Letter From Archbishop of Davao Diocese to the SSPX

[jmj1984]

Not only is it a reasonable point of view that the SSPX is irregular and has no legitimate ministry in the Church, it is also the view of the Church.

To disagree with this is to disagree (separate) with the Church.

Not a good place to stand.

Br

I won’t even begin to elucidate the serious theological propositions with the statement you have just made, there are so many of them they would require a dedicated thread. Needless to say the idea that because one supports in some measure or another the SSPX one somehow separates oneself from the Church has been thoroughly debunked.

 

[jmj1984]

I have not said they are in schism. You make a false accusation against me. What I did do was to post the CCC definition of schism and the Code of Canon Law. ‘latae sententiae excommunication’, as the Bishop says in his letter, “automatic excommunication does not need official Church declaration”.

Your article about the Cardinal states that the SSPX are not in ‘formal schism’. This is true. But, again I ask, show me how they are not schismatic. Their actions and their words show what they are. If the shoe fits…

You cannot be schismatic without being in schism

And as for false accusations, you have stated quite a few times that they are schismatic, to be schismatic they must be in schism.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Br

I won’t even begin to elucidate the serious theological propositions with the statement you have just made, there are so many of them they would require a dedicated thread. Needless to say the idea that because one supports in some measure or another the SSPX one somehow separates oneself from the Church has been thoroughly debunked.

How is it debunked? In Davao City they have ministered to the flock of the Archbishop when the Archbishop has told them over the past months that they may not. Even Religious Orders need a prior approval from the bishop before setting up shop and opening their doors to the faithful in a diocese.

Willful and outright defiance of the Local Ordinary is not an act of schism? I would say it is, at the very least, from the local Church. Of course this would have ramifications towards the greater Church, but it has to go through its due process.

 

[jmj1984]

How is it debunked? In Davao City they have ministered to the flock of the Archbishop when the Archbishop has told them over the past months that they may not. Even Religious Orders need a prior approval from the bishop before setting up shop and opening their doors to the faithful in a diocese.

Willful and outright defiance of the Local Ordinary is not an act of schism? I would say it is, at the very least, from the local Church. Of course this would have ramifications towards the greater Church, but it has to go through its due process.

By the X million statements from Rome to that effect.

 

[ProVobis]

I think that those who are defending the SSPX here are missing a canonical point. No society of apostolic life, no association of the faithful, no religious order, no religious congregation, no lay organization using the name Catholic may setup house in a diocese without the permission of the diocesan bishop.

I agree but I only wonder how those people attacking the FSSPX here would react if the same or similar (splinter) group of bishops and priests were the very few saying the English Mass. No doubt cries of “foul” would be heard. Just saying.

 

[JM3]

you have stated quite a few times that they are schismatic

Show me those statements.

“excommunicated in conscience”

Lumen Gentium #14

“They are fully incorporated in the society of the Church who, possessing the Spirit of Christ accept her entire system and all the means of salvation given to her, and are united with her as part of her visible bodily structure and through her with Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. The bonds which bind men to the Church in a visible way are profession of faith, the sacraments, and ecclesiastical government and communion. He is not saved, however, who, though part of the body of the Church, does not persevere in charity. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but, as it were, only in a “bodily” manner and not “in his heart.”(12*)”

 

[jmj1984]

Show me those statements.

“excommunicated in conscience”

Lumen Gentium #14

“They are fully incorporated in the society of the Church who, possessing the Spirit of Christ accept her entire system and all the means of salvation given to her, and are united with her as part of her visible bodily structure and through her with Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. The bonds which bind men to the Church in a visible way are profession of faith, the sacraments, and ecclesiastical government and communion. He is not saved, however, who, though part of the body of the Church, does not persevere in charity. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but, as it were, only in a “bodily” manner and not “in his heart.”(12*)”

…

Excommunicated in conscience is not here, this does not even have anything to do with the situation of the SSPX. Its criticising all catholics who fail in charity, despite being ‘in full communion’ with the church if they lack in charity they will not truly be part of the Church.

 

[JM3]

…

Excommunicated in conscience is not here, this does not even have anything to do with the situation of the SSPX. It criticising all catholics who fail in charity, despite being ‘in full communion’ with the church if they lack in charity they will not truly be part of the Church.

What is your definition of conscience?

Show me where there is charity in the statements of Bishop Williamson toward the Church or the Jews.

 

[jmj1984]

What is your definition of conscience?

Show me where there is charity in the statements of Bishop Williamson toward the Church or the Jews.

You are now wandering completely off topic altogether, you have not shown that such a thing as ‘excommunication in conscience’ exists nor have you shown statements from the Vatican to the effect that the SSPX are still excommunicated or in schism. Therefore your repetition of these claims is simply spreading falsehood.

Bishop Williamson is an entirely separate issue which it would be imprudent to even discuss on this forum, so unless you are going to make any relevant comments I’m just going to ignore you.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I agree but I only wonder how those people attacking the FSSPX here would react if the same or similar (splinter) group of bishops and priests were the very few saying the English Mass. No doubt cries of “foul” would be heard. Just saying.

And indefensible scenario as it is not real and we cannot know for sure what people will say or do in such scenario.

And I don’t see “people attacking the SSPX” here when its clearly the SSPX in Davao who are on the offensive against the good Archbishop and the entire Archdiocese. I would understand it if there was no promotion of Latin Rite Traditionalism in Davao. But there is, and they precede the arrival of the SSPX. Therefore what is the point of the SSPX here? And the more I don’t get it is that there are other dioceses in the Philippines where there are more Liturgical abuse and bishops who condone questionable practices such as Liturgical dancing (for the record, I support appropriate Liturgical dancing. I don’t think our Filipino culture has a heritage of dance worship, thus Liturgical dancing is not appropriate in our culture). Yet they persist in a diocese where there is a Latin Mass Society put together by the bishop himself, and there are regular TLMs said.

 

[jmj1984]

And indefensible scenario as it is not real and we cannot know for sure what people will say or do in such scenario.

And I don’t see “people attacking the SSPX” here when its clearly the SSPX in Davao who are on the offensive against the good Archbishop and the entire Archdiocese. I would understand it if there was no promotion of Latin Rite Traditionalism in Davao. But there is, and they precede the arrival of the SSPX. Therefore what is the point of the SSPX here? And the more I don’t get it is that there are other dioceses in the Philippines where there are more Liturgical abuse and bishops who condone questionable practices such as Liturgical dancing (for the record, I support appropriate Liturgical dancing. I don’t think our Filipino culture has a heritage of dance worship, thus Liturgical dancing is not appropriate in our culture). Yet they persist in a diocese where there is a Latin Mass Society put together by the bishop himself, and there are regular TLMs said.

I will wait to see what rorate caeli says on the matter.

 

[JM3]

You are now wandering completely off topic altogether, you have now shown that such a thing as ‘excommunication in conscience’ nor have you shown statements from the Vatican to the effect that the SSPX are still excommunicated or in schism. Therefore your repetition of these claims is simply spreading falsehood.

Bishop Williamson is an entirely separate issue which it would be imprudent to even discuss on this forum, so unless you are going to make any relevant comments I’m just going to ignore you.

Nice sidestep.

 

[jmj1984]

Nice sidestep.

Nice attempt at derailing the thread, please tell me when you’ve found some proof for your claims, until then I will treat them as what they are, patently false.

 

[jwinch2]

Many people here appear to be arguing semantics here or interpretation of terms such as “excommunication of conscience”, etc. That is all well and good. However, those arguing against utilization of that term seem to be ignoring another very important part of this situation. That being, that SSPX must have the permission of the Bishop to operate within his Diocese. Considering the statements that the Archbishop has made, it is quite evident that he has not given that permission. As such, they have no canonical standing to minister in the Diocese, regardless of their standing within the Catholic Church at large.

As has already been mentioned, this would be the same regardless of who it was coming into a Diocese. If the Master of the Order of Preachers or, to suggest a group closer to the current discussion - the Superior General of FSSP came into that Diocese and wished to exercise his ministry, the way I understand it is that they would need the permission of the Bishop to do so if it had not already been granted.

We can argue whether or not the are excommunicated, their canonical standing, etc. However, the fact that they are attempting to operate within the Diocese without permission of the Archbishop, is entirely inappropriate. Put all of the other stuff aside, and it is still wrong.

 

[JM3]

However, the fact that they are attempting to operate within the Diocese without permission of the Archbishop, is entirely inappropriate. Put all of the other stuff aside, and it is still wrong.

 

[ProVobis]

Yet they persist in a diocese where there is a Latin Mass Society put together by the bishop himself, and there are regular TLMs said.

That’s good but how many of these bishops do you suppose were around in 1988 when the Pope himself decreed that the 1962 Missal be made “wide and generous”? Or how many would admit that the TLM had never been abrogated? Methinks if there were any such bishops back then, then the Archbishop couldn’t in good conscience have been able to apply his “necessity” rationale for consecrating four bishops to perpetuate the Usus Antiquior in the first place.

 

[JReducation]

Bro,

I think you (and His Excellency) are giving more juridical weight to the Pope’s Papal Letter than was intended where he sates that “The fact that the Society of Saint Pius X does not possess a canonical status in the Church is not, in the end, based on disciplinary but on doctrinal reasons.”

You are treating this as a papal declaration that the SSPX and the Vatican differ on a dogmatic aspect of the Catholic Faith which is de jure creating a separation, when it can easily be argued that the pastoral letter was merely reiterating the fact that the lifting of the excommunications alone was not the basis for the basis for the initial separation. To my knowledge, no ecclesiastic court nor Pontiff has ever issued a ruling stating that the SSPX holds a non-Catholic position on a dogma of the church.

To wit, I don;t know what article of faith the SSPX would renounce to become Catholic.

Br Jr

There are no excommunications in force as regards the SSPX, that’s not really debatable. The bishop has already stated that they are irregular but then goes on to speak about some mythical type of excommunication, why is this? All he can legitimately say is what the Vatican has said, namely that they are irregular and that they and the Vatican have doctrinal issues to settle. The word excommunication does not communicate any of these ideas, it wouldn’t communicate these ideas in the 15th or the 21st century, so archaic language has nothing to do with it. The bishop has either made a mistake about canon law or a serious mistake of words.

As I and others have pointed numerous times before, silence or inaction by The Holy See does not denote approval.

The bishop has done neither. Excommunication of conscience is a very old term, which rarely used today. Today we would use the term “dissent”. It boils down to the same thing.

If there is a doctrinal difference between the SSPX and the Church, then they are not in communion. They are not out of communion, because of a penalty, which is what we normally refer to as excommunication. They are out of communion because of the dissent in doctrine. To use old language, the are out of communion or simple excommunication of conscience.

The Holy Father has always stated that the SSPX are out of communion on doctrinal points. He has not told the world what those doctrinal points are and he does not need to tell the world. The world does not need to know, unless the SSPX decides to break off from the Catholic Church. To make those points public to the world, would only make matters worse, when in fact, he’s trying very hard to bring them home.

He did mention one doctrinal point in his interview for Light of the World. He mentioned unioin with the Primacy. He explained that this is a doctrinal point. All Catholics must be in union with the Primacy. To believe that one can be in conflict with the Primacy, for lack of a better term, it contrary to the doctrine of union. How one is in union and at the same time disagrees the pope did not say. I’m sure that Cardinal Levada and Bishop Fellay know what those doctrinal issues are, but no one is telling us.

We simply have to believe Pope Benedict when he says that they are not in full doctrinal communion. This is what is called excommunication of conscience. It’s not a canonical term. That’s why you don’t find it in canon law. It’s a really a theological term that describes a situation. One way of understanding it is when your conscience and the Church’s conscience are not in communion. You’re conscience is excommunicated or out of communion. It’s from the Lattin.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

You cannot be schismatic without being in schism

And as for false accusations, you have stated quite a few times that they are schismatic, to be schismatic they must be in schism.

Actually, you can. Bl. John Paul declared that you could. He did so, so that he could apply it to Archbishop Lefebvre. He wrote a Motu Proprio on Bishop Lefebvre and declares him schismatic, but stops at declaring the SSPX as being in schism.

It’s a very complicated case. I think that we often forget to look for those little statements that Bl. John Paul and Pope Benedict have made that are very telling. It is very obvious that neither of them haver endearing feelings for this whole mess and for the key players.

Bl. John Paul even went as far as asking Catholics to withdraw from the SSPX. chapels.

matt1618.freeyellow.com/schism.html

It’s a very complex situation. But if we observe the language of the Vatican, the term schismatic is applied all the way through the Holy Father’s statement. As the Living Law of the Church, he can redefine and apply as he sees fit any word or term in Canon Law.

We don’t have to like it. We just have to accep it.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[jmj1984]

Many people here appear to be arguing semantics here or interpretation of terms such as “excommunication of conscience”, etc. That is all well and good. However, those arguing against utilization of that term seem to be ignoring another very important part of this situation. That being, that SSPX must have the permission of the Bishop to operate within his Diocese. Considering the statements that the Archbishop has made, it is quite evident that he has not given that permission. As such, they have no canonical standing to minister in the Diocese, regardless of their standing within the Catholic Church at large.

As has already been mentioned, this would be the same regardless of who it was coming into a Diocese. If the Master of the Order of Preachers or, to suggest a group closer to the current discussion - the Superior General of FSSP came into that Diocese and wished to exercise his ministry, the way I understand it is that they would need the permission of the Bishop to do so if it had not already been granted.

We can argue whether or not the are excommunicated, their canonical standing, etc. However, the fact that they are attempting to operate within the Diocese without permission of the Archbishop, is entirely inappropriate. Put all of the other stuff aside, and it is still wrong.

Oh I’m entirely aware of that, my point was simply that regardless of your view on the SSPX, one doesn’t need to invent fictitious punishments and sanctions in order to condemn them

 

[jmj1984]

The bishop has done neither. Excommunication of conscience is a very old term, which rarely used today. Today we would use the term “dissent”. It boils down to the same thing.

If there is a doctrinal difference between the SSPX and the Church, then they are not in communion. They are not out of communion, because of a penalty, which is what we normally refer to as excommunication. They are out of communion because of the dissent in doctrine. To use old language, the are out of communion or simple excommunication of conscience.

The Holy Father has always stated that the SSPX are out of communion on doctrinal points. He has not told the world what those doctrinal points are and he does not need to tell the world. The world does not need to know, unless the SSPX decides to break off from the Catholic Church. To make those points public to the world, would only make matters worse, when in fact, he’s trying very hard to bring them home.

He did mention one doctrinal point in his interview for Light of the World. He mentioned unioin with the Primacy. He explained that this is a doctrinal point. All Catholics must be in union with the Primacy. To believe that one can be in conflict with the Primacy, for lack of a better term, it contrary to the doctrine of union. How one is in union and at the same time disagrees the pope did not say. I’m sure that Cardinal Levada and Bishop Fellay know what those doctrinal issues are, but no one is telling us.

We simply have to believe Pope Benedict when he says that they are not in full doctrinal communion. This is what is called excommunication of conscience. It’s not a canonical term. That’s why you don’t find it in canon law. It’s a really a theological term that describes a situation. One way of understanding it is when your conscience and the Church’s conscience are not in communion. You’re conscience is excommunicated or out of communion. It’s from the Lattin.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Br Jr

Would you care to provide some authority for the term excommunication of conscience? Its no good saying that 'its an old term rarely used today’ if one can’t find any reference to it anywhere neither in the current code nor in the former. If its not a canonical term then it shouldn’t mentioned in the context of the canonical sanctions of the four bishops of the SSPX. That much is clear merely from the need for clarity in such statements let alone the need for honesty and truth.

Even as a theological term where has it been used?

As for the light of the world, I would not use that as authority especially as Pope Benedict himself states that he is merely expressing himself as a private theologian and that no one is bound to listen to him.

Saying that there are doctrinal issues and saying that they are ‘excommunicated in conscience’ isn’t synonymous and a Bishop knows that.