SSPX poised for formal schism?

[Brendan_64]

Brendan,

What is your source?

The signatures speak for themselves. This document has been released by the Vatican and is a matter of public record.

Here is the interview with the Angelus and +Lefebvre from June 6, 1982 (Vol V, No. 6)

You have debated and taken part in the deliberations of the second council of the Vatican, have you not?
Yes.

Did you not sign and agree to the resolutions of this council?
No. First of all, I have not signed all the documents of Vatican II because of the last two acts. The first, concerned
with “Religion and Freedom,” I have not signed. The other one, that of “The Church in the Modern World”, I also
have not signed. This latter is in my opinion the most oriented toward modernism and liberalism.

Are you on record for not only not signing the documents but also on record to publicly oppose them?
Yes. In a book, which I have published in France, I accuse the council of error on these resolutions, and I have
given all the documents by which I attack the position of the council - principally, the two resolutions concerning
the issues of religion and freedom and "The Church in the Modern World.”

The fact that he claims not to have signed is not evidence that he did not sign. He did in fact sign as anyone can clearly see. he may have opposed the two documents in question, but he did sign them.

 

[janeway529]

This certainly isn’t helping. From the AP:

SSPX Disrupts Kristallnacht Interfaith Memorial at Buenos Aires Cathedral

Ultra-traditionalist Catholics have openly challenged Pope Francis by disrupting one of his favorite events, a ceremony that he and Jewish leaders led in the Metropolitan Cathedral each year to promote religious harmony on the anniversary of the beginning of the Holocaust.

The annual ceremony brings together Catholics, Jews and Protestants to mark Kristallnacht, the Nazi-led mob violence in 1938 when about 1,000 Jewish synagogues were burned and thousands of Jews were forced into concentration camps, launching the genocide that killed 6 million Jews.
A small group disrupted Tuesday night’s ceremony by shouting the rosary and the “Our Father” prayer, and spreading pamphlets saying “followers of false gods must be kept out of the sacred temple.”

Buenos Aires Archbishop Mario Poli, named by Francis to replace him as Argentina’s top church official, appealed for calm as others in the audience rose up to repudiate them, and the protesters were soon escorted out by police.

“Let there be peace. Shalom,” Poli then said, urging everyone to take their seats for a ceremony that was also led by Rabbi Abraham Skorka, a close friend of the pope who co-wrote a book of dialogue seeking common ground between Judaism and Catholicism.
“Dear Jewish brothers, please feel at home, because that’s the way Christians want it, despite these signs of intolerance,” Poli said. “Your presence here doesn’t desecrate a temple of God. We will continue in peace this encounter that Pope Francis always promoted, valued and appreciated so much.”

The Rev. Christian Bouchacourt, the South America leader of the Society of Saint Pius X, said Wednesday that the protesters belong to his organization and that they have a right to feel outraged when rabbis preside over a ceremony in a cathedral. “I recognize the authority of the pope, but he is not infallible and in this case, does things we cannot accept,” Bouchacourt said in an interview with Radio La Red.

“This wasn’t a desire to make a rebellion, but to show our love to the Catholic Church, which was made for the Catholic faith,” Bouchacourt added. “A Mass isn’t celebrated in a synagogue, nor in a mosque. The Muslims don’t accept it. In the same way, we who are Catholics cannot accept the presence of another faith in our church.”

**Click here for the rest of the article. **

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

This certainly isn’t helping. From the AP:

SSPX Disrupts Kristallnacht Interfaith Memorial at Buenos Aires Cathedral

**Click here for the rest of the article. **

Fr Z tackles this news as well and says about everything I think about the issue here.
wdtprs.com/blog/2013/11/how-ap-reported-sspx-disruption-of-a-kristallnacht-interfaith-service-in-buenos-aires/

While the disruption did happen, the AP’s article is far from factual.

 

[janeway529]

Fr Z tackles this news as well and says about everything I think about the issue here.
wdtprs.com/blog/2013/11/how-ap-reported-sspx-disruption-of-a-kristallnacht-interfaith-service-in-buenos-aires/

While the disruption did happen, the AP’s article is far from factual.

Then read the eyewitness account from the Buenos Aires Herald:
buenosairesherald.com/article/145069/antisemitic-group-interrupts-event

 

[JM3]

Fr Z tackles this news as well and says about everything I think about the issue here.

So far there hasn’t been an official decree that the SSPX is a “schismatic group”.

Does there need to be ‘an official decree’ for a schism to exist?

 

[giuseppeTO]

The signatures speak for themselves. This document has been released by the Vatican and is a matter of public record.

http://i44.tinypic.com/2wcjzu0.jpg

The fact that he claims not to have signed is not evidence that he did not sign. He did in fact sign as anyone can clearly see. he may have opposed the two documents in question, but he did sign them.

I do not see the documents he claimed not to have signed with his signature on them. If that is what you are trying to show us, I don’t see it. You are displaying the roll call … not the signatures appended to each document.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Then read the eyewitness account from the Buenos Aires Herald:
buenosairesherald.com/article/145069/antisemitic-group-interrupts-event

No news there. I didn’t think there could be a worse example of bias reporting then I was wrong!

Lefebvrists? Breakaway group? ultraconservative? Then to bring up Williamson who is not even with the society anymore! Irresponsible and with the antisemitism charges quite like race baiting if you ask me.

Some people just like to whack the hornet’s nest for entertainment. Those people seem to go on to be journalists.

Oh well, I guess we can hold our breath until the day that the rainbow sash coalition gets this type of negative press.

In my opinion journalists should write very carefully about things that they don’t fully understand. That includes the SSPX, and Catholics in general. At least give us the consideration you would give the common Muslim.

Still waiting for the headline. “Child Murder Supporter Pelosi Disrupts Communion Line at Mass.”

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Does there need to be ‘an official decree’ for a schism to exist?

Are you asking about this situation specifically or in general?

I think with this situation given that “partial communion” has been thrown around and other situations that yes, there would need to be either an act so overt that it needed no response or an official declaration. We are talking about Catholic priests and bishops here. So probably. There are those who assert that even if the SSPX used the Nuclear Option and ordained another Bishop, that the Vatican might just censure. Rome, and specifically the two Popes alive have been extremely patient with the Prodigal’s son Brother here. No reason to think that patience has worn out yet.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

I do not see the documents he claimed not to have signed with his signature on them. If that is what you are trying to show us, I don’t see it.

I don’t understand why this is such a hard issue. He either signed them or he did not. The entire purpose of signatures is to “see” verifiable proof. If someone is asserting Lefebre signed something he did not and that something is a public document it ought to be easy to see a signature. Perhaps Brenden can show us the signature. I would have to see one he admitted signing and one he did not to see because honestly who can read signatures.
I can’t imagine having this type of debate about the Declaration of Independance.
Where is Lefebvre’s Hancock?

 

[godisgood77]

SSPX has gone off the deep end. It’s unfortunate and sad. I did not read the reporting on the recent debacle in South America, but instead watched the video….the group was shouting, being disrespectful and intrusive. Shameful really…

Praying that they come back to the Church…. as it sits now SSPX are essentially the 20th century version of the Old Catholics.

 

[Tomdstone]

This certainly isn’t helping. From the AP:

SSPX Disrupts Kristallnacht Interfaith Memorial at Buenos Aires Cathedral

**Click here for the rest of the article. **

It is very wrong to disrupt services inside a Church. Anyone with a degree of civility and consideration for others would protest outside the church. People have a right to conduct their religious services without disruption from dissenters.

 

[otjm]

The SSPX’s position is actually worse than this now. Even sincerely believing certain phrases or passages could not be reconciled to Catholic doctrine, they could still acknowledge the Council as a legitimate ecumenical Council give it “religious submission.” It is indeed possible to give religious submission while qualifying or withholding assent to certain things, given certain conditions, if one in good faith believes there is error.

The SSPX go further than this now. They outright reject the Council’s very authority. They reject it as an act of the Church’s Magisterium and claim it is some different, new “magisterium” that must be rejected. This position was expressed by Bishop Tissier during his ordination sermon at Winona, June 15, 2012 where he lays out the SSPX’s reasons for this position and concludes the Council “has no authority of teaching” and “we do not accept that the council be a true Council.”

Sure, Bishop Fellay gave some talks when reconcilliation seemed like a possibility hinting that he had a more moderate view of the Council, but recently he signed on to a joint statement of the SSPX bishops expressing Tissier’s position (see par. 4 of their June 26, 2013 joint declaration for the 25th anniversary of their episcopal ordinations, which declares Vatican II to create a new false Magisterium distinct from the authoritative Magisterium exercised by the Church until then). This is also a favorite position of Fr. Gleize, who teaches on this subject at their Econe seminary (see his back and forth with Msgr. Ocariz from the end of 2011).

Their whole point is that by introducing what they see as errors, and by having what they see as the overall intention of surrendering the Church to the world, the Council is not an act of the Church’s true Magisterium, but something else that must be rejected in toto, even if it says things that are materially true in certain places.

Once one gets into rejecting the very authority of an ecumenical Council, rather than particular commands or teachings, one enters the real realm of schism.

You are following it closer than I am, and thank you for your notes.

It is hard to carry on a discussion of the matters, as it soon disintegrates from a discussion about the bishops, to the followers. Rome is not dealing with the laity who attend SSPX Masses, nor even with the priests who say those Masses; they are dealing with the three bishops. That, in itself, should tell “everyone” something, but “everyone” doesn’t seem to get it.

I have long held the position that the SSPX would not reconcile; not because I do not want them to, but simply because I sat on the sidelines watching their behavior and statements. I know only one person directly who has joined the SSPX, and the best I can say (he had a Masters - MAT or MA I am not sure of which) is that he has appeared to have lost a sandwich or two on the way to the picnic. I do not suggest that all - laity, priests and bishops - have done so, but I truly suspect there are more than anyone would like to admit.

It doesn’t take a degree in theology - even a BA - to understand what the Magisterium is, and when it acts. However, generally it does take some training to think critically; for example, to avoid being caught in a post hoc, ergo propter hoc argument.

Ah well. We can take it up in prayer, like all the other intractable issues we have about us.

 

[Brendan_64]

I do not see the documents he claimed not to have signed with his signature on them. If that is what you are trying to show us, I don’t see it. You are displaying the roll call … not the signatures appended to each document.

A ‘roll call’ for what? This is not a ‘roll call’ . This is a scan of the signatures relating to the six documents clearly listed above the signature. Why would a ‘roll call’ specifically list six finished documents that were each discussed and debated over separately, and at many different sessions for many months? The documents were not each individually signed, and these documents were signed as a group.

Archbishop Lefebvre’s signature is clearly visible, and there are no notes written in the margin qualifying that he is signing for all documents except document 1 and 6 in the list (which he could have done).

Archbishop Lefebvre ceratainly opposed Dignitatis Humanae and Gaudium et Spes, and this is clearly on record, but in the end he did submit to the will of the Council and sign (which is what you would expect from a bishop who personally disagrees with such documents, but is loyal to Rome). Perhaps, afterwards he regretted signing for these documents and wished he hadn’t done so? But he did sign.

 

[Brendan_64]

Perhaps Brenden can show us the signature.

Fourth signature down. It is very clear to read.

 

[KyrieEleison17]

Fr Z tackles this news as well and says about everything I think about the issue here.
wdtprs.com/blog/2013/11/how-ap-reported-sspx-disruption-of-a-kristallnacht-interfaith-service-in-buenos-aires/

While the disruption did happen, the AP’s article is far from factual.

Father Z’s article does, though I don’t think intentionally on his part, bring out something in the AP’s article that might give reasonable people pause for thought.

The article begins, saying,

“Ultra-traditionalist Catholics…”

And in its closing paragraphs, says,

“The Society of St. Pius X has no legal standing in the Catholic Church.”

And then adds to the confusion by then immediately adding after,

“It’s a schismatic group of traditionalist Catholics …”

Now the AP, we’re told (by Father Z), is following a HuffPo article here, which means either the people at AP are woefully ignorant of the biases of news outlets or they are deliberately admitting a biased spin and, of course, in the process (no doubt unawares) showing their incompetence in reporting accurately on the issue.

It is -for Catholics who have forgotten their Catechism- an oxymoron to refer to a “schismatic… Catholic”. Being an actual schismatic makes you not-Catholic. Moreover, it is impossible for a Catholic to have “no legal standing” in the Church.

This misinformation can only cause confusion and it makes the Church look like a circus gone riot. I get the feeling HuffPo/AP is deliberately trying to widen the net to smear otherwise innocent people; that is, to smear Catholics who really are in good-standing with the Church and have nothing to do with the SSPX.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Fourth signature down. It is very clear to read.

http://i44.tinypic.com/2wcjzu0.jpg

Lefebre fully admits to singing VII documents. Just not 2 of them. The Document you are showing is not one of the 2 he says he did not sign.

What is being contested are the 2 he said he did not sign. Do you understand that you need to provide proof of the 2 contested documents? Not just a VII document he signed.

Perhaps you are misunderstanding.

 

[KyrieEleison17]

Lefebre fully admits to singing VII documents. Just not 2 of them. The Document you are showing is not one of the 2 he says he did not sign.

Good observation.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Father Z’s article does, though I don’t think intentionally on his part, bring out something in the AP’s article that might give reasonable people pause for thought.

The article begins, saying,

And in its closing paragraphs, says,

And then adds to the confusion by then immediately adding after,

Now the AP, we’re told (by Father Z), is following a HuffPo article here, which means either the people at AP are woefully ignorant of the biases of news outlets or they are deliberately admitting a biased spin and, of course, in the process (no doubt unawares) showing their incompetence in reporting accurately on the issue.

It is -for Catholics who have forgotten their Catechism- an oxymoron to refer to a “schismatic… Catholic”. Being an actual schismatic makes you not-Catholic. Moreover, it is impossible for a Catholic to have “no legal standing” in the Church.

This misinformation can only cause confusion and it makes the Church look like a circus gone riot. I get the feeling HuffPo/AP is deliberately trying to widen the net to smear otherwise innocent people; that is, to smear Catholics who really are in good-standing with the Church and have nothing to do with the SSPX.

I think that “legal standing” was unfortunate. “Legal Ministry” would be more accurate.

I will say however that disrupting services is not a wise thing. It is disrespectful and cannot bring good.

 

[JM3]

Lefebre fully admits to singing VII documents. Just not 2 of them. The Document you are showing is not one of the 2 he says he did not sign.

What is being contested are the 2 he said he did not sign. Do you understand that you need to provide proof of the 2 contested documents? Not just a VII document he signed.

Perhaps you are misunderstanding.

Listed documents:

Declaratio De Libertate Religiosa: DIGNITATIS HUMANAE (DECLARATION ON RELIGIOUS FREEDOM)

Decretum De Activitate Missionali Ecclesiae: AD GENTES (DECREE ON THE MISSION ACTIVITY OF THE CHURCH)

Decretum De Presbyterorum Ministerio Et Vita: PRESBYTERORUM ORDINIS (DECREE ON THE MINISTRY AND LIFE OF PRIESTS)

Constitutio Pastoralis De Ecclesia In Mundo Huius Temporis: GAUDIUM ET SPES (PASTORAL CONSTITUTION ON THE CHURCH IN THE MODERN WORLD)

Four documents are listed (two listed twice). Without a date on the document, it would be difficult to say when it was signed. With the exception of Ad Gentes, they were promulgated by Pope Paul VI on December 7, 1965. With the duplication of two of the documents on the list, I would not think that the Archbishop’s signature means that he is signing off on the listed documents.

Just my 2.33 cents.

 

[Brendan_64]

Lefebre fully admits to singing VII documents. Just not 2 of them. The Document you are showing is not one of the 2 he says he did not sign.

What is being contested are the 2 he said he did not sign. Do you understand that you need to provide proof of the 2 contested documents? Not just a VII document he signed.

Perhaps you are misunderstanding.

The documents listed on the list that he signed are as follows

Declaratio de Libertate Religiosa - That is DIGNITATIS HUMANAE

Decretum de Activitate Missionali Ecclesiae

Decretum de Presbyterorum Ministerio et Vita

Constitutio Pastoralis de Ecclesia in Mundo Huius Temporis - That is GAUDIUM ET SPES

The two documents in bold (Dignitatis Humanae and Gaudium et Spes) are the two very documents that he says he did not sign, yet here is his signature. He did sign these documents, as these documents were signed for as ‘one lot’. Of course he opposed Dignitatis Humanae and Gaudium et Spes, but when they were passed he signed for them, which is exactly what you would expect a bishop loyal to Rome to do. He humbly put his own opinions aside, submitted to Rome and signed.

The fact that he later denied this suggests that his attitude had hardened and he regretted signing for them, but saying you didn’t do something when you actually did isn’t really on.

Archbishop Lefebvre wasn’t some saintly figure, he was a bishop, a mere human, and was just as of ‘bending the truth’ as the rest of us are.