Organisations that uphold the truth.
Society of St.Pius the X (SSPX)
The great principle of the Society of St. Pius X:
Attachment to the irreformable teaching of the Church
There are some major points of Tradition upon which the teaching of the Church
is established, certain and irreformable. And no one in the Church, regardless of his rank in the hierarchy, has the power to change them, nor the
right to let them get ruined by negligence or by fear to displease the world.
Tradition does not contain only a theoretical and dogmatic teaching; it contains
also all the life of the Church, all the examples of virtue of by Our Lord Jesus Christ and of the saints. And the heart of this practice is to be
found in her Traditional Liturgy, in her worship, in the Holy
Sacrifice of the Mass.
These treasures of Tradition, the hierarchy has the duty to keep them and to
transmit them, each one at his rank. It is also the duty of the faithful to
keep them and to transmit them to their children. No one has the right to
abandon them, even less to get rid of them. Objection 1: You seem to want to
limit the power of the hierarchy, especially that of the Pope, by saying that
the Tradition must be kept by each and every faithful; you submit the superior
to the inferior.
Answer: Some, like Fr. Congar, have pretended to counterbalance the vertical
dimension of the Church with a horizontal dimension, more democratic, more in
accordance with the spirit of the modern world. The position of the Society of
St. Pius X is totally opposed to this
attitude. We believe that the Church is a hierarchical body [precisely because
Christ himself gave to his Church this hierarchical constitution],
but we look higher than does Fr. Congar. The very summit of the Holy Church is
not the Pope; it is Our Lord Jesus Christ himself, invisible Head,
Founder and heavenly Spouse of His Church, and all authority in the hierarchy
comes from Him.
The principle, therefore, is the following: All what has been established by a
superior authority cannot be changed by an inferior authority, thus all
what has been established by Our Lord Jesus Christ (who is the supreme
authority) cannot be changed by the Pope himself. Such are the "major
points of Tradition".
In opposition to Fr. Congar's perspective, we do not teach that the authority of
the Church is limited from below, we teach that it is limited
from above. The Pope and the bishops must be transparent to the teaching of Our
Lord Jesus Christ. This required transparency is nothing else than the fidelity
to transmit the Deposit of the Faith. Take for example a window: it is not a
source of light, it lets the light coming from outside pass through itself.
Similarly, those who have received authority in the Church are not sources of
light; they must let the light coming from Christ pass through them.
It is only
in this perspective that our faith can be true, that our adherence to the truths
revealed by God, proposed by the Church, may have the right formal motive, which
is the authority of God himself. Faith does not consists in believing because
the priest, the bishop or the Pope said it, it consists in believing because God
has revealed it. Such faith requires transparency, requires fidelity to the
received Deposit, requires
the bridge of Tradition. [The Pope, by receiving the title of Vicar of
Christ, must also be faithful to this title; he must obey the will of Christ
regarding His Church to be a true representative of Christ. And the bishops and
the priests at their place have the same duty. Nobody is free in the hierarchy
to do whatever he wants with the Church of Christ.] Let's take again the
example of the window. We can identify a stain on the window by the fact that
the image of that stain comes from the window itself, not from outside.
Similarly, we can recognize a new doctrine by the fact that it does not come
"from outside", from Our Lord Jesus Christ, but by the very fact that
it is new in itself. "You are the light of the world" (Matt. 5,14),
not when you teach your personal ideas, but when you can say with Our Lord:
"My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me" (John 7, 16). Not to
teach one's own ideas, but to teach the received doctrine, the Deposit of Faith,
such is the right exercise of authority. It is therefore by fidelity to this
authority exercised for centuries by the Popes and the bishops that we are
opposed to the recent abuses of authority of those who try to teach us "a
new gospel, besides that which we have received" (Gal. 1,9).
Objection 2: But if there is a disagreement in the Church about the content of
Tradition, aren't we supposed to have recourse to the judgement of the
supreme authority? Our Lord has appointed on earth the Pope as the supreme
judge, as the ultimate instance whose judgement is final. You should accept
that.
Answer: Yes, if there had been actually a judgement of the ultimate instance,
that is to say an infallible definition. No however, if the one
who possesses the final instance does not exercise his authority, abstains from
judging in the proper sense, and makes declarations, discourses, etc.,
instead of judgements. It is precisely because there is no judgement that we
must rely on another sure criterion. In the absence of any exercise of the
extraordinary magisterium (solemn judgement of final instance), we have to rely
on the authentic magisterium, on the continuous ordinary magisterium of the
Popes, whose continuity is sufficient to confirm our faith. This constant,
continuous, ordinary magisterium is the Tradition of the Church of
Rome.
Explanations: Archbishop Lefebvre said that Paul VI's drama was his
liberalism. The same thing applies to John Paul II. The modern world does not like the exercise of authority. And the persons constituted in authority
in the Church, when steeped in liberalism, are reluctant to exercise their
authority. Thus they abstain from judging and condemning the errant
modernist theologians. [Thus they abstain also from judging and condemning
the past condemnations of their liberal doctrines, past condemnations made
by their predecessors, the previous Popes.] They teach without imposing
their teaching, they don't imitate Our Lord Jesus Christ who "was teaching
with authority, not like the Scribes and the Pharisees" (Matt. 7, 29). [If
they condemn, they don't do it infallibly, thus condemning only those who
refuse their liberalism, thus abusing their authority.] The drama is
precisely that those who now possess authority in the Church do not exercise
it properly.
As long as there is no infallible judgment, the solution is not in following
our own judgement; on the contrary, our duty is to follow the constant
teaching of the Holy Roman Church. It is a rock!
As for unanimity, all those who still have the Faith believe in the Kingdom
of Our Lord Jesus Christ, and in the principle of fidelity to Tradition;
they are all unanimous on these points. But those who have lost the Faith
(even if they apparently remain within the Church, keeping just an exterior
link, but having lost all interior link with the Holy Church), these ones
are not unanimous among themselves, holding one from another different
errors. [Liberalism generates division.]
Objection 3: You can resist the present authority only if you have evidence
of the opposition between the Conciliar reforms and Tradition. But there is
no such evidence. Therefore, your resistance is not justified.
Answer: Our Lord Jesus Christ has given to his flock a simple and clear
criterion to recognize false prophets, that is to say those who pretend to
teach in the name of God, but who teach false doctrines: "By their fruits
you shall know them" (Matt. 7, 16). Yet the fruits of the Conciliar
reforms
are manifest, "evident", for all the faithful: priests who have
abandoned
their priesthood, collapse of religious and priestly vocations, loss of
faith amongst millions of souls, etc. We have to recognize that the malice
and the intelligence of the devil are at work in the present crisis of the
Church. He carefully does not deny the Faith openly (it seems that it is
this kind of open and clear negation that you are looking for), but he
certainly undermines it in such a way that truth becomes relative, becomes
subjective. No one can deny that the devil has succeeded in making
millions
of souls lose the Faith, and in making even more souls give up the practice of the Faith. Just this (the effects going back to their cause) should be
enough to show the harmfulness of the changes of Vatican II. But let us take
three obvious examples.
We can summarize in one word and show how manifest, evident, is the
opposition between the post Conciliar reforms and the Faith of all times, by
saying that these reforms are opposed to the Kingship of Our Lord Jesus
Christ. They don't want Him to reign anymore, they limit His Kingdom, and
they destroy His right to reign over all men, by encouraging religious
liberty. In practice, they liberate men from their submission to Christ the
King by putting the individual conscience in the place of the Law of Christ.
And no one in the Church can deny that the Kingship of Christ is one of the
most evident principles at the centre of the Catholic Faith.
We can also say that these post Conciliar reforms are opposed to the
principle of Tradition itself, to the duty to transmit, which is an
essential duty of the Church. The Conciliar and post Conciliar reforms have
changed the Mass, the Breviary, the rites of all the Sacraments, the Canon
Law, the Catechism, the Bible (its ecumenical translation), the theology
(obviously, by the fact that those who were reprimanded before the Council
became appointed masters after it, to such an extent that many of them
became cardinals), the morals (for instance, the new personalist morals in
marriage annulments), the public rights of the Church, etc...Just what has
been left intact? When the faithful see such a storm of changes, they can
only ask themselves: What is left of Tradition? Yet, this fidelity to
Tradition is essential to the Church, it is her mark of authenticity.
These were two of the principles that belong "evidently" to the
revealed
Deposit, that all Catholic faithful know, and that are obviously undermined
in practice, if not openly.
The third clear, manifest, "evident" example, is the speech that Paul
VI
gave at the end of the Council: "The lay and profane humanism finally
appeared with its terrible stature and has in a certain sense challenged the
Council. The religion of God made man met the religion (indeed) of man
making himself god. What happened? A clash, a fight, an anathema? That
could happen, but it did not happen. The old story of the Samaritan has been
the model of the spirituality of the Council. A sympathy without limit has
invaded it entirely. The discovery of human needs (they are all the greater
as the son of the earth makes himself greater) has absorbed the attention of
our synod. Recognize at least its merit, you, modern humanists, who renounce
the transcendence of supreme things; and learn to discern our new humanism:
we also, we more than anyone else, have the cult of man." After
explaining
that this humanism was "lay and profane", and affirming that it was
the
"religion of man making himself god", isn't it "evident"
that having the
cult of man is opposed to the whole Tradition?
The Pope and the bishops should always have proclaimed the fundamental
truths of our Faith, proclaimed the Kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ over
all men, over all human institutions and over all the creation, proclaimed
also the necessity of fidelity to Tradition, and condemned the cult of man!
We just ask them to be faithful to their God given duties!
Objection 4: Aren't we assured by the Faith that the assistance of the Holy
Ghost has been promised to the Pope to keep and to expose faithfully the
Sacred Deposit, and that with this assistance he cannot act differently?
This is strictly true for the extraordinary magisterium, and it is indeed
the precise context of the objection. But the formulation is not
restrictive, and we can certainly apply the same principles to the ordinary
magisterium. But we must distinguish the different magisteria and their
conditions of infallibility. The infallibility of the extraordinary
magisterium of the Pope is one thing, and the infallibility of his ordinary
magisterium is another.
Each single act of the Pope's extraordinary magisterium is infallible in
itself ("ex sese"), without the need of the consent of the bishops, or
of
any verification of continuity, simply because it is a final judgement of
the supreme instance ("solemni judicio", "definito"). When
the Pope (the
supreme pastor of the whole Church) 1) is judging solemnly ("ex
cathedra")
2) a matter of Faith or morals, 3) with the intention to bind 4) all the
faithful, such an act has always the assistance of the Holy Ghost, [and the
Holy Ghost would not permit that it happens in favor of heresy or sin]
(Vatican I). But outside of these 4 simultaneous conditions, infallibility
is not guaranteed to the ordinary magisterium (of the Pope alone). In this
kind of magisterium, it is not each single act, but an ensemble of acts that
is infallible. It is the whole of the acts constituting the Tradition of the
Church of Rome that is infallible. A typical example is the condemnation of
contraception.
The assistance of the Holy Ghost over the extraordinary magisterium will be
therefore different than His assistance over the ordinary magisterium. In
the first case, it guarantees that each act "keeps and exposes faithfully
the Sacred Deposit". In the second case, it does not give this guarantee to
every single act, but it guarantees that any Tradition of the Church of Rome
is a faithful expression of the Sacred Deposit. [It guarantees that an act
conformable to Tradition, that a traditional act, is infallible.] Therefore, if an act of the Pope is opposed to the past magisterium, it is sufficient
to alert the faithful that this act is not assisted by the Holy Ghost.
Therefore, it is false to say without distinction that all the acts of the
Popes are infallible. [Each one, to be so, must fulfill the 4 conditions of
the extraordinary magisterium, or be a traditional act of the ordinary
magisterium.]
In sound Thomist philosophy and theology, the limit of obedience due to a
subordinate authority is that the order given be not opposed to the orders
of the superior authority. Yet, the superior authority gives before anything
else to the subordinate authority an end (or aim) to attain, which end is
the very purpose of existence (raison d'être) of this subordinate authority. [In other words, the superior authority does not only limit the range of
actions of the subordinate authority; it also limits the aim of its actions.
These actions of the subordinate authority are "authorized" if they
are not
opposed to those of the superior authority, and if they are conformable to
their given purpose. This end represents the limit, but also the strength of
this authority.] For example, the end of the authority of the parents is the education of their children; the end of the authority of the Abbot in a
monastery is the sanctification of his monks; the end of the public authority of the State is the temporal common good of its citizens (common
good which must not exclude the proper temporal conditions favoring the
salvation of the souls), etc. The text of Vatican I does not only indicate
the effect of the assistance of the Holy Ghost (the Latin ut meaning in such
a way that), it expresses also the finality of this assistance, therefore
the finality of the authority that receives it (ut meaning in order to)
This text does not only mention the conditions as to when the authority of
the Pope is assisted by the Holy Ghost; it expresses also the finality of
this authority.
Objection 5: You seem to reduce the infallibility of the Pope to his
Extraordinary magisterium. It is the error condemned by Fr. Berto: "All
what
is not infallible is fallible."
It is well worth reading Fr. Berto in his book Pour la Sainte Eglise
Romaine. We find there, on the contrary, a position much closer to that of
the Society of St. Pius X than to that of those who follow the novelties by
obedience. He criticizes the theologian Marc Oraison who (on the pretext
that all that is not infallible is fallible) was saying that it is permissible not to follow any of the non-infallible teachings, and to put
aside the encyclical "Humane Vitae". Fr. Berto explains
correctly that even
if non-infallibility does not give absolute certitude, it nevertheless gives
a moral certitude and a duty to obey. Non-infallibility admits the possibility of error, not its probability thereof. And Fr. Berto to
conclude: " We admit that the Ordinary teaching of the Church is not always
infallible... But there are cases where the Ordinary teaching of the Church,
even without formal declarations, without promulgated definitions, is
nevertheless infallible: it is when it is constant, when it is universal, it
is finally when it presents the content of its teaching as an object of
faith, or in connection with the Faith". Then he develops the innumerable
antique testimonies in favor of the doctrine taught in Humanae Vitae.
This is exactly the position of the Society of St. Pius X, position that we
can summarize as follows: We must accept:
1. by faith (absolutely) what is proposed by the Magisterium in its
extraordinary exercise (definitions);
2. by obedience (a true and interior obedience) all what is proposed by the
Magisterium in its authentic exercise;
3. EXCEPT what is opposed to what has been explicitly and continually taught
by the past Magisterium, doing so not according to our own opinion, but by
fidelity to the teaching of the Church!
This therefore is not free thought, but true obedience to the Magisterium of
the Church.
Fr. Berto deplored the suppression of the Holy Office, and saw in this
suppression the cause of the proliferation of protesters after Vatican II.He deplored what we deplore also: the damage caused by the lack of exercise
of authority by the liberal Popes.
Our fidelity to Tradition does not emancipate us from the submission due to
the Roman Pontiff, even if we resist the introduction of novelties like
ecumenism, up to the point of consecrating bishops to carry on the defense
of Tradition. True submission to the Roman Pontiff does not include the
acceptance of novelties opposed to the constant teaching of the Roman
Church.
Conclusion: Return to the Traditional Mass.
Some people think that it would be good to reform the New Mass, to make a
reform of the reform. No, the fundamental vice of the Conciliar and post
Conciliar reforms is the rejection of the principle of fidelity to
Tradition. The modernists want to adapt the Church to the modern world. On
the contrary, it is necessary to re-establish the principle of authentic fidelity to Tradition. And the traditional Mass incorporates this principle
of fidelity, it manifests this principle, it is its living expression. To reform the reform is to keep the spirit of permanent reform, the spirit of
permanent revolution, the spirit which destroys Tradition. What the Holy
Church actually needs is the return to the Traditional Mass and to the whole
of Tradition with it!