Pope Lifts Excommunications of SSPX Bishops

[JReducation]

…in your opinion. Others differ. Since Pope Benedict has lifted these excommunications, it is now a moot question, as is the issue of why an AB considers his own death an occasion of an emergency in the Church.

If the pope lifts an excommunicatin, the question is moot because it means that the pope believes the excommunication to be valid. You cannot lift what is non existent.

As to Bishop Williamson, Pope Benedict has said that his beliefs are inconsistent with those of the Church. The Pope is speaking about a moral issue. Therefore, his position is binding.

This is not a matter of fearing the SSPX, but of clarifying what is right and what is wrong with the SSPX. There are many things that are good about it. But these two points are not right and the Pope is trying to rectify them.

I fail to understand why lay people who belong to the SSPX say that they are submissive to the pope, but refute his position on the excommunication and on Bishop Williamson. We either submit or not. I can say that I don’t understand his position or that I don’t agree, but I must always give my ascent if I am truly submissive to his authority. The part that is missing here is the assent.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[pnewton]

It is because, even though many other bishops privately held his opinions, he & Archbp. de Castro Meyer were the only ones to translate this into action. Into actions he deemed appropriate. Most other Catholics had a little more faith in the Catholic Church than he did. His declaration of deciding his own death was an ecclessial emergency, that he was a legend in his own mind, is the hardest thing I find to swallow about the SSPX. It appears to fly in the face of the attitude of Philippians 2.

 

[JReducation]

LETTER OF HIS HOLINESS POPE BENEDICT XVI

TO THE BISHOPS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

concerning the remission of the excommunication

of the four Bishops consecrated by Archbishop Lefebvre

Dear Brothers in the Episcopal Ministry!

The remission of the excommunication of the four Bishops consecrated in 1988 by Archbishop Lefebvre without a mandate of the Holy See has for many reasons caused, both within and beyond the Catholic Church, a discussion more heated than any we have seen for a long time.

An unforeseen mishap for me was the fact that the Williamson case came on top of the remission of the excommunication. The discreet gesture of mercy towards four Bishops ordained validly but not legitimately suddenly (The Holy Father states that the consecrations were not legitimate. It would seem that anyone who professes to obey the Holy Father would accept this statement.)appeared as something completely different: as the repudiation of reconciliation between Christians and Jews, and thus as the reversal of what the Council had laid down in this regard to guide the Church’s path. A gesture of reconciliation with an ecclesial group engaged in a process of separation thus turned into its very antithesis: an apparent step backwards with regard to all the steps of reconciliation between Christians and Jews taken since the Council - steps which my own work as a theologian had sought from the beginning to take part in and support. (Bishop Williamson’s issues cause a setback in the work that the pope himself has supported and for which he find theological grounding. Not a good place to be for Bishop Williamson.) That this overlapping of two opposed processes took place and momentarily upset peace between Christians and Jews, as well as peace within the Church, is something which I can only deeply deplore. I have been told that consulting the information available on the internet would have made it possible to perceive the problem early on. I have learned the lesson that in the future in the Holy See we will have to pay greater attention to that source of news. I was saddened by the fact that even Catholics who, after all, might have had a better knowledge of the situation, thought they had to attack me with open hostility. Precisely for this reason I thank all the more our Jewish friends, who quickly helped to clear up the misunderstanding and to restore the atmosphere of friendship and trust which - as in the days of Pope John Paul II - has also existed throughout my pontificate and, thank God, continues to exist.

Another mistake, which I deeply regret, is the fact that the extent and limits of the provision of 21 January 2009 were not clearly and adequately explained at the moment of its publication. The excommunication affects individuals, not institutions. An episcopal ordination lacking a pontifical mandate raises the danger of a schism, since it jeopardizes the unity of the College of Bishops with the Pope. Consequently the Church must react by employing her most severe punishment - excommunication - with the aim of calling those thus punished to repent and to return to unity. The Holy Father makes clear that the act by the Archbishop caused a greater danger than what the Archbishop tried to prevent.

Twenty years after the ordinations, this goal has sadly not yet been attained. The remission of the excommunication has the same aim as that of the punishment: namely, to invite the four Bishops once more to return. This gesture was possible once the interested parties had expressed their recognition in principle of the Pope and his authority as Pastor, albeit with some reservations in the area of obedience to his doctrinal authority and to the authority of the Council. The purpose of lifting the excommunication was to bring the bishops back to union with Rome, not an admission that they were right and Rome was wrong.

(piece deleted for the sake of spaceThe 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. There are doctrinal reasons for not admitting the society to full participation in the Church. It’s not just a punishment. Therefore, every ministry by deacons, priests and bishops of the SSPX continue to be illegal. Either the pope is wrong or the SSPX is wrong. Both can’t be right. But one thing is sure, the pope remains the pope. The SSPX recognizes that too.

There needs to be a distinction, then, between the disciplinary level, which deals with individuals as such, and the doctrinal level, at which ministry and institution are involved. In order to make this clear once again: until the doctrinal questions are clarified, the Society has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers - even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty - do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church.

With a special Apostolic Blessing, I remain

Yours in the Lord,

BENEDICTUS PP. XVI

From the Vatican, 10 March 2009

The rest of this letter can be read here

blog.beliefnet.com/pontifications/2009/03/popes-letter-on-sspx-excommuni.html

Fraternally,

JR

 

[numealinesimpet]

If the pope lifts an excommunicatin, the question is moot because it means that the pope believes the excommunication to be valid. You cannot lift what is non existent.

I thought ‘moot’ meant ‘debatable’? But the point is that Bp Fellay had asked for the Decree of Excommunication to be lifted, ‘without prejudice’ to whether it was legitimate in the first place. He was content with the papal decree when it came. In later press releases he continues to remark ‘the excommunications … which we have always disputed’. And this on a point of Law, not of subjective opinion.

As to Bishop Williamson, Pope Benedict has said that his beliefs are inconsistent with those of the Church. The Pope is speaking about a moral issue. Therefore, his position is binding.

Really, Bp Williamson’s case was a red herring. Remember, these were (highly imprudent) comments that he made twenty years ago. He was confronted with them last November, on a recorded TV interview, and they were released three days before the Pope’s Motu Proprio. Bp w. did try to apologise, and he accepted all sanctions imposed by Bp Fellay. the Pope himself appears to have been satisfied by this - granted that it happened in the first place.

This is not a matter of fearing the SSPX, but of clarifying what is right and what is wrong with the SSPX. There are many things that are good about it. But these two points are not right and the Pope is trying to rectify them.

I fail to understand why lay people who belong to the SSPX say that they are submissive to the pope, but refute his position on the excommunication

It is because the decree of excommunication by Cdl Gantin in 1988 violated the New Code of Canon Law. In the previous code, certain objective acts ncurred excommunication, which could be appealed. if the appeal was rejected, then the accused must either recant or suffer the penalty of excommunication. In the New Code, the subjective belief of a State of Emergency is allowed to have legal force (Please check the articles again - it really says that). therefore no automatic penalty is enforcable until it has been proved that the accused did not believe it was a state of necessity. this is, I must say with respect, poor legislation. the Vatican had saddled itself with contradictory legislation. This must and will be rectified in the future. Meanwhile, the SSPX were within their legal rights.

well, i think both Bp w. & Bp Fellay have submitted on that. Bp w. has been told to study the case and reflect, and I think he is doing that.

and on Bishop Williamson. We either submit or not. I can say that I don’t understand his position or that I don’t agree, but I must always give my assent if I am truly submissive to his authority.

S. Thomas Aquinas points out that we are not only not obliged to comply with an abuse of authority, but we are under an obligation to resist it.

The part that is missing here is the assent.

Unfortunately, popes have indeed abused their authority at various times in the past, and been resisted - including by those who were later canonised - as indeed S. Athanasius, whose Feast Day is today. It did not begin in 1988.

Fraternally,

JR

Et cum spiritu tuo

nume

 

[numealinesimpet]

Into actions he deemed appropriate. Most other Catholics had a little more faith in the Catholic Church than he did.

There were three courses of action that people could take. They either denied the Church was in a crisis (1985 was the very first time I heard any comment from an official source that there was anything but wonderfully good fruits coming from what was called Vatican II).

Or they refused to comply, and followed the time-honoured Catholic Rule: when in doubt, keep to what has been done in the past. Lefebvre & de Castro Mayer took this course.

Or there were those who did recognise the crisis, but said, ‘God is in charge: we will leave it to Him’. But in the comparable Arian Crisis, Bp. Athanasius and Bp Eusebius did not say, ‘God is in charge: we will leave it to Him’, they took corrective action, including that which was technically illegal - going into dioceses and ordaining bishops against the will of the Local Ordinary. Yet Athanasius was canonised (and it is his Feast Day today).

His declaration of deciding his own death was an ecclessial emergency, that he was a legend in his own mind, is the hardest thing I find to swallow about the SSPX. It appears to fly in the face of the attitude of Philippians 2.

He, & Bp de Castro Mayer, were the only two prelates who were not allowing the heresies into their own seminaries. It was not a question of whether they were a legend or not. As bishops they did their duty before God, as did Athanasius before them.

 

[JReducation]

I thought ‘moot’ meant ‘debatable’? But the point is that Bp Fellay had asked for the Decree of Excommunication to be lifted, ‘without prejudice’ to whether it was legitimate in the first place. He was content with the papal decree when it came. In later press releases he continues to remark ‘the excommunications … which we have always disputed’. And this on a point of Law, not of subjective opinion.

The issue is that neither Pope John Paul or Pope Benedict agree that the excommunications violated law. They are the ultimate authority on Church law. There is no one who can overrule a pope on Church law.

Really, Bp Williamson’s case was a red herring. Remember, these were (highly imprudent) comments that he made twenty years ago. He was confronted with them last November, on a recorded TV interview, and they were released three days before the Pope’s Motu Proprio. Bp w. did try to apologise, and he accepted all sanctions imposed by Bp Fellay. the Pope himself appears to have been satisfied by this - granted that it happened in the first place.

I’m not sure why you say that the Williamson case was a red herring. Nonetheless, Benedict XVI is not satisfied. He has stated that Bishop Williamson has no ecclesial status in the Catholic Church, has no jurisdiction and cannot function as a priest. If he were statisfied, he would give him faculties and an episcopal see. He has not done so.

It is because the decree of excommunication by Cdl Gantin in 1988 violated the New Code of Canon Law. In the previous code, certain objective acts ncurred excommunication, which could be appealed. if the appeal was rejected, then the accused must either recant or suffer the penalty of excommunication. In the New Code, the subjective belief of a State of Emergency is allowed to have legal force (Please check the articles again - it really says that). therefore no automatic penalty is enforcable until it has been proved that the accused did not believe it was a state of necessity. this is, I must say with respect, poor legislation. the Vatican had saddled itself with contradictory legislation. This must and will be rectified in the future. Meanwhile, the SSPX were within their legal rights.

If the decree has violated canon law Pope John Paul would have declared it invalid. Such as not the case. Pope Benedict has not declared it invalid either, as you can see from his letter. Two popes have supported the decree. Also, remember that the Congregation did not excommunicate the bishops. They simply quoted what canon law says. They were excommuinicated by their action.

well, i think both Bp w. & Bp Fellay have submitted on that. Bp w. has been told to study the case and reflect, and I think he is doing that.

Bishop Williamson was told to distance himself from this position, not to study it and reflect.

S. Thomas Aquinas points out that we are not only not obliged to comply with an abuse of authority, but we are under an obligation to resist it.

St. Thomas is referring to authority that demands one to do something sinful. One has to prove that one is being asked to sin.

Unfortunately, popes have indeed abused their authority at various times in the past, and been resisted - including by those who were later canonised - as indeed S. Athanasius, whose Feast Day is today. It did not begin in 1988.

It is true that popes and bishops have abused authority. But one has to prove that John Paul II did so. What did Pope John Paul ask the SSPX bishops do or not do that is sinful?

By the way, moot means that it is no longer an issue. In this case, the validity of the excommunications are no longer an issue, since they are no longer in-force.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[numealinesimpet]

The issue is that neither Pope John Paul or Pope Benedict agree that the excommunications violated law. They are the ultimate authority on Church law. There is no one who can overrule a pope on Church law.

Not so. The Pope is bound by laws as they apply to a pope, because it is the Law that made him Pope. he can change Canon Law so long as it does not violate a Higher Law, but he cannot simply disregard the law as it stands. This would be a denial of justice.

I’m not sure why you say that the Williamson case was a red herring. Nonetheless, Benedict XVI is not satisfied. He has stated that Bishop Williamson has no ecclesial status in the Catholic Church, has no jurisdiction and cannot function as a priest. If he were statisfied, he would give him faculties and an episcopal see. He has not done so.

You are correct there. I did not mean that all penalties have yet been remitted. What I meant was that he seemed to be satisfied with Bp w’s response to the whole ‘Swedish Interview’ affair.

If the decree has violated canon law Pope John Paul would have declared it invalid.

I’m sorry to say that many of Pope John Paul’s actions and omissions forbid us to make such a sweeping statement. I would prefer not to go down that alleyway, but will do so if pressed.

Such as not the case. Pope Benedict has not declared it invalid either, as you can see from his letter.

Agree.

Two popes have supported the decree. Also, remember that the Congregation did not excommunicate the bishops. They simply quoted what canon law says. They were excommuinicated by their action.

On the contrary, as I have mentioned, Cdl Gantin’s decree suppressed as many paragraphs of the New Code of Canon law as it quoted. With respect, you could not run a cake stall on such lines, let alone the Catholic Church.

Bishop Williamson was told to distance himself from this position, not to study it and reflect.

Well, he was told both things, at different times.

St. Thomas is referring to authority that demands one to do something sinful. One has to prove that one is being asked to sin.

Unfortunately, the New Code of Canon Law requires only that you believe such a thing - even if your belief is wrong, and (incredibly) even if your belief is due to a culable negligence on your part. As I say, it is all there in black and white. This more than covered Mgr Lefebvre’s actions. To give him credit, Lefebvre opposed the New Code of Canon Law. But when it had been validly promulgated by Pope John Paul II, he accepted it. When they subsequently tried to set it aside for his particular case, he rightly invoked its protection.

It is true that popes and bishops have abused authority. But one has to prove that John Paul II did so. What did Pope John Paul ask the SSPX bishops do or not do that is sinful?

To commit the sin of omission of complying with such things as abandoning the traditional liturgy when it had not, in fact, been abrogated, as pope benedict has affirmed.

By the way, moot means that it is no longer an issue. In this case, the validity of the excommunications are no longer an issue, since they are no longer in-force.

Thank you for that clarification! And you are right; the issue is now dead. As I say, I reserve the right, however, to respond when it continues to be affirmed as a fact that the excommunications were valid. The SSPX fed my family when we were hungry, and I owe them a debt of gratitude at least.

Hopefully we are now entering a better phase of the church’s history: see especially Bp Fellay’s request for a Rosary Crusade - 12 million rosaries for the Reign of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, with the Consecration of Russia.

Fraternally,

JR

Et cum spiritu tuo

… and I hope you won’t think me cowardly for logging off, but it’s now 4.30am here - I should’ve been asleep long ago…

 

[bobzills]

The issue is that neither Pope John Paul or Pope Benedict agree that the excommunications violated law. They are the ultimate authority on Church law. There is no one who can overrule a pope on Church law.

I thought that an ecumenical Council could overrule a Pope. For example, when there were three Popes at one time, the Council overuled them.

 

[bobzills]

They simply quoted what canon law says. They were excommuinicated by their action

This is not clear, sicn there were bishop who were consecrated without papal appproval in case of an emergency, and they were not excommunicated, because there was an emergency situation.

 

[bobzills]

It is true that popes and bishops have abused authority. But one has to prove that John Paul II did so. What did Pope John Paul ask the SSPX bishops do or not do that is sinful?

here’s one area where I think the SSPX was required to do something questionable.
Effectively the SSPX was required to go along with the changes in Catholic doctrine put into effect in the New Mass. For example, according to the Catechism of the Council of Trent it was with good reason that the prayer says that the Blood was shed for many. The SSPX was required to change the teaching which was in effect for two thousand years and say in the New Mass that the Blood was shed for all.

 

[pnewton]

It was not a question of whether they were a legend or not. As bishops they did their duty before God, as did Athanasius before them.

Athanasius always comes into this. Always. I once wrote why I find this example weak. Basically, it shows nothing, but begs the question. It assumes a crisis of on par with Arianism and that one is a Saint on par with Athanasius. I have read both St. Athanasius and Lefebvere. I do not see the quality in the later that was in the former, although no doubt others might. They did not stand by all Catholic tradition. They rejected the Tradition of papal authority and broke vows of obedience. I figure that if the Holy Spirit would have wanted Lefebvre to be the great hero of the Church, he would have been chosen Pope, or at least some one sympathetic toward his particular point of view.

 

[LRThunder]

. For example, according to the Catechism of the Council of Trent it was with good reason that the prayer says that the Blood was shed for many. The SSPX was required to change the teaching which was in effect for two thousand years and say in the New Mass that the Blood was shed for all.

I think the issue with the current Mass is of a poor translation, not any new doctrine or explanation of doctrine. In any other language, “pro multis” would still be “for many,” if I recall correctly.

Disagreeing with poor translations should be considered the least of SSPX’s errors, especially given the NAB translation used at Mass in the U.S.

 

[IrishYanksFan]

How is the existence of the Holocaust a matter of “faith and morals”? It’s a matter of history.

I’m not defending Williamson’s views per se, but I’m questioning what exactly belief in the Holocaust has to do with Catholic dogma. Just because the pope holds a personal opinion on something does not make it dogma. The Holocaust was never declared ex cathedra or in an ecumenical council, so aren’t faithful Catholics free to disagree? If you’re Catholic you can even believe the Bulls beat the Celtics last night if you want, without fear of excommunication.

I suggest reading this article

takimag.com/site/article/history_the_holocaust_and_the_doctrines_of_the_church/

 

[Rupert_of_SSPX]

I wished I had time to defend the SSPX last night but thankfully it seems Numealinesimpet is on top of it.

 Bishop Williamson's views on the Holocaust are a red-herring because his private opinions on this wholly secular matter have nothing whatsoever to do with the Society. His position became known in the 80's when the theory was popular. Later, the alleged evidence was allegedly debunked and the position became extremely unpopular. The Bishop had not reviewed the evidence nor spoken publicly on the issue since that time, when he was ambushed with the question in the interview which had promised not to bring up the Holocaust. It was done because the enemies of Holy Mother Church had forseen the lifting of the excommunications and wanted 'dirt' on the bishops in question. This is why the news of what the Bishop had said was delayed untill the lifting. It is to the credit of the other three SSPX bishops that nothing could be pinned on them.

 In any case, people  jump to the conclusion that disbelief in this secular event (the Holocaust) is indicative of anti-semetism. I have had the privilege of meeting the Bishop in person on several occasions and in my humble opinion, racism is as incompatible with him as it is with the Church.

 For those who still claim that the excommunications were valid and that the lifting is an invitation for us to 're-join' the Church, can you explain why the Vatican requested no confession (especially as they supposedly see the Society's own sacraments as invalid) and re-affirmation of faith from those being 'invited' (I understand that this is the protocol normally observed).

The case of St. Athanasius is a good point. Can Catholics not entertain even the vaguest possibility that the Church is in a similar state today?

 

[bobzills]

I think the issue with the current Mass is of a poor translation, not any new doctrine or explanation of doctrine. In any other language, “pro multis” would still be “for many,” if I recall correctly.

Disagreeing with poor translations should be considered the least of SSPX’s errors, especially given the NAB translation used at Mass in the U.S.

Why should the SSPX be required to state that the Blood was shed for all, when the Catechism of the Council of Trent said that the proper expression is that the Blood was shed for many? Was not the SSPX correct on this point and the post Vatican II Roman Catholic Church was wrong here?

 

[numealinesimpet]

Why should the SSPX be required to state that the Blood was shed for all, when the Catechism of the Council of Trent said that the proper expression is that the Blood was shed for many? Was not the SSPX correct on this point and the post Vatican II Roman Catholic Church was wrong here?

Well, there are two levels of difficulty with the Novus Ordo: The actual official text in Latin, and the various vernacular translations.

As for the official version, one could not improve on the words of the “Ottaviani Intervention”. Here is the Preface, which is available widespread in print & on the net:

Rome
25 September 1969

Most Holy Father:

Having carefully examined and presented for the scrutiny of

others the New Order of Mass prepared by the experts of the Committee
for the Implementation of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, and
after lengthy prayer and reflection, we feel obliged before God and Your
Holiness to set forth the following considerations:

1. The accompanying Critical Study is the work of a select group of
   bishops, theologians, liturgists, and pastors of souls. Despite its
   brevity, the study shows quite clearly that the Novus Ordo
   Missae–considering the new elements widely susceptible to widely
   different interpretations which are implied or taken for
   granted–represents, both as a whole and in its details, a striking
   departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in
   Session 22 of the Council of Trent. The “canons” of the rite
   definitively fixed at that time erected an insurmountable barrier
   against any heresy which might attack the integrity of the Mystery.
2. The pastoral reasons put forth to justify such a grave break, even
   if such reasons could still hold good in the face of doctrinal
   considerations, do not seem sufficient. The innovations in the Novus
   Ordo and the fact that all that is of perennial value finds only a minor
   place–if it subsists at all–could well turn into a certainty the
   suspicion, already prevalent, alas in many circles, that truths which
   have always been believed by the Christian people can be changed or
   ignored without infidelity to that sacred deposit of doctrine to which
   the Catholic faith is bound forever. The recent reforms have amply
   demonstrated that new changes in the liturgy could not be made without
   leading to complete bewilderment on the part of the faithful, who
   already show signs of restiveness and an indubitable lessening of their
   faith. Among the best of the clergy, the result is an agonizing crisis
   of conscience, numberless instances of which come to us daily.
3. We are certain that these considerations, prompted by what we hear
   from the living voice of shepherds and the flock, cannot but find an
   echo in the heart of Your Holiness, always so profoundly solicitous for
   the spiritual needs of the children of the Church. The subjects for
   whose benefit a law is made have always had the right, nay the duty, to
   ask the legislator to abrogate the law, should it prove to be harmful.
   
   At a time, therefore, when the purity of the faith and the unity
   of the Church suffer cruel lacerations and still greater peril, daily
   and sorrowfully echoed in the words of You, our common Father, we most
   earnestly beseech Your Holiness not to deprive us of the possibility of
   continuing to have recourse to the integral and fruitful Missal of St.
   Pius V, so highly praised by Your Holiness, and so deeply venerated by
   the whole Catholic world.

A. Card. Ottaviani
A. Card. Bacci

+++++++++

As for the vernacular translations:

This document never received a reply.

I first encountered the Latin version of the NO in 1982. I was horrified at the discrepancies in the English language version. Yes, the Latin says ‘pro vobis et pro multis’. Yet it is translated ‘for you and for all’ in, I believe, every one of the major modern vernacular transaltions. One would have to be blind not to notice the systematic nature of the mis-translations. A later posting might deal with this in more detail. One of the most glaring passages is the phrase ‘and the offering of your priest Melchisedech’. The Latin is actually word for word with the ancient Roman Canon: ‘and that which Thy High Priest Melchisedech offered untoTthee, a Holy Sacrifice, an Immaculate Victim’. The Latin NO says ‘say but the word, and my soul shall be healed’. The English ‘translation’ is, ‘…and*** I*** shall be healed.’ You will find the word ‘soul’ systematically eliminated, along with much else. Correct me if I’m wrong, but the English NO Mass for All Soul’s Day nowhere uses the actual word ‘soul’ …
It was this Mass I attended - a NO in Latin - that opened my eyes to the terrible truth. We were being conned. I began to find out many other things as well. It was only later that I learned of what is now called the Traditionalist backlash. Thank God for their honesty and bravery.

 

[pnewton]

The case of St. Athanasius is a good point. Can Catholics not entertain even the vaguest possibility that the Church is in a similar state today?

Yes, they can entertain what they will. However, I will point out that Arian issue was core to Christianity as it dealt with the nature and existence of Christ. Also, while he taught contrary to the Pope, he committed no schismatic act of disobedience. He knew where to draw the line. I do not know if they had a vow of obedience back then, but he would not have broken that vow if they did.

 

[numealinesimpet]

Yes, they can entertain what they will. However, I will point out that Arian issue was core to Christianity as it dealt with the nature and existence of Christ. Also, while he taught contrary to the Pope, he committed no schismatic act of disobedience. He knew where to draw the line. I do not know if they had a vow of obedience back then, but he would not have broken that vow if they did.

I’m not being facecious, pnewton, but whom are you referring to, Arius or Athanasius? Pope Liberius did not teach clearly - that was the trouble. Arius taught contrary to the Church, and Liberius, instead of disciplining him, disciplined Athanasius ‘for the sake of unity’ (in this case, unity in confusion’). Athanasius was hounded from his diocese, and the faithful Catholics were hounded from their churches. Athanasius wrote to them, "They have the churches, but ye have the Faith. Which is the more important?’ Pope Liberius issued a statement that was deliberately ambiguous: that the Son was ‘like’ the Father. This gave what the lawyers call ‘comfort’ to the Arian heretics, while stopping short of outright heresy. I’m afraid the parallels with the crisis of the 20th century is close.

An act of disobedience is not necessarily schismatic. We did raise this issue a couple of months ago.

 

[Rupert_of_SSPX]

Yes, they can entertain what they will. However, I will point out that Arian issue was core to Christianity as it dealt with the nature and existence of Christ.

 But surely you do not suggest that the Catholic Liturgy, in it's entirety, is not core to (Catholicism at the very least)? For that is what the Church lost (and replaced) after Vatican II. I was going to say that it had been changed or reformed but in truth it was lost and replaced with something that bore only faint similarities and with it has been lost far more. Our Pope himself has said: "It is incontrovertible that this period (post Vatican II) has definitely been unfavourable for the Catholic Church." -Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger L'Osservatore Romano 1984 
 The statistics prove the point just as incontrovertibly. Baptisms, Mass attendence and, worst perhaps of all, vocations have dived by massive percentages since the Council while apostatization has risen shockingly.
 I would go so far as to claim that with the Liturgy many (of those who remained with the Church) have lost true Faith in and reverence for Our Lord and respect for the Church itself.

 

[pnewton]

An act of disobedience is not necessarily schismatic. We did raise this issue a couple of months ago.

Not all, but the act of disobedience performed by Lefebvre was. I refer to Ecclesia Dei linked in the sticky at the top. Athanasius in his fight against Arianism commited no such act, nor would he. That one of the two reasons I do not see a parallel.