Cardinal Castrillon: SSPX Not in Schism

[parvenu74]

This reminds me of the classic chastity question: “How far can me and my girlfriend go before we cross the line?”

It’s apples and oranges. Asking a question like that implies a desire to “do something sinful” with your girlfriend. It’s good versus evil.

In this case it a matter of selecting the highest good. Ecclesia Dei have already said that it’s fine to attend an SSPX Mass as long as you’re not adhering to a spirit of schism. Do you think for a moment that even a single person going to an SSPX Mass has made the act of will to adhere to a formal state of schism just so they can be considered to be outside of the Church? The whole point of the SSPX is to maintain the traditional priesthood, sacraments, and Catholic life. If you are going to an SSPX Mass because you want the TLM, you’re in the clear, per Ecclesia Dei. Then again, if you’re desiring to separate yourself from the Church, you need not go to an SSPX chapel; you can do that at any chapel in any parish anywhere because it’s simply an act of the will.

Which comes back to the same question again: what is the definition of “formal adherence?”

 

[Ham1]

With the SSPX we should remember the facts:

1. The bishops are excommunicated. There is no doubt as Ecclesia Dei is a motu propio and has the force of canon law.
2. The priests of SSPX are suspended a divinis.
3. Since they are suspended, they are forbidden from administering the sacraments and, to do so, is a direct disobedience to the Pope and is grave matter.

It is tragically ironic that priests who claim to recognize the Pope and pray for him, at the same time disregard the Pope’s order to refrain from administering the sacraments. It makes their claim that they recognize the Pope ring rather hollow. What good is recognizing the Pope as your leader if you disobey his specific lawful command to you, his subject?

The SSPX have staked out an intellectually flawed mushy middle ground between orthodoxy and sedevacantism. They claim orthodoxy with their words yet their actions speak of sedevacantism.

 

[bear06]

From Father John A. Hardon

Now my own opinion which I have been giving now for years. In my judgment, Catholics do fulfill their duty of assisting at Sunday Mass by attending in the Holy Sacrifice a church affiliated with those who are members with a schismatic group like the Lefebvres. But then I also must add the Catholics be sure at those seeing them attending these schismatic Masses are not scandalized into thinking that professed Roman Catholics have given up their fidelity to the Bishop of Rome.

Would you mind giving a source or link for this? Thanks!

 

[Genesis315]

Throughout the history of the Church, whenever there has been a crisis, there have been two classes of people. Those who go off and do it themselves in a manner they feel is more pure than the established Church, and those who suffer and struggle within her to bring about authentic reform. The latter are raised to the glory of altars. Those who would rather go to the seemingly greener pastures of the SSPX rather than suffering with the rest of the faithful are abaondoning the Church in her time of difficulty. Of course, when the Body of Christ was being abused the first time, it was only the three Marys and John who stuck around and suffered while everyone else fled. Of course, one of those Marys was sinless so it was no surprise she was there and because of it she even suffered most in her heart.

 

[parvenu74]

With the SSPX we should remember the facts:

1. The bishops are excommunicated. There is no doubt as Ecclesia Dei is a motu propio and has the force of canon law.
2. The priests of SSPX are suspended a divinis.
3. Since they are suspended, they are forbidden from administering the sacraments and, to do so, is a direct disobedience to the Pope and is grave matter.

And if all of this is true, then any SSPX priest who leaves the SSPX for the FSSP, Institute of the Good Shepherd, or others would have to be “unsuspended” or make a public affirmation of his loyalty to the local ordinary and the Pope. Here’s a news flash: none of this happens when priests leave the SSPX because they are valid priests, they have never been legally suspended, and their loyalty to the Church and the Pope have never been in question. They do not go through re-education or indoctrination… they are simply issued their pagella and they continue being priests as they were trained.

 

[Uxor]

And if all of this is true, then any SSPX priest who leaves the SSPX for the FSSP, Institute of the Good Shepherd, or others would have to be “unsuspended” or make a public affirmation of his loyalty to the local ordinary and the Pope. Here’s a news flash: none of this happens when priests leave the SSPX because they are valid priests, they have never been legally suspended, and their loyalty to the Church and the Pope have never been in question. They do not go through re-education or indoctrination… they are simply issued their pagella and they continue being priests as they were trained.

This is true…also they are not told to go to Confession either.

 

[Uxor]

Would you mind giving a source or link for this? Thanks!

therealpresence.org/archives/Mass/Mass_004.htm

 

[bear06]

And if all of this is true, then any SSPX priest who leaves the SSPX for the FSSP, Institute of the Good Shepherd, or others would have to be “unsuspended” or make a public affirmation of his loyalty to the local ordinary and the Pope. Here’s a news flash: none of this happens when priests leave the SSPX because they are valid priests, they have never been legally suspended, and their loyalty to the Church and the Pope have never been in question. They do not go through re-education or indoctrination… they are simply issued their pagella and they continue being priests as they were trained.

I’d imagine that leaving the SSPX is public affirmation enough. BTW, what authority are you quoting that says that the priests SSPX wasn’t legally suspended?

 

[Ham1]

It’s apples and oranges. Asking a question like that implies a desire to “do something sinful” with your girlfriend. It’s good versus evil.

In this case it a matter of selecting the highest good. Ecclesia Dei have already said that it’s fine to attend an SSPX Mass as long as you’re not adhering to a spirit of schism. Do you think for a moment that even a single person going to an SSPX Mass has made the act of will to adhere to a formal state of schism just so they can be considered to be outside of the Church? The whole point of the SSPX is to maintain the traditional priesthood, sacraments, and Catholic life. If you are going to an SSPX Mass because you want the TLM, you’re in the clear, per Ecclesia Dei. Then again, if you’re desiring to separate yourself from the Church, you need not go to an SSPX chapel; you can do that at any chapel in any parish anywhere because it’s simply an act of the will.

Which comes back to the same question again: what is the definition of “formal adherence?”

We could kind of say the same thing for Archbishop Milingo. He is just doing what he sees is the best thing for the Church…Never mind that he is suspended and (I think) excommunicated.

And Ecclesia Dei doesn’t say you’re in the clear. A private letter from a Cardinal who works on the Commission seems to say that. The motu propio issued by John Paul II clearly indicates suspension and excommunication, which we know from canon law are not to be dealt with capriciously if one “feels” that the Mass is prettier or more fulfilling.

Can one legitimately attend any Mass by a suspended priest as long as the intention is not to separate from the Church? That would open a pandora’s box.

 

[bear06]

therealpresence.org/archives/Mass/Mass_004.htm

If you’ll notice preceding the paragraph you were quoting, he was addressing those who had no valid Mass to attend.

In the Latin Rite, the hosts, I am quoting from Canon Law, must be made of wheat alone. And again the Latin Rite, must be unleavened bread. The content of the altar bread affects the validity of the Mass. When the hosts are other pastry than pure wheaten bread they are not valid matter for Eucharistic consecration. When certain essential words in the formal consecration are omitted or radically changed, again, the consecration is not valid.

Then he goes onto show different things that people in this situation could attempt: attend an SSPX chapel, attend an Eastern Orthodox liturgy or leave the diocese to find a parish. He also went into the two theories presented by canonists.

 

[Uxor]

If you’ll notice preceding the paragraph you were quoting, he was addressing those who had no valid Mass to attend.

Then he goes onto show different things that people in this situation could attempt: attend an SSPX chapel, attend an Eastern Orthodox liturgy or leave the diocese to find a parish. He also went into the two theories presented by canonists.

He also describes these offenses…

Following the lead of so many who have written on these abuses let us suppose we are members, and I will make up the names as I go along, let us suppose we are members of Ethel Rita Parish, located in the town of Middleburg. Our pastor and the only priest of the parish is Fr. Filbert Imbecilius who introduced altar girls many years ago. He refuses to distribute Holy Communion to anyone kneeling. Either you are standing for Holy Communion or he will pass you by.

Fr. Filbert regularly omits the Gloria and substitutes what he calls the “Prayer of Belief.” He never says the Nicene Creed. He changes the wording of both the Sacramentary and the Lectionary to eliminate every even suggestion of sexist language. He uses strange looking and even stranger tasting altar bread. Regularly he refers to God as Father, Mother or pronouns He or She. He insists that everyone stand for the whole Eucharistic Prayer. He regularly changes the words of the Mass including the words of consecration to suit his own fancy. He hardly ever celebrates Mass without a crowd what he calls facilitators. Most of whom are well known as zealous feminists who join their hands around the altar during the Eucharistic Prayer.

Recently, Fr. Filbert announced that henceforth no one may receive Holy Communion on the tongue. Either he receive it in the hand or again he will be passed by. Countless letters, letters of complaint have been sent to the Bishop of the diocese. Every letter has gone unanswered, and there is no reason to expect that the Bishop will make any effort to change the abuses in this parish. In fact, the only occasion when the Bishop made any public statement on the subject of the liturgy was when he rejected a petition to allow the celebration of the Tridentine Mass in his diocese. Said the Bishop, “There is no need to return to the past.” and the petitioners were labeled, “Liturgical Reactionaries” his Holy Excellency.

Before I go any further let me be clear. I’ve only touched the surface of a widespread - what a mild term - widespread liturgical abuse going on throughout the United States, and I should add in other countries too. Every offense we described has occurred and is occurring in real life, and what I did was just choose a fraction of the abuses that are widespread in nations like ours

 

[paramedicgirl]

The SSPX have staked out an intellectually flawed mushy middle ground between orthodoxy and sedevacantism. They claim orthodoxy with their words yet their actions speak of sedevacantism.

Just curious which actions these would be. I know the SSPX offered two million Rosaries for the Pope last October.

 

[Ham1]

Just curious which actions these would be. I know the SSPX offered two million Rosaries for the Pope last October.

How do you say that you recognize someone’s authority and then in all your actions disobey his commands? It seems to require a bit of intellectual schizophrenia. On the one hand, they say that Pope Benedict XVI is the true Pope and holds all the powers that a Pope holds (presumably they know this). But at the same time, they blatently ignore the lawful decrees of the Church. If they truly believed that the Pope had authority, they would protest their suspensions, but, like good obedient priests, they would obey until such time as their suspension was lifted.

Ask yourself, if tomorrow, you were personally excommunicated by the Pope (whom you recognize to be valid) would you continue to attend Mass and receive the Eucharist even though you know that to be in direct disobedience of the law of the Church? Or would you vigorously protest to the Pope and the vatican while still remaining obedient to their lawful commands?

 

[paramedicgirl]

How do you say that you recognize someone’s authority and then in all your actions disobey his commands? It seems to require a bit of intellectual schizophrenia. On the one hand, they say that Pope Benedict XVI is the true Pope and holds all the powers that a Pope holds (presumably they know this). But at the same time, they blatently ignore the lawful decrees of the Church. If they truly believed that the Pope had authority, they would protest their suspensions, but, like good obedient priests, they would obey until such time as their suspension was lifted.

Ask yourself, if tomorrow, you were personally excommunicated by the Pope (whom you recognize to be valid) would you continue to attend Mass and receive the Eucharist even though you know that to be in direct disobedience of the law of the Church? Or would you vigorously protest to the Pope and the vatican while still remaining obedient to their lawful commands?

I have read a bit about the SSPX using Canon Law to defend their position that they are upholding the traditions of the Church. I didn’t save the link, and I’m not sure where I read it. But that must be what they think is valid reasoning.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I have read a bit about the SSPX using Canon Law to defend their position that they are upholding the traditions of the Church. I didn’t save the link, and I’m not sure where I read it. But that must be what they think is valid reasoning.

The Orthodox use tradition and scripture to defend their position. Protestants use scripture. Everyone uses something. Of course, they’re going to defend their position. But just because a cow is suffering under the delusion that she’s a pig, goes about insisting to everyone that she IS, in point of fact, oink, oink, a pig, doesn’t mean that she actually is of the porcine persuasion. So what do we do when confused? We look to the Church. What has the highest authority in the Church said, in a motu propria? The bishops are excommunicated, the priests suspended ad divinis, and the faithful are warned, cautioned, put on alert. I grant you that authority is now dead, but his successor hasn’t revoked or rescinded that MP, has published no new edict in the Acts of the Holy And Apostolic See (I don’t know the Latin for it), which is where, I believe, such things are “put.”

When and if the MP re: the TLM comes (and I think it will), I guess the rest of us can ignore it?!?!?

 

[down_under]

I will never understand why John Paul II felt the need to issue some harshly-worded motu proprio “warning” the faithful to stay far away from a Society whose sole purpose is to preserve the Mass, the Sacraments, and traditional morality, yet appoint someone like Kasper as cardinal and the head of a Curial office. What is more dangerous for one’s soul: To attend the Mass of the Church offered by a holy SSPX priest, or to follow Kasper’s erroneous teachings ecumenism, summed up in this quote of his:

"today we no longer understand ecumenism in the sense of a return, by which the others would ‘be converted’ and return to being Catholics."

I would very much like to read the totality of that statement. I hate the bullet statement. let me read the context if you will so we can understand what he was talking about when he said this. It is to easy to misunderstand things. It would be better if we removed all doubt of what he was talking about. it would also strenghthen you argument.

to the other person who asked for a church document on the schism. I dont have the time to look it up now now, but you will get it in just a little while. I think the founder of catholic answers wrote a book specifacilly about it that should shed some light. I will pull it out today or tommorow. as I get a chance. Pat madrid. That was his name.

 

[down_under]

Are the Oriental Orthodox also “a non Catholic cult?”

And the questions about the validity of their confessions and marriages are rapidly becoming moot. There is a steadily increasing number of S.S.P.X. adherents (clergy and laity) who have never been Roman Catholics in juridical communion with the Holy See. So they do not incur the canonical penalties, nor are they bound to the canonical forms of marriage, etc. Unless one also wishes to assert that this is true of the Oriental Orthodox, as above.

I dont remember the oriental orthodox appointing a bishop in directe disregard for a papal order. the sspx refuse to follow the athority of the church. Athority is alwas the central issue. They could have had everything they wanted just like one of the splinter groups from that sect do now, AND be in communion with the church. but they chose to appoint there own bishops against the when the pope had told them NO. and all the this mess is a consiquence of this one action. We are trying to heal the rift. Not make it bigger. The church does not want the SSPX to leave behind the tlm. The church wants the SSPX to come back under her athority and start acting under her guidance like everyone else. No different then anyone else.

 

[paramedicgirl]

The Orthodox use tradition and scripture to defend their position. Protestants use scripture. Everyone uses something. Of course, they’re going to defend their position. But just because a cow is suffering under the delusion that she’s a pig, goes about insisting to everyone that she IS, in point of fact, oink, oink, a pig, doesn’t mean that she actually is of the porcine persuasion. So what do we do when confused? We look to the Church. What has the highest authority in the Church said, in a motu propria? The bishops are excommunicated, the priests suspended ad divinis, and the faithful are warned, cautioned, put on alert. I grant you that authority is now dead, but his successor hasn’t revoked or rescinded that MP, has published no new edict in the Acts of the Holy And Apostolic See (I don’t know the Latin for it), which is where, I believe, such things are “put.”

When and if the MP re: the TLM comes (and I think it will), I guess the rest of us can ignore it?!?!?

I think I found what I was talking about earlier:

Lefrebvre used his ill health as the reason to push the ordinations forward since he had not heard from Rome for its permission, and thought, through no personal fault, that some one of the circumstances existed which are mentioned in nn. 4 or 5

Can. 1323 No one is liable to a penalty who, when violating a law or precept:

1 has not completed the sixteenth year of age;

2 was, without fault, ignorant of violating the law or precept; inadvertence and error are equivalent to ignorance

3 acted under physical force, or under the impetus of a chanceoccurrence which the person could not foresee or if foreseen could not avoid;

**4 acted under the compulsion of grave fear, even if only relative, or by reason of necessity or grave inconvenience, unless, however, the act is intrinsically evil or tends to be harmful to souls;

5 acted, within the limits of due moderation, in lawful self-defence or defence of another against an unjust aggressor;**

6 lacked the use of reason, without prejudice to the provisions of cann. 1324, §1, n. 2 and 1325;

.

 

[bear06]

Again, this describes most schismatics. I’m pretty sure that this claim ends when the Pope tells you that you don’t have necessity.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Again, this describes most schismatics. I’m pretty sure that this claim ends when the Pope tells you that you don’t have necessity.

It does.

Most people chose to interpret Canon 1323 and “necessity” them selves while ignoring Canon Law itself.

Can. 16 §1 Laws are authentically interpreted by the legislator and by that person to whom the legislator entrusts the power of authentic interpretation.

§2 An authentic interpretation which is presented by way of a law has the same force as the law itself, and must be promulgated. If it simply declares the sense of words which are certain in themselves, it has retroactive force. If it restricts or extends the law or resolves a doubt, it is not retroactive.

§3 On the other hand, an interpretation by way of a court judgement or of an administrative act in a particular case, does not have the force of law. It binds only those persons and affects only those matters for which it was given.

And seeing that the legislator is the pope and the pope said that there was no necessity and that Canon 1323 did not apply, it is so.

Anyways how can one believe that there was a necessity for the archbishop to ordain his own bishops when he had a signed agreement with the pope in which the pope agreed to ordain a bishop for him? Guess the necessity was that the archbishop wanted three bishops instead of one and he wanted to pick them with out the holy father’s (name removed by moderator)ut or agreement.

Sounds like a protestant to me.