Cardinal Hoyos: Monsignor Lefebvre went ahead...not a formal schism

  • Thread starter Thread starter EddieArent
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
E

EddieArent

Guest
Your Eminence, what was the nature of the audience granted by the Pope to the Superior General of the Saint Pius X Fraternity?

DARÍOCASTRILLÓN HOYOS: The audience is part of a process that began with a very important intervention by the then Cardinal Ratzinger, who signed a protocol of agreement with Monsignor Lefebvre before the latter decided to proceed to the episcopal consecrations of 1988.

Monsignor Lefebvre did not back off…

CASTRILLÓN HOYOS: Unfortunately Monsignor Lefebvre went ahead with the consecration and hence the situation of separation came about, even if it was not a formal schism.

Then there was no more official contact up to the Great Jubilee of 2000.

CASTRILLÓN HOYOS: As President of the Pontifical Commission «Ecclesia Dei», learning that they were on a pilgrimage to Rome, I invited the bishops ordained by Monsignor Lefebvre to lunch, for an informal meeting, to get to know each other. Since then I have had many meetings with His Excellence Monsignor Fellay and with other members of the Fraternity. Meetings that have always taken place in a very positive atmosphere. So much so that at a certain point I believed we were really very close to a full rapprochement.

Was the Pope aware of these contacts?

CASTRILLÓN HOYOS: John Paul II was constantly informed of them all. Not only that. The Pontiff himself received for a brief meeting in his private chapel Monsignor Fellay and Don Michele Simoulin, then Superior of the communion of the Fraternity of Albano Laziale. There was no true and proper dialogue, but on that occasion the Pope expressed the wish that dialogue could be taken up by imparting his blessing.

More at link above.
 
It is known that the Saint Pius X Fraternity is asking the Holy See for a liberalization of the so-called Tridentine mass and a declaration affirming that this liturgy has never been abolished.

CASTRILLÓN HOYOS: The mass of Saint Pius V has never been abolished. As for liberalization, I remember that under the pontificate of John Paul II there was a meeting of all the department heads of the Roman Curia, in which the vast majority were not against such a request. It would be dangerous to create opposition between the old rite and the new. The liturgy cannot be a battlefield. As priest, as cardinal and as Prefect of the Congregation for the Clergy, I feel great pain in seeing the unacceptable language at times used of the wish of Jesus to give his own body and blood, and to entrust them to his Church. And this is true of some spokesmen of the Saint Pius X Fraternity, but not only them.
 
Not a formal schism!

I never thought I would see the day when I would hear those words uttered by anyone much less a Cardinal. It’s great news.

Deo Gratias!
 
I’m not sure how 6 men expressly excommunicated by the Supreme Pontiff could not be in formal schism. (Lefebvre, and I’m assuming his assisting bishop as well, is now dead, which brings that number down to 4.) Now, I can see how the Cardinal could claim that the lay faithful are not formally in schism since “adherence” has not been strictly defined (AFAIK). I can also see how, if one were really open to stretching categories, that the priests who pledge obedience to excommunicated bishops and operate without incardination into a diocese, society, etc. have never been explicitly pronounced in schism, although I find it very hard to believe that they are not considered “adherents” of the schism.

Is this very likely, however? I don’t think so. I would really like to see this schism resolved, be it formal or informal, but I would also really like to see a thorough explanation of just what His Eminence meant in his remarks about formal schism, as the SSPX, for whatever ambiguities may exist regarding each individual member, is run by excommunicated bishops. That’s the one hard fact that we have to work with.

Now, my read on the Cardinal’s words is that, for one, he never declared that no schism existed. Also, he said “even if it was not a formal schism.” I take that to be a concession of “Even if the Archbishop and his ordinands did not believe they were creating a schism.” I don’t think formality, much like mortal sin, can exist without knowledge and intent.
 
I’m not sure how 6 men expressly excommunicated by the Supreme Pontiff could not be in formal schism.
Click to expand...
Except… they weren’t “expressly excommunicated by the Supreme Pontiff.”

E.D.A. states that Bp Lefebvre and the four* consecrandi* had incurred the* latae sententiae* excommunication provided in canon law. The Holy Father expressly did** not** impose on them a sentence of excommunication by virtue of his apostolic authority. This distinction is crucial. Papal infallibility extends to matters of faith and morals, not to the interpretation of laws. The five may well have incurred the excommunication, and generally it is necessary to receive the decisions of hierarchy with filial submission, and this is no exception. But it cannot be said as a simple matter of historical fact that the five were “expressly excommunicated.”
 
40.png
pgoings:
Except… they weren’t “expressly excommunicated by the Supreme Pontiff.”

E.D.A. states that Bp Lefebvre and the four* consecrandi* had incurred the* latae sententiae* excommunication provided in canon law. The Holy Father expressly did** not** impose on them a sentence of excommunication by virtue of his apostolic authority. This distinction is crucial. Papal infallibility extends to matters of faith and morals, not to the interpretation of laws. The five may well have incurred the excommunication, and generally it is necessary to receive the decisions of hierarchy with filial submission, and this is no exception. But it cannot be said as a simple matter of historical fact that the five were “expressly excommunicated.”
Click to expand...
I stand corrected on my loose hyperbole. I do think, however, that “declared excommunicate” accurately reflects the sense of EDA. As the pope is the supreme legislator *and *highest court of appeals in the Church, there is no need of the charism of infallibility (which, you are correct, does not apply here) for certainty that his interpretation of a law is binding.
 
For the record, I’m not trying to start another argument about whether the whole SSPX is in schism or whether attending their Masses is a schismatic act (which I don’t think, in and of itself - attendance - is, by the way). I just don’t think we can, based on the Cardinal’s words, start rejoicing about anything. He never said the SSPX were never in schism. I got the impression from Dropper’s post:
"Not a formal schism!

I never thought I would see the day when I would hear those words uttered by anyone much less a Cardinal. It’s great news.

Deo Gratias!"
that this was perceived to be the case.
 
If this was a deck of cards, a pope would trump a cardinal in any hand, no matter how many cardinals one player was “holding.”
Here’s a link to Ecclesia Dei on kind of an interesting website…the Holy See’s. The Pope said that the Archbishop and the four were excommunicated. They were. Those who belonged (to the society formally) were in schism. The lay faithful were warned of the danger of schism through formal adherance.

Why don’t we all pray for the SSPX to return to the obedience of the Church instead of trying to dream up fantasies of how they never left?

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/motu_proprio/documents/hf_jp-ii_motu-proprio_02071988_ecclesia-dei_en.html
 
40.png
JKirkLVNV:
If this was a deck of cards, a pope would trump a cardinal in any hand, no matter how many cardinals one player was “holding.”
Here’s a link to Ecclesia Dei on kind of an interesting website…the Holy See’s. The Pope said that the Archbishop and the four were excommunicated. They were. Those who belonged (to the society formally) were in schism. The lay faithful were warned of the danger of schism through formal adherance.

Why don’t we all pray for the SSPX to return to the obedience of the Church instead of trying to dream up fantasies of how they never left?

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/motu_proprio/documents/hf_jp-ii_motu-proprio_02071988_ecclesia-dei_en.html
Click to expand...
Indeed.
 
Hi,

In regard to the notion of SSPX and formal schism…Although there might not be a formal schism, nobody has said that there is not a material schism.

Also, excommunication does not imply schism. Nor does the possible lack of a formal schism imply that the excommunication latae sententiae is not the state of things.

One question I have is whether anyone knows of the specific document which indicated that elderly priests could obtain permission to continue using the Missal of 1965? I am looking for the citation that issued soon after the promulgation of the new missal, not the one in 1984.

Regards.
 
Hi,

Sorry, my question was regarding the missal of 1962, not 1965.

Thanks.
 
Why don’t we all pray for the SSPX to return to the obedience of the Church instead of trying to dream up fantasies of how they never left?
Click to expand...
Because many believe post-Vatican II itself is disobedient!
 
40.png
OrthoCath:
Because many believe post-Vatican II itself is disobedient!
Click to expand...
“Spirit” of Vatican II or the Council itself?

It is still a fantasy to think that the SSPX is anything other that schismatic, possibly heretical to one degree or another (varies with individual “adherants”)), and formally so rather than materially. “Hence they could not be saved, who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.” Do you think that the Archbishop and the four bishops “knew” that about the Catholic Church? What about the priests in SSPX? Whether you fall out of the left side of the boat or the right side of the boat, you’ve still fallen out of the boat.
 
40.png
JKirkLVNV:
If this was a deck of cards, a pope would trump a cardinal in any hand, no matter how many cardinals one player was “holding.”
Here’s a link to Ecclesia Dei on kind of an interesting website…the Holy See’s. The Pope said that the Archbishop and the four were excommunicated. They were. Those who belonged (to the society formally) were in schism. The lay faithful were warned of the danger of schism through formal adherance.

Why don’t we all pray for the SSPX to return to the obedience of the Church instead of trying to dream up fantasies of how they never left?

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/motu_proprio/documents/hf_jp-ii_motu-proprio_02071988_ecclesia-dei_en.html
Click to expand...
They said in E.D. that Archbishop Lefebvre excommunicated himself — though he didn’t. Also the E.D. document talks about “formal adhersion to the schism” yet this was not defined by the Holy Father. Judging by the Cardinals’ words in the article, non exists. Hard to be a part of a “formal schism” if a Cardinal that leads the commision says there is no “formal schism.”

BTW, I still have yet to receive an adequate reply from anyone, religious or lay, regarding Catholic bishops “in full union with Rome” allowing (invalid) “Lutheran bishop ordinations” at Catholic shrines with their permission and attendance is ok, but consecration of bishops for the SSPX religious order is a no-no? I’ve asked the Orlando diocese and the Holy See about this via e-mail and I received no response to this date. “Double standard” comes to mind. fbsynod.org/Web/OffBishop/InstallERB/Pictures.html

:hmmm:
 
40.png
EddieArent:
They said in E.D. that Archbishop Lefebvre excommunicated himself — though he didn’t. Also the E.D. document talks about “formal adhersion to the schism” yet this was not defined by the Holy Father. Judging by the Cardinals’ words in the article, non exists. Hard to be a part of a “formal schism” if a Cardinal that leads the commision says there is no “formal schism.” **This is precisely like someone saying,“Bill Clinton was served two terms as president,” and having someone respond,“No, he didn’t.” It’s like saying,“The Sun sets in the west,” and getting the response,“No, it doesn’t.” The only way what you say can be so is if you mean that the Archbishop didn’t stand up and say “I excommunicate myself!” If that’s what you mean, then I agree, he didn’t do that. The end result of what he did, however, was to excommunicate himself. At the very least, the very least, allowing oneself to be ordained a bishop without reference to or permission from the Holy See constitutes formal shism. That would mean that the Archbishop and the four bishops are formally scismatic. As for the priests, I think one could make a case for them being schismatic, as they have “formally” adhered by entering the Society, but it doesn’t matter practically, as they possess no faculties and the sacraments that they celebrate are at best illicit and in some cases invalid (marriage, for example). **
BTW, I still have yet to receive an adequate reply from anyone, religious or lay, regarding Catholic bishops “in full union with Rome” allowing (invalid) “Lutheran bishop ordinations” at Catholic shrines with their permission and attendance is ok, but consecration of bishops for the SSPX religious order is a no-no? I’ve asked the Orlando diocese and the Holy See about this via e-mail and I received no response to this date. “Double standard” comes to mind.

fbsynod.org/Web/OffBishop/InstallERB/Pictures.html

:hmmm:
Click to expand...
You keep beating two dead horses: the first is the SSPX’s status with the Church and the second is the use of the cathedral by Protestants. It’s a straw man argument to compare the two. The first is a question of disobedience by a man who agreed to submit and bend the knee, then welshed on the agreement and proceded to engage in an act that the Pope, the legitimate authority in this matter, said was schismatic (therefore it was. No one determines who is or is not in communion with the Holy See except the Pope). The second is the lawful use of a building by a group of people for a specific purpose. One assumes that they sought permission, ie, that they didn’t break in, “consecrate” or install their bishop, then run; that they sought permission from the proper authority; that permission from the proper authority was granted. We can deplore such goings on all we want (I happen to agree with you, I don’t think it was a good idea and I hope that at the very least the Blessed Sacrament was removed and reposed elsewhere), but if it was lawfully done, all we can do is encourage that it not be done again (we aren’t congregationalists, we are expected to obey the legitimate authority of the bishops and the priests they set over us). One was, presumably, a lawful, though certainly inadviseable, act. The other was overt disobdience in the face of the Holy Father’s efforts to make an accommodation to the very people who were disobeying him (there was an agreement, signed by the Archbishop, which he repudiated the next day). You cannot compare the two, unless you’re attempting to be inflammatory, which I strongly suspect, since you keep bringing it up. ONE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE OTHER!!!
 
40.png
EddieArent:
They said in E.D. that Archbishop Lefebvre excommunicated himself — though he didn’t. Also the E.D. document talks about “formal adhersion to the schism” yet this was not defined by the Holy Father. Judging by the Cardinals’ words in the article, non exists. Hard to be a part of a “formal schism” if a Cardinal that leads the commision says there is no “formal schism.”
Click to expand...
Perhaps you’re unfamiliar with the subjunctive tense, which, if the translation is correct, was used by His Eminence. “Even if there were no formal schism” speaks of something that may or may not be true. For the Cardinal to have declared no formal schism to exist he would have said “even if there was no formal schism” or, better yet, “even though there was no formal schism.”
 
Sit down folks, you’re all going to have heart attacks if you don’t!

Another interview;

as translated by a GTNGreg (indult) mail post (not biased)

“one cannot speak in precise, correct, terms,
that there is a schism… They are inside the church.”

Whoops!

qien.free.fr/20051113_hoyos.htm
 
Andreas Hofer:
Perhaps you’re unfamiliar with the subjunctive tense, which, if the translation is correct, was used by His Eminence. “Even if there were no formal schism” speaks of something that may or may not be true. For the Cardinal to have declared no formal schism to exist he would have said “even if there was no formal schism” or, better yet, “even though there was no formal schism.”
Click to expand...
And perhaps you’re wrong.
 
40.png
JKirkLVNV:
You keep beating two dead horses: the first is the SSPX’s status with the Church and the second is the use of the cathedral by Protestants. It’s a straw man argument to compare the two. The first is a question of disobedience by a man who agreed to submit and bend the knee, then welshed on the agreement and proceded to engage in an act that the Pope, the legitimate authority in this matter, said was schismatic (therefore it was. No one determines who is or is not in communion with the Holy See except the Pope). The second is the lawful use of a building by a group of people for a specific purpose. One assumes that they sought permission, ie, that they didn’t break in, “consecrate” or install their bishop, then run; that they sought permission from the proper authority; that permission from the proper authority was granted. We can deplore such goings on all we want (I happen to agree with you, I don’t think it was a good idea and I hope that at the very least the Blessed Sacrament was removed and reposed elsewhere), but if it was lawfully done, all we can do is encourage that it not be done again (we aren’t congregationalists, we are expected to obey the legitimate authority of the bishops and the priests they set over us). One was, presumably, a lawful, though certainly inadviseable, act. The other was overt disobdience in the face of the Holy Father’s efforts to make an accommodation to the very people who were disobeying him (there was an agreement, signed by the Archbishop, which he repudiated the next day). You cannot compare the two, unless you’re attempting to be inflammatory, which I strongly suspect, since you keep bringing it up. ONE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE OTHER!!!
Click to expand...
In other words, some “consecrations” are more equal than the other. Invalid Lutheran ordination and communion service (lay folks dressed up as clerics basically) = Ecumenical high five. Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop de Castro Mayer consectration = schismatic! Excommunicated! Burn them!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top