Hosanna Sunday Hymn in The Maronite Catholic Church

There may have been warnings about anti semitism in the Latin Rite Church on Palm Sunday but in the Byzantine Rite Catholic Church there is no timorousness when it comes comes to worshipping the Good, True and Beautiful in The Divine Liturgy.

Elipsis from previous post. I sinned worse against Jesus than did the Jews.-

 From Cornelius a Lapide exegesis of Matthew 27 - The sham trial of Jesus before the Sanhedrin (Published along with other material in Deuteronomy, Deception and Deicide on this crummy blog.

I replaced the words with an ellipsis because it easily distracted from the sham trail itself but it bears publication owing to my own self-righteousness.

When I was a preening teen, I  heard the Gospel read in Holy Week and told myself, "I would never have done what the Jews did "- from Palm Sunday to Crucifixion - and then as a teen, and later, I did worse.

What it made it so far worse was that  I was regularly receiving Holy Communion and the other Sacraments.

Lord have Mercy on me

Lapide reminds his readers;

A Christian who sins condemns our Redeemer a second time to death, kills Him (as it were), and crucifies Him (see Heb. vi. 6). Whence S. Bridget (Rev. i. 37) tells us that the Blessed Virgin said to her, “I complain that my Son is crucified more cruelly by His enemies in the world now, than He was by the Jews. For the sins with which they spiritually crucify my Son are more abominable and grievous than the sins of those who crucified Him in the body.”

Roman Catechism: Part 1, The Creed

Article 4 Suffered under Pontius Pilate, was Crucified, Dead and Buried

Reasons Why Christ Suffered

The reasons why the Saviour suffered are also to be explained, that thus the greatness and intensity of the divine love towards us may the more fully appear. Should anyone inquire why the Son of God underwent His most bitter Passion, he will find that besides the guilt inherited from our first parents the principal causes were the vice's and crimes which have been perpetrated from the beginning of the world to the present day and those which will be

committed to the end of time. In His Passion and death the Son of God, our Saviour, intended to

atone for and blot out the sins of all ages, to offer for them to his Father a full and abundant satisfaction.

Besides, to increase the dignity of this mystery, Christ not only suffered for sinners, but even for

those who were the very authors and ministers of all the torments He endured. Of this the Apostle reminds us in these words addressed to the Hebrews: Think diligently upon him that endured such opposition from sinners against himself; that you be not wearied, fainting in your minds. In this guilt are involved all those who fall frequently into sin; for, as our sins consigned Christ the Lord to the death of the cross, most certainly those who wallow in sin and iniquity crucify to themselves again the Son of God, as far as in them lies, and make a mockery of Him.

This guilt seems more enormous in us than in the Jews, since according to the testimony of the

same Apostle: If they had known it, they would never have crucified the Lord of glory; while we,

on the contrary, professing to know Him, yet denying Him by our actions, seem in some sort to

lay violent hands on him.

I thought it'd be helpful to post the description of who God is from the wonderful Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P. from his most enlightening text "Predestination; the meaning of Predestination in Scripture and the Church.

He describes God thusly - God Is infinite Justice, Infinite Mercy and Sovereign Liberty.

Lord Have Mercy. Is that not a true good and beautiful description?

Deuteronomy, Deception and Deicide

In Deuteronomy 17, God teaches His once chosen people the prime principle about the consequences of breaking the "Thou shalt not bear false witness" Commandment.

  15 One witness shall not rise up against any man, whatsoever the sin or wickedness be: but in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word shall stand.

 16 If a lying witness stand against a man, accusing him of transgression,  17 Both of them, between whom the controversy is, shall stand before the Lord in the sight of the priests and the judges that shall be in those days.  18 And when after most diligent inquisition, they shall find that the false witness hath told a lie against his brother:  19 They shall render to him as he meant to do to his brother, and thou shalt take away the evil out of the midst of thee: 20 That others hearing may fear, and may not dare to do such things.

 21 Thou shalt not pity him, but shalt require life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot. 

His once chosen people knew that the Chief Priests and Judges were required to not only consider false witness in a trial a serious crime but to put to death the men guilty of bearing false witness.

Many centuries later The Sanhedrin put Jesus on trial and solicited false testimony against Him so they could find Him guilty and sentence Him to death.

  Matthew 26:57 But they holding Jesus led him to Caiphas the high priest, where the scribes and the ancients were assembled.  58 And Peter followed him afar off, even to the court of the high priest. And going in, he sat with the servants, that he might see the end.  59 And the chief priests and the whole council sought false witness against Jesus, that they might put him to death: 60 And they found not, whereas many false witnesses had come in. And last of all there came two false witnesses:

 61 And they said: This man said, I am able to destroy the temple of God, and after three days to rebuild it.  62 And the high priest rising up, said to him: Answerest thou nothing to the things which these witness against thee?  63 But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest said to him: I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us if thou be the Christ the Son of God.  64 Jesus saith to him: Thou hast said it. Nevertheless I say to you, hereafter you shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of the power of God, and coming in the clouds of heaven.  65 Then the high priest rent his garments, saying: He hath blasphemed; what further need have we of witnesses? Behold, now you have heard the blasphemy:

 66 What think you? But they answering, said: He is guilty of death.

Cornelius a Lapide exegesis:

Ver. 55. In that same hour said Jesus to the multitudes, Are ye come out as against a thief, with swords and staves for to take Me? I sat daily with you teaching in the Temple, and ye laid no hold on Me. He had before reproved Peter and the Apostles when they drew their swords; He now reproves still more severely Judas and the Jews who wished to take Him; exhibiting in this way wonderful loftiness, freedom, and calmness of mind. For He said this when He was still free. It was just after He had healed Malchus’ ear. Shame on you, He would say, to come and seize Me by night, as a thief! I am no thief, but publicly taught the Jews in the Temple. Why did ye not seize Me then? I know why you seek to take Me, but I know also that ye were afraid to take Me in the Temple on account of the people. Deal with Me now as you please; I surrender Myself willingly; bind Me, scourge Me at your will, &c. 

This is your hour, and the power of darkness. And ye therefore fittingly come to seize Me by night, because I am the light of the world, and have openly taught the light of truth in the light of day. But ye as children of darkness shun the light and love darkness, and therefore do ye seize Me in the darkness. So say Bede and Theophylact, and S. Leo (Serm. viii. de Pass.), “The sons of darkness rushed against the true Light, and though using torches and lanterns, yet escaped not the darkness of unbelief, because they knew not the Author of light,” &c. 

It is clear from S. Luke that it was after these words that the Jews laid hands on Jesus. The order of events (see ver. 50) is here transposed by S. Matthew, who wished to bring together at one time all that related to the seizure of Christ without regard to the order of time. 

Lastly, how cruel and insulting was this seizure of Christ! First, as being seized as a malefactor, though most innocent, and in Himself, as God, boundless and uncreated sanctity. Secondly, in being seized by the vilest of men, and His greatest enemies. Thirdly, in being forsaken by the Apostles. Fourthly, because by these His bonds He wished to loose the most grievous and hard bonds of our sins (see Lam. iv. 20). Fifthly, because He wished in this way to animate Christians and martyrs especially to bear boldly their imprisonment and bonds, as S. Paul did, Eph. iii. 1, and S. Chrysostom in loc. The bonds of many martyrs were cruel, but those of Christ were more cruel still. 

This crowd consisted of a thousand soldiers, and also of many attendants and servants of the high priest. See John xviii. 12. 

Ver. 56. But all this was done that the Scriptures of the Prophets might be fulfilled. These are the words of the Evangelist, not of Christ. All these indignities were foreordained in the eternal counsel of God, who willed that Christ should take them all on Himself, and suffer for the salvation of man. And He willed also that the Prophets should foretell them. 

Then all the disciples forsook Him, and fled. As He foretold (ver. 31), they fled because they saw no hope of assisting Him, and were afraid lest they themselves should be seized and evil entreated by the Jews. “They were more ready,” says Bede (in Mark xiv. 49), “to take safety in flight, than to suffer boldly with Christ.” For, as Origen says, “the Spirit was not yet given” (John vii. 39). Was this flight of the Apostles allowable? Some say there was little blame in it, because they inwardly and in their minds clave to Christ, though in outward act they fled, as being no longer able to help Him. They were therefore wise in flying, to avoid the risk of either denying Christ or of suffering hardship. But when they had received at Pentecost the gift of the Holy Spirit, they boldly exposed themselves to every trial. This flight of theirs was defective, as arising from fear and failing in resolution, but not unlawful and wicked. 

But others regard it as unlawful, as springing from distrust in Christ, and despairing of His aid, by which act they tacitly denied Christ. The first opinion I said (ver. 31) was the most probable. They sinned therefore venially, as struck down by sudden and excessive fear, and without His command or assent. For having experienced so often Christ’s aid in danger, they ought to have still trusted in it, especially after His recent displays of power. They ought to have sought for His aid, and to have prayed, Lord, help us! what wouldst Thou have us to do? And Christ no doubt would have told them. S. Mark here speaks of the young man who left his linen cloak and fled away naked. Who he was, and why he did so, we shall read in S. Mark. 

Ver. 57. But they that had laid hold on Jesus led Him away to Caiaphas the High Priest, where the scribes and elders were assembled. S. John mentions that they led Him first to Annas, the father-in-law to Caiaphas. This was out of respect to Annas as the elder, or because he especially wished that Christ should be taken. Whence S. Cyril and F. Lucas think that the price of Judas’ betrayal was paid him there, or because the house of Annas was on the road (see on S. John xviii. 13). For it was in the house of Caiaphas that Christ was first examined, smitten, and denied by S. Peter, as is clear from S. Matthew, S. Mark, and S. Luke; and S. John (xviii. 19) also insinuates the same when he says “that the High Priest questioned Jesus.” For when he says (ver. 24) that Annas sent Him bound to Caiaphas, it must be considered an analepsis. For John merely goes back to what he had omitted, for fear any one should conclude from his previous statement that Christ had been examined by Annas and not by Caiaphas. Some transpose ver. 24 and put it in after ver. 13, as S. Cyril does. So Origen, S. Augustine (de Cons. Evang. cap. vi.), Jansen, &c. 

Were assembled. He says not “were called together,” for this had been done when Judas requested Caiaphas’ soldiers to take Christ. For it was then that Caiaphas summoned the Scribes and Elders to judge and condemn Him as soon as Judas brought Him before them. For they had conceived a deadly hatred against Christ, and thirsted for His death. “They sat watching all the night in Caiaphas’ house,” says S. Chrysostom. 

Ver. 58. But Peter followed Him afar off. Peter alone gathered courage, and partly from curiosity, but more from love of Jesus, followed Him; but yet it was “afar off,” for fear he should be seized by the soldiers, both as a disciple of Jesus, and also as having cut off Malchus’ ear. His flight was a token of fear, his return a token of love overmastering his fear. “Peter,” says S. Ambrose in Luke xxii., “is deserving our highest admiration for not forsaking the Lord even when afraid; his fear was natural, his care for Him was from affection; his fear alien to his nature, his not flying natural; his following Him was from devotion, his denial from surprise.” In Peter, therefore, fear and love struggled together; in the first case love overcame fear, but soon afterwards under heavy temptation fear overcame love, when through fear of the attendants he denied Christ. 

Unto the High Priest’s house. That is, Caiaphas.’ This is more fully stated John xviii. 15. The disciple there mentioned was S. John, according to S. Chrysostom, Theophylact, Euthymius. So Jerome (in Epit. Marc.), and Lyranus, who says that John was known to the High Priest from selling him fishes, or because one of his kindred was a servant of the High Priest, or because he had sold his inheritance to the High Priest (Niceph. i. 28). But it is more likely that it was not one of the Apostles, because they were not known to the High Priest. And, moreover, both Christ and his Apostles were hated by the High Priest, and would not have been admitted into his palace by the servants; more likely would have been taken prisoners. Most probably it was one of His secret disciples, according to the Syriac version. 

And went in, and sat with the servants. Not into the house where Jesus was to be examined, but into the court. “He approached not the place where Jesus was,” says S. Jerome, “lest he should be suspected, but sat with the servants and warmed himself at the fire,” as the other Evangelists state. Peter erred from imprudence and rashness, for thrusting himself among the servants, and thus exposing himself to the risk of either joining with them in reviling Him, or else of suffering imprisonment and scourging. He therefore shortly afterwards denied Christ. “He that loveth danger shall perish therein” (Ecclus. iii. 26). 

To see the end. Whether Christ would be condemned or not, or set Himself free from His peril. If condemned, Peter would have taken refuge in flight; if acquitted, he would have dutifully returned to Him. 

Ver. 59. But the Chief Priests and all the Council sought false witness against Jesus, to put Him to death. Here comes in S. John’s narrative (xviii. 19). 

The High Priest “asked Jesus of His disciples and of His doctrine,” as is there said, because, says Euthymius, “he wished to convict Him of introducing strange doctrines, and of stirring up sedition.” For it was the duty of the High Priest to inquire, into heresies and new sects. But Jesus firmly and prudently replied that He had taught openly, and that those who heard His teaching were there present, and though His enemies, could speak to it. Let him ask them what He had taught them. For there is no surer evidence of innocence and sound teaching than that which comes from unfriendly hearers. For had Christ stated His own doctrine, they might have urged that through fear of condemnation He had said one thing in the Council and another in public. “He replied not arrogantly,” says S. Chrysostom, “but as confident in the truth.” Whence He says, “Why askest thou Me?” Why dost thou insidiously and captiously ask Me, thou crafty High Priest, to catch something out of My mouth wherewith to accuse and condemn Me? Thou canst easily learn from the common opinion of the people what I taught them. If thou knowest it not, thou hast not done thy duty as High Priest. And if thou wishest to know it now, ask the bystanders, My enemies, who have often heard Me. Let them produce, if they can, a single untrue or unsound word of Mine. For I know they cannot do so in truth. 

But when S. John says “that one of the officers which stood by struck Jesus with the palm of his hand,” S. Cyril thinks that he was struck with His teaching, and wished to remove this impression by striking Him. 

He struck Him on the cheek, as vindicating the honour of the High Priest. Such a blow, inflicted with a mailed hand, was both severe and disgraceful, as appears from the “sacred countenance” which is religiously preserved at S. Peter’s, and exhibited to the people in Passion Week. “What more audacious act?” says & Chrysostom. “Let the Heaven be horrified, let the earth tremble at the patience of Christ and the insolence of His servants.” “Methinks,” says S. Cyril, “the whole universe would have shuddered had it known what it meant: for the Lord of Glory was smitten by the impious hand of a man.” It is a marvel that this hand was not at once shrivelled up, nay, that the earth had not swallowed the man up alive. But the gentleness and love of Christ prevented this, who called him and many of his fellows to repentance (Acts ii. 37). Just as Jeremiah foretold in sorrow, or rather in astonishment, “He will give His cheek to him that smiteth Him. He will be filled full of reproach” (Lam. iii. 30). 

Now comes in S. Matthew’s narrative. Finding they could find nothing against Him from those who were there, “they sought false witnesses,” as despairing of finding true testimony, because Christ’s wisdom, truthfulness, and sanctity were fully known to all the people. 

That they might deliver Him to death. This was the great end for which they sought for false witnesses as a necessary means, though the sole end of justice is to condemn only on true evidence, and to inflict on false witnesses a correspondent punishment. For they wished for their own credit not to appear men of violence, but impartial judges, and consequently to be proceeding judicially against Him, though they were at the same time both judges and accusers, against every rule of justice and equity. “They craftily devise,” says S. Chrysostom, “the outward form and appearance of justice, disguising their craft under the veil of a trial” (Vict. Ant. on Mark xiv.). Again, they wished Him to be condemned by Pilate, but they knew he would not condemn Him unless the crime were proved by witnesses to be deserving of death. The Chief Priests therefore seek false witnesses against Jesus, the Author of life and Saviour of the world, because, though they knew it not, God had decreed to give us, by His death, life both here and hereafter. 

Ver. 60. But found none: yea, Though many false witnesses came, yet found they none. “The wicked men found no semblance of blame in him,” says Origen, “though they were many, astute, and ingenious, so pure and blameless was the life of Jesus.” For the evidence of these witnesses was either false or contradictory, or not to the point, so that He could not be proceeded against as worthy of death. 

At last came two false witnesses, and said, This fellow said, I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to rebuild it in three days. Christ, indeed, had said this (John ii. 19), in answer to their request for a sign that He was sent from God. But they were false witnesses, because, though they spake the truth in part, yet they perverted His words and meaning. For, first, He did not say “I am able to destroy,” but “destroy ye,” i.e., “if ye destroy it.” Next, S. Mark says they added the words “made without hands,” though S. John has nothing of the kind. Next, Christ said not, “I will build it again,” but “I will raise it up.” In like manner they distorted its meaning, for He spake of the temple of His Body, in which the fulness of the Godhead dwelt as in a temple, as S. John added. For when the Jews asked for a sign, Christ gave them the sign of His resurrection. Christ might have plainly said, “I will rise again from the dead.” But He chose rather to make use of the figure of the temple, because in the presence of cavillers He was obliged to speak covertly and symbolically, and also by speaking thus obscurely to furnish occasion for His Passion; for He knew that the Jews, from misunderstanding this obscure saying, would prosecute Him as guilty of death. S. Mark here adds, “But neither so did their testimony agree together.” For however boastful these words of Christ seemed to be, yet they injured no one, and a capital charge could not be founded on them. 

Ver. 62. And the High-Priest arose and said, Answerest Thou nothing to those things which they witness against Thee? He arose, as being indignant that He was silent, and slighted this accusation as futile, and confuted it by His silence. Again, he rose up to show the heinousness and gravity of the crime brought against Christ, as though Christ, in speaking thus, had made light of the magnificence and holiness of the temple. 

But Jesus held His peace. 1. Because the charge contained nothing worthy of death, and needed not an answer. 2. Because He knew that anything He might answer would be turned into a charge against Him. 3. Because He was fully preparing Himself for the death decreed for Him of the Father, and wished not to escape it by self-excuse. 4. The silence of Christ atoned for Adam’s excuses (Com. on Mark xiv. apud S. Jer.). Christ was silent, in order by His silence to make satisfaction for Adam’s foolish talking. 

Ver. 63. And the High Priest said to Him, I adjure Thee by the Living God that Thou tell us whether Thou be the Christ, the Son of God. I, the High Priest, am the Vicar of God on earth, and therefore by the authority of God committed to me, I call God to witness, and conjure Thee to answer. Caiaphas here touches the essence of the whole matter. Jesus said that He was the Christ, sent with supreme power for the salvation of men. The Chief Priests pertinaciously denied it. He therefore asks the question not for information, but in order to condemn Him. For if He said He were, they condemned Him to death as a blasphemer; but if He said He were not, he would have replied, Why then didst Thou pass Thyself off with the people as Christ the Son of God? and would consequently have condemned Him as a false Prophet, in having made Himself equal with God, as the Jews urged against Him (John v. 19). For the whole ground of their hatred against Him was that He, a man, as it seemed, of low birth, said He was Christ and Son of God, preached accordingly without their sanction, despised their foolish traditions, and publicly and sharply reproved their vices and crimes. 

Ver. 64. Jesus saith unto him, thou hast said. Meaning thereby, I am. Christ candidly and clearly replied that He was Christ, both to show reverence to the Divine Name by which He was adjured, and to bestow due honour and obedience to the authority of the High Priest who adjured Him. Says S. Chrysostom, “to take away from them every excuse,” that they might not be able to excuse themselves with men, nor before God in the day of judgment, by saying, We asked Jesus judicially in the Council, but He was either silent or answered ambiguously, wherefore we were not obliged to accept and believe in Him as Christ! 

Nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of power. After this time, i.e., in the day of judgment. Ye shall see Me then, who now seem to be only the Son of Man, to be truly the very Son of God, when I am seated at the right hand of God, and to be His equal in dignity, majesty, and glory. He alludes to Ps. cx. 1. I am He of whom David sang of old, “The Lord said unto my Lord,” &c. Christ, moreover, not only as God, but as man too, sitteth on the right hand of God, as explained in Col. iii. 1. 

The Chief Priests will not strictly and exactly see this in the day of judgment, as being reprobates, and not to be blessed with the sight of God, but to be cursed with the sight of the devil. But indirectly and in effect they will see it. For they will see such great majesty, glory, and splendour, and such a train of angels attending Him, that they will not doubt that He is near to God, nay, God himself, and the Son of God. For they will then experience His omnipotence in glorifying the godly and condemning the ungodly, who here have condemned Him as weak and feeble. 

And coming in the clouds of Heaven. Alluding to Dan. vii 13. Behold here, and wonder at His greatness of mind, who though standing in the midst of His enemies, yet threatens them with His coming to judgment. As though He said, Ye now unjustly condemn Me as a false prophet and false Christ, but that day will come when I, who stand at your tribunal, shall be seated as judge. Ye condemn Me now to the death of the Cross; but I, in this very same place (for Christ will sit in the Valley of Jehoshaphat, which is nigh Jerusalem, Joel iii. 2), will condemn you to the eternal torture of hell-fire, because ye committed on My person this awful sacrilege, because ye were the murderers of Christ and of God. And surely it will thus be 

Ver. 65. Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard His blasphemy. The garments of the Jews could easily be rent, for they were open at the neck, so as to be readily taken on and off. They could therefore easily take hold of both sides of the opening, and tear them down to the waist (but no farther), in token of grief and indignation. This was usual among the heathen, but especially among the Jews, in grief or when they heard blasphemy against God. (See 2 Kings xix. 1.) 

But Caiaphas, being High Priest, tore his garments unlawfully; for “he shall not uncover his head, nor rend his clothes,” Lev. xxi 10: the reasons for which I have there given. But Caiaphas rent his garment to arouse their ill-will against Jesus, and to expose Him as a blasphemer to general execration. But by this very act he signified symbolically that the old law with its priesthood was rent away by the death of Christ, and that he also was deprived of his Priesthood by Him. So S. Leo (Serm. vi. de Pass.) says, “He did this to increase their anger at what they had heard. But not knowing the meaning of his mad act, he deprived himself of the honour of the Priesthood in forgetfulness of the precept, ‘He shall not take off his head-dress, nor rend his clothes.’” And Origen says, “He rent his garments, displaying his filthiness and the nakedness of his soul, and showing forth in mystery that the old Priesthood was to be rent away, and its school of Priests, and its training, which was according to the letter.” And Jerome, “He rent his garments to show that the Jews had lost the glory of the Priesthood, and that the seats of the High Priests were empty.” So, too, S. Chrysostom, Theophylact, Euthymius, Jansen, Barradius, and others. 

He hath spoken blasphemy, in saying He was the Messiah and Son of God. The High Priest, for fear any one should be influenced by the words of Christ, anticipates it by fastening on Him the charge of blasphemy, to keep any one from speaking in His behalf, and to compel them all to condemn Him as a blasphemer. 

What need we any further witness? Caiaphas here displays his wickedness, in not acting as a judge, but as a prosecutor and accuser of Christ. (See S. Chrysostom.) 

What think ye? Here again he acts the part of a prosecutor and not of a judge, makes the very enemies of Christ His judges, and by his pontifical authority, and his sentence already decided on, drives them, as it were, to condemn Him as a malefactor. “The same persons,” says S. Chrysostom, “bring the charge, discuss it, and pass sentence.” 

But they answered and said, He is guilty of death. Blasphemers were stoned (Lev. xxiv. 16), as S. Stephen was stoned. But they cried out that He was guilty, not of stoning, but of death. For they had already decided to crucify Him. Origen touchingly sets forth the indignity of this most iniquitous sentence. “How great an error was it to declare the Prince of Life Himself guilty of death, and not, on the testimony of so many who had risen, to look on Him as the Fount of Life, from whom life flowed forth on all living! For as the Father hath life in Himself, so hath He given to the Son to have life in Himself.” What greater indignity than that the Son of God, the source of all life to angels, men, and all living things, should be condemned by the whole Council as guilty of death for having, when asked and adjured by the High Priest, confessed that He was the Son of God? 

He had restored sight to the blind, hearing to the deaf, life to the dead, and is therefore condemned to death by the envious priests. But they said in ignorance (but in another sense), that though Christ was in Himself most innocent and holy, yet He had taken on Himself to atone for our sins. And on that account He was guilty of death. For Christ took on Himself the sentence passed on Adam and his posterity, “In the day thou eatest thereof,” &c. (Gen. ii. 17). For He wished to atone for our death, that by His death He might restore us to the eternal life of grace and glory. And accordingly He took on Himself this most undeserved sentence with the greatest calmness, equanimity, and patience, and surrendered Himself to God the Father as a victim for our sins (see Isa. liii.), to teach us to bear contentedly (after His example, and for love of Him) the unjust judgments, the reproaches and censures of men, in order to make the best return to Him we can; while in His service we are treated as guilty of death, just as He was, by the whole Council, judged and proclaimed guilty of death for our sakes. 

Tropologically: ... Some suppose that this Council was held early the next day, and that everything here recorded by S. Matthew from ver. 59 is spoken by anticipation, and ought to come after the first verse of the next chapter (see S. Aug. de Cons. Evan. iii. 7, &c.). Others maintain, more correctly, that these events were recorded by S. Matthew in due order, and that they took place immediately after midnight. For there were two Councils held, one at night, the one here mentioned, the second next morning (Luke xxii. 66). For as all the Council were not present at night, Caiaphas summoned a general assembly in the morning, to which he convened them all. In this Christ was condemned unanimously as guilty of treason, not only against Divine law in calling Himself the Son of God, but against human law also, in asserting that He was a King, and was given up to Pilate to sentence Him to crucifixion. The great Council (the Sanhedrin) was held in the morning. 

Far from fulfilling their duty to execute those who

had borne false witness in a trial, the Sanhedrin Priests solicited the false witnesses so they could stage their sham trial and, in their own minds, justify their verdict of Deicide.

Did they truly think their deception worked?

If it did, it worked only in the minds of the blind, carnal men of The Sanhedin and it works today in the minds of Christian Zionists who stand with Israel and it works in the minds of those who prefer the apparent free political peace with the enemies of Christ rather than pay the cost of being hated by the world so as to stay on the narrow path following our Creator, Redeemer and Saviour, Jesus Christ.

Only on the natural  level did the sham trial  with the deceptive practice appear to succeed.

On the supernatural level, the Chief Priests of the Sanhedrin did punish the false witnesses - themselves.

Their self-punishment was the execution of their eternal souls for the mortal sins of breaking the sixth Commandment and, infinitely worse, Deicide.

 

The one Religious from America selected to pray for peace

 Our great Pastor, Fr Gary George, CSsR (Redemptorist Monk) of Mary Mother of the Light, Maronite Catholic Church  in Tequesta, Florida, was the one religious person chosen to represent America beginning tomorrow at 1:00 PM as every country prays for Peace.

I'm not sure what prayer is being used but I will join with them every day at 1:00 P.M. reciting this old prayer from The Raccolta:

Prayer for Peace (Raccolta #703)

Lord Jesus Christ, who didst say unto Thine Apostles: "Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you, not as the world giveth, do I give unto you," regard not our sins but Thy merits, and grant unto all Thy servants, that they whom the Almighty Father hath created and governeth, and whom Thou hast ordained unto everlasting life, may love one another with all their hearts for Thy sake, and may be made one in spirit and rejoice in Thy perpetual peace.

Lord Jesus Christ, concerning whom the Prophet hath said: "And all kings of the earth shall adore Him, all nations shall serve Him," extend Thy reign over the whole human race. Send upon all men the light of Thy faith, deliver them from all the snares and bonds of passion, and direct them to heavenly things; and graciously grant, that the states and nations may be united by means of Thine immaculate Bride, Holy Church, and, through the intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Queen of Peace, may serve Thee in all humility; and that all tongues and peoples may form one great choir, to praise Thee both day and night, to bless Thee, to exalt Thee, O King of the nations and the Ruler thereof, O Prince of Peace, immortal King of ages. 

Amen.

Dialogue with Islam

 https://crc-internet.org/our-doctrine/the-quran/additional-articles/to-serve-in-the-dialogue-with-islam.html?r=islam

Don't fall for the genetic fallacy - This is from bad people, don't believe it- for the question is- Is what published true or not?

Moses vs Torquemada

 * If, at some point, you wake-up to discover the world is not against you, then you really are not much of a disciple of Christ and an orthodox Christian Catholic

Moses vs Torquemada

Deuteronomy 19:18 
And when after most diligent inquisition, they shall find that the false witness hath told a lie against his brother:

Wisdom 1:9
 For inquisition shall be made into the thoughts of the

ungodly: and the hearing of his words shall come to God, to the

chastising of his iniquities.

Sirach 23:34
 This woman shall be brought into the assembly, and

inquisition shall be made of her children.

In, "Characters of the Inquisition," by the heroic, William Thomas Walsh, it is noted that it was Moses (Title of the First Chapter) who was the first Inquisitor and, as the head of God's Chosen People, he had the duty to keep order amongst his flock and not let the Faith become polluted and destroyed by heresy and apostasy.

And, as Holy Writ testifies, that is what he did:

Moses, the 1st Inquisitor, ordered 23 thousand souls killed here :Exodus 32

27 And he said to them: Thus saith the Lord God of Israel: Put every man his sword upon his thigh: go, and return from gate to gate through the midst of the camp, and let every man kill his brother, *and friend, and neighbour.

28 And the sons of Levi did according to the words of Moses, and there were slain that day about three and twenty thousand men.

29 And Moses said: You have consecrated your hands this day to the Lord, every man in his son and in his brother, that a blessing may be given to you.

Moses, the 1st Inquisitor, ordered 24 thousand killed here - including women and children; Numbers 25 

And Moses said to the judges of Israel: *Let every man kill his neighbours, that have been initiated to Beelphegor.

6 And behold one of the children of Israel went in, before his brethren, to a harlot of Madian, in the sight of Moses, and of all the children of Israel, who were weeping before the door of the tabernacle.

7 *And when Phinees, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, saw it, he rose up from the midst of the multitude, and taking a dagger,

8 Went in after the Israelite, into the brothel-house, and thrust both of them through together, to wit, the man and the woman in the genital parts. And the scourge ceased from the children of Israel:

9 And there were slain four and twenty thousand men. including all of the women and children

Forty Seven Thousand killed by The First Inquisitor, Moses, including women and children.

Well, that is a bit of an eye-opener, isn't it? I mean, we have not seen a lot of movies about that part of Salvation History, have we?  Gee, I wonder why?

Non-Catholic historian Edward Peters:, in his work, Inquisition(Berkeley: University of California Press, 1989, p. 87), 

The Spanish Inquisition, in spite of wildly inflated estimates of the numbers of its victims, acted with considerable restraint in inflicting the death penalty, far more restraint than was demonstrated in secular tribunals elsewhere in Europe that dealt with the same kinds of offenses. The best estimate is that around 3000 death sentences were carried out in Spain by Inquisitorial verdict between 1550 and 1800, a far smaller number than that in comparable secular courts.

Hmmm. 3000 killed by the Crown (and no children) , not the Catholic Church, versus 47,000 ordered killed by Moses. Far more deaths in far fewer days.  

As the head of the Old Chosen People, in order to preserve the Faith, Moses ordered the death of 47,000.

As head of the New Chosen People - 1 Peter ...But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a purchased people, that you may declare his virtues, who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light - The Pope did what he had to do to preserve The Faith against those whom would destroy it and as a result, 3000 were put to death.


Three Thousand versus Forty Seven Thousand.  3000 vs 47,000.


And yet the world choses to focus on the 3000 and there are endless books, movies, articles, sermons preached, and who'n'hell knows what else, oh yeah, Monty Python Sketches, etc etc about the putative complete and total depravity of The Inquisition and the moderns are forever flailing the hide off of Holy Mother Church because of it and nearly all Catholics quail before the all-out assault.

So, I thought it opportune to parade a few facts by today. 

I doubt one in one hundred million Christian Catholics, say nothing about Jews, Protestants, and Atheists, know the facts about Moses as the first Inquisitor and how his record compares unfavorably to Fray Tomas De Tourquemada, about whom the vast majority of Catholics are ignorant and so they consider it comical to hear his name and reputation continually blackened and they would consider it scandalous to even consider an attempt at defending him and The Inquisition, say nothing about actually attempting it.

Who even knows that the great Dominican,  Fray Tomas de Torquemada, whom one contemporary of his, Sebastian de Olmedo, described as, "he hammer of heretics, the light of Spain, the saviour of his country, the honor of his order," who even has heard that Fray  Tomas began his Inquisition duties by eliminating abuses that had been allowed to happen under previous authorities?

A William Thomas Walsh notes, "Moses put to death, in the name of religion, a far greater number of human beings than Torquemada did. Yet his name has been venerated by orthodox Jews and Roman Catholic alike, and alwys will be, while that of the Dominican monk has become a stench in the nostrils of the modern world, and a symbol of something indefensible." ("Characters of the Inquisition.")

Far too many Christian Catholics internalise the prejudices of their enemies, then end-up reflexively echoing them when the trigger, "Inquisition," is heard, and they end-up denouncing highly intelligent and charitable men like Cardinal Torquemada, whose reputation at the time was one of impeccable honesty.

Christian Catholics, who have had it EASY in this country, will one day be called to martyrdom and a good way to prepare for that day when you are called to march boldly against manifest evil is to begin with the baby-steps of defending the defensible - especially if the whole world is allied against you. *

The Inquisition is NOT a black stain on the soul of Holy Mother Church. It was a necessary and defensible response against those who wanted to destroy the Camp of the Saints/The Kingdom of God/The New Israel/Holy Mother Church/The One True Church Established By Jesus Christ.

Proof of the petit Ecclesia of Marcel Levebvre

 We at ABE Ministry used to have in our files many interesting items but we somehow lost this item revealing the proof of Mons. Lefebvre's petit ecclesia.

It was made known to a not insignificant portion of the soi disant traditionalist movement by the Abbe de Nantes in a few issues of his Catholic Counter-Reformation in the XXTh Century periodical.

This particular bit of history is no longer to be found on what little that remains of their online archives and ABE Ministry, after years of googling, finally found at least this much of it at The Traditional Catholic Faith Blog.

Well, here it is, proof that Mons Lefebvre did establish his little church and, of course, all of this was known to the Magisterium of his petit ecclesia but they kept the truth from their duped followers because had their followers been learnt this truth the collection plates would have suddenly been empty.

Game over.

However, The Angelus has dropped this truth down its memory hole and those who succor the SSPX are still being played for suckers by the Magisterium of the Little Church and so I have no false expectations that this post will in any way make even a dent in their walls of denial which make up the schismatic prison they willingly remain in and claim as a sanctuary.

But, note well the lies. 

When they are caught red-handed, the haughty denials begin, followed by the focus-shifting lies until, eventually (see SSPX Propaganda Ministry Site), the schism tacitly admits the truth with their self-serving claims of the Church supplying jurisdiction for their tribunals...

THE "CANONICAL" TRIBUNALS OF THE SSPX

Cover page of the special edition of the review Sodalitium for January 2001, no 51, dedicated to the dossier on the “Canonical Commission of the Society of Saint Pius X”. In the foreground: Mgr Tissier de Mallerais, one of the four bishops consecrated by Mgr Lefebvre in 1988 and the president of this commission. In the background can be made out his coat of arms, adorned with the lily of France and the Sacred Heart. Superimposed: the seal of the Apostolic Tribunal of the Roman Rota.

In epigraph, a phrase which seems to fall from the lips of the young bishop:«It is true that our verdicts replace the verdicts of the Roman Rota»,as simply as that!

Sodalitium no 51, French edition, in pdf format

MGR LEFEBVRE’S SECRET

An atomic bomb has just gone off in our Catholic society, triggering a seismic shock of incalculable magnitude, capable of disorienting minds and disturbing souls well beyond the boundaries of our traditionalism, even to shaking the pillars of Saint Peter’s. We felt its first tremors when we read number 50 of Sodalitium, June-July 2000. The editor announced that the Institute ofOur Lady of Good Counsel was putting together «not without a profound sadness, a voluminous dossier on the “canonical tribunals” of the Society of Saint Pius X.» What was it about? The rest of the editorial was going to tell us:

Since 1991, from the lifetime of Mgr Lefebvre, the Society of Saint Pius X has arrogated over its members (and potentially over all Catholics) the “power to bind and to unbind”, usurping the exclusive powers of the Holy See. A tribunal which sits in the General House of the Society in Switzerland grants dispensations from marriage impediments (which would render the union invalid), annuls marriages, grants exemptions from religious vows, lifts ecclesiastical censures, including excommunications (...). It does so in a wholly invalid manner, thereby placing men’s souls in an inextricable situation: the vows it unbinds are not unbound, the marriages it annuls are not annulled, and those which are celebrated after its “declaration” of nullity are invalid, as are those that have been celebrated with its non-existent “dispensation”.

Not without some cruelty the author describes this “tribunal” as an “operetta-style Roman curia”, a “parallel Holy See”. The Abbé Michel Simoulin, former Rector of the University Institute of Saint Pius X in Paris, former Director of the Seminary at Econe, and currently the Superior of the Italian District of the Saint Pius X Society, attempted to deny this in his monthly newsletter Roma felix for November 2000:

Dear faithful,

I do not know what is going on, but for some time now a number of friends of the Society have been asking me questions about the so-called “tribunals” established by the Society to dissolve marriages, religious vows, etc. It seems that certain people are sowing doubts and ill-feeling by making out that the Society has thereby usurped the powers of the Pope and the Roman Curia: which if true would involve the Society declaring that it no longer believes the Pope to possesses the primacy of jurisdiction,effectively behaving as though the See were vacant.

And yet, last 8 August in Saint Peter’s Basilica, Mgr Fellay forcefully repeated his invitation to us to pray for the Vicar of Christ, the successor of Peter. This pilgrimage was an open proclamation of our fidelity to the See of Peter, and I do not see why anyone should doubt this.

When people speak about “tribunals” instituted by the Society, I am sorry to have to say that these are the product of a somewhat disordered imagination. Mgr Lefebvre had in fact asked for commissions to be instituted, composed of learned priests and experts in moral theology and canon law, in order to respond to requests made by priests, religious and the faithful. Given that we often cannot trust the answers given by the diocesans tribunals, everyone can now submit their problems and their cases of conscience to these commissions, whose members, once the case has been examined, give a response which is nothing more than an opinion or a recommendation, never a declaratory verdict having the force of law! The commissions are in no way a permanent organisation; they simply meet from time to time when requests are made by those who feel dissatisfied with the responses given by the dioceses. That is all.

He is wasting his breath! The dossier published in December in number 51 of Sodalitium leaves none of this weak defence standing. It is divided into two parts, as indicated in the editorial:

In the first part certain internal documents of the Society of Saint Pius X are published (documents which are therefore unavailable to the public and even to the faithful of the Society); these concern the creation, in 1991, of a canonical Commission invested with vast powers of jurisdiction, the Canonical Commission of Saint Charles Borromeo. To replace the authority of the Pope and the Holy See, the Society has instituted, as you will read, veritable ecclesiastical tribunals authorised – by the very same authorities of the Society – to grant dispensations, to annul marriages, etc. The publication of these documents will perhaps be regarded as an unacceptable indiscretion; however we felt authorised to disclose them, firstly because the faithful have the right to know of the existence of these tribunals to which they must have recourse and which can judge them, and secondly because they will thus be in a position to evaluate in all objectivity the reasoning behind them.

It is therefore to these same authorities of the Society that we will now hand over, by publishing for example what Mgr Tissier de Mallerais wrote to defend and justify the existence of these tribunals.

The second part of this file consists of a critical study of these documents.

The author of the second part is Father Francesco Ricossa, the editor of the review, well known to our readers and friends for the sincere praise that his scholarly works appear to us to deserve, and also, it should be said, for the sharp polemics that have taken place between us (cf. English CRC no 269, Aug-Sept 1994; no 274, February-March 1995; no 309, May 1998, p. 32; no 310, June 1998, p. 27-30). Today, once again, we will not be stinting in our praise for the work carried out by Father Ricossa for this special edition, the repercussions of which in every way will be considerable. It is a bomb in the Roman Church. It cannot be handled without precautions. That is why I could think of no better way of utilising this immensely important document than that of reproducing it as exactly as possible, despite omitting several passages, particularly the “notes”, which will be of particular interest to specialists.

As usual, we are given some rough treatment in this article: I am proud of it. On the battlefield of the great controversy agitating our Catholic world, this hostility is an expeditious way of confronting the other part directly. What is at stake is the future of the various schools of thought and of the great movements that will result among the Catholic elites. Some of these have retained the tradition of dogmas, rites and laws, while others invent novelties; parties form, divide and multiply... all this for the praise of God’s glory and the salvation of souls.

Should one follow Mgr Lefebvre or take what appears to be the more secure path, that of Roman discipline? Or perhaps other intermediate paths? To clarify our religion, Father Ricossa arranges the combat of the leaders on which our fate will depend. But how can we make a battle of it when it is a question of recovering the holiness and unity of our Catholic communion under the banner of the Immaculate and the standard of Christ Our Lord, our universal Saviour and our King?

We leave Don Ricossa to initiate us into the mysteries of this red-hot dossier:

For some time now we have been receiving a small Peruvian bulletin entitled Resistencia catolica and edited by one of the Saint Pius X Society faithful, Mr Julio Vargas Prada.

It was with astonishment that we read in this bulletin (no 187, Nov-Dec 1999) a denunciation of the creation by the Society of Saint Pius X of veritable canonical tribunals. The Peruvian Vargas Prada and the Brazilian Orlando Fedeli, both of whom had at the time supported Mgr Lefebvre in his decision to consecrate bishops, now see in these tribunals, the existence of which they had discovered through an allusion made in the Society’s Argentinian review Jesus Christus (no 43, Jan-Feb 1996, p. 17), a concrete danger of schism.

It was essential to check the veracity of the facts. We finally came into possession of two documents of an exceptional gravity: Ordinances concerning the powers and faculties enjoyed by the members of the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X, dated 1997, and certain documents of the Society published in Cor unum, n. 61, October 1998, p. 33-46, which seek to justify these innovations .

– Cor unum is the internal bulletin of the Society of Saint Pius X, reserved only to its own members, and we have published these documents without any authorisation to do so by the review. But it appears to us to be a matter of duty to proceed with their publication. According to the texts in question, the faithful of the Society of Saint Pius X, religious and priests affiliated with it, and potentially all Catholics, are “subject” to these tribunals of which they have no knowledge and to their judges. These unwitting subjects have the right to know about the existence of a tribunal of this kind, about its judges and its doctrinal justifications: a semi-secret tribunal is, in our opinion, incompatible with Catholic morals, not to speak of natural morality.

THE ORDINANCES

The first document in question is a small volume of 79 pages entitled “Ordinances concerning the powers and faculties enjoyed by the members of the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X”, promulgated in 1997 by the Superior General of the Society, Mgr Bernard Fellay, to replace a similar collection of “Ordinances” published on the authority of Mgr Lefebvre in 1980.

This imitation “Code of Canon Law” was accompanied by a letter written by Mgr Fellay to the members of the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X, and preceded by “preliminaries” which explain its principle and basis.

Dear colleagues,

Mgr Lefebvre, considering the needs of our apostolate, so similar to those of the missions in Africa, gave us in 1980 a collection of faculties similar to those used for many decades in mission lands.

Over the last fifteen years, certain circumstances have changed, as for example the possibility of having a more frequent episcopal visitation, or, on the contrary, the quasi-impossibility of having recourse to Rome to obtain dispensations or equitable judgements on marriage. Hence the justification for this renewed edition of the Ordinances.

These new ordinances come into effect on 18 May 1997, on the feast of Pentecost.

Given on the feast of the Presentation of Jesus in the Temple, 2 February 1997.

Bernard Fellay, Superior General

PRELIMINARIES

OBJECT OF THE LAW

– The end and object of ecclesiastical laws, and a fortiori of powers and faculties, is none other than what concerns the worship of God and the salvation of souls (cf. Leo XIII, Encyclical Immortale Dei, cf. Prümmer, vol. 1, n. 181).

– The New Code of Canon Law promulgated on 25 January 1983, pervaded by ecumenism and personalism, seriously sins against the very purpose of the law. Therefore in principle we follow the Code of 1917 (with the modifications subsequently introduced).

However, in practice and on certain precise points, we can accept anything in the New Code which corresponds to a homogeneous development, to a better adaptation to circumstances, to a useful simplification. Generally speaking we also accept that which we cannot refuse without misaligning ourselves with the officially received legislation where the validity of acts is concerned. And in this latter case, we reinforce our discipline to bring it closer to that of the Code of 1917 (cf. Cor unum, n. 41, p. 11-13).

SUPPLIED JURISDICTION

– Canon law provides for certain cases where the Church makes up for the priest’s lack of jurisdiction: “the Church supplies jurisdiction not as a personal benefit, but for the bonum animarum commune [the common good of souls]” (Cappello, 1, n. 252). The Church expressly supplies jurisdiction in three cases: the danger of death (can. 882), common error (can. 209) and positive probable doubt whether of law or of fact (can. 209) (cf. Noldin, III, n. 346-347; Cappello, I, n. 254-258).

– Owing to the fact that the hierarchy (cf. can. 108 § 3) has in large part distanced itself from the Catholic faith, generally speaking the faithful are unable to receive spiritual aid from it without endangering their faith. There can be no doubt, therefore, that the Church generously extends to the faithful what she grants in danger of death and in other cases of emergency, and that for this reason, owing to the analogia iuris [analogy of law] (can. 20) and the æquitas canonica [canonical equity], she makes up for the lack of jurisdiction of faithful priests (cf. can. 209, 2261...) when they are unjustly deprived of the jurisdiction they would have in normal times either by right (e.g. novus ordo, can. 967 § 2), or by delegation.

– Characteristics of this supplied jurisdiction.

( 1) It has more of a personal than a territorial character; (2) it is not habitual but is exercised “per modum actus” [on a temporary basis] (cf. Cappello, I, n. 252); (3) it depends on the needs of the faithful, taking into account the law of necessity (cf. Conférence aux Cercles de la Tradition, Paris, 10 March 1991); but (4) it exists even in cases where there is in fact no strict necessity; for there is a presumption of common danger and therefore an analogy with can. 21, permitted by can. 20, and as there will generally exist a probable doubt regarding faith, jurisdiction will be supplied in accordance with can. 209.

– Those who possess supplied jurisdiction.

These include all bishops and all priests faithful to tradition (even the excommunicated, cf. can. 2261, when that term is used as an argument “ad hominem”), for the licit or valid exercise of acts of the episcopal or sacerdotal ministry.

– Hierarchy in supplied jurisdiction.

Absolutely speaking, with regard to the faithful, simple priests have no less supplied power than a prior or district superior. But as a matter of practicality, in order to preserve the hierarchical dimension that belongs to the spirit of the Church and to assign more serious cases to superior authority, certain powers are reserved to the higher ranks as they are in the normal hierarchy, in accordance with the following rules:

* Priors and priests in charge of chapels are equivalent to private priests, such as military chaplains.

* District Superiors, seminaries and independent houses as well as the Superior General and his assistants, although in theory they only have jurisdiction over their subjects (priests, seminarians, brothers, oblates and members of their household), are equivalent to military Ordinaries, with regard to the faithful whose priests have the care of souls (sic).

* The bishops of the Society, though deprived of any territorial jurisdiction, nevertheless possess the suppletory jurisdiction necessary to exercise the powers attached to the episcopal order and certain acts of ordinary episcopal jurisdiction.

CANONICAL COMMISSION.

BISHOP RESPONSIBLE FOR THOSE IN RELIGIOUS LIFE.

These two authorities were created in 1991 to continue after his death the office that Mgr Lefebvre had fulfilled in a suppletory manner in this area from 1970 to 1991. It was Monseigneur who provided for and specified the role of these authorities in his letter of 15 January 1991 to the Superior General:

[This text will be found below.]

DELEGATED POWERS AND FACULTIES.

– Powers previously delegated by the Holy See.

For some time, and most recently in 1950 and 1960, the S. C. of Propaganda have granted local ordinaries in mission lands wide-ranging faculties called “decennial faculties”, in particular the faculty of delegating several of their powers to priests in their territory.

In 1961, Mgr Lefebvre, the then archbishop of Dakar, promoted the application of these faculties in a small booklet which even then bore the title “Ordinances, etc.” The text of the decennial faculties of 1950 and their application can be found in the book Vingt-cinq ans de pastorale missionaire by Father Gréco (1958), prefaced by Monseigneur and specially recommended by him.

On 30 November 1963, in his Apostolic Letter Pastorale munus, Pope Paul VI granted somewhat similar faculties to all residential bishops.

– Mgr Lefebvre, as the Bishop and Superior General of the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X, although no longer a local Ordinary as he was in Dakar, considered himself to possess a supplied jurisdiction permitting him, in the interests of the faithful, to grant his priests similar faculties. He promulgated these on 1 May 1980 in his Ordinances for the use of the Society, following the formula facultatum decennalium of 1960.

– The present edition of the ordinances takes up the former text but subdivides it in a more developed manner, taking into account the existence of auxiliary bishops in the Society.

– There have also been added powers and faculties relating to marriage certificates (cf. Cor Unum, n. 42, p. 44-56), dispensations from vows and the lifting of censures, along with useful precisions regarding cases where there is a danger of death and cases of emergency.

– The faculties granted to priests are not only for priests who are members of the Society, but for all priests who reside for a prolonged period of time in our houses (...).

There follow eight chapters dealing with fasting and abstinence, the obligations of the clergy, certain particular obligations, delegations of powers and indulgences, marriage impediments, transgressions and sanctions. Father Ricossa omits the first four chapters and passes straight on to what strictly concerns the most alarming subject: «Chapter V. Marriage impediments. Powers of dispensation in ordinary cases.» He publishes this chapter in its entirety. It is a laborious mixture of the old and the new canon law, the relative proportions of each being determined by «Mgr Lefebvre’s experience». But by what authority do they do this? That is the whole question.

Before we go on to examine this matrimonial legislation, it is only too apparent that these “Ordinances”, from their very first version of 1980, constitute a usurpation of the powers of jurisdiction reserved to the Pope. Father Ricossa’s demonstration of this is inexorable: Mgr Lefebvre, being no longer a mission territory “Ordinary” at the time, but a bishop without jurisdiction, that is without any pastoral power over souls, could not possibly delegate to anyone a power which he himself no longer possessed. Thus all confirmations and marriages celebrated by priests of his Society were, beyond a shadow of doubt, invalid!

And what can we say of the bishops consecrated by Mgr Lefebvre in 1988 against the wishes of the Pope? They did not enjoy any power of jurisdiction either. Nevertheless, they went ahead and usurped it by invoking a “provision” of the Church in accordance with the maxim “Ecclesia supplet” [the Church supplies], but extending it well beyond the cases envisaged by canon law. Two documents, taken from Cor unum, the internal bulletin of the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X, no 61 (October 1998), reveal how Mgr Lefebvre and his successors proceeded.

The first document is a letter from Mgr Lefebvre, dated 15 January 1991, to the Superior General of the time.

Econe, 15 January 1991.

Dear Father Schmidberger,

Many thanks for your good wishes and your prayers on the feast of Saint Marcel […].

As for the problem of the Commissions supplying to a certain extent for the shortcomings of the Roman Congregations which are directed by prelates imbued with the revolutionary principles of the Council, it seems to me that we should start very modestly, acting on needs as they arise, and that we should offer this institution as a service to help priests in their ministry and to solve difficult cases for nuns, or to provide authorisations that require a supplied episcopal power.

Rome is not only failing in her duty, but is making judgements according to false principles, as in the case of mixed marriages, marriage annulments!…

For the moment, I would advise that an initial, specifically canonical Commission be set up with a president, ideally a bishop, two advisers and a secretary. It could be named after a canonist saint: the Commission of Saint Pius V, or Saint Bellarmine, or Saint Charles Borromeo, and to it would be sent consultations and requests.

The secretary will examine the cases, present them and submit them to the judgement or at least the study of three judges, who will meet every three months or more frequently at the request of the president and study and answer the cases.

This Commission will be appointed by the General Council, but it may call upon a Dominican or a well known expert either in a permanent capacity as a counsellor or on an occasional basis.

This would be a first step and experience will show what is appropriate in the future.

The Commission would give an account of its work to the General Council one or twice a year.

This Commission should be announced in a letter communicated to all priests of Tradition who remain Catholic and to all societies of Tradition, both men and women.

THERE IS NO OBJECTION TO THE FAITHFUL KNOWING OF THE EXISTENCE OF THIS COMMISSION [my emphasis].

“As long as the present Roman authorities are imbued with ecumenism and modernism, as long as their decisions and the New Code of Canon Law are influenced by these false principles, it will be necessary to establish substitute authorities, faithfully keeping the Catholic principles of Catholic Tradition and Catholic Law. This is the only way of remaining faithful to Our Lord Jesus Christ, to the Apostles and to the deposit of faith transmitted to their successors who remained faithful until Vatican II.”

Some examples of cases to be submitted:

– mixed marriages - dispensations

– marriage annulments

– lifting of excommunication in the external forum

* for those who take part in abortion, either physically or legally

* or for other reasons.

– dispensations from religious vows

– authorisation for exorcisms

– consultations.

The choice of the permanent secretary residing at the General House is significant, even though he has no powers of decision.

Hoping that I may still be of use to you in these responses, yours very devotedly in Jesus and Mary.

Marcel Lefebvre

The second document allows us to see just how far, in only seven years, things had progressed along the path opened up by Mgr Lefebvre. We owe this text to the intervention of Mgr Tissier at a canonical session held at Econe on 24 August 1998. It permits Father Ricossa to accuse the Abbé Simoulin of lying in the editorial published in the review Roma felix. In the passage that we quoted above, the Abbé Simoulin denies:

1o that the Society of Saint Pius X has set up “tribunals”;

2o that the commissions instituted by the Society return “a declaratory verdict having the force of law”. They are simply meant to be consultative bodies which give “nothing more than an opinion or a recommendation”;

3o that these commissions have “thereby usurped the powers of the Pope and the Roman Curia”.

«These three denials are lies», affirms Father Ricossa. As proof of this, we have the statements made by Mgr Tissier de Mallerais. What the Abbé Simoulin calls «so-called tribunals» are the explicit object of Mgr Tissier’s intervention on that same 24 August 1998. In fact Mgr Tissier jumps straight into the question of their legitimacy and status in relation to the ecclesiastical tribunals which he calls “novus ordo” tribunals, “modernist” tribunals, “official” tribunals.

LEGITIMACY AND STATUS

OF OUR MATRIMONIAL TRIBUNALS

Status questionis ( (sic) [state of the question]sic) [state of the question]

Annulments granted by the “Novus Ordo” ecclesiastical tribunals are often dubious. Do we have the right to make up for them by means of tribunals operating from within the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X?

Monsignor Lefebvre had foreseen the creation of a Canonical Commission, particularly to resolve matrimonial cases following a first judgement given by the District Superior. The authority of our founder suffices for us to accept these legal proceedings in the same way that we accepted the episcopal consecrations of 1988.

But that does not dispense us from attempting to provide a doctrinal justification for the existence and operation of our matrimonial tribunals.

We will see that the main reason, as was the case with the episcopal consecrations, is the case of necessity of the traditional faithful.

I. THE NEW MATRIMONIAL LEGISLATION

1. New definition of marriage:

a) Object of matrimonial consent: This is no longer strictly defined as “jus in corpus, perpetuum et exclusivum in ordine ad actus per se aptos ad prolis generationem” [a perpetual and exclusive right over the body ordered to acts which are of themselves suitable for the procreation of children] (can. 1081 § 2), but vaguely described as “mutua traditio et acceptatio viri et mulieris ad constituendum matrimonium” [a mutual giving and accepting of man and woman for the purpose of establishing a marriage](New Code, can. 1057 § 2). The object of the consent is thus improperly extended to aspects of marriage which, although integral to it, are nonetheless secondary, namely the “totius vitae consortium” [partnership of their whole life] (New Code, canon 1055).

b) Inversion of the two ends of marriage. The Code of 1917 says: “finis primarius, procreatio et educatio prolis; finis secundarius: mutuum adjutorium et remedium concupiscentiae” [the primary end is the procreation and raising of children; the secondary end is mutual assistance and a remedy for concupiscence] (can. 1013, § 1). The New Code says: “...ad bonum conjugum atque prolis generationem et educationem” [to the well-being of the spouses and to the procreation and upbringing of children] (can. 1055, § 1).

Consequently, according to the new legislation, the community of life becomes a part – indeed the principal part – of the object of matrimonial consent, and with it the interpersonal relationship between the spouses, that is their cohabitation, good understanding and mutual development.

Now, according to the traditional conception, all this lies outside the object of the matrimonial contract, as Pius XII reaffirmed against the innovators in 1944 by having inscribed in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis a verdict of the Sacred Roman Rota [AAS 36 (1944), 172-200], which recalls the hierarchy of the two ends of marriage and reminds us that “the sharing of domicile, bed and board does not belong to the essence of marriage” even though it pertains to the integrity of the conjugal life (cf. Les Enseignements Pontificaux, Le mariage, Solesmes, Desclée, 1960, appendix n. 24-29).

2. New defects of consent render marriage invalid:

It is obvious that if the “bonum conjugum” [the well-being of the spouses] and the “totius vitæ consortium” [partnership of their whole life] form part of the object of the matrimonial contract, then any defects which, ab initio, render the common life of the spouses impossible – and no longer solely the surrender of the jus ad corpus [right to the body] – will render the matrimonial contract null and void. Whence the introduction in the new legislation of new impediments to the marriage contract.

Of course, the Church can always, by positive provisions, add new impediments to marriage, but these should be 1o positive provisions and not a change in the nature of things, and consequently of the essence of marriage; 2o provisions which determine impediments with such a degree of precision that it is easy to make judgements on their presence without fear of abuse. However, that is certainly not the case here; there has been a change in the essence of marriage and the door lies open to every abuse, as we will see.

* New Code, can. 1095, n. 2: “Sunt incapaces matrimonii contrahendi: (...) 2° qui laborant gravi defectu discretionis judicii circa jura et officia matrimonialia essentialia mutuo tradenda et acceptanda” [The following are incapable of contracting marriage: (...) 2o those who suffer from a grave lack of discretionary judgement concerning the essential matrimonial rights and obligations to be mutually given and accepted].

Traditionally, the only things that render marriage null on the level of the understanding are:

Ignorance of the fact that marriage is “a permanent partnership between a man and a woman ordered to the procreation of children” (can. 1082 § 1); and such ignorance is not presumed after puberty.

Error concerning “the unity or indissolubility or sacramental dignity of marriage”, if such error determines the will (New Code, can. 1099, codifying traditional jurisprudence).

That summarises everything very clearly. But this “defectus discretionis judicii” [lack of discretionary judgement], this immaturity of judgement, implies that personal fulfilment – or rather interpersonal fulfilment – is an essential obligation of marriage, whereas it is in fact something that lies outside the traditional object of the matrimonial contract and concerns the subjective aspect of the matrimonial bond. Admittedly, the growing lack of maturity in young people often renders marriage unviable and imprudent, but to establish an incapacity on the grounds of a lack of maturity is to invoke a personalist, subjective conception of the marriage contract and to open the door to abuses. Only a stricter impediment of age would serve as an objective remedy…

* New Code, can. 1095, n. 3: “sunt incapaces (...) 3o qui ob causas naturæ psychicæ obligationes matrimonii essentiales assumere non valent” [the following are incapable (…) 3o those who, on account of causes of a psychological nature, are unable to assume the essential obligations of marriage].

Traditionally the Church recognises only physical inability: impotentia [impotence] (can. 1068 § 1) which makes it impossible to render the “jus in corpus in ordine ad actus per se aptos...” [right over the body ordered to acts which are of themselves suitable…] (can. 1081 § 2). The only mental incapacity is amentia vel dementia [amentia or dementia], which render the subject radically incapable of contracting (cf. can. 1081 § 1 “inter personas jure habiles” [between legally fit parties]).

Certainly, cases of mental unbalance due to the erosion of family life are frequent today, and it is these that make permanent unions so precarious. But who will determine what degree of unbalance makes such a union radically impossible? John Paul II himself had to remind canonists that such psychic disorders must be “a serious form of anomaly which (...) must substantially undermine the capacity of understanding and/or willing of the contracting party” (Address to the Roman Rota, 5 February 1987, AAS 79 (1987), 1457).

Nevertheless, in the way it is formulated, canon 1095, n. 3, leaves the door wide open to abuses.

* New Code, can. 1098 : “Qui matrimonium init deceptus dolo, ad obtinendum consensum patrato, circa aliquam alterius partis qualitatem, quæ suapte natura consortium vitæ conjugalis graviter perturbare potest, invalide contrahit.” [A person contracts invalidly who enters marriage inveigled by deceit perpetrated in order to secure consent, concerning some quality of the other party which of its very nature can seriously disrupt the partnership of conjugal life.]

Before the New Code, fraud was never admitted as matter for annulment; and this was to protect the permanence of the marriage bond.

But authors accept that the Church could introduce it (by a provision of positive law). This would be less illegitimate where the fraud jeopardizes the primary end of marriage e.g. fraud concerning sterility of one of the spouses; and this is what the New Code does: sterilitas, non dirimit, sed dolus circa sterilitatem [sterility does not invalidate, but fraud concerning sterility does] (cf. can. 1084 § 3). But canon 1098 is much too broad: fraud concerning drunkenness, drug addiction, nay even irascibility are supposedly causes for annulment! We see here the conciliar personalist inspiration of this new canon. And to reformulate it in a Catholic sense is no business of ours.

3. Practical consequences

a) 80% of annulments granted by novus ordo tribunals are granted in virtue of canon 1095! and they are therefore invalid judgements since they are based on a regulation that is incapable of regulating. Some commentators even speak of “Catholic divorce”, so easy is it to obtain such judgements.

b) In cases where the grounds for annulments are serious but difficult to prove, the tribunal opts for canon 1095 of the New Code as an easy solution.

The objection could be made: Yes, but since in fact the marriage in these cases is actually invalid, why not take advantage of the verdict of nullity even if it is not correct? To this we must answer: in order to certify someone’s state of freedom (enabling them to remarry), a valid judgement is necessary, not a private assessment supported by an invalid judgement.

II - SITUATION OF THE FAITHFUL

1. The faithful do not have the right to go to novus ordo tribunals, for that would be to run a great risk of receiving an invalid annulment, of remarrying in good faith and living in sin, in canonical concubinage!

2. They may not, in an attempt to remarry, take it upon themselves to judge the nullity of their own marriages, nor may they content themselves with the private assessment of a priest friend: that would be to open the door to subjectivism and disorder, exposing the marriage bond to contempt and augmenting the evil.

3. They have the right in justice to be sure of the validity of the sacrament received a second time and therefore of the validity of the declaration of nullity, and to be protected against personalist errors which invalidate these verdicts. Who then will render them justice?

4. Faithful priests and bishops are duty bound to defend and protect the marriage bond imperilled by the new legislation. How will they fulfil this duty?

To summarise: the faithful, not finding anyone to turn to, are in a state of necessity, and faithful priests and bishops have a duty to come to their aid.

In this situation, the faithful bishops (Dom Licinio in Campos) and our Canonical Commission founded according to the general principles of law which govern the life of the Church, possess supplied powers to judge matrimonial cases.

III - DOCTRINAL BASIS OF OUR SUPPLETORY POWERS

1. Can. 20 (New Code, can. 19): If a particular case is not expressly provided for by law, it must be resolved by taking the norm “a legibus latis in similibus; generalibus juris principiis cum aequitate canonica servatis; jurisprudentia et praxi Curiae Romanae; communi constantique doctorum sentential” [from laws enacted in similar cases; from the general principles of law observed with canonical equity; from the jurisprudence and practice of the Roman Curia; and from the common and constant opinion of learned authors]. (Wernz-Vidal: “jus ergo suppletorium est jus applicandum in particularibus casibus, cum circa illud non habeatur in codice prescriptum quod peculiari illi casui sit applicandum”[therefore a suppletory law is a law to be applied in particular cases, when the rule to be applied in an extraordinary case is not found in the law]. n. 180)

2. Application - three things are involved:

a) Parallel situations, i.e. the practice of the analogia legalis [analogy of law] (Wernz-Vidal n. 181):

“per quam juris dispositio pro aliis casibus applicatur simili de quo lex non disponit” [through which the provision of the law for other cases is applied in a similar way to what the law does not provide for].

Here the parallel situation is the case when it is impossible to have recourse to the bishop to grant a dispensation for a diriment impediment of ecclesiastical law: in the “danger of death” or “quando omnia sunt parata ad nuptias” [when everything is ready for the wedding], the parish priest or confessor may grant a dispensation (can. 1044-1045). This means the Church gives them, by supply, jurisdictionad casum [for the particular case].

b) jurisprudence of the Roman Curia: A response from the Commission for the Interpretation of the Code, dated 29 July 1942 (AAS 34, 241), allows the provision of can. 1045 to be extended to the case of urgent necessity where there is “periculum in mora” [danger in delay] (cf. can. 81).

c) epikeia and the opinion of doctors regarding canons 1043 sq., but which also applies elsewhere:

Cappello, Tractatus, De Sacramentis, III, n. 199: “Si finis legis cesset contrarie pro communitate, i.e. si damnum commune inde sequatur, lex non urget, quia merito censetur suspendi ex benigna mentis legislatoris interpretatione.” [If the end of the law would be detrimental to the community, i.e. if damage to society would ensue from it, the law does not oblige, because it is rightly thought to be suspended in accordance with a benign interpretation of the mind of the legislator.]) Now, this is the case with the obligation to have recourse to modernist tribunals. But though this obligation should cease, the obligation to have recourse to some tribunal remains!

3. From the conjunction of these elements, we conclude that our canonical commission, in view of the current impossibility of having recourse to the official tribunals, has the power to judge matrimonial cases. (Were it not for the fact that the Holy See is as modernist as the tribunals, one might say that it had given us this power as a matter of canonical equity).

It is even more serious to dispense from a diriment impediment (which changes the condition of the person, making him capable rather than incapable of contracting marriage ) than it is to declare a marriage invalid (which does not change the condition of the person, but merely notes a state of affairs that has existed ab initio); it is a declarative power of jurisdiction only. So if supplied jurisdiction gives us the power to grant dispensations, then a fortiori it must also give us the power to judge.

4. The institution of marriage tribunals within the sphere of Tradition is especially justified by the fact:

a) that their authority will be more easily accepted than that of private opinion,

b) that they will remove the necessity of nullifying doubtful or contrary private opinions,

c) that judges and legal proceedings are needed in order to proceed prudently according to the spirit and letter of the law,

d) that in the current situation of necessity, the individual priest receives supplied jurisdiction for what a priest can normally do by himself and not for what he cannot normally do. But judging matrimonial cases is not normally done by a priest but by the bishop or the authorities he has delegated.

In all this the rule “as much as needed but no more” applies: the Church supplies jurisdiction on behalf of the faithful inasmuch as it is necessary and no more than is necessary.

IV. EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT OF JUDGING MATRIMONIAL CASES

(by our Canonical Commission and the priests designated by it)

As we have said, our jurisdiction in these cases is a supplied jurisdiction. Its properties are as follows:

1. It is not habitual, but is only exercised ad casum per modum actus [case by case, on a temporary basis]. Consequently we do not have standing tribunals, nor are their members appointed by the Canonical Commission ad universas causas [for cases in general], but rather ad hoc [for a particular case] every time; even though, for reasons of practicality, the judges and the defenders of the bond are always the same; for competent persons are needed.

2. It is not territorial, but personal.

3. It depends on the needs of the faithful, that is it lasts as long as the state of common need lasts, even if per impossibile [supposing the impossible] an official tribunal judging in accordance with traditional norms could be found.

4. It is a true jurisdiction and not an exemption from the law and from the obligation imposed on the faithful to obtain a verdict. Therefore, we have the power and the duty of handing down true verdicts which have potestatem ligandi vet solvendi [the power of binding and loosing]. Our verdicts therefore have an obligatory character. The proximate reason for this is that we must be able to tell the faithful what they must observe, quod debent “servare”.

Our verdicts are not mere private opinions, for such opinions are insufficient where the common good is at stake; and the common good is at stake in every case where the matrimonial bond is in dispute. To resolve doubts, authority in the external forum is necessary.

5. This jurisdiction does not usurp any of the powers the Pope has of divine right.

It is true that our verdicts of the third instance replace the verdicts of the Roman Rota, which acts in the Pope’s name as a tribunal of the third instance. But this is not a usurpation of the Pope’s divinely endowed authority, for the reservation of this third instance to the Pope is merely a matter of ecclesiastical law!

6. Finally our verdicts, like all our acts of supplied jurisdiction, and like the episcopal consecrations of 1988, 1991, etc., will ultimately need to be confirmed by the Holy See.

PRACTICAL RULES CONCERNING MARRIAGE ANNULMENTS

Pastoral charity aims at the sanctification of souls: prima lex salus animarum [the salvation of souls is the highest law]; but pastoral prudence does not impose unbearable burdens on souls. (cf. Mt 23.4).

Consequently the pastor seeks to put souls in a position of truth regarding God’s laws and the validity of marriage, but he will sometimes prefer to leave souls in good faith if they err in good faith about their matrimonial situation, when it is to be feared that they would refuse to regularise it and would thus live in bad faith.

On the other hand marriage annulments given by official tribunals (which may be called “novus ordo” verdicts) cannot be considered either as ipso facto null and void or as valid without examination. Whence ensue the following rules:

1. A novus ordo verdict can neither be accepted nor rejected a priori. Its validity depends on the criteria used. It must therefore be examined in jure.

2. The priest must never advise anyone to go to a novus ordo tribunal, lest this give rise to an invalid declaration based in jure on the erroneous or dubious criteria of the New Code.

3. If the person has not remarried, but still has doubts over or contests the validity of the first marriage or informs us that the annulment case has been submitted to the novus ordo tribunal or that the said tribunal has given an executory verdict of nullity, the priest must warn him/her that novus ordo annulments are not sufficient proof of nullity of marriage and that he/she cannot remarry until they have submitted their case to the examination of our Canonical Commission.

4. If the person, after a novus ordo annulment, has already remarried, the priest will leave him/her in good faith if he/she is in good faith. To this end:

1o he will never publicly speak of novus ordo annulments,

2o he will never interrogate the faithful on this matter,

3o if asked by a person who has only a negative doubt, the priest will reassure him/her.

5. If a remarried person has a positive doubt concerning a novus ordo annulment, the priest must help him/her resolve the doubt. To this end he will:

1o warn the person of the possibility of an invalid novus ordo annulment;

2o explain that, for this reason and in accordance with our practice, the case has to be presented to the Canonical Commission.

6. In order to present cases for the examination of the canonical office, the priest will:

1o present a summary explanation of the case;

2o communicate, where applicable, the novus ordo verdict or at least the tribunal document that indicates the caput nullitatis [the grounds of nullity];

3o transmit the details of the case (and the final novus ordo verdict) to the canonical office who will send the priest the questionnaire that will be used to establish the introductory libellus of the case;

4o but he will not take sides in the matter, either for or against.

7. The case can only be introduced if the party concerned agrees to be morally bound by the decision. That is why the priest will ask him/her to swear to and sign the following promise:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I the undersigned .................. at the time of submitting the case of my marriage with .................. to the Canonical Commission of the SSPX promise:

1o (if such is the case) not to attempt any marriage or any civil union before the definitive verdict.

2o to conform myself to the verdict of the tribunal and consequently, if it is negative, not to remarry, or (if such is the case) no longer to consider my second partner as my spouse.

3o not to approach an official ecclesiastical tribunal to have it examine or judge my case.

All this I promise and swear on the Holy Gospels upon which I set my hand.

Dated ........................ At ........................

Signature

(delete where not applicable)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

8. For as long as the tribunal designated by the Canonical Commission has not returned an executory verdict of “declaration de nullitate matrimonii” [declaration of nullity of marriage], the marriage contracted after a novus ordo annulment (if such be the case) is presumed valid and, consequently, the spouses of the second marriage may ask for and render their marital dues, and the sacraments may not be refused them.

9. But once the annulment proceedings have commenced in our tribunal, then should the party involved, having been warned not to remarry before our final verdict permits, remarry or contract a civil union, the sacraments must be denied them and, depending on the judgement of the superior who has convened the tribunal, the procedure may be suspended.

One has only to compare this text of Mgr Tissier with the editorial of Abbé Simoulin cited above (p. 19) to see that the latter is not telling the truth on any of the three points highlighted by Father Ricossa: 1o on the existence of the “tribunals” instituted by the Society of Saint Pius X, 2o on the nature of the responses given by these tribunals, and 3o on the usurpation of power resulting from them.

1o «Every time the Abbé Simoulin speaks of the tribunals of the Society to deny their existence», writes Father Ricossa, «he writes “tribunals” with quotation marks, and he uses the adjective “so-called” to characterise them as a figment of our imagination.» However, Mgr Tissier «himself on at least twelve occasions used the words tribunal and tribunals, without putting quotation marks around them, in reference to the Commission which he chairs and in opposition to the tribunals of John Paul II, which are defined as “novus ordo” tribunals, “modernist” tribunals, “official” tribunals.»

2o As for maintaining that the canonical commissions of the Society provide for cases submitted to them «nothing more than an opinion or a recommendation, never a declaratory verdict having the force of law», this is certainly not the language of a canon lawyer! As Father Ricossa points out: «A verdict is never a law, but the application of a law.» A detail in itself highly revealing of the truly bizarre character of this improvised “magistrature”. And yet the members of these commissions believe themselves to be invested with «true jurisdiction», as can be seen in point IV 4 of Mgr Tissier’s exposition. And as can be seen even more clearly in the fact that the faithful of the Society who have recourse to the Canonical Commission make a sworn “promise” in which they pledge to conform “to the verdict of the tribunal”... of the Society!

3o From the first two points derives the third: there can be no doubt that «the Society seeks to replace and supply “the powers of the Pope and the Roman Curia”». Mgr Lefebvre himself wrote in his letter of 15 January quoted above (p. 22) that the Commissions were to supply «to a certain extent for the shortcomings of the Roman Congregations». And Mgr Tissier in his turn does not hesitate to declare: «It is true that our verdicts of the third instance replace the verdicts of the Roman Rota, which acts in the Pope’s name as a tribunal of the third instance.»

So true is this that the faithful of the Society undertake, by the formulary reproduced in our inset (p. 25), not to approach «an official ecclesiastical tribunal to have it examine or judge their cases». To make such a pledge, observes Father Ricossa, «implies the negation of the primacy of the Pope’s jurisdiction, which belongs to him by divine right».

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SOCIETY OF SAINT PIUS X ~ DISTRICT OF FRANCE

OFFICE OF CANONICAL AFFAIRS

Abbé Francis PIVERT

Le Moulin de Pin

53290 Beaumont Pied de Boeuf

Telephone 43.98.74.63

Fax 43.98.70.38.

Our ref: Marriage

Father

Priory of

DISPENSATION FROM MIXED RELIGION

Considering the IMPEDIMENT of mixed religion,

Considering that it is not possible to have recourse either to the local Ordinary or to Rome,

Considering that marriage cannot be deferred without great harm to the contracting parties,

Considering the canonical regulations indicated by Mgr Lefebvre in time of crisis,

Considering the guarantees provided by the bride and groom-to-be,

Considering the serious reason invoked, namely ..........................................

...............................................................................................................

WE Abbé Francis Pivert, the undersigned,

in the name of District Superior and by delegation,

DISPENSE ............................................ and ............................................

from the impediment indicated, in order that they may licitly contract marriage according to the laws of the Church.

Ad cautelam we also dispense them from the impediment of disparity of religion.

Given at ........................ on ........................

Seal Signature of priest

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Translation of a formulary for dispensation from the impediment of mixed religion, granted by the Abbé Pivert who considers that «it is not possible to have recourse either to the local Ordinary or to Rome».

Father Ricossa concludes: «We are truly sorry to have had to demonstrate that the assertions contained in Roma felix are untrue, especially as the author of this editorial is a zealous priest. But he could not be in ignorance of the true situation because, as district superior, it is he who would have to be the judge in the second instance of these tribunals whose existence he denies!»

«Pouring oil on wounds works better than vinegar.» These are the words of Saint Bernadette, based on her experience as a nurse... and as a patient! The wound that John Paul II, from the very first days of his reign, was confident of quickly curing, has only become more septic in the Church’s side. A concern to restore rather than to vanquish will lead us to an attentive study of the commentary given by Father Ricossa, in the second part of number 51 of Sodalitium, concerning the documents presented in the first part which we have just read: the “ORDINANCES” promulgated initially by Mgr Lefebvre then by Mgr Fellay, Mgr Lefebvre’s letter and Mgr Tissier’s exposition.

We have long been deploring the frightful «mess» in which traditionalism has become ensnared – divided, broken and on the road to ruin for the last twenty-five years (What a mess! English CRC no 76, July 1976; “Traditionalism” examined, “What a mess!” English CRC no 310, June 1998, p. 27-30).

Far from setting ourselves up as judges in our turn, we can only invite all souls making their way to God to turn to the Immaculate, the Mother of every one of us, for ever!

(to be continued)

Abbé Georges de Nantes