rights. However, the secularistic and anti-Catholic principle of religious liberty denies this reality and instead, makes error equal to Truth.
Anti-Catholic? That seems a bit strong. Are you sure that's the most accurate way to --
Certainly we must fight for the liberty of the Catholic Church --
-- Great, so we agree that religious liberty may not be best characterized as --
that is, the ability for her to fulfill her divine mission to save souls, promote the faith (particularly in society) and enact the corporal acts of mercy. However, this is a much different thing then defending religious liberty, a false notion that originated with the Protestants and condemned as an error under the generic title of Liberalism.
The Protestants. Wait, condemned by whom? I mean, if you put a maniple to my head, I'd have to go with someone who wears a lot of white.
Unfortunately, the USCCB is exhorting Catholics to legitimately defend the Churchs liberty via the false principle of religious liberty and in doing so, has presented a series of historical fallacies from our countrys ecclesiastical history which exemplifies another error: Americanism, condemned by Pope Leo XIII in Testem Benevolentiae Nostrae.
I have to admit, you've got a point there. It's striking to see the U.S. bishops parrot Gersonian rah-rahs about America as a beacon of hope for freedom on a city on a hill, or however they put it, when only yesterday so many of them were accused of spreading the "heresy" of "Americanism." Hang on. So does that mean you're against the separation of church and state? Or are you for it, provided there are enough Catholics to make sure the citizenry is worshiping right (if you know what I mean and I think you do)?
We are now face-to-face with the outcome of the American bishops support of religious liberty as they are being coerced to jettison the Churchs moral teachings.
Jettison? But they're tooth-and-nailing the heck out of this --
Furthermore, the USCCBs unstinting praise and support of our countrys supposed religious liberty doctrine is paradoxically ironic, as this has always been elusive for American Catholics.
That sounds like the worst kind of irony.
From the first starting with Lord Baltimores Maryland colony before it even left the English dockside - the principle of religious liberty was applied unequally to the Protestants. These same Protestants while enjoying religious freedom - also ensured that the local colonial laws in our country generally forbade Catholics from practicing their religion in public or holding civil office. But even worse, they supplanted Americas original Catholic soul (paid with the blood of first Spanish, then French missionaries) and heritage with their heretical Calvinist one.
You seem really annoyed by Protestants. Sorry, the Protestants. And what kind of souls did the Native Americans have? At first, I mean.
Despite all this, for the defense and continuance of America's religious liberty the USCCB has requested:the fourteen days from June 21the vigil of the Feasts of St. John Fisher and St. Thomas Moreto July 4, Independence Day, be dedicated to this "fortnight for freedom"a great hymn of prayer for our country. Our liturgical calendar celebrates a series of great martyrs who remained faithful in the face of persecution by political powerSt. John Fisher and St. Thomas More, St. John the Baptist, SS. Peter and Paul, and the First Martyrs of the Church of Rome. Culminating on Independence Day, this special period of prayer, study, catechesis, and public action would emphasize both our Christian and American heritage of liberty.This suggestion is astonishing --
I agree. Do the bishops think this is going to fly at the parish level? How many Catholics are eager to be conscripted into a political battle to serve their bishops' policy aims?
because all of these saints opposed the error of religious liberty in fact, one could say they died because of this error since they were martyred for Christ, Who is the only Way and Truth.
Martyred because of religious freedom. I thought -- you know what? Forget it. This has been great. But I think I need to run. Suddenly I'm feeling a strong urge to find a guitar Mass, and I don't think I can fight it any longer.
- All
- Editor Featured
Religious liberty is the freedom to be who we are as Catholics. It's the exact opposite of Americanism, which is conformity to the prevailing culture. "The underlying principle of these new opinions is that, in order to more easily attract those who differ from her, the Church should shape her teachings more in accord with the spirit of the age and relax some of her ancient severity and make some concessions to new opinions. Many think that these concessions should be made not only in regard to ways of living, but even in regard to doctrines which belong to the deposit of the faith."
Isn't this reminiscent of the position of Leonard Feeney?
They sure want to reunite, don't they?
We actually don't need religious liberty anymore. We have Ordinariates for folks to worship as they please.
Nancy Danielson: You're no longer welcome to post here. Sooner or later you're going to run out of pseudonyms, or Comcast is going to stop letting you make up new e-mail addresses. Stop.
Nancy: I'm going to tell you once more. Stop posting here or I will file a complaint with your internet service provider.
As much as it pains me to say it, I think the SSPX might have a point, and it is one that has been made by Commonweal and by the Bishops before. One of the Bishops' arguments against HHS has been that the "religious exemption" was too narrowly and "Protestantly" defined as applying only to individuals and not to groups. As the argument goes, on a more "Catholic" view, "religious exercise" would include ministries that employ and serve non-adherents. This is a very wide definition of religious exercise, indeed, and it is one that I don't think can be accomodated by a Constitution that is aimed at protecting non-believing individuals from the "excesses" of religious groups as much as it is aimed at protecting religious groups from the "excesses" of the government. So, insofar as the the "politically liberal" rights tradition places an emphasis on protecting the freedom of individuals over that of groups, SSPX and the Bishops are substantively in agreement. However, the SSPX folks are right, in my opinion, to point out that "religious freedom" as a political concept defined by the State does not include the very wide interpretation of what counts as "Catholic" religious exercise. The substantive difference, to my mind, is that the Bishops (and Commonweal?) seem to be arguing that it can, and SSPX is arguing that it cannot. On that, I agree with them. I would, however, disagree with the suggested "Catholic" notion of what counts as "religious exercise," which I think makes a muddle of the distiction between the "secular" and the "religious" (a distiction that, on my reading, would have been recognized by, among others, Augustine and Aquinas). Without this distiction, the logical conclusion given the State's inability to accomodate the wider notion of "Catholic" religious exercise is the one suggested by SSPX: Religious Revolution. They may be wrong, but they are consistent.
Religious liberty has been one of the contentious items preventing reconciliation between the SSPX and the Vatican. Instead of responding to the Vatican's request for a response to the Vatican's letter to them the SSPX, at least the American branch, decided to address the US bishops stand on the issue. http://www.ncregister.com/site/article/missed-opportunity-for-sspx. As Eric notes they are consistent. A good question might be would Santorum or Glenn Beck join the SSPX if they knew of them. (Maybe they do) And how many American bishops think like the SSPX?
My goodness, from where does all this certainity expressed by the SSPX come? More importantly, where's the fellow playing the guitar Mass. I do so hope he's playing in the proper key. In any case, it sounds like fun and I am hard pressed to believe anyone worth knowing would believe otherwise, perhaps even God.
How many Catholics are eager to be conscripted into a political battle to serve their bishops policy aims?"Not as many as the ad hoc committee on religious liberty members are thinking and hoping. What really concerns me is that this "fortnight for freedom" venture will become a "religious" test" for fidelity. Membership in a particular political party is already considered as such.
St. Thomas More as exemplar of religious freedom? Well, perhaps in the narrow sense of freedom to be a Roman Catholic. But More was, after all, a heresy hunter and punisher-- it was, after all, part of his job description as servant of an increasingly autocratic Tudor monarchy. Yet the USCCB document also approvingly quotes Cardinal Gibbons defending "the American heritage of religious liberty during his visit to Rome to receive the red hat. Speaking of the great progress the Catholic Church had made in the United States, he attributed it to the 'civil liberty we enjoy in our enlightened republic.' Indeed, he made a bolder claim, namely that 'in the genial atmosphere of liberty [the Church] blossoms like a rose.'Are we meant to believe the More version? or the American-heritage Gibbons version, to be celebrated on Independence Day? You can't have both. How much history do the seminaries teach?
"How much history do the seminaries teach?"---------To look at the curricula of the seminaries, click here: http://www.catholicseminarians.com/index_seminaries.html The National Seminary of the Catholic University of America allows third and fourth year students to elect a history course.http://www.theologicalcollege.org/published/formation/curriculum.htmlKen... requires four courses in Church History and offers five others as electives. They look pretty good. (One offers "an understanding of the Muslim invasion of the west".) http://www.kenrick.edu/kenrick/credential-program/course-listings-and-gr...
The SSPX are on the same page as Pius IX who stated "The state must recognize [the Catholic Church] as supreme and submit to its influence. . . . The power of the state must be at its disposal and all who do not conform to its requirements must be compelled or punished. . . . Freedom of conscience and cult is madness." (link)The US bishops are in a way on that same page - their idea of religious freedom is almost the opposite of that proposed by JC Murray SJ ... the freedom "from" as well as for religion in a pluralistic state.
Catholic history in seminaries is taught with spin not facts. In fact not a few Catholic historians considered it a service to the Church to obfuscate the facts in the name of continuity. A few on this blog still preach that despite scholarly pretensions. Like those bishops, popes, and saints who killed all those who were "heretics" were really good people but they were part of their times. It was not until I read Peter Brown, Markus and some honest Catholic historians and theologians that I found the truth.
It is quite a coup.When was the last time a group of celibate men convinced a group of educated, American women that it was their constitutional right to be forced to conceive, deliver and raise children without benefit of healthcare?Really?
Some nightmares are best when awakened from and put out of one's mind.This obscene chasing of SSPX is a nightmare long overdue to be put aside and permanently forgotten.
I am not sure the rules of this blog will allow me to rebut Mr. Gallishos comments one at a time, but I will attempt to do so now.I also wish to state I am not a spokesman for the SSPX and I am speaking only as one who is very familiar with the views of the SSPX and as a Catholic. If in any way I have misrepresented the facts I disavow and reject my error.Mr. Gallisho:In case the bishops forgot, SSPX helpfully reminds them thatResponse:You seem to think they did not need to be reminded of this, yet by their very words the opposite would seem to be true. Since this is exactly what the USCCB called religious liberty. What the SSPX is criticizing is the scandal that such words can cause by their apparent placing of religious liberty above the salvation of souls. (I dont mean scandal as in the shock and aw type, but the Catholic meaning i.e. to cause someone to be lead into sin.)Mr. Gallisho:Sure, according to SSPX, there are other sorts of liberties like, for example, the freedom to reject an ecumenical council of the church but not thems that do evil:Response: The second Vatican council was not a doctrinal council, but a pastoral council. This means firstly, that those thing stated can only be interpreted in the light of previous magisterium, and secondly, that this council was not by definition protected by the doctrine of infallibility. The argument that the SSPX makes is that not only are all the documents riddled with ambiguities but that the documents on ecumenism and religious liberty are in flat contradiction to the prior magisterium of the church. Thus, faced with the choice being true to 2000 years of Tradition or accepting the novelties of Vatican II they chose Tradition. The position of the SSPX is not a new one in fact it is a very old one. It is a position held by the Church herself up to Vatican II. It is the stance of USCCB that is the novelty not that of the SSPX.Mr. Gallisho:Anti-Catholic? That seems a bit strong. Are you sure thats the most accurate way to Great, so we agree that religious liberty may not be best characterized as Response:Yes, Anti-Catholic is the right words. This is because Religious Liberty by definition gives error the same rights as the truth. Keep in mind that prior to the second Vatican council the Catholic Church firmly held that religious Truth was just as absolute as mathematical or scientific truth. She also taught that error has no rights. Since the Catholic Church teaches (yes, I meant to use the present tense) that She alone carries the fullness of Truth and the ONLY means of salvation and that those who belong to other beliefs are saved only though Her and in spite of the errors they hold. The SSPX rightly praises USCCB for doing the right thing, but speaks out against them doing it for the wrong reasons.Mr. Gallisho:The Protestants. Wait, condemned by whom? I mean, if you put a maniple to my head, Id have to go with someone who wears a lot of white.Response:Liberalism as well as its twin brother modernism has been resoundingly condemned by the Catholic Church from the council of Trent onwards. Most notably by Pope Saint Pius X in his encyclicals Pascendi Dominici Gregis (On the Doctrine of the Modernists) September 8, 1907, Praestantia Scripturae (On the Bible Against the Modernists) November 18, 1907, Une Fois Encore (On the Separation of Church and State) January 6, 1907, Singulari Quadam (On Labor Organizations) September 24, 1912. It is for this reason that the founder of the SSPX, Arch Bishop Marcel Lefebvre, chose his priestly fraternity to bear the Saints name.Mr. Gallisho:I have to admit, youve got a point there. Its striking to see the U.S. bishops parrot Gersonian rah-rahs about America as a beacon of hope for freedom on a city on a hill, or however they put it, when only yesterday so many of them were accused of spreading the heresy of Americanism. Hang on. So does that mean youre against the separation of church and state? Or are you for it, provided there are enough Catholics to make sure the citizenry is worshiping right (if you know what I mean and I think you do)?Response:The SSPX is most certainly against the separation of church and state. It is the obligation of the state to support and nurture the truth in the society over which it governs and to be subject to the Laws and Teaching of the Catholic Church. This is the crux of the objection of the SSPXs objection to the second Vatican councils document on religious liberty. That document has a twofold repercussion. Firstly and directly, it strips the Catholic Government of its right to even exist, thus preventing Catholic leaders from doing what in justice they should do, that is it prevents them from making Christ the Lord and King of their country. This clears the way for the advancement of error and secularism. Secondly, in conjunction with the document of ecumenism it stops Catholic action in the non-catholic state. It prevents and holds back those Catholics who are by Christs own command obligated to spread that faith handed down to them. This means that the Catholic politician is told he should not strive to push the state and society towards a more Catholic existence.Mr. Gallisho:Jettison? But theyre tooth-and-nailing the heck out of this Response:The U.S. Bishops have for the last 50 years said virtually nothing about contraception or any other part of Gods moral code with a possible exception on abortion. This coupled with the horrible scandals that have rocked the Church over the last decade and a half has striped the USCCB of any real moral authority. Yes it is good they are fighting. It is, however, just as true they are being coerced precisely because of their past silence and as a rule silence means consent, and this is exactly how the Obama administration took it (not to mention most U.S. Catholics).Mr. Gallisho:That sounds like the worst kind of irony. You seem really annoyed by Protestants. Sorry, the Protestants. And what kind of souls did the Native Americans have? At first, I mean.Response:Should they not be annoyed? Was not the Protestant persecution of Catholics one the worst forms of injustice? Is not the suppression of the truth by error the very definition of evil?Again, Christ commanded us to spread and teach the faith. Do not confuse the misguided and wrong actions of glory seeking men of arms, with all the true good done by the Catholic missionaries. It is in fact Protestantism and it monster child Racism that suppressed and subjugated the Native Americans. The Catholic missionaries came to help the Native Americans and to save their souls. They did this not with force of arms but with the truth. In doing so they won over the hearts and minds of those they came to save.Mr. Gallisho:I agree. Do the bishops think this is going to fly at the parish level? How many Catholics are eager to be conscripted into a political battle to serve their bishops policy aims?Response:You of course are right. The U.S. bishops by their actions (and inaction) over the last half century have squandered their authority. Though they may be surprised that the faithful will no longer listen to them, I most certainly am not. It would be almost humorous how blind they are to reality, when the whole world can see it, where not the seriousness of the situation so grave.Mr. Gallisho:Martyred because of religious freedom. I thought you know what? Forget it. This has been great. But I think I need to run. Suddenly Im feeling a strong urge to find a guitar Mass, and I dont think I can fight it any longer.Response:You thought (I am guessing) they where martyred for religious freedom. No, these Saints where martyred because they represented an affront to the practice of false religions. The men who killed them hated that these men claimed that there was only One God, only one source of truth, and ONLY One means of salvation, i.e. the Catholic Faith.
Patricl McCoy should be the writer for the Commonweal. His comments are insightful and show critical thinking.
