Are the SSPX in schism?

[catharina]

And I’m betting if nobody ever tried to say that the SSPX wasn’t in schism, these threads would die a lot quicker.

I thought they had died. Silence (blessed silence) from the 9th to the 12th, then the holiday weekend ended and BOOM?

 

[catharina]

Blame it on the popularity of the SSPX Masses.

One can love the traditional Latin Mass and not defame the Popes.

 

[GerardP]

Well, silly people keep jumping in and saying non-sensical things like “The SSPX are not schismatic or in schism at all.”

It’s only non-sensical if you don’t know what schism is.

And lest anyone get confused it, some of us decide to counter such obvious lies by stating what the Church teaches on the matter.

The problem with that statement is, it’s not true. They aren’t lies and you don’t state what the Church teaches. You treat the opinions of Churchmen as if they are teaching real doctrine.

But you’re right it is silly to spend so much writing in response to a fringe view that is clung to by less than .01% of Catholics.

Arguing to popularity is a logical fallacy. By that logic, it’s silly to spend time writing in response to people who believe in the Real Presence.

We should probably discuss something that affects more people like whether aliens exist or not.

I wish you would. You never seem to avoid trashing them and trying to prevent people from learning about the SSPX and making up their own minds about them.

 

[GerardP]

One can love the traditional Latin Mass and not defame the Popes.

Telling the truth about the public actions and inactions of Popes is not defaming them.

You probably just don’t like it when you are a cheerleader for a certain Pope or two. You probably don’t mind at all when the Pope being discussed has been dead for centuries and history has indisputably rendered a negative judgement on them. Alexander VI, Formosus, Stephen VI, Benedict X, John 22nd. etc.

St. Celestine was a Pope in way over his head but he was still a saint. There’s nothing wrong with pointing out the failings of the Pope as Pope. They are human, not Divine.

 

[GerardP]

And I’m betting if nobody ever tried to say that the SSPX wasn’t in schism, these threads would die a lot quicker.

But people would remain woefully ignorant of the truth. The main problem is, a good portion of the people who post against the SSPX know very little about the history of the SSPX, the history of the Church in general and that colors their faith and they ultimately don’t know the Catholic faith. They have a Protestant understanding of the Faith with the difference being that they like the Protestant caricature.

This is why someone like Dr. Tom Woods can write a book like “How the Catholic Church built Western Civilization” and go on EWTN to discuss it. But at EWTN they won’t challenge him on his traditionalist writings on air.

They can’t disagree with him on facts or theology, but they are politically against him. So, people will quietly tell him that they agree with him but won’t admit so on the air.

And forget Chris Ferrara, they are ridiculously afraid of him or any writers from the Remnant or Catholic Family News.

 

[havemercy]

:twocents: :twocents:
My four cents?

To quote Bishop Fellay, they are “not out”. John Paul II did indeed write that the bishops consecrated were, objectively speaking, ordained illicitly, and that Levebvre and the four bishops have therefore, probably, excommunicated themselves latae sententiae. (Funny though, no one in Rome has really had the guts to make such statements regarding the silly women who have been “ordaining” themselves “priests” for years on end.)

They (the bishops) were not, however, excommunicated by the church as, for example, Martin Luther was in all seriousness cast from the City of God.

In any case, the SSPX as a whole did not incur excommunication. Only these five men should have, but they have not been finally declared such since the appropriateness of the ordinations that took place in 1988 is still being contemplated.

There’s nothing silly about this, especially since Benedict XVI considers talking with these bishops and the society “an internal dispute” (Motu Proprio, Summorum Pontificum).

 

[Sure]

You never seem to avoid trashing them and trying to prevent people from learning about the SSPX and making up their own minds about them.

I don’t trash them. I merely state the official and authoritative documents of the Church on the matter. You, on the other hand, have nothing but your opinion that the Church made an “error.” Catholics ought to form their opinions based on what the Church teaches, and not what an anonymous guy on the internet or a writer for a fringe publication believes on the subject.

 

[TMC]

This is what John Paul II said on the topic:

In itself, this act was one of disobedience to the Roman Pontiff in a very grave matter and of supreme importance for the unity of the church, such as is the ordination of bishops whereby the apostolic succession is sacramentally perpetuated. Hence such disobedience - which implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy - constitutes a schismatic act.(3) In performing such an act, notwithstanding the formal canonical warning sent to them by the Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops on 17 June last, Mons. Lefebvre and the priests Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta, have incurred the grave penalty of excommunication envisaged by ecclesiastical law.(4)

As to those that follow these priests he gave this warning:

c) In the present circumstances I wish especially to make an appeal both solemn and heartfelt, paternal and fraternal, to all those who until now have been linked in various ways to the movement of Archbishop Lefebvre, that they may fulfil the grave duty of remaining united to the Vicar of Christ in the unity of the Catholic Church, and of ceasing their support in any way for that movement. Everyone should be aware that formal adherence to the schism is a grave offence against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church’s law.(8)

Read it all in context here: Ecclesia Dei

The argument now is that when John Paul wrote this he did not really understand that Lefebvre really and truly believed that he was compelled by the necessity of his conscience to do what he did, and that this good faith necessity of conscience engaged the “grave fear” exception to latae sententiae excommunication.

In this case, the “grave fear” was that John Paul was never going to give him permission to consecrate those he wanted to consecrate, so its a bit of an odd argument seeing as his “fear” was that his viewpoint would not be accepted, which is the “fear” of all dissenters. Nonetheless, that is the argument, and the link will take you to the Church documents that set forth the Church’s unaltered official stance on the matter.

 

[GerardP]

As long as you get to decide what is a “doctrine” and what is a “policy” I guess you will win all the arguments.

I remember once while learning carpentry in college, a young girl asked one of the student helpers, “Okay, I decide the angles and then I make the cuts on the two by fours.” He replied, “You don’t decide the angels. You calculate the angles.”

I don’t decide what are policies and what are doctrines. I discern them. It’s a part of being a Catholic, “Wisdom, knowledge, understanding…etc”

I can not understand how the Church’s teaching on who is and is not saved, which is at the heart of both ecumenism and the opposition to ecumenism, is a “policy”.

Pius XI stated that the only ecumenism acceptable was one that would lead to conversions to the Catholic Church. Prior to the Council, Cardinal Bea stated the exact same thing. The policy of Paul VI and JPII have not advocated conversion to Catholicism.

Also interesting how you can lablel bishops in good graces with the Church as heretics, while insisting that the one that was excommunicated is really (secretly, I guess?) in full communion with Rome.

Why is it interesting? It’s a sobering fact. We have bishops and Cardinals spreading massive error. Some have horrific personal vices. (one example was archbishop Rembert Weakland had his policy of dumping unused precious blood down the drain under running water and his 400,000.00 hush money to his homosexual lover.)

I have no problem with people disagreeing with or leaving the Church over a good faith issue of conscience.

I do. Because that leads to damnation. Just as remaining in the Church and being a heretic also leads to damnation.

To redefine basic terms to make it appear that there is no division is simply intellectual dishonesty.

Yet, you have no problem it seems when someone redefines the terms to exclude the SSPX. A new definition of “schism” was invented in order to label the SSPX as schismatics. While the Orthodox are no longer called schismatic when they are schismatic.

Disobedience has been redefined as an intrinsically excommunicable offense.

“Means of Salvation” has been blurred to the point where people don’t distinguish between primary and secondary means of salvation.

“Magisterium” has been totally misused to mean the Pope himself instead of a power of the Pope to be invoked.

Those are just a few examples.

 

[GerardP]

I don’t trash them.

Yes. You do.

I merely state the official and authoritative documents of the Church on the matter.

Yet you ignore the historical facts, the morality of the issue and the ambiguities in the documents. These are reformable documents, not infallible statements.

You, on the other hand, have nothing but your opinion that the Church made an “error.”

Churchmen made an error. Not the Church. And I have an opinion informed by facts. Not a slavish unholy adherence to obvious error.

Catholics ought to form their opinions based on what the Church teaches,

True. So why do you constantly try and prevent an honest discussion of the facts?

and not what an anonymous guy on the internet or a writer for a fringe publication believes on the subject.

But an anonymous guy or a writer for a fringe publication isn’t barred from telling the truth and it’s no less the truth than if Christ Himself said it.

So trashing someone or belittling their state in life isn’t a valid excuse for ignoring the truth.

Just as automatically believing a member of the heirarchy can’t lie because they wear a mitre is not how a Catholic should form an opinion.

 

[stmaria]

This is what John Paul II said on the topic:

As to those that follow these priests he gave this warning:

Read it all in context here: Ecclesia Dei

The argument now is that when John Paul wrote this he did not really understand that **Lefebvre really and truly believed **that he was **compelled by the necessity **of his conscience to do what he did, and that this good faith necessity of conscience engaged the "grave fear" exception to latae sententiae excommunication.

In this case, the “grave fear” was that John Paul was never going to give him permission to consecrate those he wanted to consecrate, so its a bit of an odd argument seeing as his “fear” was that his viewpoint would not be accepted, which is the “fear” of all dissenters. Nonetheless, that is the argument, and the link will take you to the Church documents that set forth the Church’s unaltered official stance on the matter.

THis quote is also part of the “ecclesia dei”
b) Moreover, I should like to **remind theologians and other experts **in the ecclesiastical sciences that they should feel themselves **called upon to answer **in the present circumstances. Indeed, the extent and depth of the teaching of the Second Vatican Council call for a renewed commitment to **deeper study in order to reveal clearly **the Council’s continuity with Tradition, especially in points of doctrine which, perhaps because they are new, have not yet been well understood by some sections of the Church."

Isn’t it true that the dispute of consecrating bishops was only part of the reason that the bishops had "grave fear’?
Has it ever happened that a Pope had to ask experts to clarify **points of doctrine **“because they are new” and had not been “understood by some sections of the Church?”

 

[catharina]

Telling the truth about the public actions and inactions of Popes is not defaming them.

You probably just don’t like it when you are a cheerleader for a certain Pope or two. You probably don’t mind at all when the Pope being discussed has been dead for centuries and history has indisputably rendered a negative judgement on them. Alexander VI, Formosus, Stephen VI, Benedict X, John 22nd. etc.

St. Celestine was a Pope in way over his head but he was still a saint. There’s nothing wrong with pointing out the failings of the Pope as Pope. They are human, not Divine.

What a peculiar statement. Only last night I fell asleep while thanking God for the Popes who have served the Church in my lifetime: Pius XII, John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II and now Benedict XVI. Also my family has always maintained a special devotion to Pius X since my parents made their First Holy Communion on the same day in the early 1920s, while they were still very young children, due to the mandates of Pius X. Leo XIII was praised as well for his interest and teachings on the laborers of the world who were then impoverished and without hope. Do I look back over history to determine “bad Popes” in order to justify current fantasies about recent Popes? Nope. No need.

First and foremost, I was raised to protect my faith. What are you doing with yours?

 

[GerardP]

This is what John Paul II said on the topic:

“Hence such disobedience - which implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy - constitutes a schismatic act.”

Interesting that it says a “schismatic act” and not an “act of schism.” Card. Hoyos seems to think this is the loophole that will save face for JPII when the SSPX are regularized.

Also, don’t you think that statement should say “infers” ? The word “implies” indicates that JPII is reading the interior state of LeFebvre’s soul which according to Pope SAINT Pius X “is reserved for God alone.”

“in practice” is another interesting phrase.

The second point is that it is a non-sequitur. Cardinal Husar was consecrated without a papal mandate and is in good standing.
Added to that, LeFebvre’s consistent statements of support and defense of the papacy, it can’t be reasonably accepted that disobedience can only be caused by a rejection of Roman primacy.

That would mean that the morally correct thing for the un-named Deacon who was ordered by Pope Stephen to reply for the corpse of Pope Formosus in the trial set up in order to poshumously condemn Formosus would have been to obey. That’s just silly.

As to those that follow these priests he gave this warning:

"c) In the present circumstances I wish especially to make an appeal both solemn and heartfelt, paternal and fraternal, to all those who until now have been linked in various ways to the movement of Archbishop Lefebvre, "

I see an appeal but not an order.

The argument now is that when John Paul wrote this he did not really understand that Lefebvre really and truly believed that he was compelled by the necessity of his conscience to do what he did, and that this good faith necessity of conscience engaged the “grave fear” exception to latae sententiae excommunication.

In this case, the “grave fear” was that John Paul was never going to give him permission to consecrate those he wanted to consecrate, so its a bit of an odd argument seeing as his “fear” was that his viewpoint would not be accepted, which is the “fear” of all dissenters.

So, you are disagreeing with the wisdom of the Canon law promulgated by JPII? Funny how you can pick and choose what you want to accept as part of the Church.

Nonetheless, that is the argument, and the link will take you to the Church documents that set forth the Church’s unaltered official stance on the matter.

So, you are saying that the Pope’s official representative on this matter, Cardinal Hoyos is wrong in his assessment that the SSPX is not in formal schism?

 

[Sure]

Yes. You do.

Yet you ignore the historical facts, the morality of the issue and the ambiguities in the documents. These are reformable documents, not infallible statements.

Churchmen made an error. Not the Church. And I have an opinion informed by facts. Not a slavish unholy adherence to obvious error.

True. So why do you constantly try and prevent an honest discussion of the facts?

But an anonymous guy or a writer for a fringe publication isn’t barred from telling the truth and it’s no less the truth than if Christ Himself said it.

So trashing someone or belittling their state in life isn’t a valid excuse for ignoring the truth.

Just as automatically believing a member of the heirarchy can’t lie because they wear a mitre is not how a Catholic should form an opinion.

I know you will never be convinced on this. You claim a necessity demanded that Lefebvre consecrate bishops. The Vatican AUTHORITATIVELY (but not infallibly as you point out) declared that there was no necessity and that any necessity could not overrule the need for a papal mandate. Now, as you say, they could have made a mistake, but it is still a binding legal judgement. Are Catholics then free to make prudential judgements to disregard any law which is not promulgated infallibly? For instance, right now the Church states by law that a minimum one hour fast is required before Communion. Could I make a prudential judgement that the Church is in error here? After all, the length of the Communion fast is not infallible.

How do we know when a non-infallible can morally be disregarded as an error?

Please help me understand your reasoning here.

Thanks and God bless!

 

[Sure]

So, you are saying that the Pope’s official representative on this matter, Cardinal Hoyos is wrong in his assessment that the SSPX is not in formal schism?

Gerard,

Card. Hoyos individual statements and assessments made in interviews do not overrule the motu proprio and it’s subsequent clarifications made by the competent Vatican office.

 

[catharina]

"Hence such disobedience - which implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy - constitutes a schismatic act."

Interesting that it says a “schismatic act” and not an “act of schism.” Card. Hoyos seems to think this is the loophole that will save face for JPII when the SSPX are regularized.

**
Also, don’t you think that statement should say “infers” ? The word “implies” indicates that JPII is reading the interior state of LeFebvre’s soul which according to Pope SAINT Pius X “is reserved for God alone.” ** end quote…

       ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Wrong. As Holy Father, Pope John Paul II looked( as might any observer) at the implications of the act. The implications, public and profound, indicate that “in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy - constitutes a schismatic act.” Inferring anything about the action has to do with the Holy Father’s personal inferring/reflecting about the action: e.g., this seems like a band of heretics, or this old bishop is so confused, or he is displaying an endless and obstinate disobedience. Rather in stating the implication (one of many implications, he stated the primary one) speaks to fact.

 

[TMC]

“Hence such disobedience - which implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy - constitutes a schismatic act.”

Interesting that it says a “schismatic act” and not an “act of schism.” Card. Hoyos seems to think this is the loophole that will save face for JPII when the SSPX are regularized.

Also, don’t you think that statement should say “infers” ? The word “implies” indicates that JPII is reading the interior state of LeFebvre’s soul which according to Pope SAINT Pius X “is reserved for God alone.”

“in practice” is another interesting phrase.

The second point is that it is a non-sequitur. Cardinal Husar was consecrated without a papal mandate and is in good standing.
Added to that, LeFebvre’s consistent statements of support and defense of the papacy, it can’t be reasonably accepted that disobedience can only be caused by a rejection of Roman primacy.

That would mean that the morally correct thing for the un-named Deacon who was ordered by Pope Stephen to reply for the corpse of Pope Formosus in the trial set up in order to poshumously condemn Formosus would have been to obey. That’s just silly.

"c) In the present circumstances I wish especially to make an appeal both solemn and heartfelt, paternal and fraternal, to all those who until now have been linked in various ways to the movement of Archbishop Lefebvre, "

I see an appeal but not an order.

**So, you are disagreeing with the wisdom of the Canon law promulgated by JPII? Funny how you can pick and choose what you want to accept as part of the Church. **
So, you are saying that the Pope’s official representative on this matter, Cardinal Hoyos is wrong in his assessment that the SSPX is not in formal schism?

Some very clever parsing, spinning and slicing in there. The one thing that requires response is that I never suggested that Canon Law is unwise, not even close. What I did was point out how silly it is to try to use the “grave fear” exception to justify a deliberate, contemplated, and planned act of disobedience where the only “fear” was that he would never prevail on the Pope to change his mind.

As to my position on Hoya’s position, I have pointed out in previous posts that through the patience and mercy of the Church, SSPX has been accepted as being in communion. LeFebvre et al were excommunicated, but the Church allows SSPX to remain because they assent to the primacy of Rome. But everytime they deny Rome’s teachings, they test that patience a bit.

Maybe some day the Church will relent and recant LeFebvre’s communication and all the rest. What seems more likely to me is that SSPX will slowly trim its objections back, until it can say that the only real issue was allowing the continuation of TLM, and then say they are back. Of course the issue was not just continuing TLM, it was rejecting NO, rejecting the Pope’s authority to change the liturgy, rejecting the doctrine of mysterious Grace being extended to non-Catholics, rejecting collegiality among theologians, and so forth.

Most Catholics think the issue was TLM, and SSPX is happy to promote that view. But TLM was a sidelight, a sympton, and not the real underlying source of the schism – I’m sorry the “schismatic act” which “in practice” denied the Apostolic Authority of the Chair of Peter.

 

[catharina]

Some very clever parsing, spinning and slicing in there. The one thing that requires response is that I never suggested that Canon Law is unwise, not even close. What I did was point out how silly it is to try to use the “grave fear” exception to justify a deliberate, contemplated, and planned act of disobedience where the only “fear” was that he would never prevail on the Pope to change his mind.

As to my position on Hoya’s position, I have pointed out in previous posts that through the patience and mercy of the Church, SSPX has been accepted as being in communion. LeFebvre et al were excommunicated, but the Church allows SSPX to remain because they assent to the primacy of Rome. But everytime they deny Rome’s teachings, they test that patience a bit.

Maybe some day the Church will relent and recant LeFebvre’s communication and all the rest. What seems more likely to me is that SSPX will slowly trim its objections back, until it can say that the only real issue was allowing the continuation of TLM, and then say they are back. Of course the issue was not just continuing TLM, it was rejecting NO, rejecting the Pope’s authority to change the liturgy, rejecting the doctrine of mysterious Grace being extended to non-Catholics, rejecting collegiality among theologians, and so forth.

Most Catholics think the issue was TLM, and SSPX is happy to promote that view. But TLM was a sidelight, a sympton, and not the real underlying source of the schism – I’m sorry the “schismatic act” which “in practice” denied the Apostolic Authority of the Chair of Peter.

Great response. Thank you.

 

[TMC]

Isn’t it true that the dispute of consecrating bishops was only part of the reason that the bishops had "grave fear’?

The “grave fear” was that they wouldn’t get the bishops they wanted. They wanted those bishops because they, too, rejected the Church’s teachings on several issues, yes.

Has it ever happened that a Pope had to ask experts to clarify **points of doctrine **“because they are new” and had not been “understood by some sections of the Church?”

Yes. Are you not aware that the Church has published doctrines from time to time for 2000 years? The Truth does not change, but our depth of understanding of it does. After each of the major councils there were schismatics that rejected or did not understand the doctrines of that council. This is no different than those.

John Paul explained the root of the problem this way (again from the same Ecclesia Dei):

The root of this schismatic act can be discerned in an incomplete and contradictory notion of Tradition. Incomplete, because it does not take sufficiently into account the living character of Tradition, which, as the Second Vatican Council clearly taught, “comes from the apostles and progresses in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. There is a growth in insight into the realities and words that are being passed on. This comes about in various ways. It comes through the contemplation and study of believers who ponder these things in their hearts. It comes from the intimate sense of spiritual realities which they experience. And it comes from the preaching of those who have received, along with their right of succession in the episcopate, the sure charism of truth”.

 

[catharina]

The “grave fear” was that they wouldn’t get the bishops they wanted. They wanted those bishops because they, too, rejected the Church’s teachings on several issues, yes.

Yes. Are you not aware that the Church has published doctrines from time to time for 2000 years? The Truth does not change, but our depth of understanding of it does. After each of the major councils there were schismatics that rejected or did not understand the doctrines of that council. This is no different than those.

John Paul explained the root of the problem this way (again from the same Ecclesia Dei):

Again, yes. Lovely and the truth. Thank you.