Question about The Society of Saint Pius X

[pbm]

SSPX answers the question of EXCOMMUNICATION here:

sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/q11_abexcommunicated.htm

SSPX answers the question of SCHISM here:

sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/q12_sspxschismatic.htm

The recent “motu proprio” by Pope Benedict XVI says the Tridentine Latin Mass was never abbrogated.

Look for a lifting of the “excommunication” coming from Rome soon and also a statement saying that there was no excommunication in the first place.

Rome says that freeing the Latin Mass was more difficult to do than lifting the excommunication. So it’s just a matter of time until the excommunication is lifted.

If you read the articles at the links listed about it is clear from canon law that the SSPX was never excommunicated and they are not in schism.

If you disagree, please state which canon law upholds your argument or show the error in the above mentioned articles.

If you really want the be an expert on this subject read two books:

“Schism or Not”
by Fr. Francois Pivert and

“The Suicide of Altering the Faith in the Liturgy”
by Fr Paul Kramer.

Finally, on the matter of juristiction of SSPX priests, read this:

sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/q9_jurisdiction.htm

Traditional priests do have a jurisdiction that is neither territorial nor ordinary but supplied in view of the needs of the faithful.

 

[bear06]

If you read the articles at the links listed about it is clear from canon law that the SSPX was never excommunicated and they are not in schism.

If you disagree, please state which canon law upholds your argument or show the error in the above mentioned articles.

Here’s a whole paper on the canonical status of the SSPX by, and this might shock you, a canon lawyer! Not only that, he’s a former member of the SSPX. Their trouble started even before the excommunications.

sspx.agenda.tripod.com/id8.html

 

[JKirkLVNV]

It doesn’t really matter what the SSPX has to say about their status. It matters what the Holy See has to say about their status. According to canon law, the Pope is the Supreme Legislator and canon law means what he says it means. The old Holy Father clearly stated that the Archbishop and the bishops he ordained are excommunicate, the priests are suspended ad divinis and therefore have no faculties, and the faithful are warned against the sin of schism by participating in their masses. This has not been revoked by the current Holy Father. Anything else is fantasy (a fantasy worked hard at, but a fantasy none the less).

 

[pbm]

I read the article:

sspx.agenda.tripod.com/id8.html

The most important issue contained in this article is this:

Was Archbishop Lefebvre refusing to submit to the authority of the Pope as a schismatic or merely performing an act of disobedience?

The author did not convince me that it was a schismatic act.
If fact, the SSPX does accept the authority of the Pope.

So the argument that the 1988 consecrations was a schismatic
act is extremely far fetched.

I think the articles on the SSPX website that I mentioned above
deal with this issue quite well and justify their position as being
not is schism and not being excommunicated.

So there is really nothing new in this article by Peter J. Vere, except for his interpretation of the events.

 

[pbm]

Sorry, the Pope cannot say that 2 + 2 = 5, anmore than he can change the meaning of canon law at his whim. The Catholic Church does not work that way.

Sorry, not everything the Pope says is infallible. The Catholic Church does not work that way either.

It is not only what SSPX says about their status, it’s what canon law says about their status.

The canon law is the deciding factor.

Here is another good article:

sspx.org/diocesan_dialogues/honolulu_&_hawaii6.htm

It tells the story about 6 people in Hawaii who were excommunicated by the local bishop for attending an SSPX Mass. The 6 people appealed to Rome and Rome declared
the excommunication INVALID.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Sorry, the Pope cannot say that 2 + 2 = 5, anmore than he can change the meaning of canon law at his whim. The Catholic Church does not work that way. Sorry, in terms of canon law and according to canon law, that’s precisely how the Catholic Church works. You need to check into it. And canon law is not a matter of 2+2=5. It’s a matter of promulgated law, promulgated on the authority of the Supreme Pontiff. It’s YOUR argument that implies an infallibility of statutory law.

Sorry, not everything the Pope says is infallible. The Catholic Church does not work that way either. **Infallibility doesn’t enter into it and no one has mentioned infallibility. A pope, however, DOES determine who is and who is NOT in communion with him. **

It is not only what SSPX says about their status, it’s what canon law says about their status.

The canon law is the deciding factor. **And you need to look at what canon law actually says. **

Here is another good article:

sspx.org/diocesan_dialogues/honolulu_&_hawaii6.htm

It tells the story about 6 people in Hawaii who were excommunicated by the local bishop for attending an SSPX Mass. The 6 people appealed to Rome and Rome declared
the excommunication INVALID.

And Rome has offered no comment on and allowed to stand the Bishop of Lincoln’s excommunication of the SSPX in his diocese.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I read the article:

sspx.agenda.tripod.com/id8.html

The most important issue contained in this article is this:

Was Archbishop Lefebvre refusing to submit to the authority of the Pope as a schismatic or merely performing an act of disobedience?

The author did not convince me that it was a schismatic act.
If fact, the SSPX does accept the authority of the Pope.

So the argument that the 1988 consecrations was a schismatic
act is extremely far fetched.

I think the articles on the SSPX website that I mentioned above
deal with this issue quite well and justify their position as being
not is schism and not being excommunicated.

So there is really nothing new in this article by Peter J. Vere, except for his interpretation of the events.

Ecclesia Dei, the MP by the Servant of God, Pope John Paul II, clearly affirms that the bishops are excommunicate, the priest suspended ad divinis (the Pope also declared that no “need” existed), and the laity warned against the dangers of schism.

 

[bear06]

Sorry, the Pope cannot say that 2 + 2 = 5, anmore than he can change the meaning of canon law at his whim. The Catholic Church does not work that way.

Sorry, not everything the Pope says is infallible. The Catholic Church does not work that way either.

It is not only what SSPX says about their status, it’s what canon law says about their status.

The canon law is the deciding factor.

Here is another good article:

sspx.org/diocesan_dialogues/honolulu_&_hawaii6.htm

It tells the story about 6 people in Hawaii who were excommunicated by the local bishop for attending an SSPX Mass. The 6 people appealed to Rome and Rome declared
the excommunication INVALID.

That’s because the bishop there was a goof and didn’t follow the canonical way. If you’ll notice, the people in Lincoln are still excommunicated because Bishop Bruskewitz carefully followed canonical procedure. The SSPX are do not now and probably won’t in the future acknowledge the Pope’s authority in the matter.

Maybe it would just be easier to ask what exactly would make some schismatic. It doesn’t seem that, using you current line of argument, say that anyone is schismatic and, yet, I’m sure you do.

 

[pbm]

And Rome has offered no comment on and allowed to stand the Bishop of Lincoln’s excommunication of the SSPX in his diocese.

Rome has already spoken, in the case of the Hawaii 6.
Perhaps the people in Lincoln have not appealed to Rome yet.

Anyone is SCHISMATIC who reject the Pope as leader of the Catholic Church, I guess. Archbishop Lefebvre did NOT do that.

A pope, however, DOES determine who is and who is NOT in communion with him.

And since he was not speaking “Ex Cathedra” on a matter of faith and morals, he can be WRONG.

Pope John Paul II’s statement that Archbishop Lefebvre “incurred excommunication” is WRONG. An examination of the facts and canon law shows that the Pope made an incorrect assessment of the situation.

A pope can be wrong, when not speaking in an infallible way.

Here is an article by Fr Murray. He received his doctorate in Canon Law from the most prestigious place and he shows in his
dissertation that SSPX is NOT in SCHISM and NOT EXCOMMUNICATED.

geocities.com/Athens/Oracle/9463/noschism.html

 

[pbm]

Ecclesia Dei, the MP by the Servant of God, Pope John Paul II, clearly affirms that the bishops are excommunicate, the priest suspended ad divinis (the Pope also declared that no “need” existed), and the laity warned against the dangers of schism.

The wording says “incurred excommunication”. It does not say,
“I excommunicate you”.

And the Pope was WRONG. Canon law and the facts prove him wrong.

Of course, the pope would say that there was no need to consecrate bishops. He was a modernist.

In reality, it is irrelevant whether a need existed or not. As long as Archbishop Lefebvre, THOUGHT there was a need, he was not culpable (that’s what canon law permits).

 

[Sure]

The wording says “incurred excommunication”. It does not say,
“I excommunicate you”.

And the Pope was WRONG. Canon law and the facts prove him wrong.

Of course, the pope would say that there was no need to consecrate bishops. He was a modernist.

In reality, it is irrelevant whether a need existed or not. As long as Archbishop Lefebvre, THOUGHT there was a need, he was not culpable (that’s what canon law permits).

Here we go again. You should read canon law. The part where it says the Pope is the supreme legislator. The decision as to whether a “need” existed is not up to Levebrvfrvbee, it’s up to the Pope

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Here we go again. You should read canon law. The part where it says the Pope is the supreme legislator. The decision as to whether a “need” existed is not up to Levebrvfrvbee, it’s up to the Pope

And the Pope specifically said that “need” did not exist in this case.

 

[pbm]

"A person who violates a law out of necessity* is not subject to a penalty (1983 Code of Canon Law, canon 1323, §4), even if there is no state of necessity:

If one inculpably thought there was, he would not incur the penalty (canon 1323, 70),

And if one culpably thought there was, he would still incur no automatic penalties (canon 1324, §3; §1, 80).

 

[JKirkLVNV]

The wording says “incurred excommunication”. It does not say,
“I excommunicate you”.

And the Pope was WRONG. Canon law and the facts prove him wrong.

Of course, the pope would say that there was no need to consecrate bishops. He was a modernist.

In reality, it is irrelevant whether a need existed or not. As long as Archbishop Lefebvre, THOUGHT there was a need, he was not culpable (that’s what canon law permits).

You really need to understand canon law better. No, the Pope did not declare him to be excommunicate, but according to canon law, he doesn’t have to. The act of ordaining bishops without reference to the pope resulted in excommunication latae sententiae (by the very commision of the offense). Procurring an abortion or helping to do so in any way results in the same thing, it requires no juridicial proclamation by a bishop. The Pope merely confirmed what was already true in canon law: The Archbishop excommunicated himself.

You also really need to look into the objective history of the events. The pope never said that the Society didn’t need bishops and had already consented to appoint some for the Society. Lefebreve had signed an agreement with the Holy See, in which he didn’t get everything he wanted in terms of numbers of bishops, but he signed it and then almost immediately reneged on it. Thus, knowing that he was going to get what he wanted, but proceding illegally, no canonical “need” existed (this was specifically confirmed by the pope). I’m not going to comment on the absurdity of any layman delcaring the pope to be a heretic.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

"A person who violates a law out of necessity* is not subject to a penalty (1983 Code of Canon Law, canon 1323, §4), even if there is no state of necessity:

If one inculpably thought there was, he would not incur the penalty (canon 1323, 70),

And if one culpably thought there was, he would still incur no automatic penalties (canon 1324, §3; §1, 80).

The first canon does not refer to a stituation when the party is in communication with the competent authority. It would be applicable in a situation where the Church is persecuted (China or communist Russia) and extreme measures have to taken. Thus, a bishop who can’t communicate with Rome may have to take actions that a bishop who can communicate with Rome would not normally be allowed to take. It doesn’t apply to a bishop who’s in conversation with Rome and who has been fairly warned about a course of action. His concept of “necessity” doesn’t matter when he’s been told by the competent authority that no necessity exists. And he most assuredly WOULD incur penalities if he had been warned that he would by the competant authorities.

It doesn’t matter how many times you claim a cow is goat, it is still patently a cow.

 

[pbm]

Where did Fr. Murray make a mistake in his doctoral dissertation in which he proved that SSPX is not in SCHISM and Archbishop Lefebvre had not incurred EXCOMMUNICAITON ???

I did not say the pope was a heretic. I said he was wrong.
Fr Murray, who has a doctorate in Canon Law (?) says so also.

Fr. Le Floch, superior of the French Seminary in Rome, announced in 1926:

“The heresy which is now being born will become the most dangerous of all; the exaggeration of the respect due to the Pope and the illegitimate extension of his infallibility.”

And he most assuredly WOULD incur penalities if he had been warned that he would by the competant authorities.

That’s NOT what the canon law says

“If one inculpably thought there was, he would not incur the penalty (canon 1323, 70)”

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Where did Fr. Murray make a mistake in his doctoral dissertation in which he proved that SSPX is not in SCHISM and Archbishop Lefebvre had not incurred EXCOMMUNICAITON ??? **When he differed with the Supreme Pontiff, who stated that the Arcbbishop and the Bishops were excommunicate, the priests suspended ad divinis and without faculties, and the laity warned against the sin of schism by adherance. **

I did not say the pope was a heretic. I said he was wrong.
Fr Murray, who has a doctorate in Canon Law (?) says so also.
**Modernism is a specific heresy according to the Magisterium. When you say that the Pope is a modernist, you then accuse him of heresy. Maybe you want to brush up on your terminology in addition to canon law. **

Fr. Le Floch, superior of the French Seminary in Rome, announced in 1926:

“The heresy which is now being born will become the most dangerous of all; the exaggeration of the respect due to the Pope and the illegitimate extension of his infallibility.” **Infallibility keeps getting dragged into this. No one is invoking infallibility, this is a discussion of juridicial FACT. Canon law is promulgated BY the pope, that is to say that it exists BY his authority. He can abrogate it, suspend it, dispense from it, and add to it. That same canon law says that the Pope is the Supreme Legislator (and canon law captializes it, not me) and interpreter of that canon law. It means what he says it means (see canon 16). Infallibility doesn’t enter into it at all. But while we’re quoting canons, here’s this bit: Canon 333.3: “There is neither appeal nor recourse against a decision or decree of the Roman Pontiff.” **

That’s NOT what the canon law says

“If one inculpably thought there was, he would not incur the penalty (canon 1323, 70)”

The key word is “inculpably.” The Supreme Pontiff (and Legislator and interpreter) said he wasn’t inculpable (he’d been warned and pleaded with). So he incurred the penalty.

 

[BobP123]

from www.traditio.com

LETTER OF THE PONTIFICAL COUNCIL FOR CHRISTIAN UNITY
Under signature of Edward I. Cardinal Cassidy, President (May 3,1994)

    "The situation of the members of this Society [SSPX] is
    an internal matter of the Catholic Church.  The Society
    is not another Church or Ecclesial Community in the
    meaning used in the Directory.  Of course, the Mass
    and Sacraments administered by the priests of the
    Society are valid.  The bishops are validly ... consecrated."

LETTER OF THE PONTIFICAL COMMISSION “ECCLESIA DEI”
Under Signature of Rev. Msgr. Camille Perl, Secretary
May 28, 1996; repeated in Protocol N. 236/98 of March 6, 1998

    "It is true that participation in the Mass and sacraments at the 
    chapels of the Society of St. Pius X does not of itself constitute 
    'formal adherence to the schism.'"

September 27, 2002

    1. In the strict sense you may fulfill your Sunday obligation by 
    attending a Mass celebrated by a priest of the Society of Saint Pius 
    X.

    2. ...If your intention is simply to participate in Mass according to 
    the 1962 Missal for the sake of devotion, this would not be a sin.

    3. It would seem that a modest contribution to the collection at Mass 
    could be justified.

INTERVIEW OF DARIO CARDINAL CASTRILLON HOYOS
PRESIDENT OF THE PONTIFICAL COMMISSION “ECCLESIA DEI”
Interview with Gianni Cardinale, of 30 Giorni

November 2005

    "Unfortunately Monsignor Lefebvre went ahead with the consecration and 
    hence the situation of separation came about, EVEN IF IT WAS NOT A 
    FORMAL SCHISM.

ON THE PURPORTED “EXCOMMUNICATION” OF ABP. MARCEL LEFEBVRE

ROSALIO JOSE CARDINAL CASTILLO LARA,
J.C.D. (DOCTOR OF CANON LAW)
President of the Pontifical Commission
for the Authentic Interpretation of Canon Law
President of the Disciplinary Commission of the Roman Curia

    "The act of consecrating a bishop [without explicit papal
    permission] is not in itself a schismatic act."

COUNT NERI CAPPONI,
D.CN.L. - LATERAN (DOCTOR OF CANON LAW)
LL.D. - FLORENCE (DOCTOR OF LAWS)
Professor Emeritus of Canon Law at the University of Florence
Accredited as an Advocate of the Holy Roman Rota
(the Holy See’s highest marriage tribunal)
Accredited as an Advocate of the Apostolic Signatura
(the Holy See’s highest appeals tribunal)

    "The fact is that Msgr. Lefebvre simply said:  'I am creating
    bishops in order that my priestly order can continue.  They do
    not take the place of other bishops.  I am not creating a
    parallel church.'  Therefore, this act was not, per se,
    schismatic."

PROFESSOR GERINGER, J.C.D.
Canon Lawyer at the University of Munich

    "With the episcopal consecrations, Archbishop Lefebvre was
    by no means creating a schism."

REV. FR. PATRICK VALDINI, J.C.D.
Dean of the Faculty of Canon Law at the Catholic Institute of Paris

    "It is not the consecration of a bishop that creates the schism.
    What makes the schism is to give the bishop an apostolic mission
    [which Abp. Lefebvre never did]."

REV. FR. GERALD E. MURRAY, J.C.D. (PONTIFICAL GREGORIAN UNIVERSITY)
Title of Doctoral Thesis Accepted: “The Canonical Status of the Lay Faithful
Associated with the Late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and the Society of
Saint Pius X: Are they Excommunicated as Schismatics?”

    "They're not excommunicated as schismatics, because the Vatican
    has never said they are....  You can ... show that Lefebvre
    himself was not excommunicated and therefore no one else was....
    I come to the conclusion that, canonically speaking, he's not
    guilty of a schismatic act punishable by canon law.  In the
    case of the Society of Saint Pius X, the Vatican never 
    declared any priest or lay person to have become a schismatic."

Hope this helps.

 

[bear06]

Ooops! I guess you missed this one. The SSPX was wrong on so much of their account of Fr. Murray that he actually wrote them a little letter. BTW, Fr. Murray does not have a J.C.D.

sspx.agenda.tripod.com/id93.html

June 14, 1996

I was recently sent a copy of your pamphlet, “Is the Society of Saint Pius X Schismatic? Excommunicated? Rome Says No.” In this publication you make use of modified quotations from my interview in the Fall 1995 issue of The Latin Mass. You have intentionally misquoted me and even put words into my mouth. I shall illustrate this flagrant dishonesty below.

But first some preliminary observations. You state that I have a doctorate in canon law (a J.C.D.). I do not have a J.C.D., and nowhere in my interview do I claim to have this degree. You made that up. You also assert that the Gregorian University, where I completed my license and where I am currently studying for a doctorate in canon law, “says that the Society of Saint Pius X is neither in schism, nor is it excommunicated… and that anyone can fulfill their Sunday obligation by attending the Society’s Masses.” The Gregorian has not said anything of the sort.

(snip for length)

My license thesis was approved and graded solely by my moderator – who, by the way, did not agree with my conclusions regarding the possible invalidity of the declaration of excommunication issued by the Holy See against Archbishop Lefebvre and the other bishops involved. It was incorrectly reported in The Latin Mass that I successfully defended my thesis, thereby implying a public defense by an academic board, but that is not the case. No such public defense before the canon law faculty is required for a license thesis at the Gregorian (but it is required for a doctoral thesis).

(snip for length)
…I include below my actual words from the interview in The Latin Mass, and your falsified version:

1. You say that I said: “I have received a doctorate in canon law and I’ve studied this topic, the excommunication of Archbishop Lefebvre, for my doctorate thesis.”

I actually said: “I have received a license in canon law and I’ve studied this topic, the excommunication of Archbishop Lefebvre, for my license thesis.”

1. You say that I said: “They’re not excommunicated as schismatics, because the Vatican has never said they are.”

I actually said: “They’re not excommunicated as schismatic as far as I can see, because the Vatican has never said that they are.”

1. You say I said: “…You can…show that Lefebvre himself was not excommunicated and therefore no one else was.”

I actually said: “Or you can attempt to show that indeed Lefebvre himself was not excommunicated and therefore no one else was.”

1. You say I said: “The Holy See has never stated that mere attendance at a Mass said by a priest in the Society of Saint Pius X constitutes a schismatic act.”

I actually said: “As far as I can see the Holy See has never stated that mere attendance at a Mass said by a priest in the Society of Saint Pius X constitutes a schismatic act.”

1. You say I said: “Could you go to a Society of Saint Pius X chapel to receive good doctrine? That seems better to me than hearing truly heretical sermons, e.g., denying hell, or that divorced and remarried people could receive Communion.”

What I actually said in response to a question from the interviewer (“You’re not encouraging people to attend these Masses, but you’re simply saying – and by the way, Cardinal Ratzinger implied this, too, in a press interview – that just attending that Mass doesn’t mean they’re schismatic.” Ratzinger said he knew people who attend SSPX Masses ‘in the conviction that they are still in full communion with the Pope.’ He called for an 'attitude…of generosity towards these people, many of whom are anguished. 'So you’re on the one hand not advocating that people attend these Masses, but, on the other you’re saying that it is not a schismatic act, necessarily") was:

(snip for length)

You have misquoted me extensively in support of your propagandistic assertions. You naturally ignored my critical remarks directed towards the Society of St. Pius X in the interview.

I cannot expect you to cite what is not in your favor. But I can and do expect you to report my remarks truthfully and completely, and in their proper context, in your publication.

(snip for length)

I demand that you withdraw this publication from circulation immediately. To do otherwise is to engage in public lying about what I have said. The public record of my remarks in The Latin Mass contradicts you. You have an obligation in truth and justice not to spread falsehoods, and in particular not to represent me as saying things I did not say, while leaving out the things I did say, but which you wish I had not said.

(snip for length)

Rev. Gerald E. Murray

And this is why one shouldn’t get all of their info from the SSPX.

 

[bear06]

from www.traditio.com

Seriously - again, Bob? Why is it that you refuse to include Msgr. Perl’s clarification of that letter!!! It’s truly unbelievable that you continually only print half the truth.

For anyone who would like to see the whole truth:unavoce.org/articles/2003/perl-011803.htm

I swear I’m going to add specific person in specific circumstance to my tag line.