SSPX : Pope May Offer the Society a Personal Ordinariate

[TMC]

Good point. Perhaps the next Pope may be strongly against an Assisi-type event; yet the SSPX is judged only by the current Pope. So there has to be more than infallible doctrine that is involved in the ongoing talks.

Yes, the next Pope or next Coucil may change things, and the SSPX can continue to hope for that to happen (personally I don’t think it will). That said, I disagree with the rest of your statement a bit. First, to the extent that the SSPX is being “judged” they are being judged by their adherence to the current teaching of the Magisterium (not just the infallible parts, whatever they may be). In this they are just like all other Catholics, who are all called to adhere to all of the Church’s teaching. Second, the disagreements between the SSPX (or its founders) and the Magisterium have not been limited to the current papacy - they now span at least four Popes.

 

[ProVobis]

In this they are just like all other Catholics, who are all called to adhere to all of the Church’s teaching. Second, the disagreements between the SSPX (or its founders) and the Magisterium have not been limited to the current papacy - they now span at least four Popes.

The current situation is riding heavily on the ecumenism (or inter-faith) “doctrine.” Or at least that’s the perception. It was never recognized as doctrine before, although ecumenism had been acknowledged to some extent even before Vatican II. I think even the most astute theologians are having problems here as the issue transcends all religions, not only Catholicism. The ironic part is that pushed to the limits, this new ecumenism/interfaith theology can blur the boundary between Christianity and non-Christianity beliefs, making the whole issue of the talks moot. Why make a distinction among denominations (and faiths) if everyone will be (or seem to be) in communion with the Pope anyway, for example? I hope that makes some sense. If not, I’ll leave the thread.

 

[SouthpawLink]

Out of the 265 Popes in history, why pluck Gregory XVI? Gregory XVI was a bit of a Luddite and opposed everything from modern lighting to railroads, and he may have opposed ecumensim, as well. I am sure that at least some of the other 264 popes would have been opposed to ecumenism as it is taught today, and that many would be for it. Anyone can play the game of finding a soundbite from a pope or saint that seems to support their position, but cherrypicking history in that manner rarely advances the discussion.

How about the immediate predecessors of Pope John XXIII, Pius XI and Pius XII? They both taught ecumenism as being/involving the return of dissident Christians to the true Church of Christ. Ven. Pius IX called Protestantism a false form of the Christian religion while Leo XIII implored the Eastern Orthodox to reunite with Rome for the sake of their salvation. Leo XIII also taught (as did Gregory XVI and Ven. Pius IX before him), seemingly contrary to Unitatis Redintegratio, that the Catholic Church alone supplied the means of salvation (in line with the teaching of the Council of Florence: Denz. 714). UR also appears to contradict several important decisions of the Holy Office, which had considered schismatic rites as ritus damnati (condemned rites).UR appears to have made a complete about-face on Catholic doctrine.

 

[TMC]

How about the immediate predecessors of Pope John XXIII, Pius XI and Pius XII? They both taught ecumenism as being/involving the return of dissident Christians to the true Church of Christ. Ven. Pius IX called Protestantism a false form of the Christian religion while Leo XIII implored the Eastern Orthodox to reunite with Rome for the sake of their salvation. Leo XIII also taught (as did Gregory XVI and Ven. Pius IX before him), seemingly contrary to Unitatis Redintegratio, that the Catholic Church alone supplied the means of salvation. UR also appears to contradict several important decisions of the Holy Office, which had considered schismatic rites as ritus damnati (condemned rites).UR appears to have made a complete about-face on Catholic doctrine.

I disagree with your characterization of Unitatis Redintegratio, which did not in anyway represent an about-face on Catholic doctrine. Can you explain what you mean by that?

 

[TMC]

The current situation is riding heavily on the ecumenism (or inter-faith) “doctrine.” Or at least that’s the perception. It was never recognized as doctrine before, although ecumenism had been acknowledged to some extent even before Vatican II. I think even the most astute theologians are having problems here as the issue transcends all religions, not only Catholicism. The ironic part is that pushed to the limits, this new ecumenism/interfaith theology can blur the boundary between Christianity and non-Christianity beliefs, making the whole issue of the talks moot. Why make a distinction among denominations (and faiths) if everyone will be (or seem to be) in communion with the Pope anyway, for example? I hope that makes some sense. If not, I’ll leave the thread.

I understand your point, but I disagree with it. Nothing in Catholic ecumenism threatens to blur the boundary between Christianity and non-Christian religions. Can you explain why you think that to be the case?

 

[Warrenton]

How do you know what contradicts to the previous teaching?

This position has much to recommend it, but beyond a point, it leads to confusion. Following the pope or the bishop implies a certain threshold level of understanding: one who understands nothing is unable to follow anything.

If we can understand something, then we can understand what is not that something. For example, if the bishop says: “you must be a Catholic to be saved,” and we understand what this means, then we also understand that a Muslim, or a Protestant, cannot be saved, because they are not Catholics.

We are not here talking about the exceptions of the theologians - we are talking about general rules.

If the bishop then says, “Muslims and Protestants can be saved,” then we can understand that this is different from the teaching “you must be Catholic to be saved.”

We understand this because we are able to comprehend the meaning of “Catholic” and “saved.”

That is how our forefathers and mothers in faith knew the iconoclast bishops were wrong. They knew what a sacred image was, and knew its purpose. When the bishops said something different, they refused to assent. Their refusal was justified based on their understanding of the Church’s teaching.

Again, I don’t disagree with Lazlo’s general point, however it cannot be taken to the extent of blind obedience in the face of reason.

 

[Warrenton]

An ordinariate can not resolve the issues at the heart of the SSPX as a group.

It will not appease in any way those who are the core of the SSPX issue:

The SSPX as a whole is in a state where they deny papal authority, they also as a group demand a return of the Roman Church to Pre-Vatican II praxis… denying the council’s authority over the missal.

It is this “we are right, the council was wrong” that is the very heart of their genesis.

Respectfully, I disagree totally.

 

[ProVobis]

I understand your point, but I disagree with it. Nothing in Catholic ecumenism threatens to blur the boundary between Christianity and non-Christian religions. Can you explain why you think that to be the case?

True ecumenism is not strictly Catholic. It presumably belongs to an exchange among religions.

Nevertheless, nothing SHOULD blur the C-NC lines and nothing SHOULD blur the lines between Protestantism and Catholicism. But can you blame observers who don’t quite see it this way these days?

By the way, I have a workbook (vintage 1956 from a London secondary school) depicting a scene below the Holy Spirit which has Catholics and Christians being “brothers” under Him. So ecumenism is not a Vatican II-invented concept, nor the SSPX’s nor the four Popes’ you mentioned.

 

[SouthpawLink]

I disagree with your characterization of Unitatis Redintegratio, which did not in anyway represent an about-face on Catholic doctrine. Can you explain what you mean by that?

Regarding the efficacy of sacraments administered outside the Catholic Church:

“The unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation” (Council of Florence, Cantate Domino, 1441: Denz. 714).

“A schismatic flatters himself falsely if he asserts that he, too, has been washed in the waters of regeneration. Indeed Augustine would reply to such a man: ‘The branch has the same form when it has been cut off from the vine; but of what profit for it is the form, if it does not live from the root?’” (Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos, n. 13; 15 August 1832; cf. St. Augustine, in psalm. contra part. Donat. 21).

"‘He who deserts the Church will vainly believe that he is in the Church;’ ‘whoever eats of the lamb and is not a member of the Church, has profaned’ (Ven. Pius IX, Amantissimus, n. 3; quoting Ss. Cyprian and Jerome - 18 April 1862).

“From this it follows also that they cannot promise themselves any of the graces and fruits of the perpetual sacrifice and of the sacraments which, although they are sacrilegiously administered, are nonetheless valid and serve in some measure that form and appearance of piety which St. Paul mentions (I Cor. XIII: 3) and which St. Augustine speaks of at greater length: ‘The form of the branch,” says the latter with great precision, “may still be visible, even apart from the vine, but the invisible life of the root can be preserved only in union with the stock. That is why the corporal sacraments, which some keep and use outside the unity of Christ, can preserve the appearance of piety. But the invisible and spiritual virtue of true piety cannot abide there any more than feeling can remain in an amputated member’ (Serm. LXXI, in Matth., 32). But since they no longer have the sacraments, with the exception of baptism, which they confer, so it is said, without ceremonies on children; a fruitful baptism for the latter, provided that once the age of reason is reached they do not embrace the schism; but deadly for those who administer it, for in conferring it they willfully act in schism” (Pope Leo XIII, Eximia Nos lætitia, 19 July 1893).

“The Church… alone supplies those means of salvation which accord with the ordinary counsels of Providence” (Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, n. 9; 29 June 1896).

Ss. Cyprian, Jerome, Augustine, Leo I, Pelagius I and Thomas Aquinas (ST, III, q. 82, a. 7) all wrote on the inefficacy of sacraments administered outside the Catholic Church.

The Holy Office stated that a Catholic may receive the sacraments from a non-Catholic (i.e. Orthodox) priest provided there was grave and urgent cause and that the priest administer the sacrament according to the Catholic rite without any mixing of the condemned rite (Collectanea S. Congregationis de Propaganda Fidei seu Decreta Instructiones Rescripta pro Apostolicis Missionibus, Ex Typographia Polyglotta, Roma, 1907, vol. I, pp. 231, 692). Only then would the sacrament be licitly and thus efficaciously administered.

Unitatis Redintegratio appears to be in error when it states:

“The brethren divided from us also use many liturgical actions of the Christian religion. These most certainly can truly engender a life of grace in ways that vary according to the condition of each Church or Community. These liturgical actions must be regarded as capable of giving access to the community of salvation” (3.3).

UR appears to state that the sacraments of heretics and schismatics (besides baptism, which all admit) are efficacious.

Here is a thread on this very question: groups.google.com/group/quaestionesdisputatae/browse_thread/thread/c2ed0dfecbf783f5

 

[Iotaunum]

Maybe you misunderstand what the expressions “full communion” means. The expression was coined by Cardinal Ratzinger when he spoke and wrote about the relationship between individuals and communities to the Universal Church.

He never used “partial communion.” I don’t know if anyone else has. But the term “full communion” was used to describe a situation in which an individual or a community is in communion with the Universal Church on all points of moral law, doctrine, and discipline.
There are points in all three areas where Catholics and non-Catholics are in communion with the Universal Church. However, there are also points in any of those areas where Catholics and non-Catholics are not in communion with the Universal Church. Those individuals are not in full-communion. That’s what it means. It applies equally to Catholics and non-Catholics. For example, Orthodox Christians and Catholics are in full communion on all matters relating to the sacraments, but are not in full communion on other matters. That’s what he described as Communion in Sacris, where he is being very specific about the area where there is communion

One who dissents on morals, doctrine or discipline is out of communion in that area where he or she dissents. That does not make him a non-Catholic, if he or she is a Catholic to begin with. However, he or she is a Catholic who is not in full-communion with the universal Church.

Its not that I am unclear about the concept or misunderstand it - my point was that anyone who is Catholic is in communion with the Church and anyone who is not; is not. The whole idea of being partially in communion or more communion or full communion etc is something absent from traditional Catholic theology as I have read it. I did not know that Cardinal Ratzinger coined the term as you say, in fact I thought the term predated him. Thats interesting. Anyway if I could explain it more clearly: While I understand the desire to try and emphasise what points of doctrine we share with non-catholics, with a view of bringing them into the faith, I feel that the use of these terms are unhelpful and unrealistic.

So, rather than say a Baptist is in communion with the Church on the point of accepting the sacrament of Baptism - I would say they are not in communion with the Church since they reject the Catholic faith. I know in your examples you are breaking communion down into various aspects, but traditionally one was either in or out of communion with the Church as a whole. When a protestant baptizes an infant, they do not perform a protestant baptism - they perform a Catholic baptism illicitly and in effect, as one saint described it, (I forget who- possibly St Francis de Sales?) they “steal” the sacrament as it were. That is to say, any elements of the truth and the truth faith which exist in other religions, are not elements *of those religions *which are true, but elements of the Catholic faith which they use illicitly. Thus, objectively speaking, there are no elements of the true faith in other religions. Since the SSPX accept the Catholic faith whole and entire, they cannot be any more in communion with the Church than they are right now. What I would say in my opinion is that the SSPX are not in disobedience at all- that is according the the nature of true obedience where error is not binding, but if I accept the opinion of others that they are, then the SSPX would still not be any less in communion with the Church than they have been. They would simply be disobedient Catholics, which of course I contest.

Even matters of discipline, which are not doctrine or moral law are binding, because the Church has the authority to demand assent to her rules

Under discipline, we are bound not to contradict the official position of the Church on this matter. It is not being stated as a matter of faith or morals. It is being stated as teaching point. The Church believes this and teaches it…

I agree with the first part. Catholics are obliged under pain of sin to observe all disiplinary laws - to refuse to submit to the Pope in such matters would be disobedience - to deny that the Pope has such authority to bind Catholics in these laws would be schismatic. However, while this is the case we know that obedience only binds when the laws and regulations do not lead to sin or a denial of faith. What the SSPX believe is that some matters of dicipline in recent times have led to a loss of faith and therefore no one is bound to observe them in those instances while remaining perfectly and truly obedient.

To the second part, while I agree that* “we are bound not to contradict the official position of the Church on this matter” * I do not in anyway believe that the official position of the Church is that “Muslims, together with us, worship the one merciful God who will judge mankind on the last day” which Lumen Gentium teaches. I believe that this teaching binds no one and I have tried for years to use “hermenutic of continuity” as Cardinal Ratzinger adviced, to try and reconcile it with Church teaching. I have yet to meet anyone who has been able to reconcile it including many priests. If a Muslim asks “Do I worship the same God as you who will judge mankind on the last day?” I would say to him: “No you do not, since you do not worship Jesus Christ who will judge mankind on the last day” and I would be in perfect conformity with traditional Catholic teaching and dogma on the matter. So, even if you disagree you should be able to see where I am coming from when I say that not everything which appears in the documents of Vatican II is binding on Catholics. This is the position of the SSPX which is a central point of the talks with Rome.

 

[Iotaunum]

That’s a moot point right now. Once a pope rescinds an excommunication, his action states that he believes that it existed in the first place. Otherwise, he would have declared it invalid as was done with Joan of Arc. Her excommunication was never rescinded. It was declared to be invalid; therefore, there was no need to rescind it.

Yes, I know that the Pope may believe it was valid but that does not make it valid ipso facto. Whether it is recognised or not is superflous to whether it was infact incurred. No excommunication which was later declared invalid was ever valid at any time, otherwise it would have to have been lifted.

People can go on believing that there never was an excommunication. However, the man who has the authority to say if there is or is not, does not agree with these folks. When it comes to excommunications, one cannot tie the pope down to Canon Law. Pope issue Canon Law. Therefore, they are above the law. They can change it without notice and they can choose to ignore it, because they believe that it is the right thing to do. Church law does not bind popes. Popes do not bind popes.

I do not want to derail the thread by getting into the validity of the excommunication, I have written on it indpeth on another thread and adressed all of the points you bring up. However I will say that Catholics have a right to be judged by the law *as it is written *and not how a pope would like it to be written. A Pope can change canon law of course, but he cannot change the law after the fact and then backdate the penulty. We are talking about canon 1382. This Canon states that: “Both the Bishop who, without a pontifical mandate, consecrates a person a Bishop, and the one who receives the consecration from him, incur a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See.” Normally, this canon applies in the situation, however Canon Law itself places clauses on this law: Canon 1323 §4.

Canon 1323 - " The following are not subject to a penalty when they have violated a law or precept:
… S4; 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;

Thus, in rebuttal to canon 1382 the Archbishop and canon lawyers in question put foward Canon 1323 §4, which as you can see means that the canon is applied invalidly and the person is not subject to a penalty. Therefore the penalty was not incurred by the Archbishop. The Vatican has never attempted to rebut this argument. .

Canon 1323 §4 makes the application of canon 1382 null in this case. Therefore the “without Papal mandate” part is nullified as it is contained within canon 1382. Canon law states that even if the person culpably thought there was necessity he would still not incur the penalty - canon 1324 §3 §1 80. Therefore, whether one agrees or not that the Archbishop culpably or inculpable thought there was a state of necessity the fact remains that the above mentioned canon means that he was not subject to the penalty as per canon 1323 S4.

One must understand that the Pope is the supreme legislator of the Church in general and that we must presume that his interpretation therefore of canon law is accurate. However, the Pope can abuse his authority through making an error or being pressured or weak and excommunicate wrongly. The authority of the Pope must be at the service of Tradition. In this case Pope John Paul disagreed with the Archbishop that there was a case of necessity, however, canon law regards what is in the mind of the “offender” and not the Pope. The Archbishop did not incur the penalty regardless of whether or not the case of necessity existed. If the Law was written otherwise, then the situation would be different - but the Church has always made provisions to circumstances such as these.

We also need to understand the true nature of excommunication. It’s purpose is medicinal. It’s supposed to bring the person back to the Church. When an excommunication does not work, then the pope can choose to lift it. Pope Benedict explained this very clearly in Light of the World. He said that he had rescinded the excommunication because the surviving SSPX bishops had asked and by asking they submitted to the authority of the primacy.

Yes but from the SSPX point of view (and my own) there never was any excommunication to begin with. Thus there was nothing to lift. This continues to be the SSPX point of view and what it asked was that the Pope recognise that there was no valid excommunication, and the Pope did not recognise it and in fact was pressured not to lift it so a sort of comprimise was reached when the Pope said the SSPX bishops were no longer to be considered excommunicated - so the SSPX said “well this is better than nothing” so to speak and they maintain that there never was an excommunication, but at least at the present the Vatican says there is none - whether they belived there was or not. If anything like a Personal Ordinariate is to be considered, at least this point will no longer be a stumbling block at present.

 

[TMC]

Regarding the efficacy of sacraments administered outside the Catholic Church:

“The unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation” (Council of Florence, Cantate Domino, 1441: Denz. 714).

“A schismatic flatters himself falsely if he asserts that he, too, has been washed in the waters of regeneration. Indeed Augustine would reply to such a man: ‘The branch has the same form when it has been cut off from the vine; but of what profit for it is the form, if it does not live from the root?’” (Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos, n. 13; 15 August 1832; cf. St. Augustine, in psalm. contra part. Donat. 21).

"‘He who deserts the Church will vainly believe that he is in the Church;’ ‘whoever eats of the lamb and is not a member of the Church, has profaned’ (Ven. Pius IX, Amantissimus, n. 3; quoting Ss. Cyprian and Jerome - 18 April 1862).

“From this it follows also that they cannot promise themselves any of the graces and fruits of the perpetual sacrifice and of the sacraments which, although they are sacrilegiously administered, are nonetheless valid and serve in some measure that form and appearance of piety which St. Paul mentions (I Cor. XIII: 3) and which St. Augustine speaks of at greater length: ‘The form of the branch,” says the latter with great precision, “may still be visible, even apart from the vine, but the invisible life of the root can be preserved only in union with the stock. That is why the corporal sacraments, which some keep and use outside the unity of Christ, can preserve the appearance of piety. But the invisible and spiritual virtue of true piety cannot abide there any more than feeling can remain in an amputated member’ (Serm. LXXI, in Matth., 32). But since they no longer have the sacraments, with the exception of baptism, which they confer, so it is said, without ceremonies on children; a fruitful baptism for the latter, provided that once the age of reason is reached they do not embrace the schism; but deadly for those who administer it, for in conferring it they willfully act in schism” (Pope Leo XIII, Eximia Nos lætitia, 19 July 1893).

“The Church… alone supplies those means of salvation which accord with the ordinary counsels of Providence” (Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, n. 9; 29 June 1896).

Ss. Cyprian, Jerome, Augustine, Leo I, Pelagius I and Thomas Aquinas (ST, III, q. 82, a. 7) all wrote on the inefficacy of sacraments administered outside the Catholic Church.

The Holy Office stated that a Catholic may receive the sacraments from a non-Catholic (i.e. Orthodox) priest provided there was grave and urgent cause and that the priest administer the sacrament according to the Catholic rite without any mixing of the condemned rite (Collectanea S. Congregationis de Propaganda Fidei seu Decreta Instructiones Rescripta pro Apostolicis Missionibus, Ex Typographia Polyglotta, Roma, 1907, vol. I, pp. 231, 692). Only then would the sacrament be licitly and thus efficaciously administered.

Unitatis Redintegratio appears to be in error when it states:

“The brethren divided from us also use many liturgical actions of the Christian religion. These most certainly can truly engender a life of grace in ways that vary according to the condition of each Church or Community. These liturgical actions must be regarded as capable of giving access to the community of salvation” (3.3).

UR appears to state that the sacraments of heretics and schismatics (besides baptism, which all admit) are efficacious.

Here is a thread on this very question: groups.google.com/group/quaestionesdisputatae/browse_thread/thread/c2ed0dfecbf783f5

I think you are stretching both current doctrinal statements and past doctrinal statements to make it seem as if there is a large gulf where this is not. Certainly I agree that the Church’s application of its teaching to some specific situations appears to have shifted slightly, but the underlying teaching remains the same. As you point out, the Church has always held that all Christian baptisms are efficacious, and the Church has long allowed Catholics to receive other sacraments from non-Catholics in extremis – so the Church has always believed that something good and efficacious may be present in the sacraments performed by other faiths. At the same time, the Church has always taught, and still teaches, that all salvation comes through Christ’s Church. If there is any change apparent in the last century or so, it is that the Church recognizes that we can not say that the limitless power of the Spirit is incapable of reaching out to those of other faiths and creating a mysterious connection between them and the Church such that they may be saved. I do not find that to be at odds with the consistent teaching of the Church from ancient times.

 

[JReducation]

Yes but from the SSPX point of view (and my own) there never was any excommunication to begin with. Thus there was nothing to lift. This continues to be the SSPX point of view and what it asked was that the Pope recognise that there was no valid excommunication, and the Pope did not recognise it and in fact was pressured not to lift it so a sort of comprimise was reached when the Pope said the SSPX bishops were no longer to be considered excommunicated - so the SSPX said “well this is better than nothing” so to speak and they maintain that there never was an excommunication, but at least at the present the Vatican says there is none - whether they belived there was or not. If anything like a Personal Ordinariate is to be considered, at least this point will no longer be a stumbling block at present.

In all honesty, one of the drawbacks of any monarchy, which the Church is, is that the point of view of the governed is of very little concern to the monarch. John Paul II made this very clear when he heard that the SSPX and supporters believed that the excommunication was invalid. His response was short and to the point. “The law does not apply to them.” I wish that I could recall the letter in which he wrote this so that I could either copy it here or link it. It was in a letter to Cardinal Ratzinger. Later, Cardinal Ratzinger said something similar. The issue is not whether they beleive it, but whether the pope believes it. He goes into detail in several of his interviews on this subject. Both popes are unwilling to entertain this question. At this point, it is a moot one. The excommunication has been lifted.

Having said this, I am part of an 800-year tradition. In 1209, Francis of Assisi wrote his first admonitions for his brothers, which were incorporated into the four rules that he wrote for his three orders and the Franciscan hermits. One of the statutes said that the brethren (men and women, religious and secular Franciscans, ordained and non-cleric) are bound to obey Brother Francis, without question, under pain of grave sin, until the return of the Lord. In simple English, anyone who joins the order vows to obey Br. Francis long after he’s dead.

Further on, Francis writes that he commands the brothers to obey, without question or reservation, all canonical ecclesial authorities, especially the Lords Pope and Bishops. Further, the brethren are to obey, under pain of grave sin (not excluding excommunication) even when they believe that authority is in error, because such humility is pleasing to God and man. But he does not stop there. The only time that it is permissible to disobey is when one is commanded to sin, provided that the sin is identified as such by the Church. In other words, you do not decide what is or is not a sin or what is or is not binding on you. No one can command you to commit a sin, but the Church can unbind you or bind you, so that obedience is not a sin. The only cases where the Church cannot bind or unbind would be in moral matters that are absolute. However, there is even more.

Francis commands the brethren to remain by the side of the errant authority, even if they have to disobey. The brethren are not to put distance between them and the person in authority, because the person in authority does not forfeit his place or authority, except in the single matter in question. In other words, you can’t throw out the baby and the bathwater or you can’t go off and do your own thing. You refuse to obey what is a sin, but you acknowledge the role of the person in authority in all other matters and you submit in all other matters and you keep quiet about it.

What is interesting about this is that these admonitions were later written into the four rules and the four rules were sealed with a Papal Bull by Pope Honorius III and no pope has ever lifted that bull. In fact, there have been at least five encyclicals exalting the Rule of St. Francis. One of them was for the bishops of the world, encouraging them to promote the Franciscan order among the lay faithful, especially the Secular Franciscan Order.

Therefore, I can’t, in good conscience, agree with some things that these folks say, because in doing so, I would be disagreeing with the what the current pope wants. To do so would be contrary to tradition, since the Rule of St. Francis and the vow to obey that Rule has been part of the Church’s tradition since 1209 and continues to be binding under pain of grave sin and even excommunication, depending on the severity of the infraction.

While I admire you passion and respect your position, obedience commands that I disagree and that I promote obedience to the Holy Father in all things without question. Further, obedience commands that I see in the Holy Father, Peter, who is the Prince of the Apostles, and that I submit myself to the Lord’s Providence, which is expressed through his authority, unless I am commanded to sin. Finally, Holy Poverty demands that become poor, because Christ chose poverty. The greatest expression of poverty is submission to authority, even if we believe that authority is mistaken. This was the poverty that Christ practiced when he was on trial.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[melchesidechpio]

Speculation ? Rumor ?

eponymousflower.blogspot.com/2011/04/pope-may-offer-society-personal.html

I think most of all that we must pray for the SSPX. They are wonderful people and I would love to see them in full commujnion with Rome.

 

[laszlo]

This position has much to recommend it, but beyond a point, it leads to confusion. Following the pope or the bishop implies a certain threshold level of understanding: one who understands nothing is unable to follow anything.

To follow the footsteps of the leader is essentially different from the judgment about the direction itself.

The problem in the Church today in either side is that laymen and members of the lower clergy believe that they are competent judges about the proper direction. The liberal side do the changes in their own, the other side condemns everything what they do not like.

What is missing it is the humility, to accept the decisions of the living Magisterium, which received the loosing and binding power. The liberals believe that everything is loosened, the other side denies the loosing power at all.

 

[Warrenton]

The liberals believe that everything is loosened, the other side denies the loosing power at all.

I liked the distinction you drew, but I disagree with this somewhat. The liberal changes in the Church are fundamentally of a different nature than SSPX’s position. It really is not a “two sides of the same coin” thing.

 

[Iotaunum]

In all honesty, one of the drawbacks of any monarchy, which the Church is, is that the point of view of the governed is of very little concern to the monarch.

I wouldn’t consider this to be a drawback at all in fact I think the tendency toward collegiality and the priests councils and parish councils of laity etc has only aided dissention from Papal authority in recent times

John Paul II made this very clear when he heard that the SSPX and supporters believed that the excommunication was invalid. His response was short and to the point. “The law does not apply to them.”

I have read many of Cardinal Ratzingers books and interviews etc on the matter, and I know what Pope John Paul II’s position was - but my point was that the opinion of even the Pope is superfluous to whether or not an excommunication occurred. When St Athanasius was excommunicated, the Pope may well have believed that it was an actual excommunication. Likewise with other wrongful excommunications in history. Whether the bishop or the Pope believes it to be or not has no direct effect on the validity of the excommunication. Whether the excommunication was valid or not is therefore a matter of canon and divine law. Consecrating without a mandate or against the express wish of the Pope is not a schismatic act - it would be disobedience at the most. Schism demands that one reject the authority of the pope to command but disobedience consists only in disobeying a command while the person still recognises the authority of the Pope. The SSPX and the Archbishop recognised the authority of the Pope but the consecrations were done because the Archbishop felt he had a duty to do so. Again, canon law recognised what is in the mind of the offender - not the Pope. No positive law binds when there is grave inconvenience and the Archbishop saw a grave inconvenience to the salvation of souls if he observed. The salvation of souls must always be the supreme law of the Church - canon 1752. Also, the Pope cannot change a law after the fact and give a penalty retroactively: a law comes into existence when it is promulgated - canon 7. The Code as it stood at the time nullified any excommunication since it provided for cases such as this, and even if the Archbishop thought there was a necessity when there was not (which is not the case) then the penalty would still be nulled by canon law itself. Everyone has a right to a fair trial and to be judged by the law as it is written. I do not want to get into the canonical arguments since it would be going off topic, but I have answered your concerns in another thread in more depth.

Having said this, I am part of an 800-year tradition. In 1209, Francis of Assisi wrote his first admonitions for his brothers, which were incorporated into the four rules that he wrote for his three orders and the Franciscan hermits. One of the statutes said that the brethren (men and women, religious and secular Franciscans, ordained and non-cleric) are bound to obey Brother Francis, without question, under pain of grave sin, until the return of the Lord. In simple English, anyone who joins the order vows to obey Br. Francis long after he’s dead.

Further on, Francis writes that he commands the brothers to obey, without question or reservation, all canonical ecclesial authorities, especially the Lords Pope and Bishops. Further, the brethren are to obey, under pain of grave sin (not excluding excommunication) even when they believe that authority is in error, because such humility is pleasing to God and man. But he does not stop there. The only time that it is permissible to disobey is when one is commanded to sin, provided that the sin is identified as such by the Church

I agree totally with what St Francis wrote and I admire the Saint very much, but the whole issue of the consecrations without Papal Mandate are not covered by this. The SSPX also believes the above and sees obedience to ecclesiastical authorities is to be observed “under pain of grave sin (not excluding excommunication) even when they believe that authority is in error” as you say. For example when Pope Pius XII let Bugninni revise the Holy Week ceremonies many Catholics saw a great loss to tradition and a senseless act. A number of Cardinals (including at least two from America) flew to Rome to stop this, but it was too late as it was promulgated by the time they arrived. John XXIII also modified the rubrics, removed a Confiteor etc and altered the Canon of his 1962 rite - however, as much as the SSPX and many other Catholics were dismayed at this they accepted under obedience. It is a different matter when a command/law/rite leads to a loss of faith. Many Catholics saw participation in non-catholic services as detrimental to their faith and saw in the New Mass a protestantized liturgy which was slowly but negatively affecting their faith. In these cases the salvation of souls is the supreme law and unless a law leads to a loss of faith it must be obeyed under pain of great sin. This is the position of the SSPX.

While I admire you passion and respect your position, obedience commands that I disagree and that I promote obedience to the Holy Father in all things without question.

I too agree to obedience to the Holy Father as far as the Church has infallibly declared the extent of his authority to be - however we know from theology, the doctors of the church, the saints and history itself that a Pope can err and teach error, and that error binds no one. That’s why we believe that we are observing True obedience to the Pope and the Church by holding fast to tradition and rejecting some novel teaching which has not been infallibly taught.

 

[sidbrown]

Regarding the efficacy of sacraments administered outside the Catholic Church:

“The unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation” (Council of Florence, Cantate Domino, 1441: Denz. 714).

Are the declarations of the Council of Florence still valid, or have they been overthown by the recent teachings?
It seems like the Catholic authorities have changed many of the teachings of the Council of Florence. For example, wasn’t it taught before that Jews and schismatics could not be saved, but now they changed that teaching, so it is taught that a Jew can be saved and futher, according to Roman Catholic discipline as stated in the missal, schismatic Eastern Orthodox are allowed to partake in Roman Catholic Holy Communion and they are not required to abandon any of their Eastern Orthodox beliefs.

 

[laszlo]

Are the declarations of the Council of Florence still valid, or have they been overthown by the recent teachings?
It seems like the Catholic authorities have changed many of the teachings of the Council of Florence. For example, wasn’t it taught before that Jews and schismatics could not be saved, but now they changed that teaching, so it is taught that a Jew can be saved and futher, according to Roman Catholic discipline as stated in the missal, schismatic Eastern Orthodox are allowed to partake in Roman Catholic Holy Communion and they are not required to abandon any of their Eastern Orthodox beliefs.

1647 For, it must be held by faith that outside the Apostolic Roman
Church, no one can be saved; that this is the only ark of salvation;
that he who shall not have entered therein will perish in the flood;
but, on the other hand, it is necessary to hold for certain that they
who labor in ignorance of the true religion, if this ignorance is
invincible, are not stained by any guilt in this matter in the eyes of
God.

Rationalism and Indifferentism
[From the Allocution, “Singular) quadem,” Dec. 9, 1854]

 

[Timothysis]

Even if you were right, I just don’t get the lack of compassion. Can’t you see that the situation is painful on our side too? It doesn’t give me any joy to have grave misgivings about the condition of the Church in our day.

You define the issue as one against “our side.” Do you mean your side against the Holy See? If that is the case, then I don’t really care how “painful” it is for those of you who side against Christ’s Church. As I said before, I will take Christ’s Church, warts and all, over any other who works to accuse those in authority. Brother JR wrote an excellent post about obedience and I think that it certainly applies here. We obey our authorities in the same way that Jesus obeyed the Father.