Author Topic: SSPX on Opus Dei (Read 5806 times)

Belloc · « **on:** January 05, 2011, 11:36:10 AM »

http://sspx.org/Catholic_FAQs/catholic_faqs__theological.htm#ecuмenism

Is the upcoming October canonization of Msgr. Jose Maria Escriva de Balaguer to be considered infallible or not?

The huge number of the present pontiff’s canonizations [of Pope John Paul II] have certainly been a great concern to us, for the traditional rules contained in Canon Law, to prevent any possibility of error or of canonization of a person whose faith and life were not perfectly exemplary, have been done away with, and replaced with much less demanding rules. However, hitherto they have been all pre-Vatican II saints, and very holy Catholics. But the projected canonization of the founder of the Opus Dei is different. For he it was who anticipated and developed 30 years before Vatican II a revolutionary, new, secular theology of the laity, and accepted the principle of pluralism, accepting into the Opus Dei men of every faith and religion.1 This indifferentism cannot be considered, according to any traditional guidelines, as an example of sanctity.

It is indeed accepted by the theologians as theologically certain that the Church is infallible in the solemn canonization of the saints, as distinct from the beatification of the blessed.2 The reason for this is that a canonization is not just a permission for the honor of a saint, as is a beatification. It is a definition, and a command, made by the Sovereign Pontiff with the use of his full authority, and consequently binding on Catholics. Consequently it is similar to a profession of faith, having as its object the glory of the saint in heaven.

However, not all canonized saints are solemnly declared by the Church as such. In the first ten centuries of the Church’s history, the popes simply gave their approval to the veneration of saints and martyrs by the faithful. These are known today as saints. However, since there was no solemn canonization process, the full authority and infallibility of the Church are not engaged for such saints. Consequently, it is not the fact that a person is called a "saint" that makes it infallible, but the solemn declaration and definition by the Sovereign Pontiff, as binding on all Catholics. It is upon this that the answer to the question concerning the infallibility of the canonization of Escriva depends. If the decree defines formally and obliges the acceptation of his sanctity, then it will be infallible, regardless of the defects in the processes for the canonization of saints that exist since Vatican II. However, if the decree of canonization were not to be solemn, and not to contain such expressions as "we define" and "we command" the veneration of this saint, then it would not be infallible, just as the approval of canonized saints in the early centuries of the Church. The same applied to Vatican II, for by not wanting to define doctrines clearly, it refused to use the infallible authority of the Extraordinary Magisterium that it could have used to condemn heresy.

The question then arises as to whether, if the canonization is duly performed with solemnity, we are bound to venerate this particular saint as a model and patron. St. Thomas states that the veneration that we display towards the saints is "that by which we believe that they share the glory of the saints."3 The object of the canonization is then the saints’ vision of God in heaven, and only indirectly the sanctity of their life and its value as a model for us. These are consequently not the object of the infallible definition, and although they would not normally be questioned in a canonized saint, in such a particular case it would seem possible to seriously doubt these, whilst still accepting that the canonized St. is in heaven. We could consequently accept that Msgr. Escriva is a saint in heaven, (hardly surprising for a priest, given his conservative mindset, genuine piety, frequent reception of the sacraments) without accepting in any way the pluralism and secularism that he taught.

1 Cf. "Opus Dei: A Strange Pastoral Phenomenon", The Angelus, Sept. 1995.
2 Cf. Zubizarreta, Theologia Dogmatico-Scholastica, Vol. I, §§487-489.
3 Quodlib. 9, a. 16 in Zubizarreta, op. cit.

[Answered by Fr. Peter R. Scott] Cf. BELOW FOR A CLARIFICATION TO THIS ANSWER:

MORE FROM FR. PETER SCOTT ON THIS TOPIC

THE "SAINTHOOD" OF JOSEMARIA ESCRIVA
...Numerous other issues presently demonstrate the rapid progression of the "auto-destruction" foreseen even by the liberal Pope Paul VI thirty years ago. The worst is that it is becoming increasingly more obvious that this destruction is coming from the top down, from the pope himself. A typical example of this was the shameful and highly questionable canonization of Msgr. Josemaria Escriva de Balaguer last October 6. For due process was not followed. Not only was there no devil’s advocate, but the former members of Opus Dei who personally knew Msgr. Escriva and who attempt to register their objections, were not allowed to express their opinion. As a last resort, last September they were forced to write an open letter to the pope, stating their position before the Truth Himself, Our Lord Jesus Christ:

...It is because we believe that the truth has been in large part hidden that we now give our testimony in order to avoid a danger for the Faith brought about by the unjustifiable reverence for the man that you have the intention of canonizing soon..." They went on to explain that they include "people who have intimately known Msgr. Escriva and who can testify to his arrogance, to his evil character, to his improper seeking of a title (Marquise of Peralta), to his dishonesty, to his indifference towards the poor, to his love of luxury and ostentation, to his lack of compassion and to his idolatrous devotion towards Opus Dei. (DICI, No. 61)

After having pointed out that the process was uncanonical and dishonest, they had this to say: "It (the canonization) will offend God. It will stain the Church forever. It will take away from the saints their special holiness. It will call into question the credibility of all the canonizations made during your papacy. It will undermine the future authority of the papacy". They were not traditionalists, and they were former members of his organization, but their supplication was not heard, and the ceremony took place as arranged on October 6. Their letter will certainly turn out to be prophetic, for in time they will be proven to be right in their assessment concerning Escriva as well as concerning Opus Dei that they so aptly compare to the liberal Sillon movement, rightly condemned by St. Pius X in 1910. This kind of last minute objection is unheard of in the history of the Church. How could Catholics possibly regard such a man as heroic in virtue, as an extraordinary model of Catholic spirituality, as a saint must be? For all the reasons that they give, we cannot possibly consider this "canonization" as a valid, infallible papal pronouncement. We trust that he is in heaven, but we cannot possibly regard as a saint this herald of Vatican II, who preached naturalism and indifferentism as early as 1928... . [Obtained from the Southern Sentinel, the newsletter of Holy Cross Seminary in Goulburn, Australia, where Fr. Peter Scott is currently the rector]

RomanCatholic1953 · « **Reply #1 on:** January 05, 2011, 07:41:36 PM »

There is so much deception through the years that the
opus dei is a conservative Orthodox religious association.
One point put forward is that that Escriva personally
begged Paul VI for the use of the Tridentine Mass, in
which Paul VI refused permission.
For years I was deceived that the opus dei is a
conservative and orthodox religious association of
Roman Catholics. It was not until the internet when I
saw that it was not true.

stevusmagnus · « **Reply #2 on:** January 07, 2011, 09:48:12 PM »

Quote from: RomanCatholic1953

There is so much deception through the years that the
opus dei is a conservative Orthodox religious association.
One point put forward is that that Escriva personally
begged Paul VI for the use of the Tridentine Mass, in
which Paul VI refused permission.
For years I was deceived that the opus dei is a
conservative and orthodox religious association of
Roman Catholics. It was not until the internet when I
saw that it was not true.

Do you have a source for the Paul VI story?

I had always heard that St. JM asked for and received a personal celebret to say the TLM himself.

stevusmagnus · « **Reply #3 on:** January 07, 2011, 09:59:05 PM »

Fr. Scott seems to contradict himself...

First, before the Canonization, he states...

Quote from: Belloc

If the decree defines formally and obliges the acceptation of his sanctity, then it will be infallible, regardless of the defects in the processes for the canonization of saints that exist since Vatican II. However, if the decree of canonization were not to be solemn, and not to contain such expressions as "we define" and "we command" the veneration of this saint, then it would not be infallible, just as the approval of canonized saints in the early centuries of the Church. The same applied to Vatican II, for by not wanting to define doctrines clearly, it refused to use the infallible authority of the Extraordinary Magisterium that it could have used to condemn heresy.

The question then arises as to whether, if the canonization is duly performed with solemnity, we are bound to venerate this particular saint as a model and patron. St. Thomas states that the veneration that we display towards the saints is "that by which we believe that they share the glory of the saints."3 The object of the canonization is then the saints’ vision of God in heaven, and only indirectly the sanctity of their life and its value as a model for us. These are consequently not the object of the infallible definition, and although they would not normally be questioned in a canonized saint, in such a particular case it would seem possible to seriously doubt these, whilst still accepting that the canonized St. is in heaven. We could consequently accept that Msgr. Escriva is a saint in heaven, (hardly surprising for a priest, given his conservative mindset, genuine piety, frequent reception of the sacraments) without accepting in any way the pluralism and secularism that he taught.

JPII's decree...

Quote

Therefore, today, in a solemn Mass in St. Peter's Square, before an immense multitude of the faithful, We have pronounced the following formula: In honor of the Blessed and Undivided Trinity, for the uplifting of Catholic faith and the increase of Christian life, by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ and that of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul and our own, after careful deliberation, having called frequently upon God's help, and with the advice of many of our brother Bishops, We declare and define Blessed Josemaría Escrivá de Balaguer to be a Saint, and We inscribe his name in the catalogue of the Saints, ordaining that, throughout the universal Church, he be devoutly honored among the Saints. In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

And what We have declared, We desire to be in force both now and in the future, anything to the contrary notwithstanding.

Then after the Canonization, Fr. Scott states..

Quote

How could Catholics possibly regard such a man as heroic in virtue, as an extraordinary model of Catholic spirituality, as a saint must be? For all the reasons that they give, we cannot possibly consider this "canonization" as a valid, infallible papal pronouncement. We trust that he is in heaven, but we cannot possibly regard as a saint this herald of Vatican II, who preached naturalism and indifferentism as early as 1928...

Telesphorus · « **Reply #4 on:** January 07, 2011, 10:12:44 PM »

A sacristan once said, I believe, that the SSPX does not use the relics of those canonized by John Paul II and Benedict XVI.

stevusmagnus · « **Reply #5 on:** January 07, 2011, 10:13:51 PM »

Quote from: Belloc

We trust that he is in heaven, but we cannot possibly regard as a saint this herald of Vatican II, who preached naturalism and indifferentism as early as 1928... .

If this is true, how does Fr. Scott explain the following, as Pius XII was hardly a "herald of VCII" himself...

http://www.josemariaescriva.info/article/st-josemaria-and-pope-pius-xii

Quote

Pope Pius XII had received Alvaro del Portillo twice, and also, separately, the law professors José Orlandis and Salvador Canals; as well as the scientist José Maria Albareda, whose intellectual capacity the Pope found amazing. Not only had Pope Pius XII met several members of the Work, but since 1943 he had prayed for its founder by name and had a copy of The Way among his books. It was time to prepare for the first audience of the Pope with Father Escriva, which took place on 16th July 1946.

In a private conversation, Father Escriva explained to the Pope what Opus Dei was and what it was not. After their conversation Pius XII asked the people concerned to resume the juridical studies which finally resulted in a new apostolic constitution, Provida Mater Ecclesia, opening the way for Secular Institutes to be established. As a Secular Institute, Opus Dei could have a definite canonical status within the Church. It was not a perfect formula because members of Opus Dei neither practised nor were intended to practise the “state of perfection” which the Secular Institutes take on. Even so, in some way, total self-dedication by lay people who did not change their state in life, job or place in the world, was given a formal blessing, which was something totally new at that stage.

When Pius XII also published the Decretum Laudis approving Opus Dei, barely three weeks later, Father Escriva had achieved recognition of the universal call to holiness which the Work promotes for men and women, priests and lay people alike, in one and the same vocation with no grades, no differences, no ranks and no hierarchy...

Pius XII perceived a splendid panorama: the personal holiness and personal apostolate which Opus Dei could spread all over the earth. He also noted Father Escriva’s spiritual stature, and the divine scope of his foundation, to which Pope Pius himself was to give definitive approval on 16th June 1950. A short while later the Pope said to Cardinal Norman Gilroy from Sydney, Australia that he had been profoundly impressed by a recent visit from Father Escriva. “He is a real saint, a man sent by God for our times” (é un vero santo, un uomo mandato da Dio per i nostri tempi). There was no inkling then of the bitter hours, the tremendous suffering which Father Escriva would have to endure under his pontificate, though none of it was the Pope’s doing. ..

Two days later Pius XII again received him in a private audience. On the 16th of the same month, in another letter to Madrid, Father Escriva pointed out: “Don’t you forget it was during the octave of the Immaculate Conception of Our Lady when the Roman ‘solution’ began to take shape.” The founder had discovered that the Holy See was not just willing but anxious to grant the approval of Opus Dei as soon as possible. It was better to make the most of this opportunity, even though it was to be a stop-gap solution. So the negotiations continued. (…)

stevusmagnus · « **Reply #6 on:** January 07, 2011, 10:14:32 PM »

Quote from: Telesphorus

A sacristan once said, I believe, that the SSPX does not use the relics of those canonized by John Paul II and Benedict XVI.

I find it hard to believe the Society would not use relics of St. Pio if given the opportunity...

RomanCatholic1953 · « **Reply #7 on:** January 08, 2011, 05:09:29 AM »

Quote from: stevusmagnus

Quote from: RomanCatholic1953
There is so much deception through the years that the
opus dei is a conservative Orthodox religious association.
One point put forward is that that Escriva personally
begged Paul VI for the use of the Tridentine Mass, in
which Paul VI refused permission.
For years I was deceived that the opus dei is a
conservative and orthodox religious association of
Roman Catholics. It was not until the internet when I
saw that it was not true.

Do you have a source for the Paul VI story?

I had always heard that St. JM asked for and received a personal celebret to say the TLM himself.

I remember the information from my NO days in which
I was study reader of the Wanderer, and the Catholic
Register. This was long before the internet.
I remember in an article on the opus dei that is was
mentioned that Escriva requested in a personal
audience with Paul VI that his society be granted
the right to celebrate the old mass and was denied.
The denial caused him much sadness, because Paul Vl
gave an indult to the English.
I cannot remember the date, nor the issue. It just
sticks in my mind after all these years.
It cannot be to hard to find it on the internet.

stevusmagnus · « **Reply #8 on:** January 08, 2011, 06:48:52 AM »

Very interesting. I wonder if this was before or after the Society affair in the early 70's...

RomanCatholic1953 · « **Reply #9 on:** January 08, 2011, 01:02:52 PM »

Quote from: stevusmagnus

Very interesting. I wonder if this was before or after the Society affair in the early 70's...

I read the article sometime in the 1980's.