Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) In communion with the Chair of Peter, YES or NO?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Catholic29
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
ByzCath:
I would add that not every Mass has the abuses that you speak of and nothing stops the Trad Latin Mass from being abused.
Click to expand...
What DO you mean, ByzCath? You mean like the priest blowing through the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in 20 min.? Do you mean members of the congregation saying their rosaries while Mass is going on? Happy Birthday, by the way!
 
40.png
JKirkLVNV:
What DO you mean, ByzCath? You mean like the priest blowing through the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in 20 min.? Do you mean members of the congregation saying their rosaries while Mass is going on? Happy Birthday, by the way!
Click to expand...
Yeah I know, JKirkLVNV, those super short NO Masses are just annoying. The sermon was longer than the EP at the ones I went to.

Saying the rosary during Mass isn’t an abuse. Some people make a big deal about it doesn’t mean that it is wrong. People are just acting too “intellectual” to allow some people to carry out their devotions. "We are better than that" is the attitude for this,not very Catholic,eh?
 
40.png
katolik:
Yeah I know, JKirkLVNV, those super short NO Masses are just annoying. The sermon was longer than the EP at the ones I went to.

Saying the rosary during Mass isn’t an abuse. Some people make a big deal about it doesn’t mean that it is wrong. People are just acting too “intellectual” to allow some people to carry out their devotions. "We are better than that" is the attitude for this,not very Catholic,eh?
Click to expand...
Hey, TS, how are you? The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, in which the Sacrifice of Calvary is re-presented for our salvation, should be attended upon carefully by all those present, each and every word of it. Could someone say Rosary while THAT was going on at the ALTAR?:hmmm: Possibly…yes, I’ll admit the possibility. Of course, it could simply be that they couldn’t understand the mumbling of the priest (sometimes mumbled and sometimes rapid-fire mumbled!) and went into their devotions. Who, in truth, can say?
 
thought this may clarify things

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

Eighteen years later, in June of 1988, Archbishop Lefebvre consecrated four bishops in order to guarantee the continuation of a work blessed and approved by the Church. Rome had agreed in principle on the point of episcopal consecration, but did not agree on the Archbishop’s choice of candidates. He, nevertheless, went ahead with the consecrations, despite Rome’s disapproval. As a consequence… CARDINAL GANTIN,
***the Prefect of the Sacred Congregation of Bishops, wrongly declared that Archbishop Lefebvre had performed a “schismatic act” by consecrating the four bishops in 1988 without papal permission ***and warned “the priests and the Faithful…not to support the schism of Monsignor Lefebvre, otherwise they shall incur the very grave penalty of excommunication.” Cardinal Gantin erroneously quoted the Church’s Law (Canon 1364 s.1): “a schismatic act incurs automatic excommunication,” but ***since there was no schism, there could be no excommunication. ***
**However, experts in Church Law and several high-ranking cardinals are in agreement that Archbishop Lefebvre did not perform a schismatic act and, consequently, is neither excommunicated on the grounds of schism or on any other grounds. The label of “Schismatic & Excommunicated” cannot be applied to Archbishop Lefebvre, nor any of his followers, for it lacks foundation and validity, which is what the Church’s experts have been saying since 1988–the year of Archbishop Lefebvre’s four episcopal consecrations.

**
 

However - can a Pope be mistaken in judging that someone has become excommunicate ?​

I would have thought not - OTOH, one can be unjustly excommunicated. ##
 
40.png
tradcatmel:
thought this may clarify things

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

Eighteen years later, in June of 1988, Archbishop Lefebvre consecrated four bishops in order to guarantee the continuation of a work blessed and approved by the Church. Rome had agreed in principle on the point of episcopal consecration, but did not agree on the Archbishop’s choice of candidates. He, nevertheless, went ahead with the consecrations, despite Rome’s disapproval. As a consequence… CARDINAL GANTIN,
***the Prefect of the Sacred Congregation of Bishops, wrongly declared that Archbishop Lefebvre had performed a “schismatic act” by consecrating the four bishops in 1988 without papal permission ***and warned “the priests and the Faithful…not to support the schism of Monsignor Lefebvre, otherwise they shall incur the very grave penalty of excommunication.” Cardinal Gantin erroneously quoted the Church’s Law (Canon 1364 s.1): “a schismatic act incurs automatic excommunication,” but ***since there was no schism, there could be no excommunication. ***

However, experts in Church Law and several high-ranking cardinals are in agreement that Archbishop Lefebvre did not perform a schismatic act and, consequently, is neither excommunicated on the grounds of schism or on any other grounds. The label of “Schismatic & Excommunicated” cannot be applied to Archbishop Lefebvre, nor any of his followers, for it lacks foundation and validity, which is what the Church’s experts have been saying since 1988–the year of Archbishop Lefebvre’s four episcopal consecrations.
Click to expand...
Rad trad misinformation. Read Ecclesia Dei.
 
40.png
JKirkLVNV:
What DO you mean, ByzCath? You mean like the priest blowing through the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in 20 min.? Do you mean members of the congregation saying their rosaries while Mass is going on? Happy Birthday, by the way!
Click to expand...
There are 30 minute Novus Ordo Masses in Orlando on Sundays. If folks pray the Rosary during Mass (which I have never seen, all os us pray the Rosary before Mass), all power to them. It benefits the souls in purgatory — unlike the human centered dramatics that go on during a liberal Novus Ordo.
 
40.png
tradcatmel:
"…However, experts in Church Law and several high-ranking cardinals are in agreement that Archbishop Lefebvre did not perform a schismatic act

Name two who are in good standing with the Church…
Click to expand...
 
Eddy Arent,

What have you DONE - apart from “bitching” in public.
Are the abuses consistent throughout the diocese?
Is there no parish Mass which concorms with the GIRM?
Have you charitably spoken with the parish priest, the bishop?
Have you taken two or three witnesses on subsequent visits?
Have you reported the abuses to the Vatican?

What have been the responses?

Before you ask - Yes, I have done all of the above, including sending an over 100 page report with supporting EVIDENCE to cardinal Arinze.

I have also moved my Mass attendance to a neighbouring parish which DOES conform with the GIRM in a most edifying way.

This is the way to remain in communion with the Pope and with those who are in communion with him.

How you have manifested your reaction does not “appear” to do so. I may be wrong.
 
CARDINAL CASTILLO LARA,
President of the Pontifical Commission for the Authentic Interpretation of Canon Law, explained that, "The act of consecrating a bishop (without the Pope’s permission) is not in itself a schismatic act" and so no excommunication applies. (La Repubblica, October 7, 1988). COUNT NERI CAPPONI, D.Cn.L., LL.D
The retired Professor of Canon Law at the University of Florence, well-known in Vatican legal circles and accredited to argue cases before Rome’s highest juridical body, the Apostolic Signatura, explains that for a schismatic act, it is not enough to merely consecrate a bishop without papal permission. “He must do something more. For instance, had he set up a hierarchy of his own, then it would have been a schismatic act. The fact is that Msgr. Lefebvre 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” and so he is not excommunicated. (Latin Mass Magazine, May-June 1993)

this is from the link above
 
40.png
tradcatmel:
in response to your naming two

://www.s.com/Athens/Oracle/9463/noschism.html

thats why i put the link there so u cld look it up yrself as i couldnt post the whole doc in to this forum
Click to expand...
The problem with your link is that is hardly and unbiased source. Do you know of anything on the Vatican website that would be reliable in this matter.

Here are my rules of interpreting internet propaganda.

The size of the text is inversely proportional to the reliability of the information.

All caps and bold text is used to emphasize points which otherwise would have no significance.

If you can’t argue the truth, change the color of the text.
 
However, experts in Church Law and several high-ranking cardinals are in agreement that Archbishop Lefebvre did not perform a schismatic act and, consequently, is neither excommunicated on the grounds of schism or on any other grounds. The label of “Schismatic & Excommunicated” cannot be applied to Archbishop Lefebvre, nor any of his followers, for it lacks foundation and validity, which is what the Church’s experts have been saying since 1988–the year of Archbishop Lefebvre’s four episcopal consecrations.
Click to expand...
Again, and again, and again, what part of this don’t you understand? How many high ranking cardinals can trump a pope’s authority? 0 You’d do well to heed allllllllllllll of the teachings especially the dogmatic ones that warn you not to be an anathema! It’s amazing that I keep posting this and some keep sticking their fingers in their ears and saying lalalalalalalala.
Click to expand...
ewtn.com/library/councils/v1.htm#6
Click to expand...
9. So, then, if anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church
Click to expand...
, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the Churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema.
Click to expand...
 
40.png
ByzCath:
They are in schism. The Orthodox are another matter as the Catechism states, one can not be born into schism.
Click to expand...
Where does the Catechism say this? My understanding is that the Church has always made a distinction between formal schismatics and material schismatics, your current day Orthodox for the most part being an example of the latter.
 
40.png
Catholic29:
Okay, lets cut to the chase in this wonderful Forum with a poll to end all polls. Six million dollar question is the SSPX in full communion with the Chair of Peter (John Paul II), YES or NO? You have read all the posts and all the Magisterial documents, I leave it up to you…
Click to expand...
I would say it depends on what you mean when you say the SSPX. Ecclesia Dei makes it clear that Archbishop Lefebvre and the four bishops he consecrated are not in full communion with Rome. Also excommunicated would be those priests who have adhered to that schism. But we cannot say with certainty how many priests there are in the Society who have so adhered (though I would suspect a majority do.) There is also the problem of the faithful who attend their Masses… no declaration has made to the effect that they are all excommunicated (the Diocese of Lincoln notwithstanding). So - the late Archbishop and the four priests he consecrated are definately not in communion with Rome. But I think that’s all we can say with certainty.
 
40.png
dezembrum:
Where does the Catechism say this? My understanding is that the Church has always made a distinction between formal schismatics and material schismatics, your current day Orthodox for the most part being an example of the latter.
Click to expand...
Where does it say this? How about this?

818 “However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . ... All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church.”

Also check out Unitatis Redintegratio (Decree on Ecumenism) from Vatican II. (Actually paragraph 818 refences this document specifically paragraph 3)

I will add that in my reading of the Catechism I find no distinction made between formal and material schismatics.

Those words appear no where in the Catechism. Can you point me to the section where this distinction you speak of is found? I know others have made this claim but I have yet to find it.
 
40.png
gelsbern:
And as far as dictating terms, read some church history, the pope is ONLY INFALLIBLE when he speaks ex cathedra about matters of faith. He does not maintain his infallibility on matters of discipline, that include excommunicating people.
Click to expand...
In this matter of schism the infallibility of the pope is not in question. It is his status as supreme lawmaker of the Church. The SSPX has tried and is still trying to argue from canon law that they are not in schism. But, while the pope abides by canon law he is actually above it. In some sense, he is the law within the Church, so when he declares an excommunication, that case has reached a definitive end.
 
tradcatmel,

The SSPX are schismatic and excommunicated AND Liars!!!

Fr. Murray severely castigated Fr. Scott and directed him to redress his lies. Fr. Scott did not do so. The glossy brochure is a pack of lies. I have demonstrated the fact - you will see some of the results if you check our the files on Fr. Murray at "Cheat Steet on the SSPX

Regarding YOUR response to mine regarding Archbishop Lefebvre taking active part in the so-called "Luther’s Mass for one of his relatives - HERE is the reference from Fortes in Fide, by Fr. Noel Barbara, written in the early 1980’s, from Fortes in Fide

The webmaster of the site is Griff Ruby - an SSPXer from way back.

It is in Footnote 17:
Letter to Mlle. T., 15 March 1974. The letter from Fr. Coache to Fr. Barbara dated 21 Feb 1974 is also instructive: “The worst thing is the question of the Mass. He does not at all care for Fr. de N. (he said so again to me and said that he has nothing to do with him); however, their positions are much the same; in fact Mgr. L. told me his point of view: it is better to have the new mass than not to have mass at all; it is safer, to avoid losing the faith, to go to the new mass than not to go at all. He gives the impression of not wanting to discuss this matter; besides, I receive many letters these days from correspondents who are scandalized by this attitude of Mgr. L.” Fortunately for their faith, the priests and faithful who for several years have tried everything to save the mass have not followed Mgr. Lefebvre’s advice. If they had, he would soon have found himself alone. We might add that in regard to the new mass, Mgr. Lefebvre knows how to join deeds with words and give an example. On 30 June 1980, on the occasion of the obsequies of a member of his family, accompanied by Fr. Simoulin, he assisted “actively” at “Luther’s mass” completely in the modern fashion.
Click to expand...
 
gelsberg wrote:
And as far as dictating terms, read some church history, the pope is ONLY INFALLIBLE when he speaks ex cathedra about matters of faith. He does not maintain his infallibility on matters of discipline, that include excommunicating people.
Click to expand...
And YOU should read Church theology! and a lot more history!

You are factually wrong in saying that “the pope is ONLY INFALLIBLE when he speaks ex cathedra about matters of faith.”
  1. He is infallible when he speaks ex cathedra, i.e., when he speaks officially as supreme pastor of the universal Church.
Click to expand...
  1. He is also infallible when he defines a doctrine regarding faith AND morals.
Click to expand...
  1. He is also infallible when he speaks of faith AND morals, which includes the whole content of devine revelation, or the deposit of faith. It also follows logically that the pope is infallible in judging doctrines and facts so intimately connected with revelation, that they cannot be denied without endangering revelation itself. Such, for example, are theological conclusions (Christ has a human body and a human soul), truths of philosophy (the notions of person, substance, the spirituality of the soul), dogmatic facts (St Peter was Bishop of Rome; Pope Pius XI was validly elected, AND disciplinary matters …
Click to expand...
  1. When he intends to bind the whole Church…What he might think or intend to say, but did not actually express, is not an infallible utterance…
Click to expand...
No! This is NOT a Modernist sounding off - it is from “The Question Box” by Bertrand L. Conway, C.S.P., (my edition: 1929.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top