JP II Society Pius X

  • Thread starter Thread starter terillmorris
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
saint_rafael said:
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.
Click to expand...
Thank you for the clarifications.
 
SemperFidelis said:
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.
Click to expand...
Sir ecumenism is dialogue (to be simplistic) and to talk or not talk or pray with Protestants is not a matter of faith and/or morals. It is a practice. Vatican II merely said that we can and should dialogue with Protestants. You are free to not like this, and I dont believe you are obligated to pray with protestants. I mean the actions of Paul VI and John Paul II are very debatable. You are stretching this, and saying the Archbishop was justified in his disobiedence because he believed Paul VI’s and JP II’s actions somehow made VII’s decree on Religious Liberty mean something it doesnt. If you read Father Most’s article you will see quite clearly there is no contradiction. Sorry, your boy Lefebvre was clearly wrong, and him and anyone who formaly adheres to his group are excommunicated per the Vicar of Christ. I dont care what any Cardinal says. Only Pope Benedict XVI can change JPII’s decision. To me you and the Lefebvre types are nothing more than Protestants. If you dont like what the Pope says you disobey even when it isnt in anyway justified.
 
ProVobis said:
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.
Click to expand...
THE POPE SAID ANYONE WHO ADHERES TO LEFEBVRES GROUP ALSO INCUR THE PENALTY OF EXCOMUNICATION!!! HOW MUCH CLEARER CAN IT GET??? OR AM I MISSING SOMETHING—SEE MY EARLIER POST—I QUOTE THE LETTER!!!:eek:
 
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
I HATE TO YELL BUT PLEASE READ WHAT THE VICAR OF CHRIST SAID!!! FORMAL ADHERENCE TO THE SCHISM IS A GRAVE OFFENCE AGAISNT GOD AND CARRIES THE PENALTY OF EXCOMMUNICATION DECREED BY THE CHURCH’S LAW.
 
terillmorris said:
OR AM I MISSING SOMETHING-
Click to expand...
The Hawaii Six challenge which was upheld by the Vatican, for one thing.
Or did you think that was a detective show on TV? 🙂

Only shows the Pope might have had second thoughts about ED. (He does have that privilege too, you know.) He certainly didn’t push the other decrees about “being generous” with the Latin Mass, so maybe the first part of the ED was toned down a bit later too.

And I said “maybe” so please don’t shout? Please? 🙂 🙂
 
ProVobis said:
The Hawaii Six challenge which was upheld by the Vatican, for one thing.
Or did you think that was a detective show on TV? 🙂

Only shows the Pope might have had second thoughts about ED. (He does have that privilege too, you know.) He certainly didn’t push the other decrees about “being generous” with the Latin Mass, so maybe the first part of the ED was toned down a bit later too.

And I said “maybe” so please don’t shout? Please? 🙂 🙂
Click to expand...
I am going to read up on the Hawaii six. That still doesnt change the fact, and further confirmed by the Vatican in the Hawaii case (because we all agree the Vatican said the excommunications apply to Lefebvre and the Bishops he consecrated) that Lefebvre was dead wrong.
 
I wonder why people don’t read.

I read the letter that the Pope wrote with the Motu Proprio. He mentioned the Lefebvre movement. He makes a quick reference to it in which he says that they used the Tridentine mass as the cause of their problems with the Church, but that he believes that there are deeper issues than this, because many other people also loved the Tridentine mass and remained faithful to the Church and the Pope.

OKAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYY

That to me says that there is more to this than meets the eye and the Pope is not telling.

But since everyone wants to be Pope, no one is paying attention to what the real Pope is not saying and they’re only listening to themselves.

Interesting concept.

JR 🙂
 
In the Hawaii case in 1991 Cardinal Ratzinger simply said that those who attened Society masses didnt constitue schism in the legal sense, so the decree was not valid. He did not however say that those who formally adhere to the Society (as John Paul stated) did not incur automatic excommunication. This is further emphasized when a few years later Bishop Bruskewitz excommunicated members of the Society (as well as call to action and other groups) , and these excommunications were upheld. Bottom line, if you are formally adhering to the socirty your excommunicated. Also it is quite clear that Lefebvre is wrong, and so are his followers.👍
 
terillmorris said:
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,…
Click to expand...
Okay, then why did Cardinal Catrillon Hoyos say this?

“The excommunication concerns only the four bishops [of SSPX], because they have been ordained without the mandate of the Pope and against his will, while the priests are only suspended. The Mass they celebrate is without a doubt valid, but not licit and, therefore, participation is not recommended, unless on a Sunday there should be no other possibilities. Certainly neither the priests, nor the faithful are excommunicated. Let me reiterate in this regard the importance of a clear understanding of things to be able to judge correctly.”

Note: I do not go to SSPX Parishes, but I feel they sometimes get a raw deal when people just say “oh they’re outside the Church”.
 
Whenever I see threads like this I think back over history of the Ottonian Empire which saw emperors actually electing popes because the papacy was so week and to some extent had become corrupt. Otto and his successor did not elect popes so they could be controlled but so that the papacy could become strong again. I also note that from Pius IX onward there was a growing reliance upon the authority of the papacy called ultramontanism mostly because the structure os Christendom had completely broken down.

I think this whole flap over SSPX and papal authority is a minor adjustment that will have important consequences for the future. I hope that it is more than just an internal flap and suspect that it is.

Is there a place on this forum to ask questions that seem to have longer term historical significance?

CDL
 
markadm said:
Okay, then why did Cardinal Catrillon Hoyos say this?

“The excommunication concerns only the four bishops [of SSPX], because they have been ordained without the mandate of the Pope and against his will, while the priests are only suspended. The Mass they celebrate is without a doubt valid, but not licit and, therefore, participation is not recommended, unless on a Sunday there should be no other possibilities. Certainly neither the priests, nor the faithful are excommunicated. Let me reiterate in this regard the importance of a clear understanding of things to be able to judge correctly.”

Note: I do not go to SSPX Parishes, but I feel they sometimes get a raw deal when people just say “oh they’re outside the Church”.
Click to expand...
John Paul II says different in Ecclessia Dei. John Paul was the Pope his ruling stands unless Pope Benedict XVI changes it.
 
terillmorris said:
John Paul II says different in Ecclessia Dei. John Paul was the Pope his ruling stands unless Pope Benedict XVI changes it.
Click to expand...
Point taken, though I would like to know what canon law says “formal adherence” is.
 
=terillmorris;3634945]Sir ecumenism is dialogue (to be simplistic) and to talk or not talk or pray with Protestants is not a matter of faith and/or morals. It is a practice. Vatican II merely said that we can and should dialogue with Protestants
Click to expand...
.
Ecumenism is a movement to unite all Christians. But for the Catholic Church TRUE Ecumenism can only mean a call for all Christians to return to the One True Church. This goal is rejected by men in the Vatican like Cardinal Kasper. That is the problem and it seems to me that only the SSPX is questioning this practice of false ecumenism.
You are free to not like this, and I dont believe you are obligated to pray with protestants
Click to expand...
.
According to the Vatican Ecumenism is* binding *on all Catholics. I agree that TRUE Ecumenism is binding but not the false ecumenism that is being practiced. False ecumenism is a belief that all convert to Christ but not to the Catholic Church.
You are stretching this, and saying the Archbishop was justified in his disobiedence because he believed Paul VI’s and JP II’s actions somehow made VII’s decree on Religious Liberty mean something it doesnt. If you read Father Most’s article you will see quite clearly there is no contradiction
Click to expand...
.
The break from traditional teaching in the decree on Religious Liberty is not completely in the document itself but in the ambiguity presented. Never in any Church council or in a Pope’s encyclicial has Church teaching been presented in such intentionally ambigious language. This was done so as not to offend the Protestant observers that were at Vatican II.

In 1949 Pope Pius XII said this about true ecumenism.
"she embraces with truly maternal affection all who return to her as the true Church of Christ… Catholic doctrine is to be presented and explained: by no means is it permitted to pass over in silence or to veil** in ambiguous terms **the Catholic truth regarding the nature and way of justification, the constitution of the Church, the primacy of jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff, and the only true union by the return of the dissidents to the one true Church of Christ. It should be made clear to them that, in returning to the Church, they will lose nothing of that good which by the grace of God has hitherto been implanted in them.”
To me you and the Lefebvre types are nothing more than Protestants. .
Click to expand...
I am not SSPX. I have never been to one of their Masses but to compare them to protestants is wrong. They simply want to hold on to tradition
Archbishop Lefebvre, ““What Catholics once were, we are. If we are wrong, then Catholics through the ages have been wrong. We are what you once were. We believe what you once believed. We worship as you once worshipped. If we are wrong now, you were wrong then. If you were right then, we are right now.”
 
The Lefebvrist priests did not, nor do not, incur the excommunication of Archbishop Lefebvre and the other five bishops. They are suspended a divinis because they were ordained deacons and priests without being incardinated into a diocese, an order or a canonically recognized society, etc. Their masses are unquestionably valid, but illict.

However just because the Vatican has said that the Lefebvrist priests did not suffer the excommunication of Lefebvre et al does not mean that they cannot incur excommunication for other trangressions of canon law. If a Lefebvrist priest were to be an accomplice in abortion, or to desecrete the Eucharist, he would be excommunciated.

Similarly if the priest were to commit schism he would be automatically excommunicated (Can. 1364 §1). Pope John Paul II declared in Ecclesia Dei that those who “formally adhere” to Mon. Lefebvre’s schism also suffer latae sententia excommunication.

I find it rather ironic that the Lefebvrists are so virulently opposed to the doctrinal developments of the Second Vatican Council on religious liberty and ecumenism. If we ever resurrected the medieval kind of Catholic state the Lefebvrists claim to want, they themselves would be thrown in prison, for engaging in schismatic worship.

I hope that all my seperated brethren, including the Lefebvrists, will reconcile themselves with the Catholic Church.
markadm said:
Point taken, though I would like to know what canon law says “formal adherence” is.
Click to expand...
Canon Law does not say.

However the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legal Texts have said that “formal adherence” would imply the following complementary elements:
a) one of internal nature, consisting in a free and informed agreement with the substance of the schism, in other words, in the choice made in such a way of the followers of Archbishop Lefebvre which puts such an option above obedience to the Pope (at the root of this attitude there will usually be positions contrary to the magisterium of the Church),
Click to expand...
b) the other of an external character, consisting in the externalising of this option, the most manifest sign of which will be the exclusive participation in Lefebvrian “ecclesial” acts, without taking part in the acts of the Catholic Church (one is dealing however with a sign that is not univocal, since there is the possibility that a member of the faithful may take part in the liturgical functions of the followers of Lefebvre but without going along with their schismatic spirit).
Click to expand...
They conclude:
In the case of the Lefebvrian deacons and priests there seems no doubt that their ministerial activity in the ambit of the schismatic movement is a more than evident sign of t**he fact that the two requirements mentioned above (n.5) are met, and thus that there is a formal adherence **
Click to expand...
Also:
Unfortunately, the schismatic act which gave rise to the Motu Proprio and the Decree did no more than draw to a conclusion, in a particularly visible and unequivocal manner — with a most grave formal act of disobedience to the Roman Pontiff — a process of distancing from hierarchical communion. As long as there are no changes which may lead to the re-establishment of this necessary communion,** the whole Lefebvrian movement is to be held schismatic**, in view of the existence of a formal declaration by the Supreme Authority on this matter.
Click to expand...
 
Oh dear, another SSPX thread. I tried to avoid it but just couldn’t resist. It’s like watching a car wreck, except not only can I not look away, I have this compulsion to jump into the middle of it.
stmaria said:
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;
Click to expand...
If we look to the jurisprudence, we’ll find that Pius XII excluded this loophole from applying to the consecration of bishops without papal mandate. Did he do so under different conditions? Certainly. But does his interpretation of the law still bind? Again, certainly. Supporters of the abp. need different grounds on which to defend him.

At the end of the day, I understand why people believe “no formal schism exists” - I don’t think there are any grounds for holding such a view, but I see why one would want to find any means possible of recognizing the sincerity and Catholicity of so many SSPX priests and supporters. But every argument I’ve seen (and yes, now I have read Davies’ Apologia) ultimately fails to hold water. If we could all agree to focus on particular arguments and cases, I think these threads would be a great opportunity for charitable discussion of the problem, but since this thread already seems to be flying off in a hundred directions, I’ll wait to jump into that again.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top