What does acceptance of Vatican II mean?
Brilliant article from Professor Spaemann
The success of future talks with the SSPX depends largely on whether the parties can agree about the Second Vatican Council. The questions are not new: even after the secession of Lefèvbrists, the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei discussed the controversial issues with traditional believers. But what is to be understand that someone should unreservedly stand on the basis of the Councl? The demand for full recognition of all the conciliar texts will also be sought from people who for their part are far away from meeting this requirement. The following article examines this dilemma.
For Members of the SSPX, who are serious about the desire for reconciliation, there are two problems. The first relates to the liturgy. Archbishop Lefèbvre refused to recognize the celebration of the Mass according to the books of Paul VI. The fact that the new Mass is "The Mass of the Council" an assertion supported by frequent repetition is not true. As an Mass of the Council, implemting the Council decision, the then Cardinal Secretary of State presented the Missal of 1965 which disappeared a few years later into the closet and was replaced in 1970 by the "Novus Ordo Missa". This new Mass Rite and even more so the actual current Mass practice are in obvious contradiction to the multiple pronoucements of the Liturgy Constitution of the Second Vatican Council, which was also accepted by Archbishop Lefèbvre.
However, the rite of Paul VI was introduced by legitimate authority, and its legality and validity can be no doubt. Even John Paul II had withdrawn the ban on the old Mass (though Benedict XVI said that it had never really existed) and urged the bishops to show "generosity" to the Faithful who felt themselves attached the Old rite. Generosity was not forthcoming when Benedict XVI responding to a petition of 70 000 Catholics not affiliated with the SSPX, gave all believers a legal right to the Mass in the now officially legitimized " Extraordinary Use " and gave each Roman Catholic priest the right, without any further authorization, to celebrate the holy Mass in the old form to celebrate. He himself when serving as Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for the Faith at least twice celebrated the old Rite, including the Easter High Mass once in the circle of theSt Peter’s Fraternity in Wigratzbad and once at an annual meeting of the lay association Missa Pro Tridentina. His current decision, he gave on his own conviction - motu proprio -, but it also fulfilled one of two conditions attached by the SSPX to establish dialogue.
To belong to the Church and reject the Mass of the Pope? No!
The problem that the Brotherhood still has to recognize the validity and legitimacy of the "new Mass". What they must no doubt must recognise contrary to their current practice is that every Catholic's “Sunday obligation” is met they attend a celebration of the new Mas, provided that they are actually celebrated according to the books of the church. Other acts of recognition may be required, such as the use of the consecrated Host in the tabernacle which originate from a Novus Ordo Mass or the receiving Communion in the Mass of the local bishop. The idea is absurd that someone could belong to the Catholic church, but reject going to a Papal Mass and out of his hand receiving Communion. That must be clear to the SSPX. Concelebration cannot be required as the Council stressed.
The demand for "full acceptance of all the conciliar texts" sounds strange, however, coming from the mouths of priest who openly express their contempt for the extraordinary use, ie the old Mass. So, to cite just one example, a prelate, Dean and Cathedral Vicar, to the question of a believer asked if he would not even once use the first Eucharistic prayer, the Roman canon,replied: "To summarize, I would not even do this under torture ". One should know in this context that the Council of Trent specifies excommunication of anyone who accuses this canon of being defective.
The second condition of the SSPX, the lifting of the excommunication, the Pope fulfilled only when it was no longer put forward in the form of a condition, but as a humble request. Also, the Pope stated the excommunication was not invalid from the outset, but it is now ended in its effect.
"Adoption of the Second Vatican Council" will be a condition of the Church on the SSPX in the future talks. So has Pope Benedict XVI formulated it in his letter to the world’s bishops on March 10. The German Bishops' Conference who have by canon lawn no right to authorize or prohibit anything made the conditions for a dialogue stricter, by talking about "complete acceptance" of the Council. But what does "acceptance" mean? Here lies the second problem of the SSPX, but also that of most of their opponents. Adoption can mean the council is not treated like a robber synod and put in the dock (as was done Lefèbvre), but it is legitimate, convened and presided over by the Pope and thereby to respect its declarations, constitutions and decrees as a legitimate act of the highest ecclesiastical authority.
“Fully accept", but it may also mean full and unconditional agreement to all the decisions of the council. So the call to the SSPX from the German Bishops' Conference sounds, and it will be understood by many in this way. This understanding, however, is wrong. If it were correct, then should a significant part of today's Catholic theology professors and also bishops be excommunicated, and if not at least suspended. Because they do not even think of such a complete adoption of the Vatican as they require from others. Those in glass houses should not throw stones. Even the small council compendium of Karl Rahner and Herbert Vorgrimler cheerfully censured those texts of the Council which do not comply with their own theological ideas. I will cite some examples of open dissent and disobedience, which have so far never faced sanction.
1. First, there is the denial of credal sentences, repeated in the Second Vatican Council, but which already have been defined by previous Councils, and belong to the firm belief of the Catholic Church: the doctrine of the Divine Trinity, the doctrine of the divinity of Jesus Christ and his virginal conception, the nature of the cross of Jesus' death as a sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins which is formulated in the words of Jesus at the Last Supper and is the central point of all the apostles are preaching. The council used the word "Mass" about twenty times. The application of "God's Song of the Servant " of the prophet Isaiah to Jesus, is a topos of Christian preaching in the Acts of the Apostles. By disputing this interpretation by Catholic theology professors (including one Guardini Prize), and even bishops will of course also render obselet the interpretation of the Mass as a re-enactment of the sacrifice of Christ and thus the concept of "Mass" . The sacrificial character of the Mass was made a dogma by the Council of Trent. And the Second Vatican Council used the word "Sacrifice of the Mass" about twenty times.
The necessity of the Church for salvation needs again to be recognised.
2. The Second Vatican Council speaks of the necessity of the Church for salvation and of the sole mediation of Jesus Christ and formulated it thus: "Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved" The fact that Christ, always keeps open salvation iw taught by the highest authority of the church with the gift of infallibility in faith and morals, is also stressed by the Second Vatican Council. Nevertheless, a skeptical relativism and pluralism of today is represented by a significant number of theologians. One can so proceed.
3. There the celibacy of priests, indicated as a precious gift , whose maintenance priests and believers are urgently and insistently implored to pray for . Is it an unfortunate coincidence that I have never heard in the last forty years, a call to prayer, let alone a common prayer in the church which has been concerned with this?
4. The daily celebration of Holy Mass for priests is no longer self-evident. In some places priests have made single celebrations impossible, while the council writes, "the daily celebration of the work of our redemption is strongly recommended. It is also not necessary for believers to be present for the celebration to be an act of Christ and the Church. Who of those who demand "full acceptance" of all the conciliar texts have accepted the texts cited here?
5. And when the decree on the formation of priests said that young theologians should learn "with Saint Thomas as a master" "to more deeply speculate on the mysteries of salvation", it is also obvious that this remained a pious wish.
6. As a touchstone for the recognition of the Second Vatican Council often the position on the Decree on the Church and the world, Gaudium et Spes, is cited. One of the duties contained the constitution reads: "Relying on these principles, sons of the Church may not undertake methods of birth control which are found blameworthy by the teaching authority of the Church in its unfolding of the divine law." In the Königstein statement, the German Bishops' Conference many years ago stated the opposite. A similar statement was published by the Austrian bishops in Mariatrost. Few pastors have publicly criticized "the sin of the bishops" (Cardinal Schönborn) Many priests and teachers of theology are resolutely opposed to the quoted phrase of the Vatican Council.
7. The council has banned any liturgical innovation that will not be justified by "safely anticipated" spiritual benefits. It has confirmed Latin as the language of the Roman liturgy, and permitted the use of the vernacular only for parts of the Mass – the liturgy of the word was meant. It has indicated Gregorian chant as the specific choral of the Church and supported the idea that the faithful would be able to sing their respective Latin texts. It said that the priest "at the head of God's people" bears prayers to God, and not that the direction of his prayer is reversed and he faces the people. That the priest is not the host of the Communion but the first reception, who administers the gift which he has received, gives rise to the understanding that the Communion of the Faithful takes place after the priest. No council father would also come up with the idea bring about the disappearance of the Nicene Creed, which connects us with all the Catholic, Orthodox and Anglican churches and which the Protestant confirmation candidates today learn, and replace it by the Apostles Creed. But this has happened. It was formerly the case that any Catholic who went to the Mass memorized the great creed. "Full adoption of the Council"?
The greatest difficulty seems to the SSPX to be the decree on religious freedom, which for the SSPX which seems to contradict at its core the traditional teaching of the Church seems to contradict it. That it can be consider a break, can the SSPX and passionate defenders of the new church teachings on religious freedom such as Ernst Wolfgang Böckenförde agree. For some, this is an argument for breaking the illicit nature of the new hypothesis for the other an argument against the binding nature of Tradition. Indeed, the Council fathers failed to relate the doctrine of this Decree to tradition. Only the introduction states that the doctrine of religious freedom, "does not depart from the traditional Catholic doctrine of the moral obligation of individuals and societies towards the true religion and the only Church of Christ." This means that any interpretation of this new doctrine, in opposition to this sentence is contrary to the intentions of the Council if one can speak here of a specific intention. In this case, therefore, any harmonization efforts mist be supported, as mainly in France has been attempted with success (notably in the Roman dissertation of Basil Valuet, a monk of the Abbey at Le Barroux, which bears the title "Le droit à la liberté religieuse dans la tradition de l’église? ") In any case it seems that the challenging of the traditional doctrine of "the obligations of society towards the one true Church" stands in opposition to the council text which follows. Only a "hermeneutics of the Council" (Benedict XVI) can assist and lead to a consensus. The dialogue, which started here is laborious. In the best case, it will lead to a deepening of the Church's doctrine of civil freedom of public worship. However, this is matter of disagreement, without any practical significance.
For multi-religious societies, the principle of tolerance applies
The religiously homogenous state has long lost its status as "societas perfecta". We live in a global multireligious society, as Gorbachev saw clearly when he said of the Communist Party that ideological homogeneity is not possible anymore. For such a society, Pope Pius XII formulated the tolerance principle. The situation is comparable to the lifting of a half millennia old ban by the Church of loaning money at interest, which was then, for example, passionately opposed by the Dominicans. The only thing was: interest in a modern monetary economy is no longer the same as the interest rate, which I require as a loan to a brother who is in distress.
The difference for the SSPX is no longer a question of whether but why they will turn to religious freedom - freedom of religion, either based on personalism or from the needs of the common good. The result is the same. Also a purposeless dispute about principle. But this is the idea of Wittgenstein: "A wheel which by rotating does not turns others does not belongs to the machine.
The success of the talks with the SSPX is far from certain. But from the outset to describe the matter as "unlikely" is not appropriate. Where it comes to the power of the Holy Spirit works through a reconciliation, Christians are not given to pessimistic or optimistic calculations of probability, but to pray and to seek a miracle. The Christian faith is a faith of miracles. It relies on the word of the Lord: " If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father from heaven give the good Spirit to them that ask him?."
The success of future talks with the SSPX depends largely on whether the parties can agree about the Second Vatican Council. The questions are not new: even after the secession of Lefèvbrists, the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei discussed the controversial issues with traditional believers. But what is to be understand that someone should unreservedly stand on the basis of the Councl? The demand for full recognition of all the conciliar texts will also be sought from people who for their part are far away from meeting this requirement. The following article examines this dilemma.
For Members of the SSPX, who are serious about the desire for reconciliation, there are two problems. The first relates to the liturgy. Archbishop Lefèbvre refused to recognize the celebration of the Mass according to the books of Paul VI. The fact that the new Mass is "The Mass of the Council" an assertion supported by frequent repetition is not true. As an Mass of the Council, implemting the Council decision, the then Cardinal Secretary of State presented the Missal of 1965 which disappeared a few years later into the closet and was replaced in 1970 by the "Novus Ordo Missa". This new Mass Rite and even more so the actual current Mass practice are in obvious contradiction to the multiple pronoucements of the Liturgy Constitution of the Second Vatican Council, which was also accepted by Archbishop Lefèbvre.
However, the rite of Paul VI was introduced by legitimate authority, and its legality and validity can be no doubt. Even John Paul II had withdrawn the ban on the old Mass (though Benedict XVI said that it had never really existed) and urged the bishops to show "generosity" to the Faithful who felt themselves attached the Old rite. Generosity was not forthcoming when Benedict XVI responding to a petition of 70 000 Catholics not affiliated with the SSPX, gave all believers a legal right to the Mass in the now officially legitimized " Extraordinary Use " and gave each Roman Catholic priest the right, without any further authorization, to celebrate the holy Mass in the old form to celebrate. He himself when serving as Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for the Faith at least twice celebrated the old Rite, including the Easter High Mass once in the circle of theSt Peter’s Fraternity in Wigratzbad and once at an annual meeting of the lay association Missa Pro Tridentina. His current decision, he gave on his own conviction - motu proprio -, but it also fulfilled one of two conditions attached by the SSPX to establish dialogue.
To belong to the Church and reject the Mass of the Pope? No!
The problem that the Brotherhood still has to recognize the validity and legitimacy of the "new Mass". What they must no doubt must recognise contrary to their current practice is that every Catholic's “Sunday obligation” is met they attend a celebration of the new Mas, provided that they are actually celebrated according to the books of the church. Other acts of recognition may be required, such as the use of the consecrated Host in the tabernacle which originate from a Novus Ordo Mass or the receiving Communion in the Mass of the local bishop. The idea is absurd that someone could belong to the Catholic church, but reject going to a Papal Mass and out of his hand receiving Communion. That must be clear to the SSPX. Concelebration cannot be required as the Council stressed.
The demand for "full acceptance of all the conciliar texts" sounds strange, however, coming from the mouths of priest who openly express their contempt for the extraordinary use, ie the old Mass. So, to cite just one example, a prelate, Dean and Cathedral Vicar, to the question of a believer asked if he would not even once use the first Eucharistic prayer, the Roman canon,replied: "To summarize, I would not even do this under torture ". One should know in this context that the Council of Trent specifies excommunication of anyone who accuses this canon of being defective.
The second condition of the SSPX, the lifting of the excommunication, the Pope fulfilled only when it was no longer put forward in the form of a condition, but as a humble request. Also, the Pope stated the excommunication was not invalid from the outset, but it is now ended in its effect.
"Adoption of the Second Vatican Council" will be a condition of the Church on the SSPX in the future talks. So has Pope Benedict XVI formulated it in his letter to the world’s bishops on March 10. The German Bishops' Conference who have by canon lawn no right to authorize or prohibit anything made the conditions for a dialogue stricter, by talking about "complete acceptance" of the Council. But what does "acceptance" mean? Here lies the second problem of the SSPX, but also that of most of their opponents. Adoption can mean the council is not treated like a robber synod and put in the dock (as was done Lefèbvre), but it is legitimate, convened and presided over by the Pope and thereby to respect its declarations, constitutions and decrees as a legitimate act of the highest ecclesiastical authority.
“Fully accept", but it may also mean full and unconditional agreement to all the decisions of the council. So the call to the SSPX from the German Bishops' Conference sounds, and it will be understood by many in this way. This understanding, however, is wrong. If it were correct, then should a significant part of today's Catholic theology professors and also bishops be excommunicated, and if not at least suspended. Because they do not even think of such a complete adoption of the Vatican as they require from others. Those in glass houses should not throw stones. Even the small council compendium of Karl Rahner and Herbert Vorgrimler cheerfully censured those texts of the Council which do not comply with their own theological ideas. I will cite some examples of open dissent and disobedience, which have so far never faced sanction.
1. First, there is the denial of credal sentences, repeated in the Second Vatican Council, but which already have been defined by previous Councils, and belong to the firm belief of the Catholic Church: the doctrine of the Divine Trinity, the doctrine of the divinity of Jesus Christ and his virginal conception, the nature of the cross of Jesus' death as a sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins which is formulated in the words of Jesus at the Last Supper and is the central point of all the apostles are preaching. The council used the word "Mass" about twenty times. The application of "God's Song of the Servant " of the prophet Isaiah to Jesus, is a topos of Christian preaching in the Acts of the Apostles. By disputing this interpretation by Catholic theology professors (including one Guardini Prize), and even bishops will of course also render obselet the interpretation of the Mass as a re-enactment of the sacrifice of Christ and thus the concept of "Mass" . The sacrificial character of the Mass was made a dogma by the Council of Trent. And the Second Vatican Council used the word "Sacrifice of the Mass" about twenty times.
The necessity of the Church for salvation needs again to be recognised.
2. The Second Vatican Council speaks of the necessity of the Church for salvation and of the sole mediation of Jesus Christ and formulated it thus: "Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved" The fact that Christ, always keeps open salvation iw taught by the highest authority of the church with the gift of infallibility in faith and morals, is also stressed by the Second Vatican Council. Nevertheless, a skeptical relativism and pluralism of today is represented by a significant number of theologians. One can so proceed.
3. There the celibacy of priests, indicated as a precious gift , whose maintenance priests and believers are urgently and insistently implored to pray for . Is it an unfortunate coincidence that I have never heard in the last forty years, a call to prayer, let alone a common prayer in the church which has been concerned with this?
4. The daily celebration of Holy Mass for priests is no longer self-evident. In some places priests have made single celebrations impossible, while the council writes, "the daily celebration of the work of our redemption is strongly recommended. It is also not necessary for believers to be present for the celebration to be an act of Christ and the Church. Who of those who demand "full acceptance" of all the conciliar texts have accepted the texts cited here?
5. And when the decree on the formation of priests said that young theologians should learn "with Saint Thomas as a master" "to more deeply speculate on the mysteries of salvation", it is also obvious that this remained a pious wish.
6. As a touchstone for the recognition of the Second Vatican Council often the position on the Decree on the Church and the world, Gaudium et Spes, is cited. One of the duties contained the constitution reads: "Relying on these principles, sons of the Church may not undertake methods of birth control which are found blameworthy by the teaching authority of the Church in its unfolding of the divine law." In the Königstein statement, the German Bishops' Conference many years ago stated the opposite. A similar statement was published by the Austrian bishops in Mariatrost. Few pastors have publicly criticized "the sin of the bishops" (Cardinal Schönborn) Many priests and teachers of theology are resolutely opposed to the quoted phrase of the Vatican Council.
7. The council has banned any liturgical innovation that will not be justified by "safely anticipated" spiritual benefits. It has confirmed Latin as the language of the Roman liturgy, and permitted the use of the vernacular only for parts of the Mass – the liturgy of the word was meant. It has indicated Gregorian chant as the specific choral of the Church and supported the idea that the faithful would be able to sing their respective Latin texts. It said that the priest "at the head of God's people" bears prayers to God, and not that the direction of his prayer is reversed and he faces the people. That the priest is not the host of the Communion but the first reception, who administers the gift which he has received, gives rise to the understanding that the Communion of the Faithful takes place after the priest. No council father would also come up with the idea bring about the disappearance of the Nicene Creed, which connects us with all the Catholic, Orthodox and Anglican churches and which the Protestant confirmation candidates today learn, and replace it by the Apostles Creed. But this has happened. It was formerly the case that any Catholic who went to the Mass memorized the great creed. "Full adoption of the Council"?
The greatest difficulty seems to the SSPX to be the decree on religious freedom, which for the SSPX which seems to contradict at its core the traditional teaching of the Church seems to contradict it. That it can be consider a break, can the SSPX and passionate defenders of the new church teachings on religious freedom such as Ernst Wolfgang Böckenförde agree. For some, this is an argument for breaking the illicit nature of the new hypothesis for the other an argument against the binding nature of Tradition. Indeed, the Council fathers failed to relate the doctrine of this Decree to tradition. Only the introduction states that the doctrine of religious freedom, "does not depart from the traditional Catholic doctrine of the moral obligation of individuals and societies towards the true religion and the only Church of Christ." This means that any interpretation of this new doctrine, in opposition to this sentence is contrary to the intentions of the Council if one can speak here of a specific intention. In this case, therefore, any harmonization efforts mist be supported, as mainly in France has been attempted with success (notably in the Roman dissertation of Basil Valuet, a monk of the Abbey at Le Barroux, which bears the title "Le droit à la liberté religieuse dans la tradition de l’église? ") In any case it seems that the challenging of the traditional doctrine of "the obligations of society towards the one true Church" stands in opposition to the council text which follows. Only a "hermeneutics of the Council" (Benedict XVI) can assist and lead to a consensus. The dialogue, which started here is laborious. In the best case, it will lead to a deepening of the Church's doctrine of civil freedom of public worship. However, this is matter of disagreement, without any practical significance.
For multi-religious societies, the principle of tolerance applies
The religiously homogenous state has long lost its status as "societas perfecta". We live in a global multireligious society, as Gorbachev saw clearly when he said of the Communist Party that ideological homogeneity is not possible anymore. For such a society, Pope Pius XII formulated the tolerance principle. The situation is comparable to the lifting of a half millennia old ban by the Church of loaning money at interest, which was then, for example, passionately opposed by the Dominicans. The only thing was: interest in a modern monetary economy is no longer the same as the interest rate, which I require as a loan to a brother who is in distress.
The difference for the SSPX is no longer a question of whether but why they will turn to religious freedom - freedom of religion, either based on personalism or from the needs of the common good. The result is the same. Also a purposeless dispute about principle. But this is the idea of Wittgenstein: "A wheel which by rotating does not turns others does not belongs to the machine.
The success of the talks with the SSPX is far from certain. But from the outset to describe the matter as "unlikely" is not appropriate. Where it comes to the power of the Holy Spirit works through a reconciliation, Christians are not given to pessimistic or optimistic calculations of probability, but to pray and to seek a miracle. The Christian faith is a faith of miracles. It relies on the word of the Lord: " If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father from heaven give the good Spirit to them that ask him?."
.jpeg)
Comments
It's a no-brainer really. Vatican II. Did. Not. Define. Any. Doctrine.
This is to do with disagreements over policy regarding religious liberty and ecumenism which too many RCs now wrongly thing is indifferentism/relativism but Rome doesn't.
Also the SSPX did not 'secede' in principle unlike the Old Catholics in Germany 130 years ago (now a liberal rump sect in Middle Europe). (Although in practice they did; they're canonically 'irregular' but not a separate church.) They responded to what they thought was a state of emergency in the church, just as Abp Lefèbvre of blessed memory said he was taught to do at the Gregorianum in the 1920s.
The society repudiated... not. One. Bit. Of. RC. Doctrine.
The liberals ought to shut up.
… Allow me to apologize for taking my time in responding to your last letter. I wanted to be thorough in my response - especially since you have asked if my response might be made public, of which I have no objection. Please note that while I do not speak on behalf of the Church in an official capacity - given that I do not hold office with a tribunal or ecclesiastical entity that has been asked to investigate this question - what follows is my professional opinion as a canon lawyer.
To recap our last exchange, you wrote: “I'm wondering if you are able to put in writing
something testifying to the lawfulness of holding Father Feeney's position as a Catholic in good
standing with the Church. Back in January, you agreed to do this. Again, I'm not asking you to
vouch for our canonical situation here in the Manchester Diocese; I'm simply asking for the
expert opinion of a canon lawyer on the larger question.”
To begin, as you point out, the question concerning your canonical status with the Diocese of
Manchester is separate from the question concerning Fr. Feeney’s status as one who died in full
communion with Rome, as well as the status of his spiritual descendants who hold to his same
position. Before we proceed to the larger question, I would just like to assure you of our family
prayers that in God’s time the question of your canonical status resolve itself favourably. Should
you require my assistance at that time, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Having said that, let us move to the larger question. It is clear from the Catechism of the
Catholic Church (CCC) promulgated by Pope John Paul II that the Church currently promotes a
less exclusive understanding of the dogma “Outside the Church no salvation” (EENS) as well as
the effects of desire for baptism (BOD) and pre-baptismal martyrdom for the faith (BOB). Lest I
be accused of bias in my canonical opinion, I want to note up-front that I personally accept the
teaching on these issues outlined in the CCC.
However, that is a debate for another time. The question currently before us is the following:
What of those, like the spiritual descendants of Fr. Feeney, who hold to a more restrictive
understanding on these issues? Are they Catholics in good standing with the Church?
The answer is yes for a number of reasons:
1) There is no question Fr. Feeney died in full communion with the Catholic Church. Pope Paul
VI lifted Father’s excommunication while Father was still alive, and there is no evidence that
Father recanted his understanding of EENS, BOB, or BOD. The actual lifting of Father’s
excommunication was executed by Fr. Richard Shmaruk, a priest of the Boston Archdiocese, on
behalf of Bishop Bernard Flanagan of Worcester. While visiting Boston about ten years ago, I
spoke with Fr. Shmaruk and he personally corroborated the events that led to him reconciling Fr.
Feeney with the Church.
On pages 259 to 262 of his book They Fought the Good Fight, Brother Thomas Mary Sennott
diligently chronicles the reconciliation of Fr. Feeney, as well as the subsequent reconciliation of
several of Father’s spiritual descendants. Brother Sennott quotes from two respectable Catholic
news sources (The Advocate and the Catholic Free Press). I have independently confirmed the
quotations and context of the primary sources.
Brother Sennott also notes that Father’s memorial mass was celebrated by Bishop Bernard
Flanagan in the Cathedral of St. Paul, Worcester. This would have given rise to scandal had
Father not been fully reconciled with the Church. Br. Sennott’s book received an imprimi potest
from Bishop Timothy Harrington of the Diocese of Worcester, meaning the book is free from
doctrinal or moral error. Thus unless one is willing to declare oneself sedevacantist or
sedeprivationist, the evidence is overwhelming that Fr. Feeney died in full communion with the
Church without recanting his position.
2) Most of Fr. Feeney’s spiritual descendants have been reconciled with the Church without
having to renounce or recant their interpretation of BOB, BOD, or EENS. This was the case with
those who reconciled in 1974 and would go on to found St. Benedict Abbey in Still River, as
well as the sisters of St. Anne’s House in Still River who reconciled in 1988, and most recently
with St. Benedict Centre in Still River who reconciled under Br. Thomas Augustine, MICM.
Regarding the last group, I should note they had achieved a sacramental reconciliation long
before their juridical reconciliation. This was the subject of the first paper I ever wrote as a
young licentiate student in canon law. While researching this paper in 1997, I visited the various
communities descended from Fr. Feeney and the Harvard student movement, noting with interest
how despite no formal reconciliation at the time, Br. Thomas’s community had an in-residence
chaplain appointed by the Bishop of Worcester. I also noted with interest that the Bishop visited
the community regularly, and that he also confirmed the community’s children. In reading canon
844, sacraments should only be shared with non-Catholics under the most strict and extenuating
of circumstances. It is clear, that in keeping with canon 213, the Diocese of Worcester was
ensuring for the pastoral and sacramental care of Brother Thomas’s community as if they were
Catholics.
It was similarly clear from talking to Br. Thomas Augustine, as it was from talking to Mother
Theresa next door at St. Anne’s House, that each of these communities still held the same
interpretation of BOB, BOD and EENS as Fr. Feeney.
With regards to the 1988 reconciliation of Mother Theresa, MICM and the sisters of St. Anne’s
House in Still River, Fr. Lawrence A. Deery, JCL, at the time the Diocese of Worcester’s
Judicial Vicar and Vicar for Canonical Affairs and acting in his official capacity, wrote the
following: “1) The Sisters were asked to ‘understand’ the letter of the then Holy Office dated 8
August 1949. They were not asked to ‘accept’ its contents. 2) The Sisters were asked to make to
make a Profession of Faith. Nothing else was required [...] In our discussions with the
Congregation [for the Doctrine of the Faith] it seemed rather clear that proponents of a strict
interpretation of the doctrine should be given the same latitude for teaching and discussion as
those who would hold more liberal views. Summarily, Mother Theresa and her community in no
manner abandoned Father Feeney’s teachings.” Need I remind you that the man who was Prefect
for the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith at the time of this consultation is now Pope
Benedict XVI, the Church’s Supreme Pontiff?
3) In 1988, Mr. John Loughnan, a layman from Australia who happens to be a friend of mine,
wrote the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei (PCED) requesting clarification on several
controversies surrounding the SSPX. Mr. Loughnan also inquired as to the status within the
Church of Fr. Feeney’s followers.
Concerning this last question, Msgr. Camille Perl, secretary of the PCED, replied to Mr.
Loughnan as follows in N. 343/98 dated 27 October 1998: “The question of the doctrine held by
the late Father Leonard Feeney is a complex one. He died in full communion with the Church
and many of his former disciples are also now in full communion while some are not. We do not
judge it opportune to enter into this question.”
While not wishing to engage in this controversy, Msgr. Perl clearly confirms that Fr. Feeney died
in full communion with the Church, and that several of his spiritual descendants who hold his
same doctrinal interpretations are in full communion with the Church. Such a statement is clearly
within the mission of the PCED as this commission was established by Pope John Paul II to
oversee the reconciliation and well-being of traditionalists within the Church.
On that note, the evidence is clear: while the position held by Fr. Feeney and his spiritual
descendants may be controversial, holding these positions does not, in itself, place one outside of
the Catholic Church. In short, it is clear from the Church’s current pastoral and canonical
practice that the Church considers this an internal controversy, and that she acknowledges the
good standing of most of those who uphold a restrictive interpretation of EENS, BOB and BOD.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Below are links to the letters from the Judicial Vicar and Vicar for Canonical Affairs of the Diocese of Worcester mentioned by Mr. Vere in his letter above:
First letter (at http://www.catholicism.org/images/DeeryLetter.jpg): From Father Lawrence A. Deery, J.C.L. to Mr. Gene Cameron. It affirms that the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary are “indeed very much Catholic.” Father (later Monsignor) Deery was the Judicial Vicar and the Vicar for Canonical Affairs for the Diocese of Worcester.
Second letter (at http://www.catholicism.org/images/DeeryLetterII.jpg and http://www.catholicism.org/images/DeeryLetterIII.jpg): Father Lawrence A. Deery, J.C.L. to Father John McCormack, then Secretary for Ministerial Personnel for the Archdiocese of Boston, in which it is explained that the community in Still River, MA (St. Ann’s House) which underwent canonical regularization, did “in no manner abandon Father Feeney’s teachings.”
So now are all of his followers back in good standing with the official church?