M
Mark1970
Guest
I don’t attend SSPX Masses, but I know a few people who do, I was mainly thinking of how such a situation would affect them if it ever arose.
- Status
J
JM3
Guest
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/motu_proprio/documents/hf_jp-ii_motu-proprio_02071988_ecclesia-dei_en.html
This was 1988. I think the language will be stronger if there is a formal schism.
S
sw85
Guest
I doubt it. First, notice what is cited here is an “appeal,” not a command. In other words, Rome *discouraged *attendance at those Masses, financial support for the SSPX, reception of communion there, etc. I think that’s probably sound advice.
Notice also that Rome refers to the “schism.” I.e., they already acknowledge that the SSPX is in schism, i.e., impaired communion. You can’t be in worse schism. There’s not really degrees of schism. What’s at stake here is not the SSPX being declared in schism, but the SSPX being declared schismatic. The former is simply a regrettable fact: the latter is the fact sealed by an act of the will. Declaring them schismatic would apply penalties to the bishops and priests of the SSPX, I don’t see how it would change the force of obligation re: attendance at their Masses, with the exception that it would no longer satisfy Sunday obligation except in grave circumstances (similar to the situation with the Orthodox).
M
Melchior_1
Guest
They’re in the foyer, with the host of the party asking them to come inside. Technically they are inside of the house, yes, but they are not within the house proper.
You can’t stay in the shoe foyer, so either they need to get inside of the house or go outside.
T
TheExorcist
Guest
Went to the 8:30 Mass and no letter was read. The homily was a fairly orthodox homily on the Gospel and Trinity.
T
Tobias2
Guest
**Does the SPPX own the individual chapels or do the cogregations?
If the had come over I wonder what would have happened in terms of ownership of the chapels?
Same question for AO. Some congregations own their small churches and when they come into the church I wonder if the deed goes to the RC church or to the central Ordinate in the area?
I could see that this might bben issue.**
If the had come over I wonder what would have happened in terms of ownership of the chapels?
Same question for AO. Some congregations own their small churches and when they come into the church I wonder if the deed goes to the RC church or to the central Ordinate in the area?
I could see that this might bben issue.**
S
sw85
Guest
Brother JR might know more about that. I think at present they do own them, but might be expected to give up ownership of at least some in the event of a reconciliation.
J
JM3
Guest
Thus, stronger language would be a command and not an appeal. The Vatican would probably have to spell out what can and can’t be done for the laity, as most would rationalize it to varying degrees.
Curious. Can we satisfy our Sunday obligation at an ‘Old Catholic’ Mass in “grave circumstances”? I’ve never heard of such a thing being allowed, but maybe I’m wrong.
S
sw85
Guest
What I’m saying is that the earlier appeal took place in the context of the SSPX already being recognized as being in schism. They cannot be recognized as being more in schism, so there can be no elevation in language.
What’s at stake here is members of the SSPX being declared schismatics – i.e., a movement from a general condition at large to particular people being accused of particular crimes. The SSPX will still be in the same state it was in before, but it’s leaders will now be schismatics rather than whatever they were before. So the change will apply to particular people, without really affecting the status of the organization itself, beyond some reasonable restrictions. Br. JR has made the distinction before between a schismatic and someone who commits a schismatic act, which is relevant here.
My intuition is that the primary change will be that SSPX Masses will no longer serve as objects of Sunday obligation, and that’s about it. I cannot imagine this pontificate commanding anything forcefully. We have not had forceful commands come out of Rome re: pretty much anything for the last several decades, at least as concern the laity.
We are allowed to satisfy them at an Orthodox liturgy under grave circumstances, aren’t we? Actually, though, on further reflection, you may be right, since the Orthodox have no obligation to obey canon law but the SSPX does. Ecclesia supplet probably does not apply to them, then.Curious. Can we satisfy our Sunday obligation at an ‘Old Catholic’ Mass in “grave circumstances”? I’ve never heard of such a thing being allowed, but maybe I’m wrong.
J
JM3
Guest
The SSPX will be doing the “declaring”.
I hope the Vatican publishes the preamble, so we can see what the SSPX is refusing to sign.
Ultimately, it is not in my hands ( I know many here are thanking God for that
), so I will follow what our Holy Father says we should do.
B
ByzCathCantor
Guest
OK - I read thru these articles and commentaries (second link did not work), but frankly, none provided any real, concrete evidence that the Curia was acting against the will of the Holy Father in this matter. In fact, I thought the piece that was on the SSPX site actually had more inference of dissention within the SSPX than anything else. The story of a priestly resignation over the prospect of reconciliation seemed to be strongly indicative of such.
If there is real evidence of the Curia working against the will of the Holy Father, it should be presented honestly, and not simply inferred.
As many have rightly stated in this thread and countless others, there is a lot we simply don’t know, and likely never will …
M
Moore11
Guest
I thought it was pretty evident that Levada altered the preamble. But as for the anonymous “curia” that is like saying “the media” we know that it is political. Why would it surprise you there are some in the curia with agendas? Seems pretty logical to me.
S
sw85
Guest
Again, the thing that strikes me as kind of strange here is that there was the business with the alteration of the Preamble, whereupon there was an immediate shakeup at the CDF, the group charged with overseeing the discussions. DiNoia in, Muller in. Levada out – and Levada was not supposed to be out until after the end of discussions. What changed? I don’t know.
B
ByzCathCantor
Guest
A logical presumption, but no evidence. The inference suggests that Levada acted alone without the knowledge of the Holy Father, and according to his own wishes.
Further, if that kind of stunt was ever pulled off in the real world, we’d be reading about ex-Cardinal Levada and his handsome severance package. Nonetheless, he would have been sacked for undermining his clear superior in such a blatant and public manner.
The Curia is, by definition, political. It is certainly conceivable that many in the Curia have “agendas”, hopefully all coinciding with the Lord’s, but not likely 100% of the time. But it’s one thing to say it, another to prove it.
By way of example, there was a recent uproar over a comment made by Cardinal Sandri in addressing the U.S. Eastern Catholic bishops during their ad limina, regarding cerical celibacy among ECs in the U.S. Why the uproar? Because it’s a sensitive subject, and everyone must assume that the comment had some genesis in discussion and consultation with His Holiness himself, even if the words were never publically uttered by the Pope, and even if such was made in erroneous context. Do people think Cardinal Sandri might have been coaxed by other Cardinals and bishops who have an agenda and axe to grind on this subject? Very likely. Can anyone prove it? No, not at all. That is why no one with a strong opinion on the subject has ever publicly made such accusation. It’s called respect for the Church, and if we as Catholics cannot show such respect (even when dealing with controversial subject matter within the Church), who can?
J
JReducation
Guest
I have been away from CAF for many reasons, but there are some allegations and speculations going on here that are damaging to the good name of several people. That’s not Christian.
The allegation that Cardinal Levada threw a wrench into the wheel while the Holy Father was not looking is foolish speculation. When such a document as important as this leaves the Holy See, it is signed by the Holy Father and sealed with the Fisherman’s Ring. Then it is inserted into an outer folder that is again sealed and cannot be opened except by the recipient. The format used is that of a bull. Whatever “rollback” was in that document was with the full knowledge and consent of Pope Benedict. It is Msgr. Giorg Gänswein’s responsibility to read these things before he gives them to the Holy Father to ensure their integrity; meaning, to ensure that they say what the Pope wants these documents to say. When he presents it to the Holy Father for his signature, he guarantees that he has read it and that everything is according to the wishes of the Holy Father. Had something else happened, heads would have rolled at the Vatican.
The Holy Father has demanded the resignation of several bishops and other prelates around the world. He’s not about to allow his secretary and Cardinal Levada to get something past him, under the radar, without consequences. The man is not a fool, nor is he a puppet. He has done other very unpopular things before, including lifting the excommunication and publishing SP.
Is it possible that Cardinal Levada and his team advised the Holy Father to make last minute changes? Of course it is. That’s his job. The man is paid to protect the faith. He is paid to be a theologian and a bureaucrat. He’s not there as a glorified secretary to the Pope. He does exactly what Cardinal Ratzinger did when he had the job. He points out strengths of weaknesses in each statement. The pope must decide what to say.
As to schism, the message to Bishop Fellay was that if he did not sign the Preamble, he risked the most serious and irreparable rupture. The word schism was not used and no threats were made. People read into that. A rupture can take many forms. Schism is the most serious. We will just have to wait and see the language of the SSPX’s response to determine if their actions are schismatic or not.
The argument that the SSPX is in full communion with the Church is getting old and tiring. Even the SSPX leadership accepts that this is not the case. There is a difference between being Catholic and being in full communion. The pope determines who is in full communion with him, not the rest of us. In several public interviews, Pope Benedict has said that Archbishop Lefebvre and the bishops whom he ordained broke communion with the Primacy. If the pope says, “You’re not part of my outfit,” how can you force him to accept you as part of it? Let’s drop the silliness and accept what the Holy Father says and stop trying to impose our point of view on him. This is not a matter of dogma. It’s a matter of authority. He has the authority to say who is and who is not in communion or to what degree one is in communion with the Holy See. The Holy Father is applying the same rule to the SSPX as we apply to the Orthodox, Old Catholics and several other groups that have apostolic succession, but have no canonical place in the Church for different reasons.
What happens if there is a schism? In that case, no Catholic of any Church, East or West may attend mass at an SSPX chapel to fulfill his or her Sunday obligation or receive sacraments from the priests of the SSPX. This is the same rule that exists regarding the Orthodox Churches. Someone said that we’re allowed to attend Divine Liturgy at Orthodox Churches. There are certain conditions that must be met. Only those Eastern Catholics who have permission from the Holy See may attend mass at an Orthodox Church. The reason is simple, they do not have access to a Catholic mass. If they had access to a Catholic mass, even if it were Roman Catholic, they would have to attend a Roman Catholic mass and not an Eastern Divine Liturgy celebrated by an Orthodox priest.
Any Catholic that presumes to have the authority to decide for himself that he can attend mass at a Church that is in schism, without permission from the Catholic Church is committing a schismatic act. If the schismatic act repeats itself and it becomes evident that it reflects an attitude of disregard for the authority of the Holy See, then the individual is in schism. This was the difference between the SSPX and some of the traditionalists who are posting on the internet. The SSPX never continued to ordain more bishops. The ordination was a schismatic act. The fact that they did not repeat it, liberates them of any accusation of being in schism. If they had continued to ordain bishops, regardless of Rome’s prohibition, that would have changed the entire complexion of the problem.
As to properties. The SSPX owns properties. There are also religious communities associated with the SSPX. They own their own properties. These are not SSPX properties. The laity owns none of the properties. It is contrary to canon law for lay Catholics to own Church property. There are situations when a layperson allows the Church use of his or her property to build a chapel, school, dispensary or some other facility. It is always understood that such an arrangement is temporary. Either the Church takes possession of the property through some legal means (purchase, rent or donation) or the Church finds a permanent location. The Council of Trent made this ruling to prevent the laity from having any influence in the internal affairs of religious houses, parishes, and other groups or works of the Church. This protects the Church and the laity, because it avoids conflicts of interest. It would be ironic for individuals who hang on to Trent as if it were the last council in Church history to act contrary to what Trent established and no pope has ever abrogated.
As to the current situation, we’ll just have to wait and see. The key is going to be in the wording of the response. Let’s assume that the SSPX does not agree to come back, it can say something like, “We want to come back, but we need this or that.” That does not sound very schismatic. On the other hand, if the message is, “We thank you very much, but you’re all a bunch of Modernists and you have to convert to our way of seeing things,” they have cooked their goose. That’s pretty final. The key is whether the statement has some finality to it or whether it’s open to pursue the reunification. The Spanish press says that the SSPX has taken a final stand. That’s the press. Who knows what the SSPX has actually put on paper?
The allegation that Cardinal Levada threw a wrench into the wheel while the Holy Father was not looking is foolish speculation. When such a document as important as this leaves the Holy See, it is signed by the Holy Father and sealed with the Fisherman’s Ring. Then it is inserted into an outer folder that is again sealed and cannot be opened except by the recipient. The format used is that of a bull. Whatever “rollback” was in that document was with the full knowledge and consent of Pope Benedict. It is Msgr. Giorg Gänswein’s responsibility to read these things before he gives them to the Holy Father to ensure their integrity; meaning, to ensure that they say what the Pope wants these documents to say. When he presents it to the Holy Father for his signature, he guarantees that he has read it and that everything is according to the wishes of the Holy Father. Had something else happened, heads would have rolled at the Vatican.
The Holy Father has demanded the resignation of several bishops and other prelates around the world. He’s not about to allow his secretary and Cardinal Levada to get something past him, under the radar, without consequences. The man is not a fool, nor is he a puppet. He has done other very unpopular things before, including lifting the excommunication and publishing SP.
Is it possible that Cardinal Levada and his team advised the Holy Father to make last minute changes? Of course it is. That’s his job. The man is paid to protect the faith. He is paid to be a theologian and a bureaucrat. He’s not there as a glorified secretary to the Pope. He does exactly what Cardinal Ratzinger did when he had the job. He points out strengths of weaknesses in each statement. The pope must decide what to say.
As to schism, the message to Bishop Fellay was that if he did not sign the Preamble, he risked the most serious and irreparable rupture. The word schism was not used and no threats were made. People read into that. A rupture can take many forms. Schism is the most serious. We will just have to wait and see the language of the SSPX’s response to determine if their actions are schismatic or not.
The argument that the SSPX is in full communion with the Church is getting old and tiring. Even the SSPX leadership accepts that this is not the case. There is a difference between being Catholic and being in full communion. The pope determines who is in full communion with him, not the rest of us. In several public interviews, Pope Benedict has said that Archbishop Lefebvre and the bishops whom he ordained broke communion with the Primacy. If the pope says, “You’re not part of my outfit,” how can you force him to accept you as part of it? Let’s drop the silliness and accept what the Holy Father says and stop trying to impose our point of view on him. This is not a matter of dogma. It’s a matter of authority. He has the authority to say who is and who is not in communion or to what degree one is in communion with the Holy See. The Holy Father is applying the same rule to the SSPX as we apply to the Orthodox, Old Catholics and several other groups that have apostolic succession, but have no canonical place in the Church for different reasons.
What happens if there is a schism? In that case, no Catholic of any Church, East or West may attend mass at an SSPX chapel to fulfill his or her Sunday obligation or receive sacraments from the priests of the SSPX. This is the same rule that exists regarding the Orthodox Churches. Someone said that we’re allowed to attend Divine Liturgy at Orthodox Churches. There are certain conditions that must be met. Only those Eastern Catholics who have permission from the Holy See may attend mass at an Orthodox Church. The reason is simple, they do not have access to a Catholic mass. If they had access to a Catholic mass, even if it were Roman Catholic, they would have to attend a Roman Catholic mass and not an Eastern Divine Liturgy celebrated by an Orthodox priest.
Any Catholic that presumes to have the authority to decide for himself that he can attend mass at a Church that is in schism, without permission from the Catholic Church is committing a schismatic act. If the schismatic act repeats itself and it becomes evident that it reflects an attitude of disregard for the authority of the Holy See, then the individual is in schism. This was the difference between the SSPX and some of the traditionalists who are posting on the internet. The SSPX never continued to ordain more bishops. The ordination was a schismatic act. The fact that they did not repeat it, liberates them of any accusation of being in schism. If they had continued to ordain bishops, regardless of Rome’s prohibition, that would have changed the entire complexion of the problem.
As to properties. The SSPX owns properties. There are also religious communities associated with the SSPX. They own their own properties. These are not SSPX properties. The laity owns none of the properties. It is contrary to canon law for lay Catholics to own Church property. There are situations when a layperson allows the Church use of his or her property to build a chapel, school, dispensary or some other facility. It is always understood that such an arrangement is temporary. Either the Church takes possession of the property through some legal means (purchase, rent or donation) or the Church finds a permanent location. The Council of Trent made this ruling to prevent the laity from having any influence in the internal affairs of religious houses, parishes, and other groups or works of the Church. This protects the Church and the laity, because it avoids conflicts of interest. It would be ironic for individuals who hang on to Trent as if it were the last council in Church history to act contrary to what Trent established and no pope has ever abrogated.
As to the current situation, we’ll just have to wait and see. The key is going to be in the wording of the response. Let’s assume that the SSPX does not agree to come back, it can say something like, “We want to come back, but we need this or that.” That does not sound very schismatic. On the other hand, if the message is, “We thank you very much, but you’re all a bunch of Modernists and you have to convert to our way of seeing things,” they have cooked their goose. That’s pretty final. The key is whether the statement has some finality to it or whether it’s open to pursue the reunification. The Spanish press says that the SSPX has taken a final stand. That’s the press. Who knows what the SSPX has actually put on paper?
J
JReducation
Guest
I have to say that Bishop Fellay surprised me. He’s playing either a very dumb card or a slick card.
Let’s look at the dumb card first. Reunification is a matter that a superior general can decide unilaterally and everyone else is bound under obedience to comply or be dismissed from an institute, in this case the SSPX. You don’t have to consult anyone other than your counselors and even then, your counselors have no authority over the superior general. They are just that COUNSELORS. The superior general speaks for Christ.
The role of a general chapter is to make law for an institute, be it an order, congregation or society of apostolic life… When you put something like this on the table at a general chapter, whatever the general chapter rules, becomes the law of the institute. The superior general and his successors have no other choice but to obey the law and enforce it. In essence, you have taken something that you could have done on your own authority and everyone would have been bound to obey you or forfeit their souls and you have handed it over to the chapter to make it law. Even if you disagree, you must obey and you must comply and lead the entire Society to comply. You have tied the hands of future superiors general. Most superiors general avoid doing this by putting as little as possible on the table at a general chapter. Most general chapters discourage this. To change it, requires another general chapter.
Let’s look at the slick side. As superior general, if he had unilaterally turned down the Vatican’s offer, he would have been fully responsible for a schism, if there had been one. His immortal soul would have been in serious danger. By handing the decision to the general chapter, he is free of all moral responsibility, because it is not he who is saying no. It is the delegates to the general chapter who voted against reunification. His vote is only one. If he votes for reunification and the majority votes against it, guess who is in moral danger? It’s not Bishop Fellay, because he voted for reunification. It’s those who blocked it. He avoids a split within the Society and avoids the moral consequences to his soul for causing a schism, if there is one at all. Only those who voted against the reunification would be responsible for the schism.
I use the term “slick” because this is perfectly legal and moral. A superior general can do this. It’s the best way to get out of harm’s way. Had he signed the Preamble, he stood to lose many priests and lay followers. If he rejected the Preamble,he could potentially end up no longer being a Catholic. The law allows a superior to think of his soul first and to do whatever is best for his soul, within the law. For a traditionalist, he’s making very good use of the new laws in the books. This rule was not in the canons of 1917, because there were no such things as societies of apostolic life in 1917. He would not have been acknowledged as a superior general and the general chapter would have been a farce. You can’t give legal authority to an institution that does not legally exist. The code of 1983 acknowledges the rights of societies of apostolic life and one of those is the right to have a general chapter and to enact laws for itself.
This says to me that the SSPX supporters who are claiming adherence to the Code of 1917 are not in full communion with the SSPX, because the SSPX does not use the Code of 1917, but the Code of 1983, written by Pope Paul and promulgated by Pope John Paul. That’s perfect example of partial communion.
Fraternally,
Br.JR, FFV
Let’s look at the dumb card first. Reunification is a matter that a superior general can decide unilaterally and everyone else is bound under obedience to comply or be dismissed from an institute, in this case the SSPX. You don’t have to consult anyone other than your counselors and even then, your counselors have no authority over the superior general. They are just that COUNSELORS. The superior general speaks for Christ.
The role of a general chapter is to make law for an institute, be it an order, congregation or society of apostolic life… When you put something like this on the table at a general chapter, whatever the general chapter rules, becomes the law of the institute. The superior general and his successors have no other choice but to obey the law and enforce it. In essence, you have taken something that you could have done on your own authority and everyone would have been bound to obey you or forfeit their souls and you have handed it over to the chapter to make it law. Even if you disagree, you must obey and you must comply and lead the entire Society to comply. You have tied the hands of future superiors general. Most superiors general avoid doing this by putting as little as possible on the table at a general chapter. Most general chapters discourage this. To change it, requires another general chapter.
Let’s look at the slick side. As superior general, if he had unilaterally turned down the Vatican’s offer, he would have been fully responsible for a schism, if there had been one. His immortal soul would have been in serious danger. By handing the decision to the general chapter, he is free of all moral responsibility, because it is not he who is saying no. It is the delegates to the general chapter who voted against reunification. His vote is only one. If he votes for reunification and the majority votes against it, guess who is in moral danger? It’s not Bishop Fellay, because he voted for reunification. It’s those who blocked it. He avoids a split within the Society and avoids the moral consequences to his soul for causing a schism, if there is one at all. Only those who voted against the reunification would be responsible for the schism.
I use the term “slick” because this is perfectly legal and moral. A superior general can do this. It’s the best way to get out of harm’s way. Had he signed the Preamble, he stood to lose many priests and lay followers. If he rejected the Preamble,he could potentially end up no longer being a Catholic. The law allows a superior to think of his soul first and to do whatever is best for his soul, within the law. For a traditionalist, he’s making very good use of the new laws in the books. This rule was not in the canons of 1917, because there were no such things as societies of apostolic life in 1917. He would not have been acknowledged as a superior general and the general chapter would have been a farce. You can’t give legal authority to an institution that does not legally exist. The code of 1983 acknowledges the rights of societies of apostolic life and one of those is the right to have a general chapter and to enact laws for itself.
This says to me that the SSPX supporters who are claiming adherence to the Code of 1917 are not in full communion with the SSPX, because the SSPX does not use the Code of 1917, but the Code of 1983, written by Pope Paul and promulgated by Pope John Paul. That’s perfect example of partial communion.
Fraternally,
Br.JR, FFV
J
jwinch2
Guest
What is your evidence for such a claim? That is a highly inflammatory claim to make with no evidence at all.
M
Moore11
Guest
As I stated before. there is no evidence. But that is the popular thought. Anyway I think Brother gave sound advice.
H
Hesychios
Guest
Very interesting.
- Status