JP II Society Pius X

[Padua_Minded]

‘Grave fear’ cannot be interpreteted as exempting the bishop from incurring excommunication:

Decree of the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office:
“Episcopus, cuiusvis ritus vel dignitatis, aliquem, neque ab Apostolica Sede nominatum neque ab Eadem expresse confirmaum, consecraus in Episcopum, et qui consecrationem recipit, etsi metu gravi coacti (c. 2229 A73:3 [CIC 1917]), incurrunt ipso facto in excommunicationem Apostolicae Sedi specialissimo modo reservatam” (AAS 43 [1951] 217-218)

 

[markadm]

I already gave you a definition from the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts.

Sorry, my mistake. I was getting confused with the thread (my browser is acting up).

Interesting, though; the definition might imply that those who go along, because they are afraid to jeapordise their faith elsewhere, might not necessarily be “formally adhering”.

 

[JReducation]

Point taken, though I would like to know what canon law says “formal adherence” is.

Mark

There is an unwritten rule in the Church that canon law does not apply to the Pope as he is the one who approves it. In Philosophy the giver of the law is not subject to the law.

An individual is subject to the law until he becomes pope. As long as he remains a valid pope he is above the law.

Therefore, the pope can rule, without a tribunal, that a particular canon does not apply in a particular case.

This is very clear in Benedict’s letter that accompanied the Motu Proprio. He refers to the Lefebvre movement and says that it appeared as if the Tridentine mass was the issue, but in fact there are deeper issues. He does not go into specifics as to what those issues are.

But apparently John Paul and he saw deeper issues. They are not sharing them with the public. But they are adhering to their position regarding the SSPX.

We can argue that canon law says this or that until the cows come home. If the Pope believes that the particular code of law does not apply, then it doesn’t, because Canon law and its applicatioin have to meet his approval.

I’ve noticed that some people refer to the canon concerning great fear and duress. If the Pope says that it does not apply and that he will not accept that there is validity to this claim of great fear and duress, then the Church has no other option but to accept it.

We can’t hold the Pope to canon law. He is the keeper of the keys and the one who binds and unbinds. Therefore, he is the last authority on what part, if any, of canon law applies.

Unless he is proven to be an invalid pope, he has the power to bind us to the canons or not to do so and say, “Sorry, this does not apply to you.”

Thisis really tough and can be heartbreaking for many people. But there is no way around the Petrine privilege.

JR

 

[markadm]

Thanks for that, JR. I am simply trying to understand Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos’ statement in the light of what John Paul II said…

 

[GregoryPalamas]

Mark

There is an unwritten rule in the Church that canon law does not apply to the Pope as he is the one who approves it. In Philosophy the giver of the law is not subject to the law.

An individual is subject to the law until he becomes pope. As long as he remains a valid pope he is above the law.

Therefore, the pope can rule, without a tribunal, that a particular canon does not apply in a particular case.

This is very clear in Benedict’s letter that accompanied the Motu Proprio. He refers to the Lefebvre movement and says that it appeared as if the Tridentine mass was the issue, but in fact there are deeper issues. He does not go into specifics as to what those issues are.

But apparently John Paul and he saw deeper issues. They are not sharing them with the public. But they are adhering to their position regarding the SSPX.

We can argue that canon law says this or that until the cows come home. If the Pope believes that the particular code of law does not apply, then it doesn’t, because Canon law and its applicatioin have to meet his approval.

I’ve noticed that some people refer to the canon concerning great fear and duress. If the Pope says that it does not apply and that he will not accept that there is validity to this claim of great fear and duress, then the Church has no other option but to accept it.

We can’t hold the Pope to canon law. He is the keeper of the keys and the one who binds and unbinds. Therefore, he is the last authority on what part, if any, of canon law applies.

Unless he is proven to be an invalid pope, he has the power to bind us to the canons or not to do so and say, “Sorry, this does not apply to you.”

Thisis really tough and can be heartbreaking for many people. But there is no way around the Petrine privilege.

JR

How would you apply these principles to what happened during the 11th century Ottonian Empire?

CDL

 

[JReducation]

How would you apply these principles to what happened during the 11th century Ottonian Empire?

CDL

We have to remember that canon law was not as clearly defined in the 11th century as it is today. There were of course codes of law.

You apply the same principal, the Pope is the one who binds or unbinds, whether you’re talking about a rather disorganized code of law as they had back then or a very organized one as we have today. In either case, the keeper of the keys is also the one who has the final legal authority

Anyone who challenges the Church can be judged by the person who has the power to judge. One must first prove that the person does not have the authority to judge.

This was not proven back then or today.

JR

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

Mardak, the society is a priestly one. There are no lay members. If the society’s bishops are excommunicated and its priests faculties suspended, why would any lay Catholic support this group?

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”.

 

[markadm]

The society is a priestly one. There are no lay members. If the society’s bishops are excommunicated and its priests faculties suspended, why would any lay Catholic support this group?

Good question; you answer!

Seriously, I can understand people going out of necessity, but otherwise, no I cannot.

 

[I_Believe]

“Not to oppose error is to approve it, and not to defend truth is to suppress it, and indeed to neglect to confound evil men, when we can do it, is no less a sin than to encourage them.”
Pope St. Felix III

"A day will come when the civilized world will deny its God, when the Church will doubt as Peter doubted. She will be tempted to believe that man has become God. In our churches, Christians will search in vain for the red lamp where God awaits them. Like Mary Magdalene, weeping before the empty tomb, they will ask, “Where have they taken him?” -Pope Pius XII

“What if some novel contagion seek to infect the whole Church, and not merely a small portion of it? Then he will take care to cling to antiquity, which cannot now be led astray by any novel deceit.” -St. Vincent of Lerins († 445)

“The day the Church abandons her universal tongue is the day before she returns to the catacombs.”
Pope Pius XII

Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ.”
St. Athanasius, AD 373

“It is granted to few to recognize the true Church amid the darkness of so many schisms and heresies, and to fewer still so to love the truth which they have seen as to fly to its embrace.” -St. Robert Bellarmine

“In recent times, even in materialist North America, the growth of the Church was magnificent with the liturgy being kept in Latin. The attempts of the Protestants have failed, and Protestantism uses the vernacular. We ask again: Why the change, especially since changes in this matter involve many difficulties and great dangers? All of us here at the Council can recall the fundamental changes in the meaning of words in common use. Thus it follows that if the Sacred Liturgy were in the vernacular, the immutability of doctrine would be endangered.
The introduction of the vernacular should be separated from the action of the Mass. The Mass must remain as it is. Grave changes in the liturgy introduce grave changes in dogmata.”
-James Cardinal McIntyre addressing the Second Vatican Council.

“Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to that arrogant oligarchy who merely happen to be walking around.”

• G.K. Chesterton

Indeed, the true friends of the people are neither revolutionaries, nor innovators: they are traditionalists."

• Pope St. Pius X

**Those quoted above were not members of the SSPX. Those quoted below embrace the words of those quoted above. **

.

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 media have no idea what a real Catholic is. If they did, they would scream for his martyrdom, they would scream for his skin.”
-H.E. Bishop Williamson, SSPX

Not only is anti-Catholicism rightly called the “last acceptable predjudice”, we indeed hear the screams of some Catholics. And it is a scream for the persecution of their fellow Catholics who hold such a passionate level of devotion to our beautiful Faith, that they will not discard it. Few dare attack Traditon itself, yet those who embrace Traditon are attacked. And this is, without a doubt, anti-Catholicism itself.

The fact that this thread was introduced on May 2nd, the day the suspension of SSPX discussions was lifted, supports what I have stated. On this I rest my case.

And how sad, being that this year, May 2nd is the first day of the NOVENA to the HOLY GHOST, which leads us to the Pentecost.
websitetoolbox.com/tool/post/apologia/vpost?id=2680571

 

[markadm]

The fact that this thread was introduced on May 2nd, the day the suspension of SSPX discussions was lifted, supports what I have stated. On this I rest my case.

And how sad, being that this year, May 2nd is the first day of the NOVENA to the HOLY GHOST, which leads us to the Pentecost.
websitetoolbox.com/tool/post/apologia/vpost?id=2680571

Shall we all agree to “disagree”, and instead of discussing things all pray for the unity of the Church?

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

Mark

There is an unwritten rule in the Church that canon law does not apply to the Pope as he is the one who approves it. In Philosophy the giver of the law is not subject to the law.

An individual is subject to the law until he becomes pope. As long as he remains a valid pope he is above the law.

Therefore, the pope can rule, without a tribunal, that a particular canon does not apply in a particular case.

That’s not necessarily so. The pope is free to change the law as he sees fit, but there is a school that says he is nonetheless bound by the law until he changes it. So the pope can indeed place legally invalid acts according to that school of thought (that even beyond the fact that he can make errors and thus his decisions could be invalid by merely being wrong - like if he punished you for something you didn’t actually do).

Not only is anti-Catholicism rightly called the “last acceptable predjudice”, we indeed hear the screams of some Catholics. And it is a scream for the persecution of their fellow Catholics who hold such a passionate level of devotion to our beautiful Faith, that they will not discard it. Few dare attack Traditon itself, yet those who embrace Traditon are attacked. And this is, without a doubt, anti-Catholicism itself.

The problem here is that many, perhaps yourself as well, take a big, unwarranted logical leap. Was Abp. Lefebvre held to a gross double standard, being punished swiftly and decisively while other bishops and priests who were helping destroy the faith of millions got off scot free? Absolutely. Does that automatically mean his own course of action was correct? Absolutely not. It’s quite possible that both camps acted wrongly in different ways, and that the injustice of not punishing the leftists does not efface the propriety of punishing those on the right.

 

[pnewton]

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

The problem with long term historical significance is that no one knows what the future holds. I personally think the SSPX will either be reunited or an obscure offshoot like the Old Catholic Church. I think comparisons to any other historical event have to go beyond the ideology and into the practical realm of numbers. The fact is they the tiniest of fraction of Catholics, not a significant offshoot. This is nothing like the East-West split, Reformation or any other major historical event.

 

[GregoryPalamas]

The problem with long term historical significance is that no one knows what the future holds. I personally think the SSPX will either be reunited or an obscure offshoot like the Old Catholic Church. I think comparisons to any other historical event have to go beyond the ideology and into the practical realm of numbers. The fact is they the tiniest of fraction of Catholics, not a significant offshoot. This is nothing like the East-West split, Reformation or any other major historical event.

Except I think in this case Pope John Paul II the Great may have been too excessive. You are correct, the pope is the boss but the Deposit of Faith understood over time does seem to amend some papal decisions.

CDL

 

[saint_rafael]

Except I think in this case Pope John Paul II the Great may have been too excessive. You are correct, the pope is the boss but the Deposit of Faith understood over time does seem to amend some papal decisions.

CDL

We have already seen this in the Pontificate of Benedict. Summorum Pontificum was a rebuke of Pope Paul VI when he tried to supress the TLM and ignore Quo Primum.

The statements that came from Cardinal Hoyos are a rebuke of Pope John Paul II and his unjust actions against the SSPX. We will see soon if Pope Benedict has the courage to do the right thing and lift the ex-communications.

 

[pnewton]

We have already seen this in the Pontificate of Benedict. Summorum Pontificum was a rebuke of Pope Paul VI when he tried to supress the TLM and ignore Quo Primum.

The statements that came from Cardinal Hoyos are a rebuke of Pope John Paul II and his unjust actions against the SSPX. We will see soon if Pope Benedict has the courage to do the right thing and lift the ex-communications.

What was once used to promote the new form of the Mass, that previous popes can not bind their successors in matters of discipline and administration, can just as easily work the other way.

In both cases, the sage advice of Gamaliel to the Sanhedrin would seem the wisest action. Let us see what God will do, lest we find ourselves fighting God.

 

[terillmorris]

I really do not like blogs. I’d much rather discuss these important issues on the phone. I love whooping Lefebvre supporters in a real conversation. They are so easy. If any of you Lefebvists are up for it my email adress is catholictruth1@yahoo.com.
It amazes me how some of you ignore the facts. I have stated and quoted John Paul II’s statments on how the Archbishop was wrong and was excommunicated. I say this and some people’s defense is that the Archbishop believed their was a state of emergency, so he was justified in doing what he he was told not to do. The second Vatican’s decree on Religious Libery and Ecumenism do not at all contradict earlier teaching. I provided or suggested you read Father Most’s article on Religious Liberty.
The Pope further said that anyone who formally ahderes to the schism also incurs automatic excommunication. If your a priest in the society I dont know how that is not formal adherence and thus this should incur automatic excommunication. It has to be formal adherence. Also Cardinal Ratzinger didnt say that the (in the Hawaii case) Society priests werent excommunicated, he merely said that their actions didnt constitue schism in the strict legal sense. Please do a google search to see the Cardinal’s exact words at the time. Furthermore, after the Hawaii case Bishop Bruskewitz did in fact excommunicate the Society of Pius X, and that decision was upheld. Remeber, excommunication and schism are two different things. Cardinal whoever can say whatever they want, only Benedict XVI can overturn JPII’s decision. In my opinion he should not because Lefebvre was wrong and those that follow him are wrong.

 

[Auntie_M]

Sorry, my mistake. I was getting confused with the thread (my browser is acting up).

Interesting, though; the definition might imply that those who go along, because they are afraid to jeapordise their faith elsewhere, might not necessarily be “formally adhering”.

you may have a valid point there. With the “oath” they have to take and the points that are taught to them. (If you don’t abide by this “oath” you will go to hell.) (I know this to be true, I have seen the “oath” in writing with the priest’s “seal” and signature.

I am and will always “walk” with the Pope. If he says its wrong, it’s wrong

 

[Auntie_M]

To all of you who believe that the “for many” is right and the "for all
is wrong.

Yes, in Matthews, it does say “for many”. But you cannot ignore the other scriptures that refers to the “all”. Please read Ex.24:8…the covenant which the Lord has made with YOU in accordance with all these words…(Does this MEAN only ONE person has a covenant with God"?) Don’t think so but that’s EXACTLY what the Bible states. Also, 1st Corrinthians 11:25…Cup of new covenant, As often as YOU drink it…There again, is this cup for only ONE person. the YOU as the Bible says. Also, in Lev. 16;15-16…blood atonement for sinful Iaraelites…OH NO are we to believe that the blood will ONLY atone for the Israelites?

As you can see, this “for many” is being taken as ONE verse and all the rest of the Bible has been ignored. If this is the case,
What else have you all been taught by only ONE verse?

I have heard the NO being called “a social club”. “that it no longer LOOKS Catholic” that the Eucharist is a “memorial Meal”.

I go to a NO and I haven’t see or heard anything like this. I wish that the SSPX would teach truths. I am sorry if I offend anyone, that is NOT my intentions, but the TRUTH will remain in the end.

 

[rien]

To all of you who believe that the “for many” is right and the "for all
is wrong.

Yes, in Matthews, it does say “for many”. But you cannot ignore the other scriptures that refers to the “all”. Please read Ex.24:8…the covenant which the Lord has made with YOU in accordance with all these words…(Does this MEAN only ONE person has a covenant with God"?) Don’t think so but that’s EXACTLY what the Bible states. Also, 1st Corrinthians 11:25…Cup of new covenant, As often as YOU drink it…There again, is this cup for only ONE person. the YOU as the Bible says. Also, in Lev. 16;15-16…blood atonement for sinful Iaraelites…OH NO are we to believe that the blood will ONLY atone for the Israelites?

As you can see, this “for many” is being taken as ONE verse and all the rest of the Bible has been ignored. If this is the case,
What else have you all been taught by only ONE verse?

I have heard the NO being called “a social club”. “that it no longer LOOKS Catholic” that the Eucharist is a “memorial Meal”.

I go to a NO and I haven’t see or heard anything like this. I wish that the SSPX would teach truths. I am sorry if I offend anyone, that is NOT my intentions, but the TRUTH will remain in the end.

Great point. Some traditionalists ignore Scripture as much as the Calvinists who beleive in strict pre-destination. Despite the Bible’s clear saying the Lord wants all to be saved.

Heresies come in many forms to be sure.

 

[JReducation]

To all of you who believe that the “for many” is right and the "for all
is wrong.

Yes, in Matthews, it does say “for many”. But you cannot ignore the other scriptures that refers to the “all”. Please read Ex.24:8…the covenant which the Lord has made with YOU in accordance with all these words…(Does this MEAN only ONE person has a covenant with God"?) Don’t think so but that’s EXACTLY what the Bible states. Also, 1st Corrinthians 11:25…Cup of new covenant, As often as YOU drink it…There again, is this cup for only ONE person. the YOU as the Bible says. Also, in Lev. 16;15-16…blood atonement for sinful Iaraelites…OH NO are we to believe that the blood will ONLY atone for the Israelites?

As you can see, this “for many” is being taken as ONE verse and all the rest of the Bible has been ignored. If this is the case,
What else have you all been taught by only ONE verse?

I have heard the NO being called “a social club”. “that it no longer LOOKS Catholic” that the Eucharist is a “memorial Meal”.

I go to a NO and I haven’t see or heard anything like this. I wish that the SSPX would teach truths. I am sorry if I offend anyone, that is NOT my intentions, but the TRUTH will remain in the end.

I agree that there is a tendency to get stuck on a bible citation or a citation from some Church writings. We have to look at the entire course of Revelation, Tradition and the teaching Magisterium.

You have reminded me of the gripe that the SSPX has with ecumenism. They keep citing every encyclical before Vatican II, but fail to cite those that came after and the reflections of the Popes that came after as well.

This is unfortunate, because makes it look as if the Church stopped teaching truth after Vatican II. Which we know is not the case.

We have to take everything that the Church has taught up to this day and ask ourselves how does this all tie together and how or why were these reworked? There is a reason for everything and the reason is usually pretty good.

I don’t believe that the post Vatican II popes set out to ruin the Church. On the contrary, the world has been on a collision course with moral destruction since the Cold War began and the Church has tried furiously to avoid that.

As I look back on Benedict XVI’s visit to the USA and the groups with whom he met, I can see that effort on the part of the Church to bring all people together to avoid the moral apocalypse for which we’re heading.

JR