ARE THE PRIESTS OF ST. PETER’S SOCIETY “MASSING”
PRIESTS
Rama Coomaraswamy, MD
"I saw again the new and odd-looking
Church which they were trying to build. There was nothing holy about it...
People were kneading bread in the crypt below...but it would not rise, nor did
they receive the body of Our Lord, but only bread. Those who were in error,
through no fault of their own, and who piously and ardently longed for the Body
of Jesus were spiritually consoled, but not by their communion. Then my Guide
(Jesus) said: 'THIS IS BABEL."
The Blessed Anna Catharina Emmerick
It was often asked of "priests" in the time
of Queen Elizabeth, if in fact they were "Massing" priests - that is
to say, did they offer the true Mass and validly administer the other
Sacraments. After the Elizabethan destruction and with the passage of time,
some of those in the Anglican communion increasingly rejected the doctrines and the spirit of the
Reformation. As a result segments of the so-called Church of England became
identified as "High," "Middle" and "Low” Church congregations.
Those who considered themselves "High Church" tended to retain more
and more of the Roman-like ritual; some even returned to the use of Latin in
their services and followed the old ways as much as was allowed. Needless to
say, many High Church people claimed that their "rites" were valid
and that their priests truly confected the Eucharistic Species and validly
administered the other Sacraments.
The Catholic church, always seeking to protect her
faithful from error, and always desirous of proclaiming the truth, denied both
the validity of Anglican Orders and, Baptism and Marriage apart, the validity
of the other Sacraments they administered. The "Ritualists"
(as some of these Anglicans were called) claimed that their Sacraments were
valid because of the evident graces that they received when participating in
them. We hear the same arguments put forth today with regard to the post-Conciliar sacraments.
What follows is a discussion taken from the writings
of Father Peter Gallway, a Jesuit who wrote over 100
years ago, in which he shows that our sensible response and subjective
conviction about the validity of the Sacraments is no assurance whatsoever of
their validity.
***
"There are many who, without any reference to
history or any study of documents, declare that they cannot doubt but that they
are in the enjoyment of the sacraments, and that their clergymen are true
priests. What are we to say to these?"
"In the first place, we must strive to find out
on what grounds they reach this certainty. And after examination, we shall
find, brethren, that their evidence amounts to this. First: 'Father Cuthbert is
so good a man, that it is quite palpable that he is a real priest.' and
secondly: 'Our sacraments are undoubtedly real sacraments, because nothing
short of real sacraments could make me feel as I do when I receive them.'"
"With regard to the first point, as I have
already fully discussed the question of the sanctity of the Ritualistic clergy,
I need not now stop to examine whether Father Cuthbert's holiness is such as to
prove him a true priest. I will only say, that though the Sacrament of Orders
imprints a character on the soul, it is only very rarely, and by an exceptional
miracle, that this character is made visible to the eye of the beholders.
Moreover, I would venture to add that if St. Francis of Assisi, who never would
receive priest's Orders, were brought before us wearing a chasuble, there are
few eyes upon this earth that could detect that he was not a priest. There are
multitudes of pious monks, lay-brothers, and laymen, who if dressed up in
sacerdotal robes would assuredly pass for priests. Nay, more than this; even
piety is not essential. Since as St. Paul argues, if the Evil One can pass
himself off as an angel of light, therefore it is no great thing if his
ministers be transformed as the ministers of justice' (2.Cor. XI). I do
not think, then, that a well-instructed jury would give a verdict in favor of
Father Cuthbert's priesthood simply because he looks the priest and walks as a
devout priest."
"Now, therefore, let us come to the second
argument: 'Our sacraments are real, because nothing but real sacraments could
make me feel as I do.'"
"I need hardly say that few arguments are so hard
to answer as arguments of this kind, which are drawn from those inward regions
of our own consciousness into which no one but ourselves can penetrate to test
the evidence. When a man who belongs to the party of the extreme Low Church
tells you gravely that he is quite happy because he has within him an assurance
that he is of the number of the elect, what sort of answer can you make? If you
could see into his soul you might have your answer, since perchance you might
discover that he is only proving by his words that he is not free from that
frailty which, according to the Psalmist, belongs to all men - omnis homo mendax.
You might ascertain that, instead of a settled assurance of salvation, there is
in his soul a large amount of remorse, terror, and uncertainty. Again, if you
were permitted to call in an experienced physician and submit the assurance to
a pathological examination, you might discover some explanation of it in the
state of the brain, or in the exceptionally effective state of the digestive
organs, or in the judicious use of a little wine which ‘gladdens the heart of
man;’ but when you are left without any of these aids, you can do nothing
against this inward assurance of the Evangelical, the happy feelings of the Ritualist which prove the truth of his sacraments are
cousins-germain. It is the same difficult and
delicate task to deal either with Evangelical or Ritualistic feelings."
"There
are, however, some things to be said on the subject which may suffice to
convince many Ritualists that it would be very unsafe
to conclude that sacraments are true sacraments because the recipient of them
experiences certain devotional feelings, just as it would be, on the other
hand, very rash to pronounce against the validity of a sacrament because it
awakens no pious emotions."
"1) First, then, it is quite clear
from the teaching of Holy Church, that grace is often present in the soul in
great abundance without being felt at all. A saint, for instance, may lie in a
fit of apoplexy, awaiting the moment of death, his soul richly adorned with
Divine grace, the presence of which, however, is not indicated by any feelings.
Nay, the soul may be full of grace, and the feelings may give evidence in the
opposite direction, and lead us to suppose that grace is not present. Hence
when our Blessed Lord cried out on Mount Calvary, 'My God, my God, why hast
thou abandoned Me?' He was, as the Holy Fathers teach us, uttering a word which
was to reassure many a holy soul passing through the hour of desolation, during
which the grace that is present is hidden, and all seems dark and full of sin.
In like manner, the presence of the grace given in Baptism is, in an ordinary
rule, not betrayed by any outward sign discernable to the eye or the senses...
In conclusion, oftentimes the feelings and the senses are as much at fault with
regard to the presence of grace in the soul as they are with regard to the
presence of Our Lord's body under the sacramental species..."
"2) In the second place, we must bear in mind that when God gives grace to
the soul, whether it be a grace manifested by feelings or a more hidden grace,
He sometimes uses the ministry of men as a medium of communication, and
sometimes acts without such ministration. We see a specimen of both these
methods in the story of the Wise Men. Sometimes they are guided by a star,
sometimes by the teaching of priests. At the present time, therefore, as in all
former ages, our Father in Heaven sends down His graces in these two ways,
sometimes through the channel of Sacraments, and sometimes without the
interposition of Sacraments. In fact, from the very nature of things, it is
only at occasional intervals that we can receive a sacrament, whereas every day
and every hour we are in want of graces which come to us without the
intervention of priests and Sacraments."
"3) Thirdly, in addition to this it is certain
from the teaching of the Church, that when a Sacrament is duly administered,
grace may come to the recipient in two ways to which technical names have been
given - (1) ex opere operato;
(2) ex opere operantis.
That is, first, by virtue of the work done; secondly, by virtue of the
disposition of those who take part in the administration of the Sacraments.
thus, when Baptism is properly administered, our Blessed Lord, in His
charitable compassion for the souls of men, has ordained that the sacrament
shall take effect, although the priest who baptizes may himself be in a state
of grievous sin. So long as the minister of the Sacrament intends to do what
the church prescribes, and actually performs the prescribed rite and pronounces
the appointed words, the Sacrament will confer grace by virtue of the work
done, even though the priest should chance to be a wicked man. On the other
hand, if an adult were receiving Baptism, and had prepared himself for it by
many fervent prayers, and if, moreover, the priest baptizing were a very
saintly man, and besought God with great earnestness to grant many graces to
the catechumen, in this case, over and above the sanctifying grace given by
virtue of the work done, there would be additional grace given in consideration
of the good dispositions of the catechumen and the ministering priest. this is
the grace called ex opere operantis.
This being so, let us suppose a case in which a pious man desires to receive
the Body and Blood of Our Lord in Holy Communion, and prepares himself for that
holy Sacrament with much earnestness, and presents himself at the altar with
very lively sentiments of faith, hope, and charity, and a strong desire for the
life-giving Bread; and let us further suppose that by some unusual accident an
unconsecrated host is given to him instead of the Sacred Body of our Lord.
Under these circumstances what effect will be produced on his soul? He has not
received a true Sacrament, and therefore he will not receive the grace which we
have described as given ex opere operato - by virtue of the sacramental work done. No
Sacrament has been administered, and therefore the effects proper to the
Sacrament will not be produced by virtue of any sacramental act; but he has
brought with him to the altar very good dispositions; he has prepared himself
with much care, and he has in spirit and desire received the Body of Our Lord,
and made very fervently what is called a spiritual communion. Consequently, he
now receives in good measure the graces that come ex opere
operantis that is, in consideration of the good
dispositions which he brings with him; and therefore he may retire from the
altar much happier and more fervent than many others who have received the true
Sacrament; and to the end of his life he may never become aware of the fact
that he did not receive anything more than unconsecrated bread."[1]
"Grace
then may be given, and devotional feelings may be excited in the soul, in
consequence of the good dispositions of the man or woman who comes to take part
in any holy rite; but in this case, the devotional feelings aroused are no
proof that any real Sacrament has been administered. It is easy to illustrate
the doctrine by an example which Ritualists will have
no difficulty in comprehending. A Communion Service is periodically celebrated
in the Baptist meeting-houses or Tabernacles. The celebrant is a layman who
does not pretend to any sacerdotal powers. He has received no sacrament of
Orders, nor does he believe any ordination to be necessary. He is a layman, and
nothing more. Therefore, every well-instructed Ritualist
will affirm that what he gives the people can be nothing but ordinary bread and
wine. There is no administration whatever of the Sacrament of Holy Eucharist. A
ceremony is performed, but it is not the Sacrament. Now let us suppose that
some simple-minded man in the congregation prepares himself with great fervor
for this rite, and has an earnest desire to be fed by the Body and Blood of Our
Lord; this being so , there is no reason why this devout man should not, in
consequence of his good faith and his earnestness, draw down a blessing on
himself and much peace to his soul. If he goes home happy and light-hearted,
his feelings are no proof that a true Sacrament has been administered. At the
most they can only prove that grace has come to him, not through virtue of a
Sacrament, but by virtue of his good disposition." "This being so,
would a jury of good theologians admit that Anglican Orders are valid, that
ritualistic Clergy are true priests who really consecrate and validly absolve,
merely because a certain number of Ritualists
experience devotional feelings when they have recourse to the ministrations of the clergy? Assuredly not.
We all want evidence of quite another kind before we can admit that Ritualists have true priests among them, and have the
benefit of true Sacraments."[2]
***
It is extraordinary to note how apt are the points
which Father Gallway made over 100 years ago, to
present day circumstances. One has only to replace the term "Ritualist" with "post-Conciliar
Catholic" to give his argument pertinence and what the modernists like to
call "relevance." We have then yet further evidence in favor of
strictly adhering to the constant ritual practice of the Church. It is this
alone that can assure us of the validity of the Sacraments. Blessed are those
of us who can claim to be in the same Church as Father Gallway,
and who can rest secure that we enjoy the same Sacraments he did.
Before discussing the Society of St. Peter and the use
of traditional rites, it is necessary to consider some of the specific problems
relating to the present situation in the Church. First of all, the number of
Catholic and would-be-Catholic groups that describe themselves as
“traditional,” have increased to the point that the word has almost lost its
meaning and usefulness. The term has, of course, always had a multiplicity of
applications – but all of them related to its intrinsic meaning of what is
“handed down,” what was received. Its religious usage is closely related to
that of Revelation. What our Lord and the Apostles taught and did has come down
to us through the written word – Scripture – and by oral transmission, called
Tradition. Tradition with a capital “T” usually refers to those teachings and
practices which can be traced back to Our Lord and the Apostles, while
tradition with a small “t” to those established in sub-apostolic times.
Immediately an element of confusion enters, for it is often difficult to draw
clear lines between the practices established by the Apostles as opposed to
their successors; and between what was “revealed” (and hence incumbent) and
what was approved but not mandatory. Finally the adjective “traditional” can be
applied to the principle of adherence to what was revealed and established by
the Apostolic Church and preserved intact as a precious pearl, as well as to
practices established at a later date that are consistent with those
established by the Apostles. Finally, the adjective can be applied on a
cultural level to those patterns of acting and thinking that can be
characterized as “truly Catholic.” Thus, for example the true Mass can be said
to be Traditional (and indeed, its core was revealed); blessing oneself with
holy water as “traditional,” and saying of the Rosary as “traditional.”
Obviously, it would be absurd to claim to be an “untraditional” Catholic, and
hence the confusion.
Any
true claim to be “traditional” must include the rejection of the new and post-Conciliar rites and doctrines. In the practical order, this
means that one must take a firm stand with regard to three things: 1) the Mass
and the other Sacraments, especially Holy Orders; 2) Vatican II; and 3) the
post-Conciliar “popes.” Let us consider each in turn.
1)
It is against the
laws of the Church for one to use or receive sacraments that are in any way
dubious. Indeed to do so is a sacrilege. Now, each and every one of the post-Conciliar sacraments, with the possible exception of
Baptism and marriage (neither of which depends upon the sacrament of Orders) is
at least dubious. It is only natural that traditional Roman Catholics should
insist on the Mass as codified by Pius V or one of the parallel traditional
Eastern (Uniate) rtes. They also insist on
their priests being ordained by traditional rites – those in use up to 1968.
What is not as well known is that the rites of Episcopal Consecration have been
more drastically changed than any other sacrament. Priests “elevated” to the
episcopacy (i.e., made bishops) after 1968 are almost certainly only priests
without the power to ordain others (and if ordained as priests after 1968,
laymen).[3]
2)
Traditional
Catholics reject Vatican II as a false council. Vatican II has been declared to
be at least “the supreme form of the ordinary Magisterium,”
and is hence totally incumbent upon the consciences of post-Conciliar
Catholics. (According to a de fide statement, the ordinary Magisterium is binding upon the Catholic conscience.) Now
it will be argued that there are many orthodox statements in Vatican II. The
point is granted. The same can be said for the writings of Luther – and indeed,
Satan quoted Scripture to our Lord when he tempted him. The presence of
occasional orthodox statements in heretical writings has never led the
traditional Church to lend approval to such productions. It would be as if a
physician mixed poison with good medicine. And hence, the only “traditional”
attitude one can take toward these documents is total rejection. The same
applies to the various catechisms and other “doctrinal” documents produced
after Vatican II.
3)
The third area of
importance relates to the status of the post-Conciliar
“popes.” Now certain principles must be kept in mind. First of all a true pope
is “one hierarchical person with our Lord” which is to say that when he speaks
or teaches, it is our Lord who is speaking and teaching. The pope makes this
clear when he speaks in his triple function of teacher (magister),
ruler (jurisdiction) or sanctifying (as in the Sacraments). Now, in these
settings he partakes of infallibility precisely because when he speaks, “it is
Christ who teaches, rules and sanctifies.” As a result, we owe him obedience.
Either we recognize his authority or we don’t. It is a teaching of the Church
that one must be in obedience to the pope (and the bishops in union with him)
in these areas which pertain to his infallible authority. Again, the reader is
referred to my essay on the Magisterium.
Catholics
who reject the new “mass” and even a single teaching of Vatican II are in
DISOBEDIENCE to those (i.e. the last four “popes”) presently sitting on the
Chair of Peter. Attempts to justify this situation are to a great extent
responsible for the present chaos.
Several possible solutions can be taken: a) One can simply refuse to
follow these individuals when they depart from the Faith. This follows the
principle that “one must obey God rather than men.” It leaves the state of
these “popes” open but recognizes that they are in fact commanding us to sin
against the Holy Spirit in obeying them. The problem is that it leaves one very
much on one’s own with regard to spiritual matters. It forces one to “pick and
choose” what one thinks is Catholic. B) One can declare that these “popes” are
somehow in control of the papacy, but have no authority. Varieties of this
position have labeled these “popes” as anti-popes, usurpers, etc This is in
essence the materialiter/formaliter argument.
And C) one can declare these men are manifestly heretics and as such have
either lost or never had any authority – that they are not popes at all, which
is essentially the sede vacantist
position. What all these attitudes have in common is a declaration that these
“popes” have no authority – that they do not speak with the voice of Christ.
It
matters not whether one takes the sede vacantist position or whether one says they are “popes”
without authority. To say they have no authority is to say they are not one hierarchical
person with Christ and do not speak with His voice. A pope without authority is
no pope at all.
It
is often argued that we cannot declare these individuals to be false popes, for
that is the function of the Magisterium. Actually, a
study of the Magisterium would make it clear that it
is the Magisterium which has in fact made it clear
that they cannot be popes. However, one should not abandon one’s common sense.
It is a matter of simple logic that these men who claim to be “popes” are not
Catholic, and it is a teaching of the Magisterium
that a person who is not a Catholic cannot be a “pope. (He who is not a member
of the Body cannot be its Head, and he who is not a member of the “learning
church” cannot become part of the “teaching Church.”)
Those
that loudly proclaim their loyalty to these “popes” and hold them to be true
popes, are as Catholics obliged to obey them. Should they argue as many do that
they will obey these “popes” when they speak in accord with tradition, but not
when they do not are simply proclaiming themselves as Protestant. They are
picking and choosing on their own authority what they find acceptable which is
nothing less than to declare themselves to be the Magisterium.
Paul VI made this quite clear to Archbishop Lefebvre when he told him that it
was up to him as pope to decide what was and what was not traditional, and
further that he (Lefebvre) had to give his full intellectual assent to the
entire content of Vatican II. It goes without saying that the Church cannot ask
us to give our intellectual consent to error.
THE MASS OF THE INDULT
The so-called Mass of the
Indult, frequently and incorrectly referred to as the “Tridentine,”
“Latin” or “traditional” Mass is in fact the Mass of John XXIII. Even though –
providing the priest is properly ordained and has the right intention and uses
proper form and matter – the Consecration is valid, this is not the traditional
Mass as fixed by Pius V. It is in fact a sort of half-way house on the way to
the Novus Ordo
and has been called by some “half-way Bugnini.” In
allowing for its use John Paul II specified certain conditions: namely the
acceptance of the post-Conciliar “popes”; the
acceptance of all the teachings of Vatican II; and the recognition that all the
post-Conciliar sacraments are valid. This may not be
insisted on as it originally was (people had to sign statements to this
effect), but it remains true in principle. To accept the Indult is to accept
the Church that gave the Indult. Among the changes that the Mass of John XXIII specified was a new and different Breviary
(which contained writings of individuals who were clearly heretical and
subsequently left the Church), and a different Church (liturgical) calendar
which made previous Breviaries and Missals obsolete. This was a direct attack
on the spiritual life of priests. Those who attend the Indult do so in order to
receive a valid Sacrament. However, two things should be kept in mind: 1) older
priests are dying out, and 2) It ties one hand and foot to the new and post-Conciliar Church which is of course its intention.
THE LEFEBVRE POSITIION – THE SOCIETY OF PIUS X
Prior to the consecration of
the four bishops against the commands of John Paul II, Archbishop Lefebvre had
taken a well-known position. This can be characterized as holding that 1) John
Paul II was a true and valid pope who had some modernist ideas – but not such
as to make him a formal heretic. Hence he expelled from his Fraternity any
priest who would not recognize the post-Conciliar
“popes” and pray for them within the Canon of the Mass (where they are thus
characterized as both “orthodox” (having “true faith and sound doctrine”) and
Catholic. 2) Vatican II was capable of being interpreted in a traditional
fashion. 3) All the post Conciliar sacraments were in
se (in themselves or as they stood) valid. Hence he allowed priests
ordained with the new rites to join his Fraternity without insisting on
conditional re-ordination, and such is the policy of the Society of Pius X to
this day. Archbishop Lefebvre was suspended in divines for many years,
which means that his activities in running seminaries and ordaining priests
were acts of disobedience to the authority which he recognized as valid.
When he was negotiating with
the Vatican about consecrating bishops, he stated that accepted the New Code of
Canon Law (take a moment to look at canon 840) and considered it binding. This
Code clearly states that for one to consecrate a bishop without papal
permission results in automatic excommunication.
He then proceeded to ordain
four bishops against the express will of John Paul II, while in no way
repudiating his stand. He stated that his reason for going ahead were that he
had lost confidence in the Vatican, but he reiterated his stand on the various
points listed above. Such an act placed him, at least in schism if not open
rebellion. Not only is he in schism with the post-Conciliar
Church, he is also in schism with the true Church, for he recognizes the new
sacraments and because of his attitude towards Vatican II. The net result is
that his followers are placed in an untenable position. They must accept John
Paul II as Christ’s Vicar on earth, and they must disobey him and receive
sacraments – some of which are questionably valid – from priests who are
excommunicated. Like it or not, the Society of Pius X is tied to the post-Conciliar Church and is part and parcel of it.
In view of all this the
recent negotiations between the Society and Rome are somewhat of a joke. Again,
many are duped into thinking that the Society is going to bring the new Church
back to tradition. The fact that the Society insists on the use of the Indult
Mass ties it irrevocably to the post-Conciliar
institution. The bottom line is always the acceptance of Vatican II and the new
sacraments. But the post-Conciliar church is
delighted to play this game.
THE SOCIETY OF ST. PETER.
Given these facts, it is easy
to understand that many of Archbishop’s Lefebvre’s followers abandoned his
position and welcomed the offer of the Vatican to form a new society, that of
St. Peter. In order to encourage the followers of Lefebvre and other
conservative Novus Ordo
Catholics to stand within the post-Conciliar fold,
they were promised the Mass of John XXIII and where seminaries were
established, ordination according to the traditional rites.
All this sounds wonderful.
Many saw this as proof that John Paul II was returning the Church to tradition.
One could eat one’s cake and still have it. One can be in communion with the
post-Conciliar Church and all her dogma-denying
heretics, and still have a valid rite in Latin. Seminarians can wear cassocks,
behave and act like priests, and have the approval of modernist Rome. But there
is a catch which the directors of “the pope’s own traditional order” never
mention. And that is that there are no bishops to ordain them!
We are told they will be
ordained by Cardinals Meyer and Ratzinger,
individuals whose seemingly conservative stance is constantly stressed.[4]
(Some have sought out older bishops elsewhere.) But both these individuals were
made bishops after 1968 – Paul Augustin Meyer on
February 13, 1972 and Joseph Ratzinger on May 28,
1977 (both in the diocese of Passau in Bavaria), by
the new and highly dubious post-Conciliar ceremonies.
The Society of St. Peter has
also had some problems because they have been told that they must say, upon
request of the bishops in whatever diocese they establish themselves – the Novus Ordo Missae – especially on Holy Thursday. Any idea that
they are traditional is clearly removed by the recent Protocol 1411.
Recently a traditional priest
who made inquiries about the possibility of joining this Society was told that
he had to sign papers stating that he accepted all the teachings of Vatican II
and the validity of all the new sacraments. This he was of course unable to do.
And so we have clear cut
evidence that this is just another conservative ploy of the post-Conciliar Church. In addition, it adds confusion to
confusion. Not only do we have Archbishop Lefebre
accepting priests ordained with the new and highly dubious rites of ordination,
now we are going to have St. Peter’s priests ordained with traditional rites by
“bishops” who lack the Apostolic Succession, but we are going to have them
present themselves as priests in cassocks and as saying something reasonably
close to the traditional rite even though they have no power to Consecrate.
Before long, the world will be filled with traditional priests providing
useless sacraments in Latin!
And so we must ask with
Father Galloway, “ARE THEY “MASSING” PRIESTS?
©Rama Coomaraswamy,
MD 2002
[1] Conservative Novus Ordo Catholics who are adequately informed about these issues and are aware of the doubtful nature of the post-Conciliar sacraments, cannot use this as an excuse for attending such sacraments. The term "ex opere operantis" is commonly understood by the faithful to mean an increase of sancifying grace according to one's dispositions in receiving valid sacraments. It would only apply to the receiving of invalid "sacraments" if the individual were invincibly ignorant of their invalidity.
[2] Father Peter Gallway, S.J., Lectures on Ritualism, Burns Oates: London, 1878.
[3] For a time there were validly consecrated bishops available, but these have almost completely died out. With regard to the invalidity of the new rites of consecration, readers are referred to my essay on Holy Orders.
[4] Some, it is true, have been ordained by older bishops, but such is an exception.