Good sermon (SSPX)

[pnewton]

The Teaching of Vatican II

Dignitatis Humanae:

I noticed you omitted the preface:

So while the religious freedom which men demand in fulfilling their obligation to worship God has to do with freedom from coercion in society, [this document] leaves intact the traditional Catholic teaching on the moral duty of individuals and societies toward the true religion and one Church of Christ"

Oh, and LeFevre signed this document.

This is precisely why we must have definitive authority. People go off in all directions trying to define this stuff for themselves. In a confusion far worse than the sola scriptura problems, this tendancy to navigate the myriad of Church Tradition **and **Scripture for oneself leads to an ease of succeptability to cults and schismatics.

These groups must be avoided. The Vatican has recently said the SSPX is an internal problem. Until they resolve their internal difficulties, this group is to be listened to with great caution and scepticism.

Here is a better link than the OP:

catholic.com/thisrock/2003/0304fea2.asp

 

[Like]

I noticed you omitted the preface:

Oh, and LeFevre signed this document.

This is precisely why we must have definitive authority. People go off in all directions trying to define this stuff for themselves. In a confusion far worse than the sola scriptura problems, this tendancy to navigate the myriad of Church Tradition **and **Scripture for oneself leads to an ease of succeptability to cults and schismatics.

These groups must be avoided. The Vatican has recently said the SSPX is an internal problem. Until they resolve their internal difficulties, this group is to be listened to with great caution and scepticism.

Here is a better link than the OP:

catholic.com/thisrock/2003/0304fea2.asp

pnewton, thanks for the link, I had never seen this before & having read it, it knocked me off the fence on to the side of the Vatican!

I mean, I was always on the side of the Vatican, but I was leaning toward the SSPX status of being in schism. Dose this make any sence?

 

[Joysong]

**Excellent link, Pnewton! **
Thank you so much. I’ll be adding this to my list of references.

What struck me was this report at the end of the document:

“You have intentionally misquoted me and even worse put words into my mouth . . . in support of your propagandistic assertions. . . . You have fabricated and falsified my remarks . . . [in] a shameful attempt to legitimize your claims. . . . I demand you withdraw this publication . . . [in which you leave] out the things I did say, but which you wish I had not said.” Fr. Murray is still waiting for satisfaction.

As the author of the article in This Rock noted, It Looks like a Duck and Quacks Like a Duck . . . the propagandists here who follow Lefebvre’s errors bear the same striking resemblance.

 

[pnewton]

**Excellent link, Pnewton! **
Thank you so much. I’ll be adding this to my list of references.

There are a ton of great resources here. I was given a gift of This Rock years ago and have since kept my subscription active and used it as a gift often.

 

[Ghoti]

All I can say is, I fervently hope and pray that the relationship between the SSPX and Rome is regularized, and that egos, hubris and desires for “vindication” (i.e. "we aren’t budging till you admit we were right!") do not trump the will of the Holy Spirit.

However “schismatic” Abp Lefebvre’s act may have been, Rome has said that SSPX are not in schism, only that their status is “irregular”. I pray that this is as bad as it gets – for there has already been true schism: groups like SSPV, splintered from SSPX, who have severed all ties to the Holy See. I am scared that we will see a twenty-first century equivalent of “Old Catholicism” that came in the wake of Vatican I.

Seems that it’s not just the Old Testament Israelites that were a “stiff-necked” people.

“If today you hear His voice, harden not your heart.”

Please pray for reconciliation and healing, no recrimination or blame. It can happen. Look what Peter did to Jesus three times before the cock crowed: but Jesus didn’t condemn him or remonstrate or even tell him “I told you so”, but welcomed him back with open arms.

Pray that the division between Rome and the SSPX is similarly quickly healed.

 

[Dempsey1919]

I am scared that we will see a twenty-first century equivalent of “Old Catholicism” that came in the wake of Vatican I.

Sadly, this is what I see happening with the SSPX unless Bishop Fellay humbles himself and accepts with obedience the truths taught in the documents of the Second Vatican Council.

 

[pnewton]

However “schismatic” Abp Lefebvre’s act may have been, Rome has said that SSPX are not in schism, only that their status is “irregular”.

I am sorry to ask this again, but does anyone have the link where the Holy Father or his designee has said that the SSPX are not in schism? I hope it exists, as it will put an end to the issue. I have yet to see anyone back this up with a direct, uninterpretted statement.

 

[Dempsey1919]

Furthermore, I am sure the Holy Father would welcome the SSPX back with open arms if Arcbishop Fellay humbled himself and renounced his claims that Vatican II taught heresy. The only thing that is preventing the SSPX from returning into full communion with the Roman Pontiff is pride.

 

[Timothysis]

I am sorry to ask this again, but does anyone have the link where the Holy Father or his designee has said that the SSPX are not in schism? I hope it exists, as it will put an end to the issue. I have yet to see anyone back this up with a direct, uninterpretted statement.

pnewton, the response that generally comes up to this question is a quote from Cardinal (I forget his name at the moment) who said in a casual interview in regards to certain groups that they are not in schism. Nowhere is there (at least I’ve never seen it) an official declaration by the Holy Father or his designee that “the sspx are or are NOT in schism.”

It is my personal belief that if all backs are pushed to the wall, especially considering the sspx’s refusal of Pope Benedicts very generous offer a few months ago, that an official statement will be made that the leaders and priest of the sspx are, indeed, in schism.

I also find it confusing when certain groups claim that Pope John Paul II’s excommunications of the leadership of the sspx are “not valid.” How is it that the Pope, as head of the Church, and the final authority of Canon Law unable to excommunicate someone in direct disobedience against him and Canon law? Especially when warned that their act was subject to excommunication and that their legal defense was not valid? If the Pope cannot validly excommunicate disobedience in accords with Canon law, then how is it that he can exercise his priestly duties validly? Is it possible that his absolution in confession is somehow possibly not valid, or even his consecration of the Eucharist? These are deep, troubling waters.

 

[Unitas]

I am sorry to ask this again, but does anyone have the link where the Holy Father or his designee has said that the SSPX are not in schism? I hope it exists, as it will put an end to the issue. I have yet to see anyone back this up with a direct, uninterpretted statement.

Can you prove you’re NOT a space alien?

Instead of proving a negative, how about someone prove where the Holy Father or his designee say that the SSPX is in schism. Sure, the founder and the four bishops were excommunicated. But they are five among thousands. They are not the entirety of the SSPX.

Cardinal Hoyos has said that this is an internal matter within the Church, not a matter of ecumenism. The Holy Father has said the same.

Good luck trying to find info to the contrary.

 

[pnewton]

Can you prove you’re NOT a space alien?

Can you twist statements? I never ask anyone to prove a negative, but a positive, if you reread what I said.

I did not ask for proof they are not in schsim, did I? Twice in the last week a poster has stated that Rome has declared they are not in schism. It is this positive statement that I am asking for.

I know that Cardinal Hoyos has said it was an internal matter. Healing a schism of this nature, in particular the dialogue between the two groups can easily be an internal matter and a matter of schism. That is why I am asking if an direct statement and not an interpretation. Quite frankly, I have found that the logic of the SSPX and their apologists have been often lacking. It takes little effort to see the flaws and unmentioned assumptions in their arguments.

 

[Dauphin]

I am sorry to ask this again, but does anyone have the link where the Holy Father or his designee has said that the SSPX are not in schism? I hope it exists, as it will put an end to the issue. I have yet to see anyone back this up with a direct, uninterpretted statement.

Here you are. Enjoy:

"PCED Confirms Officially: Society of St. Pius X within the Church, Not in Formal Schism; Catholics Commit No Sin nor Incur Any Canonical Penalty for Mass Attendance"

http://wdtprs.com/blog/2008/07/gues...cclesia-dei-about-sspx-schism-and-sacraments/

 

[SenorSalsa]

Here you are. Enjoy:

"PCED Confirms Officially: Society of St. Pius X within the Church, Not in Formal Schism; Catholics Commit No Sin nor Incur Any Canonical Penalty for Mass Attendance"

http://wdtprs.com/blog/2008/07/gues...cclesia-dei-about-sspx-schism-and-sacraments/

after reading the whole article, that title is extremely misleading, for in the article, among other things it says

t there has been no official declaration on the part of the Holy See that the Society of St. Pius X is in schism.

as Fr. Z points out, this could mean they or not in schism, or that they simply have not said yet. However, he does say it means we must assume they are not in schism, then again, the Cardinal does use the word schism pretty often in the letter

“the Pontifical Commission “Ecclesia Dei” cannot recommend that members of the faithful frequent their chapels for the reasons which we have outlined above.”

this seems pretty clear and against the title, which does quote a different part. They don’t incur penalty, but at the same time, they should not go

 

[Dauphin]

after reading the whole article, that title is extremely misleading, for in the article, among other things it says

as Fr. Z points out, this could mean they or not in schism, or that they simply have not said yet. However, he does say it means we must assume they are not in schism, then again, the Cardinal does use the word schism pretty often in the letter

It isn’t misleading at all. What if I were to accuse you of being in schism? How would you defend yourself? All you could say is that there has been no formal declaration of schism. The same is true of the SSPX - they’re not in formal schism, and no lay Catholic has the authority to declare that they are, so stop saying it.

 

[ProVobis]

We have never had a hint of unorthodoxy in the pulpit or any other ministry of the Church that I have heard of. I am tired of a literal “holier than thou” statements made by SSPX folk, or did anyone notice that he literally said his sect was holier that Catholics?

Nah. I’ve attended SSPX, Novus Ordo in many different languages, Indults, even events in non-Catholic Churches. I’ve never really encountered any unorthodox or “holier than thou” statements. If anything I’ve heard more about Hell at the SSPX Masses and some Indults, something I seldom heard at an OF liturgy.

So what’s with those Cowboys?

 

[Timothysis]

after reading the whole article, that title is extremely misleading, for in the article, among other things it says

as Fr. Z points out, this could mean they or not in schism, or that they simply have not said yet. However, he does say it means we must assume they are not in schism, then again, the Cardinal does use the word schism pretty often in the letter

this seems pretty clear and against the title, which does quote a different part. They don’t incur penalty, but at the same time, they should not go

I agree with SenorSalsa, that the title of the article is misleading. If you read the text with the commentary it would appear that it is not as cut and dry as you would make it out.

Also, I think it highly depends upon the fact that this was published before the sspx refused Pope Benedicts generous offer a few months ago. It may be that minds and attitudes at the Vatican have changed when the sspx thumbed their nose at the Pontiff’s offer.

 

[SenorSalsa]

It isn’t misleading at all. What if I were to accuse you of being in schism? How would you defend yourself? All you could say is that there has been no formal declaration of schism. The same is true of the SSPX - they’re not in formal schism, and no lay Catholic has the authority to declare that they are, so stop saying it.

hence my conclusion, from Fr. Z’s, that we must "assume that they are NOT in schism. However it has not been said either way, so the title “Confirms Officially” is slightly misleading. They simply confirmed that they have not been declared outside the Church, something obvious by looking at things. They did not confirm that they are inside the church.

In other words, they repudiated the negative, not confirmed the positive. Which are two very different things

 

[Dauphin]

I agree with SenorSalsa, that the title of the article is misleading. If you read the text with the commentary it would appear that it is not as cut and dry as you would make it out.

Also, I think it highly depends upon the fact that this was published before the sspx refused Pope Benedicts generous offer a few months ago. It may be that minds and attitudes at the Vatican have changed when the sspx thumbed their nose at the Pontiff’s offer.

I don’t think you’ve been keeping up with the situation. Cardinal Castrillon said he was “pleased” with the SSPX’s response, and the Pope is on the verge of rescinding the excommunications - or rather, declaring that they never happened.

 

[pnewton]

Here you are. Enjoy:

"PCED Confirms Officially: Society of St. Pius X within the Church, Not in Formal Schism; Catholics Commit No Sin nor Incur Any Canonical Penalty for Mass Attendance"

Excuse me if I do not follow blog links. However, I followed the links to the source. It was a lay man. All of this was provided by a layman who states he has a letter from teh PCED in answer to a specific question. Here is the link of the letter from EWTN

ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CEDSSPX2.HTM

It does not include the above sentence. Here are some excerpts from the real letter.

Thus far the Church has not officially declared what Constitutes “formal adherence to the schism” inaugurated by the late Archbishop Lefebvre (cf. Ecclesia Dei 5, c), but the Code of Canon Law defines schism as “refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him”

It is precisely because of this schismatic mentality that this Pontifical Commission has consistently discouraged the faithful from attending Masses celebrated under the aegis of the Society of St. Pius X.

While the priests of the Society of St. Pius X are validly ordained, they are also suspended a divinis, that is they are forbidden by the Church from celebrating the Mass and the sacraments because of their illicit (or illegal) ordination to the diaconate and the priesthood without proper incardination (cf. canon 265).

Mons. Lefebvre and the priests Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta, have incurred the grave penalty of excommunication envisaged by ecclesiastical law. (Cf. Code of Canon Law, can. 1382).

 

[Dauphin]

hence my conclusion, from Fr. Z’s, that we must "assume that they are NOT in schism. However it has not been said either way, so the title “Confirms Officially” is slightly misleading. They simply confirmed that they have not been declared outside the Church, something obvious by looking at things. They did not confirm that they are inside the church.

In other words, they repudiated the negative, not confirmed the positive. Which are two very different things

I’d like to take this opportunity to accuse you of being outside the Church.

Demonstrate otherwise.