Ecumenitis

[RobedWithLight]

Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos, President of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, does not obviously agree with you:

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

Source: 30giorni.it/us/articolo_stampa.asp?id=9360

And it would appear that Rev. Msgr. Camille Perl, Secretary of the Ecclesia Dei Commission, does not obviously agree with you as well:

‘On the argument presented (that you regularly attend Sunday Mass at a chapel of the Fraternity Saint Pius X) one cannot say but this: the faithful who attend the Masses of the aforesaid Fraternity are not excommunicates, and the priests who celebrate them are not, either – the latter are, in fact, suspended. Which is why it would be difficult to explain this exclusion by this sole motive, at a time in which the reintegration of this Fraternity to the full communion of the Church is sought.’
Source: rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2006/03/ecclesia-dei-sspx-priests-and-faithful.html

Imperfect communion is not schism. People need to stop taking upon themselves a power reserved to the Church, namely declaring a group of people in schism. The eagerness some have to separate certain folks from the Mystical Body is unseemly at best and sinful at worst.

Indeed. A newspaper interview does not agree with an official document of the Church, as though a newspaper is on the same level of authority as an Apostolic Letter, or any papal decree. Nice attempt though, but unfortunately it falls much too short. Newspaper interviews, please be reminded are not on the same level as an official Vatican document.

Secondly, the two documents I quoted clearly states that certain people (Lefebvre et al…) are indeed engaged in schism. Those were Gantin’s and the Pope’s words, not mine. Either Cardinal Gantin and Pope John Paul II is wrong, or you are.

And as Kirk stated clearly above, the Pope, not a single Cardinal speaks for the Church, and states who is in schism and who isn’t. I’ll take John Paul’s words over any Cardinal’s ( or yours)any time.

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

Those born into schismatical or heretical groups are not in the same situation as those who actually commit the sin of separation. For example, both the Chinese state church and the SSPX are called schismatical (both groups ordinations of bishops without approval of the Holy See were deemed acts of schism). If the SSPX and the Chinese state church are still separated a couple centuries from now, they will be treated the same way as other communitites that have their roots in more ancient schisms.

Then of course if the Chinese government fell then the members of the Chinese State Church would rejoin the real church like a shot. It is possible to have deep sympathy with someone who misses Mass through fear, and if it was just an individual case we would probably make an exception for it. However to do so would be to grant every dictatorship going the right to appoint bishops, and that is something that the whole cannot accept.
SSPX on the other hand have persuaded themselves that they know the direction in which to take the Church, and if the Pope doesn’t agree, then the see of Peter must be vacant.

 

[Genesis315]

Then of course if the Chinese government fell then the members of the Chinese State Church would rejoin the real church like a shot. It is possible to have deep sympathy with someone who misses Mass through fear, and if it was just an individual case we would probably make an exception for it. However to do so would be to grant every dictatorship going the right to appoint bishops, and that is something that the whole cannot accept.
SSPX on the other hand have persuaded themselves that they know the direction in which to take the Church, and if the Pope doesn’t agree, then the see of Peter must be vacant.

Your point is well taken and I generally agree, but attending the liturgy of a group not in communion with Rome rather than a Mass that fulfills the Sunday obligation would be a sin, but not one that automatically separates oneself from the Body (in contrast to ordaining bishops against the order of the Apostolic See.)

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Then of course if the Chinese government fell then the members of the Chinese State Church would rejoin the real church like a shot. It is possible to have deep sympathy with someone who misses Mass through fear, and if it was just an individual case we would probably make an exception for it. However to do so would be to grant every dictatorship going the right to appoint bishops, and that is something that the whole cannot accept.
SSPX on the other hand have persuaded themselves that they know the direction in which to take the Church, and if the Pope doesn’t agree, then the see of Peter must be vacant.

I also think your point is well taken and I am hardly a fan of the SSPX, but they aren’t sedevacantists, they do believe that there is a valid pope, they just disobey him (in essence).

 

[bear06]

I also think your point is well taken and I am hardly a fan of the SSPX, but they aren’t sedevacantists, they do believe that there is a valid pope, they just disobey him (in essence).

Actually Kirk, I think this explains the SSPX very well. I consider the SSPX position to be intellectually dishonest. The sedes are wrong but they admit to their position.

freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1496522/posts

 

[BobP123]

Your point is well taken and I generally agree, but attending the liturgy of a group not in communion with Rome rather than a Mass that fulfills the Sunday obligation would be a sin, but not one that automatically separates oneself from the Body (in contrast to ordaining bishops against the order of the Apostolic See.)

Can. 844 §2 Whenever necessity requires or a genuine spiritual advantage commends it, and provided the danger of error or indifferentism is avoided, Christ’s faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a catholic minister, may lawfully receive the sacraments of penance, the Eucharist and anointing of the sick from non-catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid.

Can. 1248 §1 The obligation of assisting at Mass is satisfied wherever Mass is celebrated in a catholic rite either on a holyday itself or on the evening of the previous day.

says nothing about full communion with Rome being required.

 

[m134e5]

How come some people do not hesitate to call SSPXers schismatics, all the while they wouldn’t ever use the term for the Orthodox schismatics nor ever use the term heretics for the Protestants?
Political correctness has gone too far even in Holy Church, according to me, and I’m not a SSPXer.

Could they still be termed heretics and schismatics and also our separated brothers?

Protestants don’t say their Church is the true Roman Catholic Church. Schismatics are more dangerous- because they look Catholic, and for those whose only experience of Catholicism is from reading old books and watching old movies about it, the SSPX and other schismatic Latin groups look just fine. I am more opposed to them than I am to protestants because it is more dangerous when you are right on when it comes to most of your theology (except there often is NO concept of charity!), and your spirituality are ligitimate (unless the extent of your “spirituality” can be perfectly articulated in the Baltimore Catechism and the 1962- or earlier- Missal).

 

[BobP123]

Protestants don’t say their Church is the true Roman Catholic Church.

No, but none of them tell anyone their sacraments aren’t valid either. Nor of their non-fulfillment of the Sabbath obligation.

Schismatics are more dangerous- because they look Catholic, and for those whose only experience of Catholicism is from reading old books and watching old movies about it, the SSPX and other schismatic Latin groups look just fine.

How about those parishes that DON’T look Catholic?

I am more opposed to them than I am to protestants because it is more dangerous when you are right on when it comes to most of your theology (except there often is NO concept of charity!), and your spirituality are ligitimate (unless the extent of your “spirituality” can be perfectly articulated in the Baltimore Catechism and the 1962- or earlier- Missal).

De gustibus non est disputandum to whatever you just said here.

PS. A NO concept of charity? Can be taken in a couple of ways, you know.

 

[RobedWithLight]

Protestants don’t say their Church is the true Roman Catholic Church. Schismatics are more dangerous- because they look Catholic, and for those whose only experience of Catholicism is from reading old books and watching old movies about it, the SSPX and other schismatic Latin groups look just fine. I am more opposed to them than I am to protestants because it is more dangerous when you are right on when it comes to most of your theology (except there often is NO concept of charity!), and your spirituality are ligitimate (unless the extent of your “spirituality” can be perfectly articulated in the Baltimore Catechism and the 1962- or earlier- Missal).

I am bothered and feel sad expecially in the case of converts from Protestantism and other religions. To be perfectly honest, these new converts to Catholicism are especially vulnerable to schismatic propaganda because most of them are not aware or have little knowledge of the presence as well as agendas of these dissenters, who seemingly act and speak like Catholics from some vintage 1940s movie, and yet has practically made dissent, sarcasm and cynicism with regards everything that Rome says and does, a disturbing matter of habit.

 

[KMXV]

The laity may or may not be in schism (they are warned against it by the late Holy Father of happy memory, Pope John Paul II), but the bishops are excommunicated and the priests are suspended *ad divinis, *utterly without faculties. The faithful are warned against “imbibing” a spirit of schism by participating in their services. No one is taking upon themselves a power reserved to the Church. They’re simply repeating what that authoritative Church has said.

And one Pope trumps an entire handful of cardinals. *Ecclesia Dei *is still in effect.

I attended a Requim Mass for a dear friend’s mother recently at an SSPX chapel. Didn’t imbibe anything, I’ll have you know.

Funny, but I don’t feel schismatic.

Quo Primum is still in effect. Ohhhh…that one’s gotta hurt, huh?

 

[KMXV]

Indeed. A newspaper interview does not agree with an official document of the Church, as though a newspaper is on the same level of authority as an Apostolic Letter, or any papal decree. Nice attempt though, but unfortunately it falls much too short. Newspaper interviews, please be reminded are not on the same level as an official Vatican document.

Secondly, the two documents I quoted clearly states that certain people (Lefebvre et al…) are indeed engaged in schism. Those were Gantin’s and the Pope’s words, not mine. Either Cardinal Gantin and Pope John Paul II is wrong, or you are.

And as Kirk stated clearly above, the Pope, not a single Cardinal speaks for the Church, and states who is in schism and who isn’t. I’ll take John Paul’s words over any Cardinal’s ( or yours)any time.

Ah, yes. Now I see. The two clearly sourced documents I provided are to be dismissed out of hand. Meanwhile, the two unsourced fabrications you base your house of straw on are to be taken as Gospel truth. Neat how that works out.

And if Pope John Paul II actually said what you claim he said, a dubious suposition at best, it is irrelevant. Try providing a sourced quote from the current occupant of the Chair of Peter declaring the SSPX in schism. Because, as people like you are so fond of pointing out, a pope cannot bind his successors on disciplinary matters, now can he? For those of you playing along at home, the answer is no, indeed he cannot.

Nice attempt though, but unfortunately it falls much too short…

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I attended a Requim Mass for a dear friend’s mother recently at an SSPX chapel. Didn’t imbibe anything, I’ll have you know.

Funny, but I don’t feel schismatic.

Quo Primum is still in effect. Ohhhh…that one’s gotta hurt, huh?

Not in the least. And I see no problem in attending a Requiem Mass for the departed. I would no more question that than going to a wedding or a funeral.

And no…nothing hurts, save the division in the Body of Christ. The bishops in the SSPX are excommunicated, the priests are suspended ad divinis and have no faculties, and the laity are warned against the dangers of schism. These are simple facts.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Ah, yes. Now I see. The two clearly sourced documents I provided are to be dismissed out of hand. Meanwhile, the two unsourced fabrications you base your house of straw on are to be taken as Gospel truth. Neat how that works out.

And if Pope John Paul II actually said what you claim he said, a dubious suposition at best, it is irrelevant. Try providing a sourced quote from the current occupant of the Chair of Peter declaring the SSPX in schism. Because, as people like you are so fond of pointing out, a pope cannot bind his successors on disciplinary matters, now can he? For those of you playing along at home, the answer is no, indeed he cannot.

Ecclesia Dei is very admirably sourced (the Vicar of Christ on earth). Unless Pope Benedict has “rescinded” it, it is also still in effect. Can you source anything in the Acts of the Holy Apostolic See for any year since Pope Benedict’s accession that demonstrate that Ecclesia Dei has been abrogated?

 

[KMXV]

Not in the least. And I see no problem in attending a Requiem Mass for the departed. I would no more question that than going to a wedding or a funeral.

And no…nothing hurts, save the division in the Body of Christ. The bishops in the SSPX are excommunicated, the priests are suspended ad divinis and have no faculties, and the laity are warned against the dangers of schism. These are simple facts.

none of which i dispute.

nevertheless, all of these facts do not mean that the sspx are in schism.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

none of which i dispute.

nevertheless, all of these facts do not mean that the sspx are in schism.

Excommunicate.

Suspended ad divinis.

No faculties.

Faithful warned against consorting with them.

I can see why you have such a rosy outlook.

 

[KMXV]

Ecclesia Dei is very admirably sourced (the Vicar of Christ on earth). Unless Pope Benedict has “rescinded” it, it is also still in effect. Can you source anything in the Acts of the Holy Apostolic See for any year since Pope Benedict’s accession that demonstrate that Ecclesia Dei has been abrogated?

Linky. Me needs a linky.

Provide your source that Quo Primum was abrogated. Vague mutterings about “all things to the contrary notwithstanding” don’t count.

Which brings us back to the “not binding successors” conundrum. What’s a confused Catholic to do? Keep trolling internet message boards, I suppose.

What’s that smell? Smells like…abrogation. In due season.

Patience young jedi. Patience.

 

[KMXV]

Excommunicate.

Suspended ad divinis.

No faculties.

Faithful warned against consorting with them.

I can see why you have such a rosy outlook.

Listen, Vegas. They’re not the spawn of satan. You won’t get a dread disease by attending Mass at their chapels. Their men probably put their pants on one leg at a time, just like me and, presumably, you.

Do you sit around the campfire telling your kids spooky stories about how the SSPX are gonna get 'em if they don’t eat their vegetables? Really. I’m more concerned about folks that would like to saw our heads off for practicing the Faith. No head sawers in the SSPX last time I checked.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Linky. Me needs a linky.

Provide your source that Quo Primum was abrogated. Vague mutterings about “all things to the contrary notwithstanding” don’t count.

Which brings us back to the “not binding successors” conundrum. What’s a confused Catholic to do? Keep trolling internet message boards, I suppose.

What’s that smell? Smells like…abrogation. In due season.

Patience young jedi. Patience.

Searchy fora for linky.

Quo Primum has nothing to do with it. The Pope, the Supreme Legislator, the final interpreter of Canon Law, declared that the Arch and the Fab Four had excommunicated themselves latae sentia. Even if priests enjoy the right to say the Pian Mass forever, bishops don’t have the right to consecrate other bishops without reference to the Holy See.

The confused Catholic shouldn’t further confuse themselves by listening to or reading radical traditionalist rubbish, or by taking a newspaper interview to be of the same authoritative class as papal edict. Honestly, you don’t see the rest of us falling over in a swoon when Cardinal Kasper gives vent to his latest enthusiasm.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Listen, Vegas. They’re not the spawn of satan. You won’t get a dread disease by attending Mass at their chapels. Their men probably put their pants on one leg at a time, just like me and, presumably, you. **Never said they did. Never said an ill word about the attendees at the chapels. Only stated objective facts, as per the Holy See and the authority of the Church (to whom all confused Catholics should look when they’re confused). **

Do you sit around the campfire telling your kids spooky stories about how the SSPX are gonna get 'em if they don’t eat their vegetables? Really. I’m more concerned about folks that would like to saw our heads off for practicing the Faith. No head sawers in the SSPX last time I checked.

The SSPX don’t loom large in my life. Listen, when confronted with a pig, I’m not going to call it a cow, no matter how much anyone, good hearted intentions and all, attempts to convince me that it’s a chicken. It’s patently a pig. I don’t mind it being a pig, I figure it needs to work it’s pigness out itself, it’s none of my business that it’s a pig, if you will. I’m just not going to say, "Yes, indeed, that’s a fine cow."

 

[RobedWithLight]

Ah, yes. Now I see. The two clearly sourced documents I provided are to be dismissed out of hand. Meanwhile, **the two unsourced fabrications **you base your house of straw on are to be taken as Gospel truth. Neat how that works out.

And if Pope John Paul II actually said what you claim he said, a dubious suposition at best, it is irrelevant. Try providing a sourced quote from the current occupant of the Chair of Peter declaring the SSPX in schism. Because, as people like you are so fond of pointing out, a pope cannot bind his successors on disciplinary matters, now can he? For those of you playing along at home, the answer is no, indeed he cannot.

Nice attempt though, but unfortunately it falls much too short…

Are you implying Ecclesia Dei is a sheer fabrication and the quote as unsourced?

Let me repost it here in case you didn’t get the point. You can always read the full text from the official Vatican Website.

APOSTOLIC LETTER
“ECCLESIA DEI”
OF THE SUPREME PONTIFF
JOHN PAUL II
GIVEN MOTU PROPRIO

1. **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”.(5)

But especially contradictory is a notion of Tradition which opposes the universal Magisterium of the Church possessed by the Bishop of Rome and the Body of Bishops. It is impossible to remain faithful to the Tradition while breaking the ecclesial bond with him to whom, in the person of the Apostle Peter, Christ himself entrusted the ministry of unity in his Church.(6)

Unsourced ?

The Decree of excommunication is a matter of public record but quoting it here would exceed the post limitations on number of characters / post.

Now, are you still saying that the John Paul II quote on the official Vatican site is still a “dubious supposition at best”??? If this still doesn’t convince you, then you will never get convinced by anything.

Second, you are correct in saying that a Pope cannot bind his successors on matters of discipline. Now, unless you can likewise prove that Benedict XVI categorically contradicted John Paul II on this matter, then your point is likewise irrelevant. John Paul’s remark is still valid.