SSPX Reconciliation

  • Thread starter Thread starter Marilena
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
They put themselves out of communion from Holy Church, not the other way around. Lefebvre, Fellay, Williamson et.al, excommunicated themselves.
 
40.png
arch_angelorum:
And going against centuries of Holy Tradition somehow is very Catholic because what? Because the Pope in the 1960’s suddenly decided to part with it?
Click to expand...
Are you talking about “tradition” (lower case) or “Tradition” (uppercase)? The former is a matter of discipline and is certainly subject to change (ie, Saint Pius had NO competence or authority to bind his successors in matters of discipline), the latter isn’t. Sometimes people confuse what “tradition” is and what “Tradition” is. The use of bread and wine in the confection of the Sacrifice is “Tradition,” and thus unchanging. The use of Latin in the Mass, the position of the celebrant, etc., are “traditions” and entirely within the purview of a pope to modify or change.
 
40.png
NeelyAnn:
Using this reasoning, it could also be said that when the Holy Father said that the SSPX can no longer claim a state of necessity because he is trying to correct the problems, that he was acknowledging that a state of necessity existed prior to his pontificacy.
Click to expand...
Fallacious. No state of necessity existed prior to the excommunication and schism because the Holy Father (JPII) was giving Lefebreve a great deal of what he wanted. They had a “deal,” which Lefebreve signed off on and on which he reneged THE NEXT DAY! The current Holy Father was a part of the attempt to resolve the problem under the former.
 
40.png
NeelyAnn:
Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos is the President of Ecclesia Dei. He is the one the Pope has put in charge of rectifying the situation with the SSPX. I think he knows exactly what he is saying and what he means, and he seems to be doing it with the Pope’s permission.

Declaration of Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos on television (TV Channel 5 in Italy) on November 13, 2005.

Commentator: The old Mass in Latin is attractive, but it is also a source of quarrels. Today, in order to celebrate it publicly, the permission of the local bishop is required, but for months rumor has been having it that Benedict XVI could decide to liberalize it. This persistent rumor, however, finds no echo in the declarations of Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos, Head of the Congregation for the clergy, and major artisan of the dialogue with the Traditionalist groups, and first of all with the SSPX which gathers the faithful of Archbishop Lefebvre.

Cardinal Castrillon: This is the habitual rule. It is the local bishop who is responsible. It is up to the bishop to judge whether or not this is good for his diocese at a given time and for pastoral reasons which he knows and for which he will have to answer to the pope, but even more to Jesus, to God.

Commentator: So, it is a matter of re-affirming episcopal authority, but at the same time an appeal to their conscience in order to avoid useless rigidity and contribute to the long process of a rapprochement with the disciples of Archbishop Lefebvre, as already undertaken under the pontificate of John-Paul II who, in 1988, excommunicated the French Archbishop for performing illicitly 4 episcopal consecrations. This dialogue seems to have taken a new start with the meeting in Castel Gandolfo between Benedict XVI and the Superior of the SSPX Bishop Fellay, last summer.

**Cardinal Castrillon: We are not confronted to a heresy. It cannot be said in correct, exact, and precise terms that there is a schism. There is a schismatic attitude in the fact of consecrating bishops without pontifical mandate. They are within the Church. There is only the fact that a full, more perfect communion is lacking – as was stated during the meeting with Bishop Fellay – a fuller communion, because communion does exist. **

cardinalrating.com/cardinal_17__article_2883.htm
Click to expand...
AGAIN, this is only an *opinion *(and maybe the Cardinal is just trying to be diplomatic).It is the opinion of ONE cardinal, just as there is ONE cardinal whose opinion it is that they will have to fully accept the Council and the Mass (Cardinal Arinze), just as there is ONE cardinal that said that the Jews didn’t need to be evangelized, as they already dwell in a salvific covenant (Cardinal Kaspar). It’s an opinion. The FACT of the matter is clearly explained by His Holiness Pope John Paul II, the Vicar of Christ on Earth, in Ecclesia Dei and it has been confirmed by actions up until his death (the confirmation of Bishop Buskewitz’s excommunication is an example of that, which hasn’t been rescinded IN SPITE OF Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos’ opinion). Cardinal’s are councillars to the popes, not popes themselves. When HH Pope Benedict XVI, as pope, says there’s no longer a schism, then the schism will have ceased. But you are very much mistaken if you think that he’s going to add,“and there never was a schism,” first, because above all else, he’s an honest man and he’s not going to rewrite history and second, because no matter how much his policy may differ from John Paul the Great’s, he isn’t going to cast, or allow to be cast, aspersions on the judgement of his predecessor (esp. that particular predecessor). John Paul II believed that they were in schism and he confirmed it in an official decree, which has not been invalidated and so is still in force. Anything else is an attempt to rewrite history. While I don’t object to the SSPX being brought out of schism back into the arms of the Church (provided they accept the Council and the Pauline Rite), I do object to anything, but the strictest truth.
 
40.png
NeelyAnn:
Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos is the President of Ecclesia Dei. He is the one the Pope has put in charge of rectifying the situation with the SSPX. I think he knows exactly what he is saying and what he means, and he seems to be doing it with the Pope’s permission.

Declaration of Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos on television (TV Channel 5 in Italy) on November 13, 2005.

Commentator: The old Mass in Latin is attractive, but it is also a source of quarrels. Today, in order to celebrate it publicly, the permission of the local bishop is required, but for months rumor has been having it that Benedict XVI could decide to liberalize it. This persistent rumor, however, finds no echo in the declarations of Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos, Head of the Congregation for the clergy, and major artisan of the dialogue with the Traditionalist groups, and first of all with the SSPX which gathers the faithful of Archbishop Lefebvre.

Cardinal Castrillon: This is the habitual rule. It is the local bishop who is responsible. It is up to the bishop to judge whether or not this is good for his diocese at a given time and for pastoral reasons which he knows and for which he will have to answer to the pope, but even more to Jesus, to God.

Commentator: So, it is a matter of re-affirming episcopal authority, but at the same time an appeal to their conscience in order to avoid useless rigidity and contribute to the long process of a rapprochement with the disciples of Archbishop Lefebvre, as already undertaken under the pontificate of John-Paul II who, in 1988, excommunicated the French Archbishop for performing illicitly 4 episcopal consecrations. This dialogue seems to have taken a new start with the meeting in Castel Gandolfo between Benedict XVI and the Superior of the SSPX Bishop Fellay, last summer.

**Cardinal Castrillon: We are not confronted to a heresy. It cannot be said in correct, exact, and precise terms that there is a schism. There is a schismatic attitude in the fact of consecrating bishops without pontifical mandate. They are within the Church. There is only the fact that a full, more perfect communion is lacking – as was stated during the meeting with Bishop Fellay – a fuller communion, because communion does exist. **

cardinalrating.com/cardinal_17__article_2883.htm
Click to expand...
Thanks NeelyAnn - this makes it even clearer to me, great stuff. I look forward to more of the Cardinal’s comments on this issue. Good work.
 
40.png
JKirkLVNV:
Fallacious. No state of necessity existed prior to the excommunication and schism because the Holy Father (JPII) was giving Lefebreve a great deal of what he wanted. They had a “deal,” which Lefebreve signed off on and on which he reneged THE NEXT DAY! The current Holy Father was a part of the attempt to resolve the problem under the former.
Click to expand...
So the story goes, and goes, and goes. These were not my words, they were the Popes. The words “no longer a state of necessity” would definitely indicate that there once was. I really know of no other way to interpret such words. If you find another way, by all means share it.
 
40.png
JKirkLVNV:
AGAIN, this is only an *opinion *(and maybe the Cardinal is just trying to be diplomatic).It is the opinion of ONE cardinal, just as there is ONE cardinal whose opinion it is that they will have to fully accept the Council and the Mass (Cardinal Arinze), just as there is ONE cardinal that said that the Jews didn’t need to be evangelized, as they already dwell in a salvific covenant (Cardinal Kaspar). It’s an opinion.
Click to expand...
Hmmm…Your opinion, or the opinion of Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos? That is a hard one, but I thing I’ll go with Cardinal Castillon Hoyos, President of Ecclesia Dei, assigned by the current reigning Pontiff to negotiate with the SSPX.
40.png
JKirkLVNV:
But you are very much mistaken if you think that he’s going to add,“and there never was a schism,” first, because above all else, he’s an honest man and he’s not going to rewrite history and second,
Click to expand...
So let’s see, IF the Pope indicates that the SSPX was never “really” in true schism, etc., you would consider the Pope to be dishonest? Is that what you are saying? I would be careful with such statements because you may very well find yourself in such a situation.
40.png
JKirkLVNV:
because no matter how much his policy may differ from John Paul the Great’s, he isn’t going to cast, or allow to be cast, aspersions on the judgement of his predecessor (esp. that particular predecessor).
Click to expand...
The changes he has made to the Papal ceremonies, the procedures for the canonizations of Saints, the offical position of the Crusades (see timesonline.co.uk/article/0,13509-2093921,00.html) seem to cast somewhat of a shadow on his predecessor and their differences.

JKirkLVNV - Your opposition to the SSPX seems to be more personal than anything.
 
NeelyAnn said:
**You’ve made some quantum leaps, but I’ll answer you. **Your opinion, or the opinion of Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos? That is a hard one, but I thing I’ll go with Cardinal Castillon Hoyos, President of Ecclesia Dei, assigned by the current reigning Pontiff to negotiate with the SSPX. And I’ll go with the papal decree Ecclesia Dei, issued by the current reigning pontiff’s immediate predecessor, until the current reigning Pontiff issues a new decree

IF the Pope indicates that the SSPX was never “really” in true schism, etc., you would consider the Pope to be dishonest? Is that what you are saying? I would be careful with such statements because you may very well find yourself in such a situation.** I very much doubt it, but let’s play with your little flight of fancy: IF the pope says,“Napoleon was NEVER at Waterloo!,” one must assume that the pontiff was either mistaken or lying. If, after perfectly reasonable people pointed out his error to him and respectfully explained that Napoleon WAS, in fact, at Waterloo and showed him proof, yet the pontiff continued to insist that “Napoleon was NEVER at Waterloo!,” what is one then to surmise? That the pontiff is either mistaken, a liar, or a complete lunatic. We know that in this instance that the pontiff would be incorrect, no matter what the pontiff thought, because it’s a fact that Napoleon WAS at Waterloo. And it wouldn’t matter anyway: it has no bearing on faith and morals, which are the only areas where the pope CANNOT lead the Church into error. The pope cannot** make a fact of history untrue, any more than he can cause the sun to rise over western Ireland, or command the tide NOT to come in.

**As it happens, I very much love HH Pope Benedict XVI and pay him every reverence. I have every confidence that, while he might say,“Schism no longer exists,” he won’t say," Schism never existed," because he is neither a liar, nor a lunatic. IF he were to say "schism never existed, I would say, at most and with the deepest respect, that he was mistaken. And it would be fine if I did, because again, this isn’t a matter of faith and morals, it’s a matter of fact. The pope can’t make 2+2=5 **

**Now this is how the Church works: we have a code of canon law, which lays out various penalties for infractions and violations, etc., including one called excommunication. That excommunication can be by decree (remember the Bishop of Lincoln?) or it can be automatic (latiae sentiae, I’ve probably misspelled that, but I won’t worry about that right now). The Archbishop incurred it automatically, as did Bishop Felay and the other 3 bishops. Pope John Paul merely confirmed this in Ecclesia Dei and it was in this same document that he stated that they were in schism and cautioned the faithful from getting mixed up in schism as well (maybe you didn’t read that part). NOW…how is your attitude toward the DECREE of Pope John Paul II any different from what you PERCEIVE my attitude to be toward the (alledged) thinking of the current Pope (who hasn’t issued a DECREE in this matter at all) via Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos (who still never said they weren’t in schism, he said “IF”)? What’s different, according to you? I’ve got a papal decree, lawfully promulgated by the Supreme Legislator, against whom no appeal can be made while he lives and reigns, you don’t even have a quotation from a pope on this matter, but what’s different about our attitudes? Because you seem to think that it doesn’t matter what John Paul II said at all (in a DECREE that’s never been set aside). **

The changes he has made to the Papal ceremonies, the procedures for the canonizations of Saints, the offical position of the Crusades seem to cast somewhat of a shadow on his predecessor and their differences. Different popes, different styles.

JKirkLVNV - Your opposition to the SSPX seems to be more personal than anything.
Click to expand...

**Well, I do have a bit of an axe to grind, as at the SSPX Mass I attended, the priest said (twice) that the Novus Ordo Mass was an “abomination.” Since that’s the Mass I love, I take a bit of umbrage at that. But I’ll be happy to let bygones be bygones if they repudiate such talk (they don’t even have to celebrate the Pauline Rite, just acknowledge both it’s validity and its worthiness) and accept the Council (which I think the Pope is going to insist on, too). But you know, I don’t think you could have discerned that I had a personal issue with from what I said in previous posts, other than that I thought the SSPX was in error (I do) and that I cared about factual truth. NOW, let me ask you just as fair a question as your last statement was to me: why do you dislike and disparge His Holiness Pope John Paul II so very much? Why do you doubt the validity of his decrees and rulings? **
 
40.png
NeelyAnn:
So the story goes, and goes, and goes. These were not my words, they were the Popes. The words “no longer a state of necessity” would definitely indicate that there once was. I really know of no other way to interpret such words. If you find another way, by all means share it.
Click to expand...
That isn’t what the pope said at all. He told Bishop Fellay that he could not claim that a state of necessity now existed, as the pope was trying to find a way to deal with the situation. He never said,“A state of necessity doesn’t exist now, as it once did” or “a state of necessity doesn’t exist now, though it did under the former pope.” He may well have been saying, “Look, don’t even try that one out on me, it won’t fly at all.” Your assertion is simply sematic conjecture (“would definitely indicate that there once was?” Hardly “definitely”) and factually false (no necessity existed).
 
40.png
NeelyAnn:
JKirkLVNV - Your opposition to the SSPX seems to be more personal than anything.
Click to expand...
Or perhaps your support of them is the less-than-objective position. HE Cardinal Hoyos cannot, after all, change the text of the bull pronouncing the excommunications. In case you’ve forgotten its repeated use earlier in the thread, a most telling section of that document reads thus:

c) In the present circumstances I wish especially to make an appeal both solemn and heartfelt, paternal and fraternal, to all those who until now have been linked in various ways to the movement of Archbishop Lefebvre, that they may fulfil the grave duty of remaining united to the Vicar of Christ in the unity of the Catholic Church, and of ceasing their support in any way for that movement. Everyone should be aware that formal adherence to the schism is a grave offence against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church’s law.(8)

Ecclesia Dei also uses the phrase “schismatic act” twice and explains the impossibility of remaining “faithful to the Tradition while breaking the ecclesial bond with him to whom, in the person of the Apostle Peter, Christ himself entrusted the ministry of unity in his Church.”

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/motu_proprio/documents/hf_jp-ii_motu-proprio_02071988_ecclesia-dei_en.html

Now, I suppose when HH John Paul II spoke of formal adherence to the schism he may have really meant ‘formal adherence to this theoretical schism that does not in fact exist’ - no, wait, I don’t suppose that at all. That would be quite the pipe dream. It is because of this state of schism declared by the pope himself, with whom one must be in communion in order to stay within the bounds of the Church (the Barque of Peter), that only an “irrational” person would aver that no schism ever existed.
 
Andreas Hofer:
Or perhaps your support of them is the less-than-objective position. HE Cardinal Hoyos cannot, after all, change the text of the bull pronouncing the excommunications. In case you’ve forgotten its repeated use earlier in the thread, a most telling section of that document reads thus:

c) In the present circumstances I wish especially to make an appeal both solemn and heartfelt, paternal and fraternal, to all those who until now have been linked in various ways to the movement of Archbishop Lefebvre, that they may fulfil the grave duty of remaining united to the Vicar of Christ in the unity of the Catholic Church, and of ceasing their support in any way for that movement. Everyone should be aware that formal adherence to the schism is a grave offence against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church’s law.(8)

Ecclesia Dei also uses the phrase “schismatic act” twice and explains the impossibility of remaining “faithful to the Tradition while breaking the ecclesial bond with him to whom, in the person of the Apostle Peter, Christ himself entrusted the ministry of unity in his Church.”

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/motu_proprio/documents/hf_jp-ii_motu-proprio_02071988_ecclesia-dei_en.html

Now, I suppose when HH John Paul II spoke of formal adherence to the schism he may have really meant ‘formal adherence to this theoretical schism that does not in fact exist’ - no, wait, I don’t suppose that at all. That would be quite the pipe dream. It is because of this state of schism declared by the pope himself, with whom one must be in communion in order to stay within the bounds of the Church (the Barque of Peter), that only an “irrational” person would aver that no schism ever existed.
Click to expand...
Andreas: You always put it better than I ever could! More cogently and more succinctly, with such spare eloquence!
 
NeelyAnn said:
**Cardinal Castrillon: We are not confronted to a heresy. It cannot be said in correct, exact, and precise terms that there is a schism. There is a schismatic attitude in the fact of consecrating bishops without pontifical mandate. They are within the Church. There is only the fact that a full, more perfect communion is lacking – as was stated during the meeting with Bishop Fellay – a fuller communion, because communion does exist. **

cardinalrating.com/cardinal_17__article_2883.htm
Click to expand...

I must confess to not quite understand His Eminence on this particular point. “They are within the Church,” but “more perfect communion is lacking…” So, either “full communion” enjoyed by Catholics in good standing is still short of some new “perfect communion” (perhaps HE is merely speaking eschatologically), or else the Cardinal recognizes that full communion does not exist. But if there is not full communion, how can he claim there is no schism? Does he mean “communion does exist” in the sense that all baptized Christians are, according to Vatican II, incorporated into the Catholic Church (the One Body of Christ) albeit imperfectly? Or is he thinking of a communion even stronger, in the sense that churches possessing Apostolic succession and true sacraments are united to the Catholic Church, although still imperfectly, like the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox (still in a state of material schism which prevents normative intercommunion)?
 
40.png
JKirkLVNV:
Andreas: You always put it better than I ever could! More cogently and more succinctly, with such spare eloquence!
Click to expand...
You’re too kind, JKirk. I doubt all readers found that post equally impressive.😛
 
Great Post Andreas!

This is my speculation on what the Cardinals might be trying to get at with their statements. After all, it would be truly ridiculous, to think that any of these Cardinals are departing in any way from the meaning of Ecclesia Dei.

I think what these Cardinals are getting at is that the schism that currently exists is not some type of grand schism in the sense that the SSPX is adhering to heresy. I believe they are trying to show that it is not quite as if the SSPX is, say, claiming that Christ was not God. They are attempting to demonstrate that the reason the bishops were excommunicated was because of discipline as they failed to follow the Holy Father. As a result, the priests and bishops of SSPX are not heretics, but are in fact, suspended and in need of being brought into communion with the Church.

For what it’s worth, I sincerely hope that if the SSPX is brought into communion that they fall under the regular hierarchy of the western Church. My fear is that, if they are not, many of their priests will continue to preach that the Mass is defective, etc. Besides, maybe such a reporting structure would give the SSPX a well needed dose of humility!
 
40.png
Ham1:
Great Post Andreas!

This is my speculation on what the Cardinals might be trying to get at with their statements. After all, it would be truly ridiculous, to think that any of these Cardinals are departing in any way from the meaning of Ecclesia Dei.

I think what these Cardinals are getting at is that the schism that currently exists is not some type of grand schism in the sense that the SSPX is adhering to heresy. I believe they are trying to show that it is not quite as if the SSPX is, say, claiming that Christ was not God. They are attempting to demonstrate that the reason the bishops were excommunicated was because of discipline as they failed to follow the Holy Father. As a result, the priests and bishops of SSPX are not heretics, but are in fact, suspended and in need of being brought into communion with the Church.

For what it’s worth, I sincerely hope that if the SSPX is brought into communion that they fall under the regular hierarchy of the western Church. My fear is that, if they are not, many of their priests will continue to preach that the Mass is defective, etc. Besides, maybe such a reporting structure would give the SSPX a well needed dose of humility!
Click to expand...
Are you clearly and unequivocally stating that ALL SSPX priests are suspended? Do you have legitimate proof that ALL SSPX
priests are suspended? If so, please show a credible link. One note too, that if ALL SSPX priests are suspended as you have stated, then how can one go to their Mass in dire curcumstances? If one is suspended then it would not be acceptable to go to their Mass no matter what the circumstances are.
 
40.png
Marilena:
Are you clearly and unequivocally stating that ALL SSPX priests are suspended? Do you have legitimate proof that ALL SSPX
priests are suspended? If so, please show a credible link. One note too, that if ALL SSPX priests are suspended as you have stated, then how can one go to their Mass in dire curcumstances? If one is suspended then it would not be acceptable to go to their Mass no matter what the circumstances are.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure of the word “suspended.” I know they possess no faculties for confession (those have to be given by the local ordinary-further demonstration that they are, in fact, in schism) and that the marriages they perform are invalid. Can you reference (and I’m asking this respectfully, Marilena, no pejoritavely) where it is written that we can go to their Masses in dire circumstances? What does that mean? My understanding of the instruction is that if a Catholic Mass in communion with the Holy See/ the local ordinary is not available, then the obligation to attend Mass is voided.
 
40.png
JKirkLVNV:
I’m not sure of the word “suspended.” I know they possess no faculties for confession (those have to be given by the local ordinary-further demonstration that they are, in fact, in schism) and that the marriages they perform are invalid. Can you reference (and I’m asking this respectfully, Marilena, no pejoritavely) where it is written that we can go to their Masses in dire circumstances? What does that mean? My understanding of the instruction is that if a Catholic Mass in communion with the Holy See/ the local ordinary is not available, then the obligation to attend Mass is voided.
Click to expand...
I will try to dig that up for you. I seen it in a reply to one of my posts awhile back. I will dig it up for you, and please be patient with me. Dire circumstances meant that if there was no other church around and in life or death situation where there was no priest there at the time. Let me get that for you, it will take me a bit.

mosher mosher is offline
Senior Member

Join Date: July 2, 2005
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 1,405
Send a message via ICQ to mosher Send a message via AIM to mosher Send a message via MSN to mosher Send a message via Yahoo to mosher
Default Re: Going to a TLM for my first time…what do I do?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marilena
Hi again Fuzzy,

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=100019

Is this an SSPX Mass your going to? If so, Rand al Thor told me it
is a mortal sin to go to one, if it is, reconsider.

That must be qualified by saying that it is not a sin to attend a SSPX chapel out of grave necessity just like it is not a sin to attend a Divine Liturgy of an Orthodox sect or the Polish National Church etc if it is done out of grave necessity.
 
40.png
Marilena:
I will try to dig that up for you. I seen it in a reply to one of my posts awhile back. I will dig it up for you, and please be patient with me. Dire circumstances meant that if there was no other church around and in life or death situation where there was no priest there at the time. Let me get that for you, it will take me a bit.
Click to expand...
Now, I do know that in a life or death emergency, their priests (or a laicized priest, for that matter) can give absolution, so I would assume they could also give Viaticum (we consider their confection of the Sacrifice valid, though illicit).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top