The Hawaii Six Case claims are a serious propagandistic mistake. Are the claims accidental (a misunderstanding) or intentional (propaganda meant to deceive)?
Frankly, I have known for more than a score of years that the claim is absurd and indefensible and I have written to the SSPX about the claims and they have never responded.
The Lawyer who argued successfully against the excommunications is a board member of Catholics United for The Faith and I met him when he came to advise our Trad Study Group in Portland, Maine.
He did not argue anything having to do with The SSPX:
The SSPX cite the 1991 “Hawaii Six” case as evidence that those adhering to the Society are not really excommunicated. This case regarded six individuals who were excommunicated by Bishop Joseph Ferrario of Honolulu for participating in unauthorized Tridentine Masses. The Masses were not held in a chapel administered by the SSPX, although priests of the Society sometimes celebrated Mass there. The excommunications were not upheld by Rome because participating in an unauthorized Mass, while a grave matter, is not in itself a schismatic act according to canon law. (Archbishop LeFebvre himself was suspended from priestly functions in July 1976 after he disobediently ordained priests against a direct papal order. Yet the Holy See did not excommunicate him for celebrating unauthorized Masses thereafter. It was only after Archbishop LeFebvre’s unauthorized ordination of bishops that Rome excommunicated him.) The six individuals in the “Hawaii Six” case were represented canonically by CUF Advisory Board Member Chuck Wilson of the St. Joseph Foundation based in San Antonio, TX. Mr. Wilson affirms that this case does not support the SSPX’s position because the chapel where the Masses were held was not administered by the Society and the persons involved did not belong to the SSPX.
This lying propaganda seriously undermines the putative truthfulness of The SSPX and its claim it stands for Tradition.
Just as I was about to post this, I remembered a source about The SSPX which looked at their claims dispassionately and The SSPX came out looking like the problematic and protestant-tinged private judgment group they still remain after all of these years:
III - Analyzing the Hawaii 6 Incident and Cardinal Ratzinger's Decision:
This was recently shown to be the case in Hawaii, where Bishop Ferrario decided to excommunicate, on May 1, 1991, some followers of the Society of Saint Pius X, for supporting the Society and attending its Masses. Rome declared that the decision "lacks foundation and hence validity." Bishop Ferrario's attempted excommunication of Society followers was overturned by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, on June 28, 1993. "From the examination of the case, conducted on the basis of the Law of the Church, it did not result that the facts referred to in the above-mentioned Decree, are formal schismatic acts in the strict sense, as they do not constitute the offence of schism; and therefore the Congregation holds that the Decree of 1 May 1991, lacks foundation and hence validity." (Apostolic Nunciature, Washington D.C.)
Cardinal Ratzinger's decision in no way lends credence to the SSPX's assertions. (Nor did it have any bearing whatsoever on their canonical status.)
The excommunication of "the Hawaii 6" was over a radio program that the attendees had set up which was anti Vatican II, and anti — Revised Missal (Pauline or Novus Ordo Mass), critical of the local ordinary, and other aspects. The exact parameters were not precisely known to this author when he originally wrote his treatise. In revising the work in December of 2000, the information was still somewhat fuzzy so it was again passed over. However, this writer has come across additional material that shines light on this subject - including an interesting statement from the St. Joseph's Foundation where they noted that they "assisted in defending the 'Hawaii Six'". Their spokesman stated that "I can say that the status of the Society was not at issue in that case. What was at issue was the conduct of the defendants which, while admittedly blameworthy in some respects, did not constitute schism".
That the SSPX uses this in the pamphlet without giving the details behind the reason for Bishop Ferrario's excommunications and the rationale behind Cardinal Ratzinger's overturning of the excommunications is something very unsettling right off the bat. It seems to indicate that the SSPX is not interested in displaying the facts as they really are but is interested in anything that might remotely support their position. So right off the bat we have them bearing false witness against Cardinal Ratzinger.
Sadly, tragically, stupidly, The SSPX is STILL using this long-discredited lying propaganda as a way to deceive its devotees and keep the filthy lucre rolling in.
http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/treatise8.html
Just as I was about to post this, I remembered a source about The SSPX which looked at their claims dispassionately and The SSPX came out looking like the problematic and protestant-tinged private judgment group they still remain after all of these years:
III - Analyzing the Hawaii 6 Incident and Cardinal Ratzinger's Decision:
This was recently shown to be the case in Hawaii, where Bishop Ferrario decided to excommunicate, on May 1, 1991, some followers of the Society of Saint Pius X, for supporting the Society and attending its Masses. Rome declared that the decision "lacks foundation and hence validity." Bishop Ferrario's attempted excommunication of Society followers was overturned by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, on June 28, 1993. "From the examination of the case, conducted on the basis of the Law of the Church, it did not result that the facts referred to in the above-mentioned Decree, are formal schismatic acts in the strict sense, as they do not constitute the offence of schism; and therefore the Congregation holds that the Decree of 1 May 1991, lacks foundation and hence validity." (Apostolic Nunciature, Washington D.C.)
Cardinal Ratzinger's decision in no way lends credence to the SSPX's assertions. (Nor did it have any bearing whatsoever on their canonical status.)
The excommunication of "the Hawaii 6" was over a radio program that the attendees had set up which was anti Vatican II, and anti — Revised Missal (Pauline or Novus Ordo Mass), critical of the local ordinary, and other aspects. The exact parameters were not precisely known to this author when he originally wrote his treatise. In revising the work in December of 2000, the information was still somewhat fuzzy so it was again passed over. However, this writer has come across additional material that shines light on this subject - including an interesting statement from the St. Joseph's Foundation where they noted that they "assisted in defending the 'Hawaii Six'". Their spokesman stated that "I can say that the status of the Society was not at issue in that case. What was at issue was the conduct of the defendants which, while admittedly blameworthy in some respects, did not constitute schism".
That the SSPX uses this in the pamphlet without giving the details behind the reason for Bishop Ferrario's excommunications and the rationale behind Cardinal Ratzinger's overturning of the excommunications is something very unsettling right off the bat. It seems to indicate that the SSPX is not interested in displaying the facts as they really are but is interested in anything that might remotely support their position. So right off the bat we have them bearing false witness against Cardinal Ratzinger.
Sadly, tragically, stupidly, The SSPX is STILL using this long-discredited lying propaganda as a way to deceive its devotees and keep the filthy lucre rolling in.
http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/treatise8.html
No comments:
Post a Comment
Check with your doctor