Poll - Which group poses the biggest threat to Church unity?

[Lormar]

I am at a loss to understand this sympathy for the dissenters in the Church. Look around you. See all those abuses that are rooted in many parishes? Here’s a hint: the SSPX had nothing to do with that; rather, they began as a reaction to all that the “spirit of Vatican II” liberals produced.

Talk about disobedience? Why is Pope Benedict XVI having such trouble getting Catholics to all walk in the same direction? Disobedient bishops, priests and religious who are still intent on doing their own thing and forming the Church to their own image and likeness all the while posing as members in good standing and leading many, many naive Catholics in the pews astray.

I can’t help but think of one of Our Lord’s parables in the Bible - you know the one where He asked his disciples who was doing the will of His Father? The one that said he would obey and then did his own thing, or the one that walked away and then later came back?

 

[Oneofthewomen]

Pope Benedict himself is sympathetic to the SSPX and that is why he has made overtures to them. That said you are right to denounce their disobedience.

OK, maybe sympathy is the wrong word.
I am sypathetic to all who wish to see the EF become more widly available, and to all those who think that some of our traditions have been lost the last 50 years. But neither of these issues (or their more “liberal” counterparts) would cause me to put my wishes/desires/wants ahead of those of the Magisterium.

I just do not understand how anyone who claims to be a faithful, traditionally minded Roman Catholic can defend the actions of AB Lefebvre & the SSPX. Part of being a faithful Roman Catholic is submitting my will to that of our Holy Father.
Period.
End of discussion.

 

[BenedictOblate]

The current Holy Father said this on the matter of the SSPX:

“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. As long as the Society does not have a canonical status in the Church, its ministers do not exercise legitimate ministries in the Church.”

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/letters/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20090310_remissione-scomunica_en.html

I’m only posting this as a matter of record in reference to some recent comments.

 

[Iotaunum]

I do not claim to know all of the “ins& outs” of the the SSPX issue however both of these comments, based on what is fact, do not make any sense to me.

Fact is that AB Lefebvre consecrated 4 Bishops against the will of the Holy Father.
One of the reasons I have heard that he gave for doing this was that he felt it was an emergency situation, due to his ill health.
That might wash if he only consecrated one Bishop, but 4!

IMHO, this action alone shows that they (the SSPX and the Arch Bishop) rebeled against the Magisterium and seperated themselves from the Church.

Dissent is dissent, no matter how good your intentions are or what side of the fence you are on.

You say that my comment: “A liberal Catholic is a bad one, one who rebels against the Church and her doctrine.” does not make any sense to you. I will try to explain what I mean. A liberal Catholic is essentially one who exercises liberty of conscience - choosing what to accept and reject. Liberals want to follow their ill formed consciences and let it be their magisterium, instead of the authority Christ established. They will very often not admit this. For example, if they want to use birth control they will do so, so long as it does not disturb their maladjusted consciences too much, for after all, they surmise; why would God send them to hell for that? They think nothing of rejecting authority and attacking dogma, like the modernists, looking for a continual evolution of doctrine and discipline until they are free to do/believe whatever they please and still be called Catholic. This of course leads to indifferentism and is a de facto form of it. Protestantism is an example of how liberalism will render people indifferentists and choosers of thier own doctrine. So basically, rather than accept the authority of the Church, and Christ whom it represents, the liberals do what their consciences and “reason” permits. They range from one end of the scale to the other. Some are more liberal than others. I recommend you read the Book; “Liberalism is a Sin” by Fr Felix Sarda Y Salvany published by TAN. This book was first published in1886. Immediately its truth hit the liberals and the priest’s own liberal bishop scrambled to the Sacred congregation of the Index hoping to get the book suppressed. He sent with it a book of his own written by a liberal priest “refuting” it. The Sacred Congregation wrote back in 1887 to say that not only was “Liberalism is a Sin” not to be suppressed, but that “Fr Sarda merits great praise for his exposition and defence of the sound doctrine therein set forth with solidity, order and lucidity, and without personal offence to anyone” - meanwhile the Sacred congregation under Leo XIII ordered that the attempted refutation be withdrawn at once from circulation. Pius IX continued to condemn liberalism many many times throughout his pontificate calling liberal Catholics the worst enemies of the Church.

Regarding Archbishop Lefevbre, I am well informed about this particular case and have read the dozens of letters and the correspondence between the Archbishop and the Vatican, including Cardinal Ratzinger and the Pope. The Archbishop did not cite his ill health as a reason, or to cause an emergency situation. The emergency situation was to ensure that traditionally minded priests would have Catholic bishops to ordain them in the traditional rite. Many rites of dubious validity were taking place at this time. The Archbishop wanted the freedom of traditional seminarians to be ordained without compromise and without doubt of validity for those Catholics who wanted it. Whether one feels he was wrong in wanting this or not is superfluous to canon law, since it makes provisions for nullifying any penulty even if the person DID NOT think there was a case of necessity. Archbishop Lefebvre thought their was, and many agree with him - but the law is clear either way. The SSPX have not; “rebeled against the Magisterium and seperated themselves from the Church.” For one who studies the relevant canons will see that ordaining bishops without a Papal mandate, or against the wishes of the Pope is not IN ITSELF a schismatic act. The SSPX simply continue to practice the faith as every Latin rite Catholic did for the best part of 2000 years, say the same mass and administer the same sacraments. They are not heretical in any way and are very much in communion with the Church.

 

[JReducation]

Regarding Archbishop Lefevbre, I am well informed about this particular case and have read the dozens of letters and the correspondence between the Archbishop and the Vatican, including Cardinal Ratzinger and the Pope. The Archbishop did not cite his ill health as a reason, or to cause an emergency situation. The emergency situation was to ensure that traditionally minded priests would have Catholic bishops to ordain them in the traditional rite. Many rites of dubious validity were taking place at this time. The Archbishop wanted the freedom of traditional seminarians to be ordained without compromise and without doubt of validity for those Catholics who wanted it. Whether one feels he was wrong in wanting this or not is superfluous to canon law, since it makes provisions for nullifying any penulty even if the person DID NOT think there was a case of necessity. Archbishop Lefebvre thought their was, and many agree with him - but the law is clear either way. The SSPX have not; “rebeled against the Magisterium and seperated themselves from the Church.” For one who studies the relevant canons will see that ordaining bishops without a Papal mandate, or against the wishes of the Pope is not IN ITSELF a schismatic act. The SSPX simply continue to practice the faith as every Latin rite Catholic did for the best part of 2000 years, say the same mass and administer the same sacraments. They are not heretical in any way and are very much in communion with the Church.

Actually, anyone who holds some of these positions will run into a head-on problem with the Holy Father. While Pope Benedict made it clear that he believes in the good faith of the priests in the SSPX, he also made it very clear that Bishop Lefebvre and those who followed him had chosen to break with the Primacy. He has gone on record as saying this.

Pope John Paul also went on record as saying that the state of emergency did not apply to Archbishop Lefebvre and he would not uphold it. Both said that the ordination of a bishop without papal permission is a schismatic act.

What Catholics need to understand is that Canon Law does not bind popes. It binds the rest of the Church. A pope can change it, bypass it, and interpret it at will. The issues here are canonical. It would be incorrect to say that the popes (John Paul and Benedict) have incorrectly applied or interpreted Canon Law, because there is no correct or incorrect way for the pope to do this. He is the Law Giver. The first three canons in the Code of Canon Law make it very clear that there is no appeal beyond a pope.

If the Society appeals that they have been unfairly treated and the pope says they have not, the matter is closed. They have not been afairly treated and they have to submit to the authority of the Pontiff. We’re talking about a canonical matter here, the ordination of bishops. The pope has the authority to bind and unbind in this area.

The question about the validity of some of the forms used for the ordination rite is not a valid one. As long as the form was approved by the competent authority, the form is valid. If there is an invalid form being used, taking matters into one’s own hand is not the way to go. That’s why we have a Pontiff. It is up to him to decide these matters. Individuals cannot make these judgment calls, because they build themselves up as their own magisterium. That’s unacceptable. That’s how schisms begin.

Regardless of what the Society may have said, the matter remains that whatever they have said about the necessity and validity of their actions is not acceptable to the Pontiff. Therefore, they remain inside the Church, without any canonical status and without any jursidiction. Whoever thinks that this is unimportant is hurting himself/herself and hurting others. Canonical status and jurisdiction are important for a Catholic to have full communion with the Church.

Everyone would do well to read what Pope Benedict had to say about this issue in Light of The World

We have to be very careful. As unfortunate as the extreme left can be, the heresies in the Church have always come from the right. The extreme left have always been rather faddish movements that have come and gone. The extreme right movements have ben led by people with a lot of issues with scrupples. Their scrupulosity led them out the door. They were not evil people and we should not judge them as such. They were people who lacked trust in the leadership of the Church in times of crisis. They opted to go with what they believed to be the right thing to do and they ended up on a slippery slope from which they did not recover.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[At_Trent]

All I know is tomorrow, there will be many sad liberals and many happy traditionalists.

Universae Ecclesiae is going to be released.

THEN, we will really begin to see what seminaries are " in full communion"

Springtime is good :extrahappy:

 

[Oneofthewomen]

snip The SSPX have not; “rebeled against the Magisterium and seperated themselves from the Church.” .

Apparently, I am not the only person who believes that you are incorrect here.

I quote~

But especially contradictory is a notion of Tradition which opposes the universal Magisterium of the Church possessed by the Bishop of Rome and the Body of Bishops. It is impossible to remain faithful to the Tradition while breaking the ecclesial bond with him to whom, in the person of the Apostle Peter, Christ himself entrusted the ministry of unity in his Church.(6)

I can sympathize with them, maybe empathize is a better word, but I can also say the same for people on the other side of the fence (i.e the Woman’s Ordination Movement)).

Both sides are doing what they believe to be right and true and good before the eyes of God regardless of what the "authority" has to say on the matter, and IMHO, this is where the problem lies. I don’t have to *like *what Holy Mother Church says, but, much like I have to with my own mother (and I am in my 40’s!) and as Jesus did too, (remember the wedding at Cana?), to be a good child, I must obey, even if I don’t understand. I have faith that my biological mother would never do anything to put me in harm’s way, should I not have the same faith in Holy Mother Church?

Edited to add:

Br. JR-

and thank you for your insights, they are always appreciated!

 

[Iotaunum]

Actually, anyone who holds some of these positions will run into a head-on problem with the Holy Father. While Pope Benedict made it clear that he believes in the good faith of the priests in the SSPX, he also made it very clear that Bishop Lefebvre and those who followed him had chosen to break with the Primacy. He has gone on record as saying this.

Pope John Paul also went on record as saying that the state of emergency did not apply to Archbishop Lefebvre and he would not uphold it. Both said that the ordination of a bishop without papal permission is a schismatic act.

What Catholics need to understand is that Canon Law does not bind popes. It binds the rest of the Church. A pope can change it, bypass it, and interpret it at will. The issues here are canonical. It would be incorrect to say that the popes (John Paul and Benedict) have incorrectly applied or interpreted Canon Law, because there is no correct or incorrect way for the pope to do this. He is the Law Giver. The first three canons in the Code of Canon Law make it very clear that there is no appeal beyond a pope.

If the Society appeals that they have been unfairly treated and the pope says they have not, the matter is closed. They have not been afairly treated and they have to submit to the authority of the Pontiff. We’re talking about a canonical matter here, the ordination of bishops. The pope has the authority to bind and unbind in this area.

The question about the validity of some of the forms used for the ordination rite is not a valid one. As long as the form was approved by the competent authority, the form is valid. If there is an invalid form being used, taking matters into one’s own hand is not the way to go. That’s why we have a Pontiff. It is up to him to decide these matters. Individuals cannot make these judgment calls, because they build themselves up as their own magisterium. That’s unacceptable. That’s how schisms begin.

Regardless of what the Society may have said, the matter remains that whatever they have said about the necessity and validity of their actions is not acceptable to the Pontiff. Therefore, they remain inside the Church, without any canonical status and without any jursidiction. Whoever thinks that this is unimportant is hurting himself/herself and hurting others. Canonical status and jurisdiction are important for a Catholic to have full communion with the Church.

Everyone would do well to read what Pope Benedict had to say about this issue in Light of The World

We have to be very careful. As unfortunate as the extreme left can be, the heresies in the Church have always come from the right. The extreme left have always been rather faddish movements that have come and gone. The extreme right movements have ben led by people with a lot of issues with scrupples. Their scrupulosity led them out the door. They were not evil people and we should not judge them as such. They were people who lacked trust in the leadership of the Church in times of crisis. They opted to go with what they believed to be the right thing to do and they ended up on a slippery slope from which they did not recover.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

I have discussed this at length before, and I do not want to be repetitive or get into anymore aruments or debates here. I have made my position clear and back it up with canon law as well as logic and reason. I do not hold that the Pope cannot change canon law or interpret it - that is not my position for that is not the teaching of the Church. I would direct everyone to my previous posts on other threads where I have explained the position of the Society of Saint Pius X, should they wish to hear the other side of the argument. Popes have interpreted wrongly before, and even excommunicated wrongly as history proves. I will bite my tongue for now in the intrests of avoiding this turning into another SSPX bashing thread or going off topic.

 

[Lormar]

All I know is tomorrow, there will be many sad liberals and many happy traditionalists.

Universae Ecclesiae is going to be released.

THEN, we will really begin to see what seminaries are " in full communion"

Springtime is good :extrahappy:

:clapping:

 

[BenedictOblate]

All I know is tomorrow, there will be many sad liberals and many happy traditionalists.

Universae Ecclesiae is going to be released.

THEN, we will really begin to see what seminaries are " in full communion"

Springtime is good :extrahappy:

The greater joy for me is that younger Catholics may have the opportunity to understand more fully their Catholic heritage. They may even begin to have a choice to attend either the extraordinary or ordinary form (or both) in their own parish on any given Sunday.

How satisfying and fulfilling would it be for people to be able to celebrate the beauty of both forms of the liturgy within their home parish? With the new Roman Missal being implemented during Advent, it should create a bridge between the two forms.

 

[laszlo]

Quote:
Originally Posted by laszlo View Post
The liberals are a strong group with significant influence. I estimate 1/3rd of the Catholics, and also that percentile of the priests. The SPPX represents max 600,000 catholic s (from 1 billion) and 500 priests form 400,000. They do not represent real power.
Sources, please?
Reply With Quote

Estimation is estimation, because it has no definite source. Neither is the term ;liberal catholic’ defined. If you take only the ‘womenpriest’ movement and may be the openly active gay priest movement is liberal, then their number comparable to the SSPX. If you defines as liberal priest those who to promote the “people’s Church” movement e.g. tampering with the Mass, then my estimation is real.

As for the SSPX I regularly check the SSPX website for data, sometimes the put out detailed statistic. The 500 priest is factual, the 600,000 was Bishop Fellay’s estimation some 2 years ago, may be overestimation. Please not that this is the number of adherents, who attend at least monthly SSPX mass, not active membership.

The data for the word Catholics is from the official statistics, google for it. The SSPX is insignificant,

 

[ConstantineTG]

Pope Benedict himself is sympathetic to the SSPX and that is why he has made overtures to them. That said you are right to denounce their disobedience.

The Pope is sympathetic of many groups. The problem is people supporting the ideology of the SSPX, which the Pope does not support. He’s trying to win them over, he’s building bridges and throwing lines. What do they do in return? The Pope has had better success with the Anglican Ordinariate.

 

[JReducation]

I have discussed this at length before, and I do not want to be repetitive or get into anymore aruments or debates here. I have made my position clear and back it up with canon law as well as logic and reason. I do not hold that the Pope cannot change canon law or interpret it - that is not my position for that is not the teaching of the Church. I would direct everyone to my previous posts on other threads where I have explained the position of the Society of Saint Pius X, should they wish to hear the other side of the argument. Popes have interpreted wrongly before, and even excommunicated wrongly as history proves. I will bite my tongue for now in the intrests of avoiding this turning into another SSPX bashing thread or going off topic.

There is nothing wrong with stating the position of the Society. There is nothing wrong with stating one’s position on an issue.

As to interpreting wrongly, that is not possible for one simple reason. You cannot interpret the law wrongly when you’re the law-giver. You can deviate from the law and it would be fair to say that. However, even when a pope deviates from the law, the most that can be said is exactly that. He deviated from the law. One cannot even say that he is wrong, because it’s his law. The power to bind and unbind belongs to him. Therefore, he can deviate from the law.

One can argue whether it’s fair to throw a curve ball at people. That’s a whole other argument. One cannot argue that he has no right to ignore the law or deviate from it or interpret it any way he pleases. The law-giver is free to do with the law as he pleases.

To say that the popes have excommunicate wrongly is also incorrect. An excommunication is a penalty for whatever reason the Church chooses to impose it. It does not always have to be a sin. Pope Gregory IX excommunicated Brother Elias as Francis of Assisi’s recommendation, because Elias felt that Francis’ idea of poverty was to extreme. When Elias made known his position, contrary to Francis’ command to keep his opinions to himself, Francis had him excommunicated. Brother Elias was a priest. Francis was not. However, Francis was the General Minister and the voice of Christ. Elias was not allowed to celebrate the sacraments nor to receive the sacraments until his excommunication was lifted by the local bishop. For that to happen he had to recant his opinion. Did Elias commit a grave sin? No. He disobeyed an order, but it was not an order that involved sin. It was not as if he had been ordered to stay away from a sinful act. He as ordered to put distance between himself and his opinion. But at that time, Canon Law said that a Major Superior could request excommunication for disobedience. Today, it is still in the law, but there are more steps that the superior must follow.

Law is always interpreted by the person in authority, not the person for whom the law is written.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[redrosetea]

I don’t know…you don’t have to like the positions of the church but you must obey them…I don’t always like what I am taught, but I do understand that it isn’t about being popular but following Christ

Jesus said to enter from the narrow path…not always easy, but we were told by Him to take up our cross daily…maybe the liberals might be the worst, but the sspx actually broke with the church…but I think they are trying to come back…if Williamson will stop throw gas on the embers …trying to fan more fires …

 

[JReducation]

The issues with the two sides are different.

With the SSPX the issue is that they are being asked to meet certain conditions in order to receive canonical status and to have the same rights as any other Association of Apostolic Life in the Catholic Church. This may look as if they are being made to be martyrs. But the truth is that every association has to meet certain canonical conditions for approval. Life is full of conditions. Whether you’re a society of apostolic life, as is the SSPX, a religious congregation such as the Missionaries of Charity, you still have to go through hoops. The Church sets conditions that you must meet and asks for assurances that you must give. In the end, it’s a matter of meeting those conditions and giving those assurances or not receiving the approval.

For the rest of us Catholics, this is important. We cannot follow a society that is not approved by the Church, because it does not have the canonical right to call itself a Catholic association. As it stands, it’s an association of Catholics, which canonically is very different. That means that they don’t have equal rights nor can they offer the faithful what other approved associations can offer . . . at least not legally. Most Catholics want to make sure that what they get is both Catholic and legal.

With the extreme left, the issue is not one of canonical status, because they do not constitute a public association or a religious congregation of any kind. They are movements, unstructured ones at that. They are really no threat to the Church, because what they espouse has no validity. No matter how many females they ordain, they are not ordained. It’s that simple. It’s not as if they can start their own Church. You cannot have a Church without validly ordained bishops. No matter how many same-sex couples they marry, does not constitute a valid marriage. No matter how much they say that abortion and contraception are legitimate in certain circumstances does not make these valid moral statements. They’re really annoying, but not a threat to unity. They can’t create a schism unless they start to ordain their own bishops, which has not happened yet.

Groups like the SSPX are a greater threat, because if they choose to stop the work toward unity or if at the end of the talks one or two of their bishops walks, in effect, we will have another Catholic Church, albeit one in schism. They’ll be like the Old Catholics. They won’t even be like the Orthodox, because the Orthodox are no longer excommunicated.

If one or two SSPX bishops and followers leave, because they don’t like the outcome of the talks, there will be another excommunication. That is very divisive, because it’s a new Church with Apostolic Succession, but in a state of rebellion. I have serious doubts that the entire SSPX following is going to be happy with whatever conclusions come from these talks. In fact, I believe that the largest number of rebels are going to be lay people, not clergy. I think that most of their priests want the suspension lifted. As to their bishops, Bishop Williamson seems kind of tentative. The others seem more conciliatory. I may be wrong, but if one of their bishops digs in his heals, I believe it’s going to be Bishop Williamson. That would be no surprise.

He was not a Catholic. He was an Episcopalian or Anglican. I’m not sure which. They are used to bucking Rome. He seems to be impulsive. And the Holy Father has spoken rather negatively about him and not about the other three bishops. The Holy Father has publicly referred to him as an Anti–Semite, a difficult man, and an outsider. If we know this, I’m sure that Bishop Williamson knows this too. That’s why I’m concerned and guessing that he will be unhappy if he does not get everything that they are requesting.

By their own statements, it appears that they are not getting everything that they are requesting. Cardinal Levada has not made any public statements about the talks, but the SSPX has and the statements don’t sound as if things are going well. Cardinal Levada is still demanding that they submit to Vatican II as is, accept the CCC as the official Catholic Catechism, and accept either a personal prelature. If they don’t accept a prelature their bishops can be disbanded and sent to dioceses as auxiliaries. They cannot be given a diocese unless they agree to celebrate the Ordinary Form of the mass, which they refuse to do. No priest can refuse to celebrate the Ordinary Form. You can refuse to celebrate the Extraordinary Form, but not the Ordinary. The only place would be as an auxiliary, not as the Ordinary of the diocese.

In my opinion, the greater danger lies on the right, not on the left. The left is just a lot of hot air. Eventually, they’ll find something else to complain about or they’ll go off and start some New Age church that has no validity. That’s their call. They’ll just have to live with the consequences of their choice.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[laszlo]

By their own statements, it appears that they are not getting everything that they are requesting. Cardinal Levada has not made any public statements about the talks, but the SSPX has and the statements don’t sound as if things are going well. Cardinal Levada is still demanding that they submit to Vatican II as is, accept the CCC as the official Catholic Catechism, and accept either a personal prelature. If they don’t accept a prelature their bishops can be disbanded and sent to dioceses as auxiliaries. They cannot be given a diocese unless they agree to celebrate the Ordinary Form of the mass, which they refuse to do. No priest can refuse to celebrate the Ordinary Form. You can refuse to celebrate the Extraordinary Form, but not the Ordinary. The only place would be as an auxiliary, not as the Ordinary of the diocese.

It is a good analysis. I believe Bishop Williamson will go on his own with some followers, the rest will accept the conditions. For anyone who understands that the Tradition is Rome, the living Magisterium, the full communion id in the bones and kidneys.

The logical place is the personal prelature, and serve those who wish to worship God through the extraordinary form. This hlps the others too, emphasizing the reverence toward the Mass.

 

[JReducation]

It is a good analysis. I believe Bishop Williamson will go on his own with some followers, the rest will accept the conditions. For anyone who understands that the Tradition is Rome, the living Magisterium, the full communion id in the bones and kidneys.

The logical place is the personal prelature, and serve those who wish to worship God through the extraordinary form. This hlps the others too, emphasizing the reverence toward the Mass.

I’m praying that the reports that the SSPX web pages and bloggers are putting out are either exaggerated or that the issues get settled. Remember, we only know what we read on web pages and blogs. The Vatican is being very closed on the matter. The whole thing is in the hands of Cardinal Levada, the Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Faith. The Pope will go whichever way the Cardinal advises him to go. The Cardinal is Joseph Ratzinger’s successor and they belong to the same theological school. The difference between them is that the Cardinal is more experienced in pastoral matters. Cardinal Ratzinger did not spend as much time in the pastoral scene. Most of his life he was a scholar. That may be a good thing for the Society, because the Cardinal not only gets to read what the theologians on both sides propose, but he gets to look at this through the eyes of a person who has been on the front lines.

In the worse case. let’s say that one of the bishops walks. We must then pray that the number who goes with him will be small and that the schismatic Church that will be born will die by attrition. Otherwise, in several hundred years we’ll be facing the same thing that we’re facing today with the Old Catholics. We already went through this with the Orthodox. Finally, the excommunications have been lifted; but how many years has it taken to take this tiny step toward unity. With the Old Catholics we’re not even at lifting excommunications. They won’t budge.

I believe that a personal prelature is a great option. I think that many people don’t understand it and that’s why they fear it. Basically what it is is a diocese without boundaries. The pope is its head and someone is appointed the Vicar. That’s how the Opus Dei works. The only detail to be worked out is that even personal prelatures must get permission from the local bishop to setup house in his diocese. But they do not answer to him once the permission is granted. If you get the pope to make the request, who’s going to say “No”?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Seamus_L]

I think history will ultimately be much kinder to the SSPX then most people now believe.

 

[JReducation]

I think history will ultimately be much kinder to the SSPX then most people now believe.

It’s not that the Church is being mean to them. It’s that they have to follow the same rules that other Institutes of Apostolic Life follow. Every Institute of Apostolic Life has to submit to certain expectations and offer certain reasurances to be canonically erected.

Everyone has to understand tha the Society IS NOT a religious order. It is a secular institute of priests. Therefore, it does not enjoy the protectioin of exempt status that religious orders enjoy by virute of being consecrated men. These are secular men who want to operate as if they were consecrated religious, with their own internal authority that decides things that are not alloed to secular institutes This is one canonical hurdle. The only way for a secular association to operate with freedom from the local bishops is to become a prelature of the Holy Father.

The other problem that they have to face is that at some point the pope, through his canonical delebate, Cardinal Levada, will say, “This is as far as I can go. Take it or leave it.” That’s not being mean. There is only so much that you can do and only so far that you can bend before you snap. Flexibility has its limits. In this case, the lay people would do well to enourage their SSPX priests to yield. I wouldn’t say it that way. I would offer the examples of the FSSP, Canons of St. John Cantius and the Society of Christ the King High Priest. They have compromised and are doing well and are happy. Right now, in the directions that were published today to compliment Summorum Pontificum, clergy who want to learn the EF have been directed to these societies and told not to use societies that do not have canonical status. We all know who they are referring to.

Sometimes they need encouragement.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Iotaunum]

There is nothing wrong with stating the position of the Society. There is nothing wrong with stating one’s position on an issue.

As to interpreting wrongly, that is not possible for one simple reason. You cannot interpret the law wrongly when you’re the law-giver. You can deviate from the law and it would be fair to say that. However, even when a pope deviates from the law, the most that can be said is exactly that. He deviated from the law. One cannot even say that he is wrong, because it’s his law. The power to bind and unbind belongs to him. Therefore, he can deviate from the law.

One can argue whether it’s fair to throw a curve ball at people. That’s a whole other argument. One cannot argue that he has no right to ignore the law or deviate from it or interpret it any way he pleases. The law-giver is free to do with the law as he pleases.

To say that the popes have excommunicate wrongly is also incorrect. An excommunication is a penalty for whatever reason the Church chooses to impose it. It does not always have to be a sin. Pope Gregory IX excommunicated Brother Elias as Francis of Assisi’s recommendation, because Elias felt that Francis’ idea of poverty was to extreme. When Elias made known his position, contrary to Francis’ command to keep his opinions to himself, Francis had him excommunicated. Brother Elias was a priest. Francis was not. However, Francis was the General Minister and the voice of Christ. Elias was not allowed to celebrate the sacraments nor to receive the sacraments until his excommunication was lifted by the local bishop. For that to happen he had to recant his opinion. Did Elias commit a grave sin? No. He disobeyed an order, but it was not an order that involved sin. It was not as if he had been ordered to stay away from a sinful act. He as ordered to put distance between himself and his opinion. But at that time, Canon Law said that a Major Superior could request excommunication for disobedience. Today, it is still in the law, but there are more steps that the superior must follow.

Law is always interpreted by the person in authority, not the person for whom the law is written.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

I’m sure I’m not the only one here with a feeling of Deja Vu - this matter has been discussed at some length and I think we must agree to disagree this time again. The Pope is not infallible when excommunicating or making any other disciplinary judgment since he is constrained by the information he has on the person and situation. The Pope is only infallible when making doctrinal pronouncements ex cathedra - that is not to say the Pope is not to be obeyed or that his authority is questionable - it simply is the teaching of the Church with regards infallibility and allows therefore for Popes to excommunicate wrongly - it is a possibility. By wrongly I mean invalidly. One could wrongfully be excommunicated validly, but that is a whole other issue. We all know that invalid excommunications have happened in the past, the most well known of which is the case of St Athanasius being excommunicated by Pope Liberius. Many factors can invalidate an excommunication - whether one agrees with my defence of Archbishop Lefebvre from Canon law is a matter of opinion. Should it be refuted I would reconsider my position, but I have not found that to be the case.

Regards