Father Murray

Wat betreft de promovendus vd Gregoriana te Rome. Het betreft hier de licentiaatscryptie van van Father Murray (dus geen promotiescriptie). Naar aanleiding van een inverview in The Latin Mass (sept 1995) concludeerd de SSPX: Murray en met hem de pauselijke universiteit Gregoriana oordelen verder dat de nieuwe liturgie veel te haastig en onverantwoord is ingevoerd met als gevolg verwarring en chaos in de gehele Kerk. Murray spreekt zelfs van een fout (mistake) van paus Paulus VI. Hij concludeert verder, dat het decreet over de excommunicatie van mgr Lefebvre door kardinaal Gantin erg slordig en waarschijnlijk ongeldig in elkaar geflanst is. Deze kardinaal Gantin is prefect van de Congregatie voor de Bisschoppen, en tot bisschop gewijd door mgr Lefebvre. Hierop reageert Father Murray (The Latin Mass, Vol. 5, No. 4; Fall 1996): I was recently sent a copy of you pamphlet. "Is the Society of Saint Pius X Schismatic? Excommunicated? Rome says no." In this publication you make use of modified quotations from my interview in the Fall issue of The Latin Mass. You have intentionally misquoted me and even put words in my mouth. I shall illustrate this flagant dishonesty below. /.../ Voor de volledigheid hier nog enkele uitsneden uit het artikel van 1995 (Vol. 4., No. 4; Fall 1995 [september]). /.../ As far as I can see the Holy See has never stated that mere attendance at a Mass said by a priest in the Society of PlUS X constitutes a schismatic act. Therefore you'd have to ask, "Is that a reasonable conclusion that you could draw as a private interpreter of the law, and then propose to the faithful?" So therefore I think someone could act to a SSPX Mass and in good faith not consider that there be any problem regarding schism. Another factor to keep in mind is that just because something is not penalizes doesn't mean that it's good behavior. You could draw the conclusion from moral theology that Archbishop Lefebvre disobeyed the order of his superior and suffered canonical penalties as a result. He denies that the penalties apply; that's another matter. But it is certainly that the Pope did not intend him to do what he did; and therefore in order to justify continuing to have anything to do with this movement you'd have to have serious reasons which would justify associating with a movement founded upon disobedience to the Pope. In other words, something can be morally wrong and yet not be canonically penalizes because we don't have a penalty in canon law for every wrong thing you do. Now, what would be the wrong thing? For instance, going to a Pius X Mass because one considers the new Mass to be invalid. That's wrong, objectively wrong. /.../ They claim that they are doing is operating for the good of the Church outside the official structure of the Church. Archbishop Lefebvre would go all over the world and perform sacramental acts without the permission of; the local bishops. That's wrong. He should not do that. Now, he justified it because he said the Church was in crisis. He made statements that the Faith was being preached only in the SSPX; therefore people should stick with him. I know there are many people who lost there faith because they've embraced heresy preached in their local parishes, and read it in so-called Catholic books and magazins; but apostasized and that you couldnot get good doctrine anywhere else. So I think Lefebvre acted as a provocateur and a leader, overstating his case at times for the sake of solidifying his support. Are they schismatic in spirit? I think some of them are, from what I've read; and I think that as time goes on the members of the Society have to unemotionally examine the Ecclesia Dei provisions which led to the founding of the Fraternity of St. Peter. /.../ You know, the Fraternity of St. Peter has not been disbanded and has not been compelled to celebrate the new Mass. They've never been compelled to teach Modernism. Neither is there truth to any of the other charges that the SSPX made in 1988. I think the Society is in a defenive mode right now; and as we know, the farther you get away from the center, the more particularistic you can become. And also, ignorance is usually and ally of error and schism; and one way you maintain ignorance is by misrepresenting the true state of the Church and the true state of papal teaching. /.../ Almost always they should not. If they have the opportunity to go to an indult Mass, a Tridentine Mass, they should go to that even if it involves some difficulty. The reason is that you have to have an extraordinary or very serious circumstance to attend a Mass that's unapproved by the local bishop and by the Roman Pontiff. If they can't go to an indult Mass and don't want to tolerate going to the new Mass, they have to seriously examine the reasons for that. If it's such an absolute burden on them that it's impossible for them to be at peace going to a vaiid Novus Ordo Mass, they have to weigh that against the danger they're exposing themselves to in hearing sermons that likely may be schismatic in spirit. or even perhaps themselves being drawn, with their children, away from unity with the Roman Pontiff. /.../ Hiernaast heeft Father Murray in de zomer uitgave van de Latin Mass 1996 diverse aanvullingen en correcties op zijn licentiaatsscryptie gepubliceerd (The Latin Mass, Vol. 5, No. 3; Summer 1996 [June]). In my thesis, I denied the existence of a real necessity to consecrate bishops, given the papal offer (accepted at first by Archbishop Lefebvre) to have one of the members of his society elevated to the episcopate. I did, though, think that he could make a legitimate claim that Canon 1324 exempted him from a latae sententiae penalty of excommunication on the grounds that an erroneous estimation of a state of necessity allowed him to act against the law. Now I no longer think that an appeal to Canon 1324 in this case fall within the intended scope of the law. Another important criticism I recieved concerns the question of the possible invalidity of the declaration of excommunication issued by the Congregation for Bishops. A couple of well-versed canonists pointed out something crucial which I neglected to include in my thesis, and which probably led to an incorrect inference on the part of many readers: once the competent authority in the Church, in this case the Congregation for Bishops, has publicly declared a latae sententiae (automatic) penalty to have been incurred, the persons named in that delaration are bound to submit to the public effects of the penalty. They are not free to simply ignore the penalty, alleging reasons why it does not incurred automatically. They may be convinced that the declaration was invalid. They may even be able to prove their case. But they cannot simply assert this, and then act as though there had been no declaration of excommunication. They must prove their case in an administrative recourse. If they choose not to lodge a recourse, then the matter rests as established by the competent Church authority. They are excommunicated. /.../ The four bishops consecrated by Archbishop Lefebvre are and must be considered as excommunicated until such time as Church authority withdraw the declaration of excommunication. The Society of St. Pius X and those who frequent their chapels must realize that continuing on a path of defiance and separation from the Holy See, and from: the Church in general, will inevitably lead then further and further away from Catholic unity and into undeniable schism. Furthermore, history ominously teaches us how easily schism leads into heresy.