SSPX Update - Redux

[choliks]

Thanks for the inspiring story, **Melchior. **

A point of order. Fr Bob had the advantage that the Charismatic Way is in favour with those currently wielding administrative power in the Vatican, while the immemorial traditional way is not. This is not to denigrate your priest; I am not talking about him, but about the present incumbents of the Vatican. I for one am emphatically not criticizing Fr Bob. As the years have gone by, it has percolated into the general consciousness that the Vatican is ‘ecumenical’ to any and every group up to and including fire-worshippers, but throws the book at … ?] Things began to improve after the Holy Year of 2000, when a huge procession of ‘trads’ wearing traditional habits and modest clothing processed literally to the feet of Pope John Paul II. It was only then, it seems, that he realised they were for him, not against him. That was when he instructed Cdl Castrillon Hoyos to try to find ways to regularise the SSPX and the groups allied to them.

In my understanding, and experience, the SSPX clergy have always tried to stress that they are not the whole Church, or a substitute for it. ** Fr Couture told me, when he was superior of Ireland, that the Stated aim of the Priestly Fraternity of S. Pius X is to become holy priests.** Seeing the wreckage being done in the Church, they have taken the position of holding the line at the Church as it was before ‘The Changes’ that were being *de facto *imposed in the name of The Council. They opted to remain with the 1960 liturgy and to refuse the innovations that had previously been unanimously condemned by popes and ecumenical councils, but endorsed by those speaking for ‘The Spirit of the Council’. Their attitude is that, if other religious orders or diocesan bishops take a different route, that is not their responsibility. If laity wish to attend their liturgical services, that is their canonical right. ‘But,’ he said, ‘We are not your priests’. (This was in response to certain laity who try to use the SSPX priest for their own agendas). More than one SSPX priest has warned the laity that they are not the whole Church. But, you see, many of the laity are desperate for somebody to do all their thinking and decision-making for them. And this is by no means restricted to the laity who support the SSPX.

Please pardon me. This really doesn’t make sense at all. If you want to protect a territory or someone, you build your defenses around it or that person, and not separate yourself.

 

[Moore11]

Please pardon me. This really doesn’t make sense at all. If you want to protect a territory or someone, you build your defenses around it or that person, and not separate yourself.

That is an amazing way to put it.

 

[curlycool89]

A point of order. Fr Bob had the advantage that the Charismatic Way is in favour with those currently wielding administrative power in the Vatican, while the immemorial traditional way is not.

Are you sure about that? Because the FSSP got set up pretty quickly as a society and skipped right to Pontifical Right (if I remember correctly).

So your charges of biasses in administration is a false charge that near-amounts to slander. You should really do some research before saying such things.

 

[agnes_therese]

In short, Vat II put forward no doctrines and was not doctrinal in nature, therefore it could not err. It could, however, talk gibberish, which it duly did.

Have you personally read the documents of Vatican II?

 

[numealinesimpet]

Are you sure about that? Because the FSSP got set up pretty quickly as a society and skipped right to Pontifical Right (if I remember correctly).

So your charges of biasses in administration is a false charge that near-amounts to slander. You should really do some research before saying such things.

I’ll hope to compile a later posting on this. But you would be interested to find out what actually happened to Fr Emerson - one of the founding members of the FSSP - and Fr Bisig, the first Superior. I was at the meeting of the Latin Mass Society in London when Fr Emerson announced the erection of the FSSP, and clearly remember the things he said. Mgr Lefebvre gave them certain warnings. Many years later, things developed exactly as Mgr L. had predicted.

 

[JReducation]

If I may say so, Bro. JR, you are nobody’s fool…

Since I am not familiar with your culture, may I ask what this means to you? I know what it means to an American.

Thank you and forgive the inconvenience.

 

[numealinesimpet]

I’ve read the documents (but thank you), and I am also aware that the OF of the Mass and Vatican II are separate issues. My comment was directed mostly at those who like to talk about acceptance of Vatican II but then resist the teachings of the council and subsequent encyclicals when it comes to things like chant, doing responses in Latin and Greek, organ versus other instrumentation, etc. and their proper place in the liturgy.

One of the documents appearing straight after the Council, and printed in the same volume as the documents (I have the edition ed. Fr Flannery O.P, © about 1975) deals with the Liturgy and states, “Other things being equal, * the use of the Latin Language is to be retained.”
It might also mention Gregorian chant in the same paragraph (sorry, I can’t access the book this morning)- Please note that this statement is made * without saying what these “other things” actually are, that have to be equal. This kind of thing is to be found again and again in the Vatican II and post-Vatican II documents. In later years, while fighting to retain Latin and Gregorian chant, some of my friends would say, “But Vatican II said that these things were to be retained! They are being disobedient to the Council!” I have replied, "I’m extremely sorry, but it doesn’t actually say that’.

 

[numealinesimpet]

Since I am not familiar with your culture, may I ask what this means to you? I know what it means to an American.

Thank you and forgive the inconvenience.

I was praising your experience and good sense - and wisdom - while trying not to flatter (which you would have hated). The next sentence was to affirm that I still do not agree with all in your posting.
Pax
nume

 

[Aramis]

Be careful. You can’t always apply Webster’s definitions to law, be it civil or canon. Law often has its own definitions for words, because it has used them to mean something for a very long time. Whereas the secular world would use the same term to mean many different things. As the world moves forward in time, the meaning of words changes or takes on many other uses. Take for example the word “gay”.

In law, that term means the same today as it meant 150 years ago, but not in Webster. Webster would probably include several definitions and usages for the term.

The same happens with the term emergency. One cannot go by what’s on the printed page alone. One must know the mind of the canonist who wrote the law and the pope who approved the law. This is when one would then appeal to the dicastry to clarify what the Holy See means by emergency.

Or, as a historian looks at it, by when it was applied by the legislators and jurists after the fact as a valid exercise of emergency faculties. Which is how I looked at it.

Which, from the outside, is the best method of seeking the mind of the jurist… in the case of Emergency Faculties, the Jurist is the successor of the legislator… the Pope.

 

[Dee_S]

Well I would not mind a direct quote rather than the kind of general statement from Archbp. de Noia. That is one reason why I have quoted Bp Fellay’s actual words. I have heard him speak in Ireland and he is very gentlemanly and kind. But firm.

I did give several quotes (see post 713). Agreed, Bishop Fellay does have a very attractive personality - more’s the pity that he did not see this reconciliation and regularization through - nor should he have endorsed the accusation of heresy against Archbishop Mueller immediately after their General Chapter.:tsktsk:

Here is more from this news article

Jan-22-2013
Archbishop Di Noia urges SSPX to take new attitude in unity talks
VATICAN CITY (CNS) – The traditionalist Society of St. Pius X will have a future only if it returns to full communion with the Vatican and stops publicly criticizing the teaching of the pope, said the Vatican official responsible for relations with traditionalist Catholics.

***“Surely the time has come to abandon the harsh and counterproductive rhetoric that has emerged over the past years,” ***U.S. Archbishop J. Augustine Di Noia, vice president of the Pontifical Commission “Ecclesia Dei,” wrote to members of the SSPX in an Advent letter.

The archbishop’s letter was sent several weeks before the SSPX superior, Bishop Bernard Fellay, gave a speech in Canada Dec. 28 in which he described the Jews as enemies of the church and described as “evil” the Mass as reformed by the Second Vatican Council.

While Archbishop Di Noia said in the letter that the Vatican’s relations with the SSPX "remain open and hopeful," he also said the Vatican would not and could not continue forever to remain silent when SSPX leaders misrepresent what is taking place in the discussions or publicly reject positions still supposedly being discussed with the Vatican.

"A review of the history of our relations since the 1970s leads to the sobering realization that the terms of our disagreement concerning Vatican Council II have remained, in effect, unchanged," the archbishop wrote.

Archbishop Di Noia suggested that the focus of future discussions would need to change to avoid "a well-meaning, but unending and fruitless exchange."

Instead of focusing first on specific teachings of the Second Vatican Council and of the popes since the mid-1960s, he said, the starting place must be on God’s will that his church be united and on the roles of various ministers and faithful within the church.

---

“Nothing less than the unity of the church is at stake,” ***he said.

***“Our souls need first to be healed, to be cleansed of the bitterness and resentment that comes from 30 years of suspicion and anguish on both sides,” ***he said. But healing also is needed for the "imperfections that have come about precisely because of the difficulties, especially the desire for an autonomy that is in fact outside the traditional forms of governance of the church."

Archbishop Di Noia also said a serious change of attitude was needed to move from a situation of stalemate toward reconciliation.

Humility must mark the followers of Christ, he said, and Christians must strive to recognize the goodness in others, even those with whom they disagree. "A divisive tone or imprudent statements" must be avoided, patience must prevail and if others need correction, it must be done "with charity, in the proper time and place."

***“If our interactions are marked by pride, anger, impatience and inordinate zeal, our intemperate striving for the good of the church will lead to nothing but bitterness,” ***the archbishop wrote.

In order to maintain unity, he said, church members must recognize the rights and responsibilities each person has.

***“Even if we are convinced that our perspective on a particular disputed question is the true one, we cannot usurp the office of the universal pontiff by presuming publicly to correct others within the church,” ***Archbishop Di Noia wrote.

For priests, including those of the SSPX, he said,*** “it is the faith that should be preached from our pulpits, not the latest interpretation of what we take to be problematic about a magisterial document.”***

He said the SSPX originally was founded by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and approved by the Vatican "to form priests for the service of the people of God, not the usurpation of the office of judging and correcting the theology or discipline of others within the church."

"It has been a mistake to make every difficult point in the theological interpretation of Vatican II a matter of public controversy, trying to sway those who are not theologically sophisticated into adopting one’s own point of view regarding subtle theological matters," he wrote.
catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1300258.htm

 

[numealinesimpet]

Or, as a historian looks at it, by when it was applied by the legislators and jurists after the fact as a valid exercise of emergency faculties. Which is how I looked at it.
Which, from the outside, is the best method of seeking the mind of the jurist… in the case of Emergency Faculties, the Jurist is the successor of the legislator… the Pope.

Well, the actual word (in English) used in canons 1323, 1324 & also 1321 is ‘necessity’ rather than Emergency. There is a practical ‘necessity’ to raise ones children in the true Faith. And these canons (unlike the equivalent in the Old Code of Canon Law) give explicit legal force to the subject’s opinion as to whether he is in a state of necessity, explicitly indemnifying him from censure. The liberal mentality of the 60s & 70s bent so far backwards to be understanding to the alleged transgressor that they made the law unworkable in practice. The trouble was, that it then became impossible to turn round and suddenly throw the book at Mgr Lefebvre and Bp. de Castro Meyer (who is usually forgotten by the media). One law for the liberals, another for the trads? That is only one argument used by the SSPX and those sympathetic to them why the decree of excommunication was always null and void. It is interesting that it was lifted by Pope Benedict without any conditions or discussions.
It has been argued that Mgr Lefebvre’s actions are fully within the precepts of the New Code of Canon Law. Here are the relevant paragraphs, word for word (my emphasis + comments, which are my personal opinion):-

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. [nume: which was certainly not the case with Mgr Lefebvre]

§2. A penalty established by a law or precept binds the person who has deliberately violated the law or precept; however, a person who violated a law or precept by omitting necessary diligence is not punished unless the law or precept provides otherwise. [nume: n/a here: I don’t think Mgr Lefebvre was ever accused of omitting necessary diligence. He spent 2 years helping to draft the preliminary ‘schemas’ for Vatican II, at the request of Bl. John XXIII, and before that was for decades the Superior of the Holy Ghost Fathers, who were responsible for the missionary work of the whole of French-speaking Africa: the largest such organisation in the Church at the time]

Can. 1323 The following are not subject to a penalty when they have violated a law or precept:
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; [nume: In the month before the consecrations, in a public sermon, Mgr Lefebvre stated that he acted out of grave fear for the future of the Church, seeing the wholesale invasion of heretical ideas into all other seminaries. He had tried to tell these things to Pope Paul VI but he did not appear to see the dangers. Yet as an archbishop he was not free to wash his hands of the situation. In acting as he did he was but following in the steps of S. Athanasius in the 4th Century.]

5/ a person who acted with due moderation **against an unjust aggressor **for the sake of legitimate self defense or defense of another; [nume: The sanctions imposed on Mgr Lefebvre, and the order to close his seminary and send the seminarians home in the middle of the year, along with the illegal blocking of his right to appeal, given that at no time ever was the seminary or the SSPX accused of heretical teaching – this at a time when such teaching had become the norm in other seminaries – would certainly seem to be ‘unjust’. It was certaianly described as such in a non-Catholic publication from England. – actually the word used was ‘appalling’.]

7/ a person who without negligence thought that one of the circumstances mentioned in nn. 4 or 5 was present. [nume: Note well. This canon lays down that, if Mgr Lefebvre **thought

that the situation was one of emergency, even if he was wrong, he was protected from any penalty. This was a big change from the previous Code of Canon Law.

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:
5/ by a person who was coerced by grave fear, even if only relatively grave, or due to necessity or grave inconvenience if the delict is intrinsically evil or tends to the harm of souls;
6/ by a person who acted without due moderation against an unjust aggressor for the sake of legitimate self defense or defense of another;
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;
§3. In the circumstances mentioned in §1, the accused is not bound by a latae sententiae penalty.[nume: This goes even further. Not only is the defendent excused from penalty if he was wrong, but he is excused from the ultimate penalties even if it was his own fault that he did not know that he was wrong. In British and Irish Law, it is an accepted precept that ‘ignorance of the law is no excuse’ – because… (well, as we say in school, ‘finish the sentence’.)

Please note that Mgr Lefebvre opposed the New Code of Canon Law while it was being drafted, but once it had been officially promulgated, he & the SSPX have accepted it as normative. That being so, was he not fully entitled to seek the Protection of the Law?

 

[YoungTradCath]

First of all, for precise meaning you have to consult the Latin text. ^^

 

[PaulinVA]

This relitigation of what has occurred by carefully parsing canons and context and all is interesting, but the verdict is in.

It can be said that all SSPX has done is legal and the Vatican is wrong, but, that is like saying Mr. Chief Justice Roberts got the Affordable Care Act ruling wrong. It’s an interesting discussion, but doesn’t change anything as there is no one to appeal to.

The Vatican is the final court, so if you say they got it wrong and you won’t abide by their ruling, you are distancing yourself from them and their authority. If one doesn’t accept their authority, why would one want to be under their jurisdiction?

 

[Melchior_1]

You can’t cherry pick Canon Law when the chief judge of Canon Law says that it doesn’t apply.

Again, the man who has the keys says the law does not apply, so it doesn’t apply. The Church is not a democracy, there is no appeals system unless the Pope decides to change his mind on a judgement pertaining to discipline and/or custom. This is the traditional stance, and if you don’t comply with this you’re no different than the cafeteria Catholics.

Pope John Paul II said “withdrawal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or from communion with the members of the Church subject to him” (canon 751), the consecration “constitute[d] a schismatic act”, and that, by virtue of canon 1382 of the Code, it entailed automatic excommunication for all the bishops involved.

“Roma locuta est, causa finita est".

His Grace broke Canon Law by consecrating four bishops, and as a result was excommunicated. It is a very, very real possibility fact that he died outside of the Church, as the excommunication is valid and was never lifted when he was alive. This last part should actually be fairly uncomfortable to those who admire His Grace, as his admirers are often the most ardent supporters of “you must be within the Church to get to Heaven”. Very good chance he died outside of the Church, meaning that the logic the SSPX uses actually would harm their founder in the afterlife.

 

[simple_soul]

*Dear Melchior,

Thank you so much for sharing your beautiful story story on post #733.
I do not believe I could ever adequately explain how hard it was to start going to church again because of so much and so many negative things I had heard about how corrupt things were as a result of Vatican II growing up.
It was one and continues to be the most beautiful experience to start learning my faith again through the parish I chose to start attending. So many times I was moved to tears hearing them talk about God, the Sacraments, and the Gospel in ways that spoke music to my heart, mind, and soul. Over the years of living under my fathers roof and hearing his version and the versions of the people he encircled himself with on their understanding of matters of faith and morals I had grown to an understanding of things that was not the way they thought or believed. I never knew if it was the truth of things but what I was discovering after I started to attend this church was that I was suddenly hearing people who spoke about faith and morals more how I believed. While it was like music and healing for me I also had to take everything with reservations because I had been told for so many years that the Church was corrupt and how there was nothing good in it so in remembering all of this I could never take it for validation that it was a good thing. For all I knew the only reason I found so much truth in what I heard and saw it could mean that I was just as corrupt as the Church had become. This is something I struggle with to this day and I believe it is one of the saddest things in life. To know Truth but struggle at accepting it because of how I was raised and because of who I was raised around.
When I first read some of Blessed John Paul II writings it made me cry so hard so many times. I found his writings to be so beautiful and could not understand how anyone could have ever even thought he was some kind of a week or bad soul. I cried for all the wasted years of not knowing or understanding how saintly of a Pope he was and not having His guidance and teachings in my life. I realized I had missed out on so much over the years because of it. Another great joy of mine was to discover Blessed Mother Theresa. I had never heard anything good about her growing up and when I finally read some of her letters and learned more about her I found such a kindred soul in her and I cried again. In so many ways both of these to very Blessed souls were such food for my poor starved soul.
Over the last few years I have been seeing more and more of this. I can not even tell you what joy I discovered the first time I ever saw a picture of Pope Paul VI. I had been lead to believe that he was a very bad and misguided soul but when I looked into his eyes for the first time I could not believe how anyone could have ever thought he was bad.
Even in discovering CAF quite by accident one day and finding the friends I have here was such a joy that I can not even describe sometimes. In growing up I had learned and come to believe that there was a lot of good out their in the world compared to what I had been raised to believe and what I was discovering was that not only was I finding more and understanding it better but I also discovered that their are others out their in the Church who believe this too…and that their are others besides just my parents and the people who they hung out with who were doing good things too…
It was one of the most beautiful and joyful things to finally come to see and understand that groups like the SSPX were not the only ones who were steadfast in protecting the reverence of the Holy Mass and preserving the faith.
But even though it was such a glorious joy to wake up to all of this it was also awakening a very deep agonizing and painful gapping wound. The pain was so searing that it was leaving me reeling in shock and confusion. I had done nothing but try to be obedient to my mother and father by following their lead, guidance, and direction. I remember at a very young age my mother catching me giving my father a look that she described as full of fear and his remark was “Good! That is the way it is supposed to be!” So in observing how everyone one around me seemed to be so full of this fear it did nothing but reinforce what my father said. I believe the only reason I did not go completely insane from it all is because I had Jesus and His Mother Mary to turn to. When our Blessed Mother Mary had asked me to help her and when she had told me they were getting it all wrong it did not fill me with fear. I was not scared or shaken and for some reason it brought me closer to her and her Son than I had ever known possible and I found a peace, comfort and joy in them that I had never known before. With them at my side along with St. Michael the Archangel I could face any fear and so I spent my life facing this fear that was supposed to be. They seemed to be able to show me the good in all the fear and confusion I was `in and offered me reassurance that everything would be ok. But I believe most of all they seemed to show me that there was good in me and others, even if I did not believe it or even if what others told me was different. when my father took Him away from me even though it left this gapping wound inside of me I did not really know it nor did I really feel the pain of it but I do believe I was always aware of it deep within me. I believe what I sensed was that I was slowly dieing from this wound but somehow I moved on and kept going. I did not understand it, I just accepted it as God’s Will for me.*
This has turn out to be longer than I intended again

 

[simple_soul]

Continued…

*How I survived the next phase of my life I can only credit God for it. If it had not been for Him letting me be aware of Himself and His Blessed Mother Mary at a young age I do not believe I would have ever made it through the next 23 or so years of my life. I clung to those memories for dear life and yet at the same time I kept them at arms length because I still had to not trust them because they may have been from Satan. But in spite of the fear that they might have been from Satan I kept going to them because I remembered that they were the only ones who had ever helped me to make sense of things. When I came to CAF I realized how Jesus and His Mother Mary had never abandoned me even though there seemed to be this wall between us. Somehow they had kept me safe and brought me back to Himself in spite of everything I had been told or overheard growing up. But as I started to realize this I also started to realize how much had been ripped from me and how much I had lost. In becoming aware of this it awakened a pain in the very core of my soul that was so painful it was sending me into shock. It was like I was becoming aware of this gapping wound and in becoming aware of it I was also becoming aware of and started to experience the pain it was causing me. I so believe this wound was inflicted when Jesus, my sole comfort, my joy, my strength, my very life and His Mother Mary, my comforter and mentor, had been taken away from me…even though I was waking up to the reality of what was causing this pain He was also showing me how it was done with the intention of people trying to protect me. Misguided as it was my parents had done what they did under the understanding that they were trying to protect me from what they perceived as evil. I believe this might also be why I did not experience the pain when it happened. he wanted me to see their love not the pain they were causing me.

Anyway I do ramble, Thank you so much for sharing and giving another story to thank God for today.
May His Peace and Joy be with you always.*

 

[numealinesimpet]

This relitigation of what has occurred by carefully parsing canons and context and all is interesting, but the verdict is in.

It can be said that all SSPX has done is legal and the Vatican is wrong, but, that is like saying Mr. Chief Justice Roberts got the Affordable Care Act ruling wrong. It’s an interesting discussion, but doesn’t change anything as there is no one to appeal to.

The Vatican is the final court, so if you say they got it wrong and you won’t abide by their ruling, you are distancing yourself from them and their authority. If one doesn’t accept their authority, why would one want to be under their jurisdiction?

On the contrary, this is where Canon Law sensu lato (in the broad sense) differs from any country’s secular laws. This is why I previously posted the definitions of Law, authority and obedience:

kensmen.com/catholic/summa22104.html

*Whether subjects are bound to obey their superiors in all things?
*
Objection 1. It seems that subjects are bound to obey their superiors in all things. For the Apostle says (Col. 3:20): “Children, obey your parents in all things,” and farther on (Col. 3:22): “Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh.” Therefore in like manner other subjects are bound to obey their superiors in all things.

Objection 2. Further, superiors stand between God and their subjects… Therefore the commands of a superior must be esteemed the commands of God, …(1 Thess. 2:13): “When you had received of us the word of the hearing of God, you received it, not as the word of men, but, as it is indeed, the word of God.” Therefore as man is bound to obey God in all things, so is he bound to obey his superiors.

Objection 3. Further, just as religious in making their profession take vows of chastity and poverty, so do they also vow obedience. Now a religious is bound to observe chastity and poverty in all things. Therefore he is also bound to obey in all things.

**But on the contrary, **It is written (Acts 5:29): “We ought to obey God rather than men.” Now sometimes the things commanded by a superior are against God. Therefore superiors are not to be obeyed in all things.

Reply to Objection 1. When the Apostle says “in all things,” he refers to matters within the sphere of a father’s or master’s authority.

Reply to Objection 2. Man is subject to God simply as regards all things, both internal and external, wherefore he is bound to obey Him in all things. On the other hand, inferiors are not subject to their superiors in all things, but only in certain things and in a particular way, in respect of which the superior stands between God and his subjects, whereas in respect of other matters the subject is immediately under God, by Whom he is taught either by the natural or by the written law.

Reply to Objection 3. Religious profess obedience as to the regular mode of life, in respect of which they are subject to their superiors: wherefore they are bound to obey in those matters only which may belong to the regular mode of life, and this obedience suffices for salvation. If they be willing to obey even in other matters, this will belong to the superabundance of perfection; provided, however, such things be not contrary to God or to the rule they profess, for obedience in this case would be unlawful.

Accordingly we may distinguish a threefold obedience; one, sufficient for salvation, and consisting in obeying when one is bound to obey: secondly, perfect obedience, which obeys in all things lawful: thirdly, indiscreet obedience, which obeys even in matters unlawful.

The above establishes the Principle that not every command from a superior is ipso facto proven to be beyond consideration of its validity. This is not to prove that Mgr Lefebvre was in the right, but to *affirm that is is legitimate to discuss the possibility. * That is what we are presumably trying to do in this thread.

 

[PaulinVA]

The above establishes the Principle that not every command from a superior is ipso facto proven to be beyond consideration of its validity. This is not to prove that Mgr Lefebvre was in the right, but to *affirm that is is legitimate to discuss the possibility. * That is what we are presumably trying to do in this thread.

What I said stands. I don’t see how faithful Catholics can take the position that the Pope is wrong and MgrLefebvre was right. There is no need for further discussion if that is the goal.

 

[Melchior_1]

The above establishes the Principle that not every command from a superior is ipso facto proven to be beyond consideration of its validity. This is not to prove that Mgr Lefebvre was in the right, but to *affirm that is is legitimate to discuss the possibility. * That is what we are presumably trying to do in this thread.

We can talk about it, but the case closed. They were excommunicated due to Canon Law. The excommunications were lifted, meaning that they were valid. I would like to know when breaking away from Rome with a schismatic act is considered to be “possibly right”.

In matters of Canon Law, the Pope has the final say as he is the successor of Peter, the one with the keys. I keep on saying this because it is obvious throughout Church history, and I do not understand why you are not onboard this very, very traditional concept.

 

[numealinesimpet]

The Vatican is the final court, so if you say they got it wrong and you won’t abide by their ruling, you are distancing yourself from them and their authority. If one doesn’t accept their authority, why would one want to be under their jurisdiction?
Melchior_;10317338:

We can talk about it, but the case closed. They were excommunicated due to Canon Law. The excommunications were lifted, meaning that they were valid. I would like to know when breaking away from Rome with a schismatic act is considered to be “possibly right”.

In matters of Canon Law, the Pope has the final say as he is the successor of Peter, the one with the keys. I keep on saying this because it is obvious throughout Church history, and I do not understand why you are not onboard this very, very traditional concept.

The answer to that is to be found in the meanings of the words ‘disobedience’ and ‘schism’. I quote directly from The Catholic Encyclopaedia:

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."

**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 incumbent, this would be a denial of the authority of the Church to apportion jurisdiction, and it would be schismatic [although St Athanasius did… but let that rest for now]. To declare that a state of emergency exists, and to appoint emergency bishops* pro tem, sine locus,* may or may not be justified, but it is not schismatic.

Mgr Lefebvre et al. do not deny the Divine right to command. By the Principle of Double Effect, the lesser of two evils [so they reasoned] was 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 into which the whole Latin Church was rushing headlong. Note the words of S. Thomas:

But on the contrary, It is written (Acts 5:29): “We ought to obey God rather than men.” Now sometimes the things commanded by a superior are against God. Therefore superiors are not to be obeyed in all things.

We are dealing with an extremely grave crisis. This is not to jump to the conclusion that Mgr Lefebvre et al. were right, but to reveal their line of thought. It was not arbitrary or self-seeking.

There can be cases where an act of disobedience to lawful authority can be objectively “the lesser of two evils”. Since it is clearly stated in the New code of Canon Law that ‘the salvation of souls is the final end’ of all law, it cannot be maintained that the Canon Law tribunal is the final Court of Appeal.

May I offer an example. It is summer in Australia, and the countryside is tinder dry. A father says to his 15-year-old son (who is legally under his authority) “Take these matches and light a bonfire in the back garden”. The son says, “Father, that would be mortally imprudent. The whole countryside will go up in flames”. The father insists. The son replies, “Father, I will not”. Now, is it fair to accuse the son of saying “Father, I will not;* and therefore you are not my father?”* My understanding is that this is the predicament in which Mgr Lefebvre and de Castro Meyer found themselves. That is why it is not inappropriate to discuss the context of a refusal to comply with a command, even of a legitimate authority.