Did Archbishop Mueller say that the SSPX is in schism?

[Cojuanco]

Not to mention the Pope Emeritus himself differentiated between liberation theology in the Marxist sense, which is of course condemned, and the same in the broader sense, which is not forbidden. Yet the popular press - especially in the United States - seems to conflate condemnation of one strain of liberation theology (which seems IIRC to eventually have been rejected even by Guiterrez at least) with condemnation of the whole.

 

[JReducation]

Not to mention the Pope Emeritus himself differentiated between liberation theology in the Marxist sense, which is of course condemned, and the same in the broader sense, which is not forbidden. Yet the popular press - especially in the United States - seems to conflate condemnation of one strain of liberation theology (which seems IIRC to eventually have been rejected even by Guiterrez at least) with condemnation of the whole.

You’re absolutely right.

I bet that if I gave a quiz on Machado, Gutierrez, Segundo, and Boff, most people on this forum would fail, because they don’t know what these men wrote. They have never laid on eyes on these books. They’re repeating what they hear.

When Pope John Paul and Cardinal Ratzinger wrote their criticisms, they had read these works and had sorted out the good from the bad. They condemned the bad and encouraged the good. Contrary to popular mythology, the word “condemnation” was never used by either man. They denounced Marxism. Obviously, they denounced any Marxist ideologies in the movement, but they did not denounce the good in the movement.

Bl. John Paul and Pope Emeritus actually use the language of the movement in some of their works on social doctrines. Pope Emeritus uses a lot of it in Caritas in Veritate and Bl. John Paul in Evangelium Vitae.

It’s very easy to tear down, but very hard to build up. We must be careful who and what we tear down. We may regret it and then won’t be able to rebuild it, especially when we’re speaking about an individual’s character.

 

[Aramis]

People often also overlook that many of the strongest critics of intellectuals are their own students, who know their work well enough to actually criticize it in detail. Albeit often for failing to convey what the elder actually believed.

This has been true in the sciences, humanities, and theology.

His Eminence is likely to be quite well aware of the flaws of the marxist influenced elements of Liberation Theology; the harshest critics of it I’ve seen have been Jesuits.

 

[commenter]

It’s not an issue of the Church caring what we think of Mueller;

it’s an issue of examining OBJECTIVE evidence about Mueller’s theological views and pondering why would Rome ignore the issue of someone who was trained under Gustavo Gutiérrez Merino, the “Father of Liberation Theology”.

If Rome were to tell me to stand on my head and sing Frère Jacques, I would obey
.
If Rome asks me to accept the doctrines and dogmas of the Church from it’s consistent 2,000 year history, I will gladly accept it.

It’s a bit disconcerting reading your text and finding out that you don’t see at least something unusual about Mueller.

Then-Pope Benedict found Mueller objective enough to appoint him to that position. In any event, the SSPX has criticized Pope Francis more than they criticized Abp Mueller, so it’s unlikely they would consider Pope Francis “objective” either, and he oversees the process.
Over the last 40 years there have been a few administrators of the CDF, and other relevant Vatican offices, from different continents, different kinds of theological education or emphases. Were they all biased?

This is the same process as the local level; the SSPX chapel agrees with the “office” of Bishop (but not the man who currently holds that office in our city). They regard his predecessors since 1972, who had backgrounds very different from each other, as also biased. The SSPX affirms the papacy - in theory - but regard Pope Francis’ teaching as reflecting only his opinion, not the Papacy, itself.

To paraphrase Chesterton, I don’t need a Church that’s right when I am right, I need a Church that’s right when I’m wrong. Maybe the solution is not waiting for a future, “objective” CDF administrator, or a future, “objective” pope, or bishop, or whatever. Maybe the solution is conversion, in the present. Some individuals have taken that step toward “regularization” already. The Church won’t be a perfect fit for them - it isn’t a perfect fit for anyone. It’s not supposed to be.

 

[RedCaves]

Then-Pope Benedict found Mueller objective enough to appoint him to that position. In any event, the SSPX has criticized Pope Francis more than they criticized Abp Mueller, so it’s unlikely they would consider Pope Francis “objective” either, and he oversees the process.
Over the last 40 years there have been a few administrators of the CDF, and other relevant Vatican offices, from different continents, different kinds of theological education or emphases. Were they all biased?

This is the same process as the local level; the SSPX chapel agrees with the “office” of Bishop (but not the man who currently holds that office in our city). They regard his predecessors since 1972, who had backgrounds very different from each other, as also biased. The SSPX affirms the papacy - in theory - but regard Pope Francis’ teaching as reflecting only his opinion, not the Papacy, itself.

To paraphrase Chesterton, I don’t need a Church that’s right when I am right, I need a Church that’s right when I’m wrong. Maybe the solution is not waiting for a future, “objective” CDF administrator, or a future, “objective” pope, or bishop, or whatever. Maybe the solution is conversion, in the present. Some individuals have taken that step toward “regularization” already. The Church won’t be a perfect fit for them - it isn’t a perfect fit for anyone. It’s not supposed to be.

I still find it to be a bizarre anomaly that Benedict XVI made Mueller into the Prefect of the CDF.
It’s as if he wanted someone in a high position of power to enjoy hating on the SSPX.

The only objective here is for all Catholics to conform to the rightful authority of the Church; an authority which has been consistent in doctrine, dogma, and in it’s mission to save souls for the past 2,000 years.

As for the issue of being biased, I’m not sure what you’re getting at here.

 

[Thomas_Casey]

MODERATOR NOTICE

One can disagree without being disagreeable. One can ask questions without attacking a person’s character. CAF is not to be used as the bully pulpit against the Holy See, this includes any of the Prefects. There are other places where this can be done without scandalizing others.

 

[Brendan_64]

The SSPX MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE VALID SACRAMENTS DEPENDING ON THE ESSENTIAL CONDITION OF DIRECT APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION;

BISHOPS AND PRIEST ORDAINED AFTER THE SCHISM ARE NOT VALID:thumbsup:

Actually they are valid. they may be illicit, but they are valid. So long as there is Apostolic Succession and the correct ordination or consecration rites are used then they are still valid.

 

[His_helpmeet]

Actually they are valid. they may be illicit, but they are valid. So long as there is Apostolic Succession and the correct ordination or consecration rites are used then they are still valid.

Depends on the sacraments in question. The Eucharist, for example, is valid but illicit because the liturgical powers of SSPX priests are suspended. I am not sure about their Baptisms, but I know that SSPX marriage ceremonies and confessions are invalid due to the priests’ liturgical powers being suspended.

 

[Brendan_64]

Depends on the sacraments in question. The Eucharist, for example, is valid but illicit because the liturgical powers of SSPX priests are suspended. I am not sure about their Baptisms, but I know that SSPX marriage ceremonies and confessions are invalid due to the priests’ liturgical powers being suspended.

Baptisms are certainly valid. In fact any baptised Christian can baptise someone so long as you baptise them in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. It is illicit, but it is valid. You don’t even need to be a priest in order to validly baptise someone. You or I could do it.

The SSPX priests cannot carry out valid marriages or confessions because the diocesan bishop hasn’t granted them faculties. This does not mean that SSPX priests and bishops are not valid priests and bishops, they are valid, just not licit, and their society has no canonical status.

 

[Cojuanco]

IIRC for baptism, even a pagan could do it and it would still be valid if the trinitarian formula is used, and there is intent to do what the Church does (see the story of St. Genesius, for example).

 

[JReducation]

The SSPX MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE VALID SACRAMENTS DEPENDING ON THE ESSENTIAL CONDITION OF DIRECT APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION;

BISHOPS AND PRIEST ORDAINED AFTER THE SCHISM ARE NOT VALID:thumbsup:

Whoahhh! Slow down.

Any cleric ordained by a validly ordained bishop is also validly ordained, even after a schism. Look at the Orthodox Churches. All of their deacons, priests and bishops are validly and licitly ordained to this day.

The SSPX clergy is illicitly ordained. In other words, illegally ordained, but ordained nonetheless.

Until recently, the Holy See never used the term schism. It referred to Archbishop Lebebvre’s actions as schismatic, not the person. There does not seem to be a change in the mind of the Holy See. Their behavior continues to be seen as schismatic, but not the individuals.

In law, these are big differences. An individual can engage in schismatic behavior without being a schismatic himself. The individual must meet certain criteria to be considered a schismatic, unless the pope changes the criteria. The pope can only change the criteria within reason. Law is based on reason.

 

[commenter]

…The only objective here is for all Catholics to conform to the rightful authority of the Church; an authority which has been consistent in doctrine, dogma, and in it’s mission to save souls for the past 2,000 years…
.

The problem is Who decides which expression of Catholic authority is “rightful”? Websites say obey the pope only when he speaks the truth. How do you know which part of what he says is “true”, or guided by God, as opposed to just his opinion? Traditionalist websites will tell you that. How do you know the websites are right? The websites say they draw the thread of 2000 years of Catholic tradition. They - the websites - judge, when the Pope and bishops are consistent with the truth.

Problems:

1. Traditionalist websites contradict each other. They also shift over time.
2. There are thousands of papal and other authoritative documents, often written in response to a specific situation. You can prove almost any point of view - even contradictory views - by picking a few sentences here and there, and ignoring the other 99%.
3. Traditionalist websites often quote (very selectively) some pope from the past to justify ignoring a pope in the present. But those same authoritative popes in the past also specifically emphasized the authority of the living magisterium, both explicitly in their teaching and implicitly by their actions. In other words, we heed Pope Francis because of Pope Pius X. If we discount Pope Paul VI, we also discount Pope Pius XII.
4. If the pope and bishops are authoritative only when they agree with me, where is the lead for my conversion? If they are only true when they tell me what I already know, why have popes and bishops at all? (This also would make meaningless the teaching of past popes).
5. Traditionalist websites try to appear fair - “let’s keep an open mind about this, this new church statement needs to be seen as culture-bound, doesn’t refute this earlier canon which is authoritative forever; the SSPX isn’t perfect but neither is the Vatican (the truth is somewhere between), the matter is still unsettled, a future pope may see this more objectively - and WE will let you know when the pope’s statements are authoritative, and when it is his own opinion.” But if the saints all submitted to the living Magisterium of the Church, why would you trust websites that do not? Is it really “fair” to omit an obedience the saints thought important?

 

[TimothyH]

Everyone is talking about validity of the sacraments and whether they are licit or not. Whether we partake in those sacraments is not just a matter of the sacraments being valid and/or licit in-and-of themselves.

As has been pointed out on these threads before, when one knows that a priest does not have faculties to administer the sacraments but goes to that priest for the sacraments anyway, one is engaging in an act of disobedience to the legitimate authority of the Church. There is a problem here. If the Church says that Father Smith is suspended and there are other priests in good standing nearby and available, but we go to Father Smith with full knowledge that he is suspended then there is a problem.

Would we knowingly use an attorney who has been disbarred? Would we knowingly go to a medical doctor who has had his license to practice medicine revoked? If the answer to these questions is no then one has to ask why anyone would gamble with something as important as the salvation of our soul.

-Tim-

 

[ProVobis]

As has been pointed out on these threads before, when one knows that a priest does not have faculties to administer the sacraments but goes to that priest for the sacraments anyway, one is engaging in an act of disobedience to the legitimate authority of the Church. There is a problem here. If the Church says that Father Smith is suspended and there are other priests in good standing nearby and available, but we go to Father Smith with full knowledge that he is suspended then there is a problem.

Yes, but it doesn’t mean the faithful shouldn’t or can’t get involved. We had a priest here who was under suspension but with enough help and letters and phone calls from his parishioners, the Cardinal removed his suspension. Or at least publically.

 

[Elizium23]

If the only people willing to go to SSPX Masses are those willing to be disobedient or cooperate with schism, then we have a problem too, where the division will just widen and anti-Rome sentiments will increase in an echo chamber. The more faithful Catholics who are willing to go and share their faith with SSPX, and impress them about the values of obedience and unity, and discourage a schismatic mindset, the more likely it is that reunion will occur. It seems to me that if the SSPX hierarchy sees their flock disillusioned with Rome, and content to seek refuge away from priests, bishops and parishes of the Latin Church celebrating the Ordinary Form, the more the SSPX will be willing to speak out against unity, and the more insular those communities will become, and the more distrustful they will grow of ordinary Catholics, and the worse it will become for an “us and them” mentality.

 

[Brendan_64]

IIRC for baptism, even a pagan could do it and it would still be valid if the trinitarian formula is used, and there is intent to do what the Church does (see the story of St. Genesius, for example).

Now I never knew that. I always thought it had to be a baptised Christian doing the baptising.

Does that then mean that a person could baptise himself so long as he used the trinitarian formula and had intent to do what the Church does?

 

[Denise1957]

If the only people willing to go to SSPX Masses are those willing to be disobedient or cooperate with schism, then we have a problem too, where the division will just widen and anti-Rome sentiments will increase in an echo chamber. The more faithful Catholics who are willing to go and share their faith with SSPX, and impress them about the values of obedience and unity, and discourage a schismatic mindset, the more likely it is that reunion will occur. It seems to me that if the SSPX hierarchy sees their flock disillusioned with Rome, and content to seek refuge away from priests, bishops and parishes of the Latin Church celebrating the Ordinary Form, the more the SSPX will be willing to speak out against unity, and the more insular those communities will become, and the more distrustful they will grow of ordinary Catholics, and the worse it will become for an “us and them” mentality.

But speaking to SSPX adherents about the values of obedience and unity will be of no use unless the underlying issues are dealt with, which are complicated to say the least.

When I attended an SSPX chapel, there were indeed some there who held a schismatic mentality. But there were even more who did not, and they never said anything negative about the Pope or hierarchy - really they just wanted to practice their faith as their Catholic ancestors had always done - and as it was practiced before the Council.

Also, in the three years that I attended, not even one of the priests there said anything negative or critical about the Pope. And there was a very nice photo of Pope Benedict hanging in a prominent place at the chapel. Of course the leadership of the SSPX do say negative things about the Pope - but on the local level, they do not, in my experience. Other adherents of the SSPX, or former adherents, may have a different experience.

 

[Aramis]

Now I never knew that. I always thought it had to be a baptised Christian doing the baptising.

Does that then mean that a person could baptise himself so long as he used the trinitarian formula and had intent to do what the Church does?

No, because the person has to be immersed by another.

The Byzantine form of the prayer of baptism is “The Servant of God N. is baptized by my hands in the Name of the Father… and of the Son… and of the Holy Spirit.” And during each of the parts of the trinitarian invocation, the individual is dunked and brought back above the surface.

In the traditional immersion mode in the west, as well, the individual being baptized is submerged by the minister during the invocation of the Trinity.

Even Jesus was baptized by St. John.

 

[TimothyH]

But speaking to SSPX adherents about the values of obedience and unity will be of no use unless the underlying issues are dealt with, which are complicated to say the least.

When I attended an SSPX chapel, there were indeed some there who held a schismatic mentality. But there were even more who did not, and they never said anything negative about the Pope or hierarchy - really they just wanted to practice their faith as their Catholic ancestors had always done - and as it was practiced before the Council.

Also, in the three years that I attended, not even one of the priests there said anything negative or critical about the Pope. And there was a very nice photo of Pope Benedict hanging in a prominent place at the chapel. Of course the leadership of the SSPX do say negative things about the Pope - but on the local level, they do not, in my experience. Other adherents of the SSPX, or former adherents, may have a different experience.

For a Catholic in the pew, whether the priest says anything bad about the Pope or the Church has nothing to do with it.

The priests are suspended. The Church has said that they have no no faculties to perform their ministry. For a Catholic in the pew to know this and receive the sacraments from that priest anyway, when another priest who is not suspended is available, is an act of disobedience to the Church.

One cannot say that he is a child of the Church, that he supports the Church, that he recognizes the Pope, that he supports his bishop, and that the Church is the legitimate authority of Christ on earth and then turn around and knowingly receive the sacraments from a priest whom the Church has said may not celebrate the sacraments licitly. There is dichotomy there.

Such a person says they support the Church with their mouth but does not support the Church with their actions.

-Tim-

 

[Brendan_64]

No, because the person has to be immersed by another.

A person doesn’t have to be immersed to be baptised (even if our separated brethren in the Baptist communities disagree). A person could quite easily pour water on himself.