SSPX Update - Redux

[numealinesimpet]

Which delegates? Which Patriotic ‘bishops’? May I see a source for this comment?

You are right to ask these questions. My apologies for not having the ref immediately to hand. I try not to post without having links beforehand, but things have suddenly got very hectic. Will reply asap.

 

[numealinesimpet]

And this is the thing I just do not understand?!

The SSPX’s biggest problem is with VII, and how things happened in the wake of the Council, yet they are clinging to a canon that did not exsist in 1962.

Will someone please explain this to me?

I can’t speak for Mgr Lefebvre or Bp de Castro Mayer (obviously) … but had Vatican II run its course, but no New Code of Canon Law had been promulgated … and if Mgr Lefebvre’s attempts to appoint a successor had met with the same response from the Vatican (including the pope), my personal belief is that he would have proceeded with the consecration of four bishops. Remember, he asked for only one. He then reached the conclusion (rightly or wrongly – I’m only speculating) – that not only were the forces in the Vatican intent on stalling him until death, but that the crisis was looking to last much longer than he had feared. Now the norm in the Church is for a bishop to be consecrated by three other bishops. I think there are two reasons for this. One is a public demonstration that the consecration is an act of the Church as a whole. The other (less widely publicised) is to ensure the Apostolic Succession - to make absolutely sure that the Succession, and the powers that go with it, are truly unbroken from the Apostles. There is a curious legend about S. Finbarr, the Patron Saint and first bishop of Cork, that he was consecrated bishop by an angel in the city of Cork after he returned from Rome. There are those nasty enough to speculate that this is a ‘pious legend’ designed to gloss over the fact that poor old Finbarr - for reasons which have been lost more than a thousand years ago - was not actually consecrated in Rome, which he most certainly had hoped.
(and don’t tell that to any Corkonians unless you are in full combat fatigue) -
But I digress.
Given the gravity of the situation, I think they would have proceeded. They would very possibly have been excommunicated under the provisions of the Old Code, amended in 1955. They would have had the right of appeal, and they would have presented themselves and argued their case.
The difference is that, under the Old Code, the onus was on the accused to present his defence; under the New Code the onus is on the Accuser to prove that the accused did not act in good faith, or was aware that his action was unnecessary.
In the case of Mgr Lefebvre as it actually happened, once again as had happened to him before, there was a mere summary sentence and no appeal or other hearing.

 

[numealinesimpet]

They point is that Father Bob, like Francis/Dominic/Ignatius, played by the rules. He following the chain of command, went through the proper channels.

Societies of Apostolic Life do not grow on trees, they take time. Effort. And a huge helping of obedience.

Obedience. People think that you need to take vows or promises for this. You alluded to as much earlier. My friend, I posit that this isn’t the case. What I call “holy obedience” is the concept where through the Grace of God, one submits and yields to the Lord Jesus Christ, the Holy Mother Church, and the Successor of Peter - regardless of your personal opinion on the matter.

My wife used to be Protestant, and used to struggle with the concept of no birth control. To her, this was something that was normal and could be used. When she converted to Catholicism it wasn’t a big deal, we weren’t married at the time. Leading up to the wedding it became a much, much bigger deal for the obvious reasons. What did she do? She essentially said “I don’t agree with this. But I will obey and submit to the Church, and if God wills it He will help me see things the way the Church does and have some peace”.

Does my wife now see things as the Church does? If you had to ask her, she could give a brief summary. But that actually isn’t important, what’s important is this; my friend, she’s at peace with things now. She obeyed, and although I’m not sure if she fully sees what the Church teaches and why on this topic, she is at peace with the teaching and living out said teaching with me.

I know someone else who used to adamantly think that women should become priests. What did she do? Obey. She prayed that God would help her see as the Church sees, and find peace. Guess what? She does now.

This extends to customs and practices. First obey, and pray that God gives you peace, and hopefully understanding.

That is holy obedience, something we are all called to.

Thank you for sharing this personal anecdote for the purposes of our debate, which is being held to help us arrive at the Truth.

In the case you mention, the object of the command and the obedience was an infallible dogma of the Church. To demand compliance was a legitimate exercise of authority. To submit the intellect as well as the will is an act of great virtue (if I may say so) which will not fail to merit great reward - in this life and the next.

In the case of Mgr Lefebvre & de Castro Mayer, the Latin Rite of the Church had abruptly embarked on an unprecedented experiment of innovation, and was clearly intent on not leaving one single diocese or seminary to continue in the Old Way. Such a decision was prudential and disciplinary, not doctrinal. There is a prima facie case that to command such a thing was not a use but an abuse of authority. It would seem that Mgr Lefebvre had been so busy in Africa that he had not noticed the encroachment of Modernism in Europe for many years. Bp de Castro Mayer on the other hand had seen clearly the warning signs and had taken steps to see that his diocesan priests were forewarned and forearmed. As a result ‘The Changes’ did not knock them figuratively off their feet, as with so many others.

According to Catholic teaching, the resistance of an abuse of authority is not only a Christian duty but a positive virtue.

But was it an abuse of authority? It is not enough to say that the pope commanded it: there are enough precedents to show that popes can and do make mistakes in prudential matters. A religious under a vow of Obedience has Offered Up not only his will but his intellect. It is a safe way to Heaven, but he is not allowed to beget children who would be damaged by a wrong decision of the father’s superior. We in the world are not excused from exercising our powers of discrimination and judgment. For centuries we have never had to make the painful choice: ‘Comply or keep the Faith?’ In the days of the Arian crisis the Faithful had to make precisely such a decision. It is the contention of the SSPX that we have a comparable situation now.

 

[Lormar]

Thank you for sharing this personal anecdote for the purposes of our debate, which is being held to help us arrive at the Truth.

Nume, may I ask you, the “Truth” of what?

 

[numealinesimpet]

Nume, may I ask you, the “Truth” of what?

The TRuth of whether Mgr Lefebvre, B Fellay, & the SSPX are guilty of sin or virtue in the actions they are taking.

 

[Lormar]

With all due respect, that is not something either you or I or anyone on this forum will be able to say definitely.

Time will tell. And it will not be in our lifetime.

 

[Snowball7]

Lefebvre passed away in 1991.

 

[numealinesimpet]

The legislator did speak clearly in order to be obeyed. Think it would be a good idea for those who believe to the contrary, to seek out the ‘truth’.

DECREE** OF EXCOMMUNICATION**
From the Office of the Congregation for Bishops, 1 July 1988
…]
From the Office of the Congregation for Bishops, 1 July 1988.
BERNARDINUS Card. GANTIN
Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops
jloughnan.tripod.com/schmex2.htm

Thank you for providing the original document, Dee S., if not for the slur.
I draw the following to your attention and for your consideration (my own sparse comments and emendations being in square brackets)…

scripturecatholic.com/feature-articles/Feature%20-%20Remnant%20The%20Inanity%20of%20Dr%20Moynihan%20Regarding%20the%20SSPX.pdf

While the SSPX’s canonical status is irregular and thus their priests operate under supplied and not ordinary jurisdiction, the SSPX is not and never has been in schism (schismatics don’t have “irregular” canonical situations because they are not subject to the Church’s canon law at all). However, given the rash way in which the Holy See originally handled Archbishop Lefebvre’s 1988 episcopal consecrations, we can understand why [uninformed] Catholics would hold this erroneous opinion. Let’s take a brief look at the Church’s law and the facts of the case to provide some clarity to the question.
The day after Archbishop Lefebvre consecrated the four bishops, Cardinal Gantin (not Pope John Paul II) declared on July 1, 1988 that the Archbishop had excommunicated himself by consecrating bishops without pontifical mandate in violation of canon 1382, and also referred to the consecration as a schismatic act under canon 1364.1. Although Pope John Paul II acknowledged the Gantin decree in his Motu Proprio *Ecclesia Dei Afflicta *(July 2, 1988), his Motu Proprio was not a papal decree of schism or even an authentic interpretation of the canon law addressing schism. And it couldn’t have been, for under the pope’s 1983 Code of Canon law, illicitly consecrating a bishop *is not a schismatic act. *Needless to say, the pope’s punitive sanctions must be based on the current canon law of the Church as a matter of justice, upon which Catholics have a right to rely; otherwise, the punitive canons do not serve their purpose. Therefore, under the laws of the Church, neither Archbishop Lefebvre nor the bishops he consecrated was guilty of schism.
That is most likely why the Holy See gave Archbishop Lefebvre a canonical warning about excommunication and not schism before he consecrated the bishops. [One must] know the difference between disobedience and schism. A person’s disobedience of a papal command does not give rise to schism; the person must actually deny the pope’s authority to be guilty of the crime of schism, and this “refusal of submission” (under canon 751) must be interpreted in the strictest sense, in favor of the perpetrator. [This is a fundamental precept of all law]. Even the liberal Fr. Yves Congar, a staunch critique of Archbishop Lefebvre, correctly explains that schism involves the refusal to accept the existence of the legitimate authority of the pope and not the refusal to accept a decision of that legitimate authority. Of course, Archbishop Lefebvre never denied Pope John Paul II’s authority as the Vicar of Christ. In fact, he believed his actions to secure traditional priests were actually serving the pope and the Church at large.
In fact, the Ecclesia Dei commission has made it clear that the SSPX is not in schism. The commission declared that Catholics can fulfill their Sunday obligation by attending Masses offered by SSPX priests – and this was before the excommunications were lifted! (see letter from Monsignor Perl dated September 27, 2002).

latin-mass-society.org/perl-011803.htm

]
If the priests of the SSPX were in schism, the Ecclesia Dei commission would not allow Catholics to assist at their Masses, since in doing so they would be allowing Catholics to worship outside the Church (and thus permitting them to break the Third Commandment). This proves that SSPX bishops and priests are not in fact in schism (for example, Catholics could not fulfill their Sunday obligation by attending liturgies offered by the schismatic priests of the Eastern Orthodox sects). The same commission has said that, so long as Catholics attend SSPX chapels out of their devotion to the Traditional Latin Mass (and not because they want to separate themselves from the Roman Pontiff – of course they don’t!), such conduct is also not sinful.
The Holy See has stated that the SSPX situation is an internal matter of the Catholic Church and that the SSPX is not a counter-diocese or separate ecclesial structure. That the Church regards the SSPX situation as an “internal matter” also proves that SSPX bishops and priests are not in schism. Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos in five separate interviews has stated that the SSPX is not in formal schism (what Moynihan calls “official schism”), without any rebuke from the Holy See. The case of the Hawaii six also bears this out. Those excommunications would not have been lifted if the six Catholics were attending Masses offered by schismatic priests. And for those who insist that the SSPX priests are “suspended” (even though the Holy See has never issued a decree of suspension against them!), they would be admitting that SSPX priests are still subject to the Church’s disciplinary laws. In such case, the SSPX priests cannot be schismatics who are outside the Church because, as previously stated, one cannot be outside the Church and still be subject to her canon law. This is a legal impossibility.

 

[numealinesimpet]

With all due respect, that is not something either you or I or anyone on this forum will be able to say definitely.
Time will tell. And it will not be in our lifetime.

True for the Internal Forum. But it is possible to determine whether they were or are guilty of a Material Sin or not. It is the position of the SSPX that they have behaved correctly within the framework of the Church’s own laws.

 

[numealinesimpet]

Perhaps in matters that don’t concern obedience owed to the Holy Father this is possible, but according to these references in The Catholic Encyclopedia- no justification seems to be admitted

…because the schismatic rebels against the Divinely constituted hierarchy. However, 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…** Anyone becomes a schismatic who, though desiring to remain a Christian**, rebels against legitimate authority, without going as far as the rejection of Christianity as a whole, which constitutes the crime of apostasy."

…]Church is one, formed of the harmonious union of pastors who mutually support one another"

(Epist. lxxvi, 5). …

“Where Peter is,” concludes St. Ambrose, “there is the Church; where the Church is there is no death but eternal life” (In Ps., xl, 30).

(Ambrose, “Ep.”, xi, 4). “I who follow no guide save Christ am in communion with Your Holiness, that is with the chair of Peter. I know that on this rock the Church is built. Whosoever partakes of the Lamb outside this house commits a sacrilege. Whosoever does not gather with you, scatters: in other words whosoever is not with Christ is with Antichrist” (Jerome, “Epist.”, xv, 2).
**
“That is why obedience must be rendered to the presbyters who are in the Church, and who having succeeded the Apostles, together with the episcopal succession have received by the will of the Father a certain charisma of truth” **
newadvent.org/cathen/13529a.htm
Dee S. - and don’t forget S. Ignatius of Antioch, who predated the Fathers you have quoted:

Ephes., c. vi);
CHAPTER VI.–HAVE RESPECT TO THE BISHOP AS TO CHRIST HIMSELF.
Now the more any one sees the bishop keeping silence, the more ought he to revere him. For we ought to receive every one whom the Master of the house sends to be over His household, as we would do Him that sent him. It is manifest, therefore, that we should look upon the bishop even as we would upon the Lord Himself.
*the threefold character of the hierarchy (Magn., c. vi);
I exhort you to study to do all things with a divine harmony, while your bishop presides in the place of God, and your presbyters in the place of the assembly of the apostles, along with your deacons, who are most dear to me, and are entrusted with the ministry of Jesus Christ, who was with the Father before the beginning of time, and in the end was revealed. Do ye all then, imitating the same divine conduct, pay respect to one another, and let no one look upon his neighbour after the flesh, but do ye continually love each other in Jesus Christ. Let nothing exist among you that may divide you ; but be ye united with your bishop, and those that preside over you, as a type and evidence of your immortality.
*the order of the episcopacy superior by Divine authority to that of the priesthood (Magn., c. vi,
CHAPTER VI.–PRESERVE HARMONY.
Since therefore I have, in the persons before mentioned, beheld the whole multitude of you in faith and love, I exhort you to study to do all things with a divine harmony, while your bishop presides in the place of God, and your presbyters in the place of the assembly of the apostles, along with your deacons, who are most dear to me, and are entrusted with the ministry of Jesus Christ, who was with the Father before the beginning of time, and in the end was revealed. Do ye all then, imitating the same divine conduct, pay respect to one another, and let no one look upon his neighbour after the flesh, but do ye continually love each other in Jesus Christ. Let nothing exist among you that may divide you; but be ye united with your bishop, and those that preside over you, as a type and evidence of your immortality.

The issue is, that all of these passages pre-suppose that the bishop will not abuse his authority. Unfortunately, the day came when these painful issues needed to be addressed. It has been truly said that, even though the Arian Crisis was settled, afterwards the Church had lost forever her springtime innocence.
The point at issue is not whether Mgr Lefebvre (and Bp Fellay) are being sanctioned by the hierarchy - which is common knowledge - but whether the hierarchy is justified and legitimate in exercising these sanctions.

 

[Lormar]

True for the Internal Forum. But it is possible to determine whether they were or are guilty of a Material Sin or not. It is the position of the SSPX that they have behaved correctly within the framework of the Church’s own laws.

It is not our job to do so. As Catholics, we look to the Holy Father to tell us these things, not posters on internet forums.

 

[numealinesimpet]

It is not our job to do so. As Catholics, we look to the Holy Father to tell us these things, not posters on internet forums.

During the entire tenth century, the legitimate popes spent their time hunting, feasting, wenching and trying to get their illegitimate sons into powerful and lucrative positions in the hierarchy, including the papacy - at which they sometimes succeeded. Pope Liberius not only issued the infamous ‘henoticon’ that gave ‘comfort’ (as the lawyers say) to the Arian heresy, but excommunicated S. Athanasius, at a time when it was ‘Athanasius contra mundum’ - Athanasius against the world’. The Church is the Mystical Body of Christ, not the Mystical Body of the Pope. We are fortunate that Vatican I clarified for us the scope and also the limits of the pope. This providentially forestalled the error of placing obedience to the pope above the dictates of reason and justice. We laypeople will not be excused if our only defence is ‘I was obeying what the pope said’. It would not have excused S. Athanasius, and - if it should happen that the pope fall into manifest error - it will not excuse us. I haven’t said he has, I am pointing out an article of Catholic Faith. This is a very insidious error, and it is why it is incumbent on us to study the real meaning of Law, Obedience, Authority, and the rest.

 

[Lormar]

I think you should review the forum rules.

 

[Lormar]

During the entire tenth century, the legitimate popes spent their time hunting, feasting, wenching and trying to get their illegitimate sons into powerful and lucrative positions in the hierarchy, including the papacy - at which they sometimes succeeded. Pope Liberius not only issued the infamous ‘henoticon’ that gave ‘comfort’ (as the lawyers say) to the Arian heresy, but excommunicated S. Athanasius, at a time when it was ‘Athanasius contra mundum’ - Athanasius against the world’. The Church is the Mystical Body of Christ, not the Mystical Body of the Pope. We are fortunate that Vatican I clarified for us the scope and also the limits of the pope. This providentially forestalled the error of placing obedience to the pope above the dictates of reason and justice. We laypeople will not be excused if our only defence is ‘I was obeying what the pope said’. It would not have excused S. Athanasius, and it will not excuse us. This is a very insidious error, and it is why it is incumbent on us to study the real meaning of Law, Obedience, Authority, and the rest.

Athanasius was upholding a council, not fighting against one.

 

[numealinesimpet]

Athanasius was upholding a council, not fighting against one.

He was fighting against almost the entire body of bishops. Both he and Bp Eusebius went much further than Lefebvre or Fellay. they entered major cities, declared the bishop deposed, and consecrated their own candidate. It has been pointed out that that this would be equivalent to Mgr Lefebvre entering Paris, declaring the Archbishop deposed, and installing one of his own men. Yet he was canonised, and Liberius, as we know, was the first pope not to be canonised.

 

[numealinesimpet]

I think you should review the forum rules.

S. Paul “withstood Peter to his face, because he was in the wrong”. This serves as a warning to us all that these things can happen. It shows nothing less than courageous fidelity to tell one’s superior that he is in the wrong. This is not to say that the hierarchy or the pope are in the wrong about the SSPX, but to affirm that this is a possibility which may legitimately be debated.

 

[Melchior_1]

S. Paul “withstood Peter to his face, because he was in the wrong”. This serves as a warning to us all that these things can happen. It shows nothing less than courageous fidelity to tell one’s superior that he is in the wrong. This is not to say that the hierarchy or the pope are in the wrong about the SSPX, but to affirm that this is a possibility which may legitimately be debated.

Paul confronted Peter about discipline, not schismatic acts.

 

[simple_soul]

During the entire tenth century, the legitimate popes spent their time hunting, feasting, wenching and trying to get their illegitimate sons into powerful and lucrative positions in the hierarchy, including the papacy - at which they sometimes succeeded. Pope Liberius not only issued the infamous ‘henoticon’ that gave ‘comfort’ (as the lawyers say) to the Arian heresy, but excommunicated S. Athanasius, at a time when it was ‘Athanasius contra mundum’ - Athanasius against the world’.

Wait a minute…so now you are saying our current Pope and the few before him are guilty of sin the way these popes were and are commanding us to sin also? If so how?

The Church is the Mystical Body of Christ, not the Mystical Body of the Pope.

*Yes but the Pope speaks as the head of the Mystical Body of Christ unless he is commanding us to sin is he not? And just to clarify I am talking about the literal head not just a head figure like the head of a corporation or something but literally as the Christ’s physical head
*

We are fortunate that Vatican I clarified for us the scope and also the limits of the pope. This providentially forestalled the error of placing obedience to the pope above the dictates of reason and justice.

*How exactly did it clarify the scope and limits of the pope? If you already posted it I apologize I missed it but you keep running things around in circles and it is very hard to follow so if you could succinct it in a very simple paragraph or two it would be greatly appreciated
*

We laypeople will not be excused if our only defence is ‘I was obeying what the pope said’. It would not have excused S. Athanasius, and - if it should happen that the pope fall into manifest error - it will not excuse us. I haven’t said he has, I am pointing out an article of Catholic Faith. This is a very insidious error, and it is why it is incumbent on us to study the real meaning of Law, Obedience, Authority, and the rest.

*You seem to be making the assumption that those who do choose to obey the Pope do not use reason. If that is so, I believe you have a grave misunderstanding of what people say when they say the are obeying the Pope.
Just because one says they are obeying the Pope does not make them mindless does it? *

 

[choliks]

During the entire tenth century, the legitimate popes spent their time hunting, feasting, wenching and trying to get their illegitimate sons into powerful and lucrative positions in the hierarchy, including the papacy - at which they sometimes succeeded. Pope Liberius not only issued the infamous ‘henoticon’ that gave ‘comfort’ (as the lawyers say) to the Arian heresy, but excommunicated S. Athanasius, at a time when it was ‘Athanasius contra mundum’ - Athanasius against the world’. The Church is the Mystical Body of Christ, not the Mystical Body of the Pope. We are fortunate that Vatican I clarified for us the scope and also the limits of the pope. This providentially forestalled the error of placing obedience to the pope above the dictates of reason and justice. We laypeople will not be excused if our only defence is ‘I was obeying what the pope said’. It would not have excused S. Athanasius, and - if it should happen that the pope fall into manifest error - it will not excuse us. I haven’t said he has, I am pointing out an article of Catholic Faith. This is a very insidious error, and it is why it is incumbent on us to study the real meaning of Law, Obedience, Authority, and the rest.

Slow down here… Yes, Pope Liberius excommunicated and condemned St. Athanasius but he was acting out of duress. Even St. Athanasius was aware of that. He even refused to sign an Arian statement of faith.

ewtn.com/library/answers/popeguil.htm

 

[choliks]

The TRuth of whether Mgr Lefebvre, B Fellay, & the SSPX are guilty of sin or virtue in the actions they are taking.

It’s the Church’s role, not ours, to determine if individuals are guilty of sin or not.