SSPX mass OK?

[jfoges]

Please provide a link to this proclamation of yours.

Neely let me provide you with some quotes and some links to back up what I am saying. I got these links from this very website that we are corresponding on.

It is precisely because of this schismatic mentality that this Pontifical Commission has consistently discouraged the faithful from attending Masses celebrated under the aegis of the Society of St. Pius X.

ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CEDSSPX2.HTM

Concretely this means that the Masses offered by the priests of
the Society of St. Pius X are valid, but illicit i.e., contrary to Canon
Law. The Sacraments of Penance and Matrimony, however, require that the
priest enjoys the faculties of the diocese or has proper delegation. Since
that is not the case with these priests, these sacraments are invalid.

unavoce.org/resources/protocol-53999/

I hope that you will follow Peter and not the Lefebvrist Schism.

 

[giuseppeTO]

SSPX masses are valid but illegal. They are also schismatics.

No such canonical term as illegal, my friend. If you are going to offer us all your wisdom and vitriol, please study up and learn the jargon. It is very tiresome to continually educate new SSPX-bashers.

 

[ProVobis]

Concretely this means that the Masses offered by the priests of
the Society of St. Pius X are valid, but illicit i.e., contrary to Canon
Law.

Even this is debatable since they have been allowed to say Mass in St. Peter’s Basilica during the current talks.

 

[jfoges]

No such canonical term as illegal, my friend. If you are going to offer us all your wisdom and vitriol, please study up and learn the jargon. It is very tiresome to continually educate new SSPX-bashers.

Illegal and Illicit mean the exact same thing. I only said illegal to make the meaning more clear to those who might not know the term illicit.

Also, I don’t know if any English language words can be considered canonical terms since Canon law is all in Latin.

 

[Aramis]

Even this is debatable since they have been allowed to say Mass in St. Peter’s Basilica during the current talks.

So have Anglicans. Irrelevant.

 

[numealinesimpet]

Originally Posted by ProVobis
Even this is debatable since they have been allowed to say Mass in St. Peter’s Basilica during the current talks.

So have Anglicans. Irrelevant.

That’s the problem: the Vatican nowadays often breaks its own rules. It bends over backwards to appease other religions, but has tried to throw the book at its own “traditional” faithful. The double standard is, in the end, quite untenable, and it only brings the Catholic Church into disrepute. Merely by remaining faithful to their ordination vows, Archbp. Lefebvre and Bp de Castro Mayer exposed this glaring anomaly.

 

[numealinesimpet]

Illegal and Illicit mean the exact same thing. I only said illegal to make the meaning more clear to those who might not know the term illicit.

Also, I don’t know if any English language words can be considered canonical terms since Canon law is all in Latin.

The actions are illegal/illicit only if one decides to ignore canons 1323, 1324 +1321
Here they are from the Vatican’s own website:–

vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_INDEX.HTM

Can. 1321 §1. No one is punished unless the external violation of a law or precept, committed by the person, is gravely imputable by reason of malice or negligence.
§2…
§3…
…
Can. 1323 The following are not subject to a penalty when they have violated a law or precept:
1/…
2/ a person who without negligence was ignorant that he or she violated a law or precept; inadvertence and error are equivalent to ignorance;
3/ a person who acted due to physical force or a chance occurrence which the person could not foresee or, if foreseen, avoid;
4/ a person who acted coerced by grave fear, even if only relatively grave, or due to necessity or grave “inconvenience” unless the act is intrinsically evil or tends to the harm of souls;
5/ a person who acted with due moderation against an unjust aggressor for the sake of legitimate self defense or defense of another;
6/ …
7/ a person who without negligence thought that one of the circumstances mentioned in nn. 4 or 5 was present.
Can. 1324 §1. The perpetrator of a violation is not exempt from a penalty, but** the penalty** established by law or precept must be tempered or a penance employed in its place if the delict was committed:
1/ …
2/ …
3/ …
4/ …
5/ …
6/ …
7/ against someone who gravely and unjustly provokes the person;
8/ by a person who thought in culpable error that one of the circumstances mentioned in ⇒ can. 1323, nn. 4 or 5 was present;
9/…
10/ by a person who acted without full imputability provided that the imputability was grave.
§2. A judge can act in the same manner if another circumstance is present which diminishes the gravity of a delict.
§3. In the circumstances mentioned in §1, the accused is not bound by a latae sententiae penalty.**

Mgr Lefebvre was running a highly successful seminary that was keeping to the Catholic Faith when perhaps every other seminary in the world was failing to do so, often in an outrageously blatant manner, without a hint of restraint from their superiors, up to and including the bishop and the Pope – yes, the Pope, dear readers. The Pope was teaching the Faith, but for whatever reason (and not without tears in the case of Pope Paul VI) was not succeeding in controlling the rampant spread of heresy, inside and outside the seminaries. In the circumstances, Mgr Lefebvre was fully protected by the above canons in continuing his faithful course.

At no time has an official statement denied the above. All they have done is to ignore canons 1323, 1324 +1321. It won’t wash. Pope Benedict has perhaps realised this, which is one reason why the penalty of excommunication was quietly lifted.

In light of the above, there is no question of heresy or schism. On the contrary, the SSPX have done a great service to the Church by keeping alive invaluable traditions that were never legally abolished (or if you perfer the language, licitly abrogated.) Once again, we may offer heartfelt thanks to Pope Benedict for clearing up this point once and for all.

 

[pnewton]

The actions are illegal/illicit only if one decides to ignore canons 1323, 1324 +1321

Ignores, or considers them not applicable. Not to debate this, but many are fully aware of these canons, do not ignore them in the least, but consider them not applicable.

 

[numealinesimpet]

On the legal definition of schism.
Much use is made of this word against the traditionalists. But it is a precise legal term, and it has repeatedly been conceded by those in authority in the Vatican that it does not apply to the SSPX.

Here is the definition in the Catholic Encyclopedia:

Not every disobedience is a schism; in order to possess this character it must include besides the transgression of the commands of superiors, denial of their Divine right to command."

i.e.
**A schism is not a refusal to obey authority, but a denial that the visible, ostensive authority exists. **

If any archbishop had consecrated another bishop for a diocese that had a validly appointed bishop already in place, this would seem to be be usurping jurisdiction, a denial of the authority of the Church to appoint bishops, and it could be claimed to be schismatic [although St Athanasius & Bp Eusebius seem to have done just that in the Arian Crisis … but let that rest for now]…

To declare that a state of emergency exists, and to appoint emergency bishops* pro tem, sine locus*, = for the duration of the emergency, without a diocese or other ‘regular’ place in the Church] may or may not be justified, but it is not schismatic.

Mgr Lefebvre et al have never denied the Divine right of the Pope to command. By the principle of double effect (= one is sometimes forced into a situation where one must choose the lesser of two evils,) the lesser of two evils in this case was to act to ensure the continuation of faithful bishops within the framework that had stood the test of time, as against the mortal imprudence of the experimentations that have*** led directly to the loss of discipline*** that now overwhelms us on every side. There can indeed be cases where an act of refusing to comply with a command, even of lawful authority, can be objectively “the lesser of two evils”. The faithful son must sometimes say, “Father, in this one case, the matter is so perilous that I cannot go along with that”. That is not at all the same thing as saying “You are not my father”.

 

[numealinesimpet]

Ignores, or considers them not applicable. Not to debate this, but many are fully aware of these canons, do not ignore them in the least, but consider them not applicable.

pnewton, I know we have discussed this before on other threads. What the Vatican did was simply to ignore these canons, and leave others to fill in the gap by saying “they must have decided that the canons don’t apply in this case”. How very convenient, thereby to shift the responsibility without actually having to justify this action. But that is not justice. “Silence gives consent”. Can you imagine what would happen if that were tried in an civil court of law? Would not the accused be entitled in common justice to say “If there was harm in what I did, show us the harm in it”?

Indeed, it is a tactic that has been employed before:

Pilate said, Why, What evil has he done? They replied, If he were not a malefactor, we would not have brought him to you.

Hmmmmm…

 

[Aramis]

On the legal definition of schism.
Much use is made of this word against the traditionalists. But it is a precise legal term, and it has repeatedly been conceded by those in authority in the Vatican that it does not apply to the SSPX.

Here is the definition in the Catholic Encyclopedia:

i.e.
**A schism is not a refusal to obey authority, but a denial that the visible, ostensive authority exists. **

If any archbishop had consecrated another bishop for a diocese that had a validly appointed bishop already in place, this would seem to be be usurping jurisdiction, a denial of the authority of the Church to appoint bishops, and it could be claimed to be schismatic [although St Athanasius & Bp Eusebius seem to have done just that in the Arian Crisis … but let that rest for now]…

To declare that a state of emergency exists, and to appoint emergency bishops* pro tem, sine locus*, = for the duration of the emergency, without a diocese or other ‘regular’ place in the Church] may or may not be justified, but it is not schismatic.

Mgr Lefebvre et al have never denied the Divine right of the Pope to command. By the principle of double effect (= one is sometimes forced into a situation where one must choose the lesser of two evils,) the lesser of two evils in this case was to act to ensure the continuation of faithful bishops within the framework that had stood the test of time, as against the mortal imprudence of the experimentations that have*** led directly to the loss of discipline*** that now overwhelms us on every side. There can indeed be cases where an act of refusing to comply with a command, even of lawful authority, can be objectively “the lesser of two evils”. The faithful son must sometimes say, “Father, in this one case, the matter is so perilous that I cannot go along with that”. That is not at all the same thing as saying “You are not my father”.

This would be all well and good if there were no good and faithful bishops outside the society. There were, and are, and it appears, there will be more, who are outside the SSPX. The very existence of other societies of traditionalist clerics is proof enough that their “emergency” was not one, or at least was not sufficiently so far along that disobedience is justified, even to many of the bishops wh had, to that point, supported the efforts of the society.

 

[numealinesimpet]

This would be all well and good if there were no good and faithful bishops outside the society. There were, and are, and it appears, there will be more, who are outside the SSPX. The very existence of other societies of traditionalist clerics is proof enough that their “emergency” was not one, or at least was not sufficiently so far along that disobedience is justified, even to many of the bishops wh had, to that point, supported the efforts of the society.

There were none in 1976 – or 1988 – who were ready stand up and be counted, to repeat the condemnations of the ‘Synthesis of all heresies’ against which the popes had inveigled for two centuries or more, and to face the barrage, except those two. Those religious congregations that have started up since the SSPX are playing their part in the restoration, no doubt about it. But they owe their very existence to the ‘thorn in the side’ that was the SSPX.
The question now is, how far can it be said there is still a “State of Emergency”? This is a legitimate question. Unfortunately, the Vatican has not given itself a good record as regards ‘traditional’ groups that have bound themselves in unconditional obedience since Vatican II. Sooner or later they have been let down, promises not kept.
I can’t (obviously) speak for the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X – being a layman. But the SSPX leadership have never deviated from their position: Until Rome shows a repudiation of the Heresy of Modernism, that has penetrated so deeply, there is no point in rushing into a paper agreement that will collapse at the very next crisis. And enough laypeople find the SSPX case strong enough to continue their support. Meanwhile, the SSPX structure is there for those laypeople who need Emergency Aid.

 

[giuseppeTO]

Illegal and Illicit mean the exact same thing…

Perhaps in your world it is. But not in the English, Latin, or ecclesial world. The only ones who use “illegal” are those who don’t know what they are talking about - the overnight experts like CNN, the AP, and the New York Times

 

[ProVobis]

So have Anglicans. Irrelevant.

Licitness or illicitness is irrelevant? Tell that to the SSPX or Anglican attackers, not me.

 

[ProVobis]

This would be all well and good if there were no good and faithful bishops outside the society. There were, and are, and it appears, there will be more, who are outside the SSPX. The very existence of other societies of traditionalist clerics is proof enough that their “emergency” was not one, or at least was not sufficiently so far along that disobedience is justified, even to many of the bishops wh had, to that point, supported the efforts of the society.

Name one.

Also, where you use the word “obedience,” I would substitute that with the word “loyalty.”

 

[Aramis]

Also, where you use the word “obedience,” I would substitute that with the word “loyalty.”

Clerics are not bound by loyalty, but obedience. Either by solemn promises or by vows.

 

[Diak]

Canonically speaking, the Holy See clarified the status of the SSPX on March 10, 2009:

Until the doctrinal questions are clarified, the Society has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers … do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church".

“Do not legitimately excersise any ministry” seems quite clear. Whatever ambiguities may have existed in the past are now clarified.

 

[otjm]

Even this is debatable since they have been allowed to say Mass in St. Peter’s Basilica during the current talks.

The priests, or the bishops saying Mass there?

Part of the issue of the Masses of the SSPX priests being illicit is that they are generally said in a diocese where they are not incardinated, and thus have no permission to do so. If they were invited to say Mass by the bishop of an area, that issue would not pertain to those Masses.

 

[Onegin]

Clerics are not bound by loyalty, but obedience. Either by solemn promises or by vows.

This isn’t so much directed at you as it is at everyone who keeps harping on the “obedience at all costs” line.

Namely, what would kind of action would it take from the Holy See for you to declare that disobedience is warranted? Or, would you remain obedient no matter what doctrinal inconsistencies the Holy See adopts. Or, the third option: do you believe that the Holy See is incapable of inconsistency or error?

What I’m getting at is this: Do you believe that Papal authority should be obeyed for authority’s sake even when that authority errs? Or do you believe that Papal authority should be obeyed at all costs up to a certain point? If so, what point is that?

 

[ProVobis]

Clerics are not bound by loyalty, but obedience. Either by solemn promises or by vows.

I wasn’t aware of such solemn promises of obedience. Could you elaborate? Or when you go to confession do you just say “I disobeyed God 9 or 10 times”? Wouldn’t the priest ask you to be more specific? I really think this rehashing of disobedience is kindergarten theology. But I guess if you have nothing else to attack on, I don’t blame you for it.