JP II Society Pius X

[terillmorris]

I dont see how one can a rgue that the Society of Piux X is united with the Church. The Pope clearly said Lefebvre’s act was a schismatic one. The Pope further said that anyone who is connected to his group also is excommunicated. I dont think it gets any clearer then that.
John Paul II,

“c) In the present circumstances I wish especially to make an appeal both solemn and heartfelt, paternal and fraternal, to all those who until now have been linked in various ways to the movement of Archbishop Lefebvre, that they may fulfil the grave duty of remaining united to the Vicar of Christ in the unity of the Catholic Church, and of ceasing their support in any way for that movement. Everyone should be aware that formal adherence to the schism is a grave offence against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church’s law.(8)”

Ecclesia Dei 1988

 

[SemperFidelis]

I dont see how one can a rgue that the Society of Piux X is united with the Church.

And I don’t see how anyone could say that they’re not.

The Pope clearly said Lefebvre’s act was a schismatic one.

That doesn’t necessarily make it so. Say real quickly: “state of necessity, state of necessity, state of necessity.” An excommunication can be unjust even when done by a Pope. Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX were doing nothing wrong. They, when most Catholics didn’t, held to all of the Dogmas and teachings of the Church and were treated like second-class citizens and outcasts for it. They wanted to celebrate a Mass that has been around for over a millenium, and one that cannot lawfully be revoked, even by the Supreme Pontiff. And for this they were excommunicated? They were unjustly suppressed, and only for holding the Catholic Faith of all time! They needed Bishops to survive, to continue their work, and fight the crisis that has consumned Rome all the way up to the Pope himself. Does false ecumenism, religious liberty, collegiality, modernism, liberalism, etc. ring any bells? I politely ask that you pull your head out the sand. I posted this in another thread and feel that it fits with this one quite well too:

SemperFidelis:

The fact that the parish down the street (where they have heretical RCIA classes and a Mass that almost no Saint would recognize) is in full communion, but the SSPX is “not” results in some kind of bizzaro world, and it’s making my head spin.

You could insert many things where “parish” is: Cardinal Kasper, Cardinal Mahoney, Fr. McBrien, etc. etc. etc.

Oh yeah, but the SSPX “is in schism”…Right.

 

[terillmorris]

And I don’t see how anyone could say that they’re not.

That doesn’t necessarily make it so. Say real quickly: “state of necessity, state of necessity, state of necessity.” An excommunication can be unjust even when done by a Pope. Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX were doing nothing wrong. They, when most Catholics didn’t, held to all of the Dogmas and teachings of the Church and were treated like second-class citizens and outcasts for it. They wanted to celebrate a Mass that has been around for over a millenium, and one that cannot lawfully be revoked, even by the Supreme Pontiff. And for this they were excommunicated? They were unjustly suppressed, and only for holding the Catholic Faith of all time! They needed Bishops to survive, to continue their work, and fight the crisis that has consumned Rome all the way up to the Pope himself. Does false ecumenism, religious liberty, collegiality, modernism, liberalism, etc. ring any bells? I politely ask that you pull your head out the sand. I posted this in another thread and feel that it fits with this one quite well too:

You could insert many things where “parish” is: Cardinal Kasper, Cardinal Mahoney, Fr. McBrien, etc. etc. etc.

Oh yeah, but the SSPX “is in schism”…Right.

Semper you seem off base to me. The Pope exccomunicated the Archbishop for his lack of obedience. The Archbishop was told not to do it, but did it anyway. You cant disobey the Pope and then claim you did it because you deemed “a state of emergencey in the Church.” That is crazy. I mean that would open a whole bunch of people to do the same thing. It isnt a “state of emergency” simply because Lefebvre said it was. You may not like what the Pope is doing, but you cant disobey him just because, in your opinion, it is necessary.

 

[SemperFidelis]

The Pope exccomunicated the Archbishop for his lack of obedience.

Obedience to the Faith trumps that of obedience to the Pope. Normally both are on the same page. However, that hasn’t always been the case since Vatican II.

You cant disobey the Pope and then claim you did it because you deemed “a state of emergencey in the Church.” That is crazy.

No that is simple Canon Law.

It isnt a “state of emergency” simply because Lefebvre said it was.

Your completely right. It was a state of emergency because the Pope was acting contrary to the Church’s teachings on false ecumenism, religious liberty, etc. The fact that Archbishop Lefebvre recognized it and decided he had to do something about it doesn’t mean he can be lawfully excommunicated.

You may not like what the Pope is doing, but you cant disobey him just because, in your opinion, it is necessary.

Read all of post #59 on this link:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=224170&page=4&highlight=St.+Vincent

 

[stmaria]

Semper you seem off base to me. The Pope exccomunicated the Archbishop for his lack of obedience. The Archbishop was told not to do it, but did it anyway.

You cant disobey the Pope and then claim you did it because you deemed “a state of emergencey in the Church.” That is crazy. I mean that would open a whole bunch of people to do the same thing. It isnt a “state of emergency” simply because Lefebvre said it was

The Archbishop used Can. 1323 and 1324 to justify his actions. This law is there for a reason. If Archbishop Lefebvre could not use this law then who ever could?

Can. 1323 The following are not subject to a penalty when they have violated a law or precept:
/ a person who acted coerced by grave fear, even if only relatively grave, or due to necessity or grave inconvenience unless the act is intrinsically evil or tends to the harm of souls;

Can. 1324 §1. The perpetrator of a violation is not exempt from a penalty, **but the penalty established by law or precept must be tempered **or a penance employed in its place if the delict was committed:
/ by a person who was coerced by grave fear, even if only relatively grave, or due to necessity or grave inconvenience if the delict is intrinsically evil or tends to the harm of souls;

 

[terillmorris]

The Archbishop used Can. 1323 and 1324 to justify his actions. This law is there for a reason. If Archbishop Lefebvre could not use this law then who ever could?

Can. 1323 The following are not subject to a penalty when they have violated a law or precept:
/ a person who acted coerced by grave fear, even if only relatively grave, or due to necessity or grave inconvenience unless the act is intrinsically evil or tends to the harm of souls;

Can. 1324 §1. The perpetrator of a violation is not exempt from a penalty, **but the penalty established by law or precept must be tempered **or a penance employed in its place if the delict was committed:
/ by a person who was coerced by grave fear, even if only relatively grave, or due to necessity or grave inconvenience if the delict is intrinsically evil or tends to the harm of souls;

you have got to be kidding me??? The Archbishop decides it is a grave necessity so he can disobey the Pope? Man you guys are lost.

 

[terillmorris]

Also the Pope, the vicar of Christ, disagrees with you. I think Ill go with Christ’s Vicar. It is a shame the Archbishop showed his true colors and didnt obey the Holy Father. He was a liberal at heart i guees.

 

[SemperFidelis]

The Archbishop decides it is a grave necessity so he can disobey the Pope?

Nope. Pope John Paul II caused the case of grave necessity by going against several teachings of the Church. Archbishop Lefebvre just had the knowledge to recognize it. He objectively had Tradition on his side. I’ll ask you a simple question. Who do you think held the correct stance on ecumenism (according to the constant teachings of the Church Magisterium)–Archbishop Lefebvre or John Paul II?

Besides that, did you read my previous post and the link I gave you?

Man you guys are lost.

Me thinks it is the other way around…

 

[SemperFidelis]

Also the Pope, the vicar of Christ, disagrees with you.

And the Pope is always right? That is extending Papal Infallibility way beyond what it is defined as. What would you do if a Pope told you that is was required for Catholics to go to a synagogue or mosque once a year so that we can better understand our “seperated bretheren” or said it was okay that protestants openly receive Our Lord at Mass?

It is a shame the Archbishop showed his true colors and didnt obey the Holy Father.

I think you need to read and understand the notions of true and false obedience as expounded upon by St. Thomas Aquinas in the Summa AND READ THE QUOTES IN THE LINK I POSTED.

He was a liberal at heart i guees.

Wrong again. This is called slander by the way.

 

[terillmorris]

And the Pope is always right? That is extending Papal Infallibility way beyond what it is defined as. What would you do if a Pope told you that is was required for Catholics to go to a synagogue or mosque once a year so that we can better understand our “seperated bretheren” or said it was okay that protestants openly receive Our Lord at Mass?

I think you need to read and understand the notions of true and false obedience as expounded upon by St. Thomas Aquinas in the Summa AND READ THE QUOTES IN THE LINK I POSTED.

John Paul never went against any teaching of the Church. Sorry you cant defend the Archbishop for his blatant disobiedence. Your defense is laughable. “The Church was in an emergency because I say it is. Therefore Lefebvre can consecrate Bishops even though the Vicar of Christ says to wait .” Good One!!!
Wrong again. This is called slander by the way.

 

[stmaria]

you have got to be kidding me??? The Archbishop decides it is a grave necessity so he can disobey the Pope? Man you guys are lost.

So under what circumstance would Canon Law 1323 and 1324 be used, in your opinion.? Why is that law even there if it can never be used?

 

[SemperFidelis]

John Paul never went against any teaching of the Church.

Really? You clearly don’t know the perennial Church teachings on religious liberty and ecumenism then. I suggest reading any of these:

Mortalium Animos and Quadragesimo Anno by Pius XI

Quanta Cura and The Syllabus of Errors by Blessed Pius IX

Mirari Vos by Gregory XVI

Libertas by Pope Leo XIII

Lamentabili Sane Exitu and Pascendi Dominici Gregis by St. Pius X

Mystici Corporis and Humani Generis by Ven. Pius XII

Sorry you cant defend the Archbishop for his blatant disobiedence.

Yes I can and I just did. Once again: DID YOU EVEN READ THE QUOTES I LINKED TOO?

Also, will you actually answer the question I posted to you in my previous post?

Until you do these two things, we will discuss no further.

 

[terillmorris]

Really? You clearly don’t know the perennial Church teachings on religious liberty and ecumenism then. I suggest reading any of these:

Mortalium Animos and Quadragesimo Anno by Pius XI

Quanta Cura and The Syllabus of Errors by Blessed Pius IX

Mirari Vos by Gregory XVI

Libertas by Pope Leo XIII

Lamentabili Sane Exitu and Pascendi Dominici Gregis by St. Pius X

Mystici Corporis and Humani Generis by Ven. Pius XII

Yes I can and I just did. Once again: DID YOU EVEN READ THE QUOTES I LINKED TOO?

Also, will you actually answer the question I posted to you in my previous post?

Until you do these two things, we will discuss no further.

Well your question assumes what hasnt been proven. Vatican II’s decree on Religious Liberty doesnt contradict previous teaching–do a google search on reliegious liberty and Father William Most. He cleary shows how Vatican II’s decree doesnt not contradict previous teaching. Again your argument is weak. Your basically saying that lefebvre though it was a state of emergency so he was justified in disobeying.

 

[SemperFidelis]

Well your question assumes what hasnt been proven. Vatican II’s decree on Religious Liberty doesnt contradict previous teaching–do a google search on reliegious liberty and Father William Most.

While it has not been proven whether Dignitatis Humanae is in fact contradictory, (something I don’t think can actually be proven per se regardless of the fact I think DH did contradict previous teaching) what can be proven is that Popes Paul VI and John Paul II implemented it like it contradicted previous Church teachings on religious liberty. All you have to do is read the history of relations between various states and the Holy See following Vatican II (ie: Spain, Switzerland, Italy, many South American countries, etc.), and speeches by these Popes, etc.

Also, is there a reason why you didn’t touch ecumenism, or is that just too glaring a contradiction?

BTW, we’re not talking about the actual Vatican II documents themselves, but the various Pope’s actions and the way they implemented said documents.

 

[saint_rafael]

Cardinal Hoyos in about seven interviews last year stated that the SSPX are not in any formal schism. He said the ex-communications affected only the four Catholics who recieved them.

Cardinal Hoyos speaks for Pope Benedict on this matter who will not hear of schism being associated with SSPX.

I hope Pope Benedict lifts the unjust the ex-communications soon.

Cardinal Ratzinger was also behind the “Hawaii Six” case.
The Archbishop ex-communicated six SSPX members because the SSPX was “schismatic”.
Cardinal Ratzinger reversed the ex-communications and said that there was no formal schism.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

I always love it when yall make claims like this. You always say Cardinal Hoyas said this or that without ever providing the substance. The only letter that Cardinal Hoyas sent out regarding the SSPX was about a lay member of the church who attended SSPX services. There are no lay members of the Society, however the Society’s Priests since they are not in communion with their local Ordinary do not posess the jurisdiction granted by their vicar to perform marriages and the sacrament of reconsiliation. The other sacraments that they perform are valid, as long as the priest is validly (albeit illicitly) ordained in apostolic succession though their sacraments are illicit since they (the priests) are not in full communion with the Church. Lay Church goers who attend SSPX chapels and Mass centers are in grave danger of being in schism if they do not go to confession or get other necessary sacraments from a priest in communion with the Pope.

Cardinal Hoyos in about seven interviews last year stated that the SSPX are not in any formal schism. He said the ex-communications affected only the four Catholics who recieved them.

Cardinal Hoyos speaks for Pope Benedict on this matter who will not hear of schism being associated with SSPX.

I hope Pope Benedict lifts the unjust the ex-communications soon.

Cardinal Ratzinger was also behind the “Hawaii Six” case.
The Archbishop ex-communicated six SSPX members because the SSPX was “schismatic”.
Cardinal Ratzinger reversed the ex-communications and said that there was no formal schism.

 

[ProVobis]

Let’s suppose the excommunications were valid and there were no Canon Laws in their defense, there are still only six (all bishops) that were involved and two of them are dead. That does not mean ALL of the SSPX are excommunicated; in fact the Vatican has recognized the validity of the priests and their Masses. True the immediate followers (priests) would be in danger of excommunication but the last I heard they are “only” suspended. No Pope has claimed that anyone outside of the six bishops were in schism, if those six had had been in fact in schism at all.

That being said, I would give the Archbishop the benefit of the doubt that he had a legitimate reason by reason of the “necessity” canon laws to do what he did. It only adds up. The Archbishop had managed to go his whole life without “excommunication” and probably would have not done what he did if not for the “necessity” canons. (He died in 1991 so it is likely he knew he was in poor health and felt no other bishop would ordain for the Latin Mass.) But that’s only my opinion.

 

[saint_rafael]

There are no lay members of the Society, however the Society’s Priests since they are not in communion with their local Ordinary do not posess the jurisdiction granted by their vicar to perform marriages and the sacrament of reconsiliation. The other sacraments that they perform are valid, as long as the priest is validly (albeit illicitly) ordained in apostolic succession though their sacraments are illicit since they (the priests) are not in full communion with the Church. Lay Church goers who attend SSPX chapels and Mass centers are in grave danger of being in schism if they do not go to confession or get other necessary sacraments from a priest in communion with the Pope.

The SSPX can perform Confessions and other sacraments.

On Robert Sungenis website he provided a debate between John Salza and Akin over the SSPX and sacrament of Penance:

catholicintl.com/catholicissues/sspxconfessions.pdf

Further, Canon 1335 provides that where a latae sententiae censure has not been declared, the prohibition on celebrating the sacraments is suspended whenever a member of the faithful requests a sacrament or sacramental or an act of governance “for any just cause.” As applied here,John Paul II did not declare a latae sententiae excommunication against SSPX priests. Thus,
assuming SSPX priests are suspended, they are nevertheless allowed to celebrate the sacramentslicitly if a member of the faithful so requests for any just cause. A desire to attend the TraditionalMass, which right was secured by Pope Saint Pius V and recognized by Pope John Paul II, is certainly a just cause. Sound, spiritual direction in the confessional for the welfare of one’s soul is also a just cause. The salvation of souls is the supreme law of the Church.
Further, Canon 844, sec. 2 provides that the Christian faithful can even approach non-Catholicministers for Penance, the Eucharist and Anointing of the Sick in whose churches these sacraments are valid if it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister for the sacraments. If SSPX priests were really not Catholics (which is not true), Catholics could still approach them for the sacraments if it were physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic priest. Unfortunately, in many Novus Ordo parishes, Catholics in good conscience believe that it is morally impossible to approach their priests for the sacraments, due to their questionable intentions in celebrating the sacraments (e.g., whether they intend to offer the
Sacrifice; because they deny mortal sin, etc.), grave disregard for liturgical rubrics, abuses of the Eucharist, modernist theology, immodest dress, and anything else that endangers their souls and
the souls of their children

 

[pnewton]

The SSPX can perform Confessions and other sacraments.

On Robert Sungenis website he provided a debate between John Salza and Akin over the SSPX and sacrament of Penance:

catholicintl.com/catholicissues/sspxconfessions.pdf

Assuming the link is legitimate, the introduction said: “how it might be possible for SSPX to hear confessions validly”. This is a far cry from your above statement.

I have doubts about the excahnge. I could find nothing on it on J Akins site. On the link you gave, the volume of exchange is decidely one-sided. Either it wasn’t a fair exchange, or the content had been edited.

 

[saint_rafael]

Assuming the link is legitimate, the introduction said: “how it might be possible for SSPX to hear confessions validly”. This is a far cry from your above statement.

The opening paragraph was Robert Sungenis’s opinion. He does not favor the SSPX but has softened his position. I do not agree with him because Salza makes the case that SSPX can hear Confessions.

I have doubts about the excahnge. I could find nothing on it on J Akins site. On the link you gave, the volume of exchange is decidely one-sided. Either it wasn’t a fair exchange, or the content had been edited.

John Salza was commenting on Akin’s post that he did on his blog about the SSPX and confessions. It was not a physical formal debate between the two. I should have been more clear on that point.
It was point/counterpoint analysis of Akin’s post by Salza.

In the end, Salza makes a great case for the SSPX through Cannon Law.