Bishop Fellay's (SSPX) response to reunification

  • Thread starter Thread starter TrueLight
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
So, in other words, unless they do something different from what they are doing now, then they will indeed not be in schism (otherwise they would be now). Is that correct? Accepting the preamble cannot, I don’t think, constitute a violation of that canon.

They would continue in a state of canonical irregularity. Does that sound right?
Bishop Fellay’s ‘no, we will not obey’ is an act of schism.

Can. 751 Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.

Can. 1364 §1. Without prejudice to the prescript of ⇒ can. 194, §1, n. 2, an apostate from the faith, a heretic, or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication; in addition, a cleric can be punished with the penalties mentioned in ⇒ can. 1336, §1, nn. 1, 2, and 3.
 
Bishop Fellay’s ‘no, we will not obey’ is an act of schism.

Can. 751 Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.

Can. 1364 §1. Without prejudice to the prescript of ⇒ can. 194, §1, n. 2, an apostate from the faith, a heretic, or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication; in addition, a cleric can be punished with the penalties mentioned in ⇒ can. 1336, §1, nn. 1, 2, and 3.
Is that a quote from Bishop Fellay?

I guess this all rests on whether or not acceptance or non-acceptance of the preamble equates to “no we will not obey”. In the end I don’t think it does, and I don’t think Pope Benedict will decide that it equates to that, not after lifting the excommunications. It will make the road to canonical regularity more difficult, but I don’t think it will be a schismatic act since there is no change in state on their part. I take comfort in the fact that so many who are chanting the word “schism” seem to be the same people who all along had been mistakenly insisting they were in a state of schism in the first place. I think its a mistake here too.

Anyway, I’m getting distracted from school work here, gonna have to unsubscribe.
 
Yes, it incurs an excommunication but I don’t think an excommunication constitutes an automatic schism. Does canon law even define a schism?
Excommunication simply means you are not in communion. So yes it is a case of being in schism. But I think the excommunications were against the persons and not the society as a whole. Although if the bishop is excommunicated, how are the rest of the society in communion with the Pope?
 
Is that a quote from Bishop Fellay?
The key problem in our discussions with Rome was really the Magisterium, the teaching of the Church. Because they say, “we are the pope, we are the Holy See” – and we say, yes. And so they say, “we have the supreme power,” and we say, yes. They say, “we are the last instance in teaching and we are necessary” – Rome is necessary for us to have the Faith, and we say, yes. And then they say, “then, obey.” And we say, no.
 
The SSPX were never in schism. The Bishop Lafavre was excommunicated by the law for illicitly consecrating several bishops (who also received excommunication), claiming a “state of emergency” that did not exist.

Excommunication does not remove someone from the church, or cause schism. It is simply a penalty, barring reception of the sacraments. The Church hopes that longing for the sacraments will bring the penalized individual back to the church.

The pope lifted this excommunication just a few years ago after the SSPX bishop’s remained excommunicated for at least a decade. This is quite an olive branch, and I don’t think the Pope will throw the negotiations under the bus over this homily alone.
 
If you don’t agree with the Society’s position on obedience to Rome, I don’t see why you are praying for reconciliation. The Society is not coming hat in hand saying it is sorry. The Society believes it is right.
I wonder which Jesus would prefer… a society that believes it is right or a society that is obedient to his steward on earth?
 
Nothing is changed. 2012 is no different than 1988 except the new bishops are 24 years closer to consecrating more bishops as SSPX vocations continue to grow. The ceremonies on Feb. 2 were beautiful. Bp. Fellay said nothing that anyone who is informed about the Society didn’t know. The Society isn’t biting on some Henry Clay plan where one side compromises and then the other side compromises. The Society has a position. It is clearly outlined. If Rome wants the Society, the Society is waiting. If Rome doesn’t want the Society, the Society is still waiting. Maybe it will take 500 years and many dozens more bishops?

If you don’t agree with the Society’s position on obedience to Rome, I don’t see why you are praying for reconciliation. The Society is not coming hat in hand saying it is sorry. The Society believes it is right.
If there are any more episcopal consecrations, that will be “justification” enough, I would think. The SSPX does not exactly have a lot of time on its side; the four bishops won’t live forever.
In canon law, does consecrating Bishops without permission incur schism? I was under the impression that it does not and that that was why they were never actually in schism in the first place…
If the SSPX bishops were to ordain more bishops there would be two major problems that can be fatal for the SSPX and its aherents.

The first is that they would be excommunicated, the ordaining bishops and the newly ordained bishops.

The second is worse, they can be declared in schism. The act of ordaining a bishop without the papal mandate is a schismatic act. The first time around, the act itself was judged to be schismatic. Archbishop and the newly ordained bishops were not considered schismatic, because it was assumed that the ordinations were an impulsive action on the part of Archbishop Lefebvre.

Now, after more than two decades of excommunication and after having asked for re-communication, for these bishops to go out and ordain more bishops, would not be considered an impulsive act. It would be considered to be grave sin.

The matter is grave.

There is full knowledge of what they are doing, because they’ve been there before.

There is full consent, because it’s not the case of an old man who is dying and pushes the panic button.

There is more to it than a violation of Canon Law. There is an intentional break with the Primacy of Peter. That can place them in schism along with anyone who supports their actions. It would be a repetition of the Orthodox scenario. They will be taking matters into their own hands with full knowledge and deliberation.

Let’s not even contemplate such a horrible thought.

Let’s just hope that Bishop Fellay becomes more prudent in his manner of speaking and that the Holy See will continue to be patient. You have to give the Holy See credit for its patience.

Don’t be too confident about throwing anything under the bus. At the end of the day it will not be the pope who makes that call. It will be the Prefect for the Congregation of the Faith. He will simply inform the pope that “It’s over.” The pope will then have two choices. Accept that it’s over or find another means of communicating with the SSPX. So far, they did not do well with Cardinal Ratzinger. They did not do well with Ecclesia Dei when it was an independent office. If they push the envelop with the CDF, whom else can the pope ask to cover this case? He’s not going to get personally involved. It’s not his job to resole every problem and deal with everyone who is unhappy. That’s why we have subsidiarity. It may not be the pope to throw this under the bus.

I do believe that the CDF will be patient. I have no reason to believe the contrary, unless they try to ordain more bishops. That would blow the lid off of the volcano.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
I wonder which Jesus would prefer… a society that believes it is right or a society that is obedient to his steward on earth?
Second-guessing Jesus is risky business.

On the other hand, the pope is not a stweward. He is the Vicar.

In Church tradition, Vicars govern in place of the the Jesus. They’re not caretakers.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
Is that statement in itself enough to be an act of refusal of submission?
Canonically, yes. A bishop makes a promise to obey the Holy Father and his delegates.

A secular deacon makes a promise to obey his bishop.

A religious makes a vow to obey his or her religious superior.

If I were to say to may superior that I will not obey, I would get three verbal warnings. Afterward, I’d get a written warning. Afterward, I would be suspended and eventually dismissed.

The saving grace here is that as Bishop Fellay says, they asked, “Will you obey?”

If Cardinal Levada says, "I command you under obedience . . . " Then you’re in serious trouble. You’re not being asked a question. You’re being given an order. The wording is important. If you’re being informed and you say that you will not obey, it constitutes insubordination. In the army this can get you shot.

Fortunately, the Church no longer puts people in dungeons.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
So, in other words, unless they do something different from what they are doing now, then they will indeed not be in schism (otherwise they would be now). Is that correct? Accepting the preamble cannot, I don’t think, constitute a violation of that canon.

They would continue in a state of canonical irregularity. Does that sound right?
Their current actions of operating in dioceses with out the local bishops approval could be viewed as a schismatic act. So could the granting of annulments.
 
If Cardinal Levada says, "I command you under obedience . . . " Then you’re in serious trouble.
Br. JR, but what about papal decrees such as clearly and explicitly stated in Veterum Sapientia or Ecclesia Dei, which decreed that the 1962 Missal be made “wide and generous”? There were many bishops who openly opposed this decree.
 
Can I say, respectfully, that I sigh a very long sigh internally at just seeing this thread every time I come onto the forums? I am so weary of all these arguments about and with the SSPX.

How about: “Holy Father, tell us what we should do, and we will immediately do it out of holy obedience?” It would be a very short and simple conversation.

May God have mercy on us all.
 
Can I say, respectfully, that I sigh a very long sigh internally at just seeing this thread every time I come onto the forums? I am so weary of all these arguments about and with the SSPX.

How about: “Holy Father, tell us what we should do, and we will immediately do it out of holy obedience?” It would be a very short and simple conversation.

May God have mercy on us all.
Bishop Fellay is doing that now.
 
Bishop Fellay is doing that now.
I wish it were so, but if that were true, then this thread would have never been necessary.

What we need is less arguing and more prayers for Cardinal Levada and Bishop Fellay. :gopray2:
 
I really believe things are going to change for the better for the Society very soon.
I will continue to pray for them and the Church
Deus Vult.
 
I thought that which was keeping the SSPX from agreeing with an agreement with “regularization” with Rome was some dogmatic differences with some of the documents around Vatican II. I thought that it had to do with modernisim, and not necessarily with the 1962 missal vs. the 1969 missal.

Could anyone enlighten us as to the difference, though maybe minute, in the Theology that seperates the community from Rome?

Thanks!
 
From what I hear it is about Religous Liberty and Ecumenism.
That is very general, but I believe those are the main issues.

The Society [rightly] believes that error has no rights ie: false religions.
They should be tolerated for the civic good but that is all.

They believe [rightly] that true ecumenism is what Pius XI stated in “Mortalium Animos”, that all men must come into the Catholic Church to attain salvation, for outside of the spotless Bride of Christ no one can be saved.

We must teach all men in charity the truth because if we confirm them in their error it is false compassion/charity.

From what I heard this is it in a nutshell.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top