SSPX Update - Redux

[choliks]

Dee S. - and don’t forget S. Ignatius of Antioch, who predated the Fathers you have quoted:
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.

I don’t think Holy Mother the Church ever had her spring time innocence, even from the very beginning. The frailty of her children will always stain her. However, the promise of her Groom to stay with her until the end of time sustains and cleanses her, and, together with the Holy Spirit, guides her.

My question to you is why would the sanctions be unjust and illegitimate? The Pope is a LEGITIMATE Pope and he his right to govern the Church is JUST. Deny this and you are denying Tradition.

Moreover, the Pope nor the hierarchy didn’t have to pronounce the sanction. Abp. Lefebvre and the four bishops placed the sanction upon themselves, when they paid no heed to Pope John Paul II’s warnings and still went ahead with the consecrations. The excommunications were AUTOMATIC as prescribed by canon law. How many times does this have to be repeated here?

 

[choliks]

BTW, The Church nor any of us here are saying that the SSPX are in schism. They did schismatic acts, yes, but they are not (yet) in schism. Remember: schismatic acts does not make a schism.

 

[Moore11]

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.

I just cannot get on board with your logic and thinking. You are in dangerous territory not just in CAF but in your entire theological point of view.
Trust me, I sympathize more than you know with traditionalists but I cannot and should not make the leap you are doing. Neither should you.

 

[agnes_therese]

Dee S. - and don’t forget S. Ignatius of Antioch, who predated the Fathers you have quoted:
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.

(Emphasis mine.) You are seriously suggesting that the Vatican is abusing its authority, and acting illegitimately?

 

[Alfonsus]

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

Actually this is the same slogan that the Reformers upheld. By separating the visible Church from the invisible Church (either the Church is never intended to have visible structure from the beginning, or that the Church lost that credibility somewhere during the ages), we are creating a new and parallel magisterium, that is our own judgement.
Thus flow the private interpretation of Scripture and Tradition.

You like it or not, with this mentality the SSPX and supporters are drifting in the same boat as the Protestants.

You aware right, that the Catholic Church always maintain the inseparability of the Body of Christ with the hierarchy, that you cannot separate Peter and the college of bishops from the Church.
If this assertion, if this doctrine is failing at this moment, this indicate that the whole teachings of the Catholic Church is just a big big lie. Thus better you pack your belongings and be an Orthodox or a Protestant.

 

[TrueLight]

Hello everybody!

 

[choliks]

Hello everybody!

Hey TL! Welcome back! We missed ya!

 

[numealinesimpet]

Paul confronted Peter about discipline, not schismatic acts.

It could be argued that the decision whether or not to eat with the Gentiles was doctrinal as well as disciplinary.
The question whether or not to close the only remaining seminary in the world for no other apparent reason than that it was following the successful practice of at least 4 centuries, in favour of innovations that were already well documented as being associated with grave abuses, was a momentous one. The Pope is the Guardian, the Keeper of the Keys. There are those, including of the highest rank in the Church, who maintain that it is questionable at least - some say certain that it is not the case - that the partimony of the centuries was his to throw away. That Pope Paul himself believed he was doing the right thing is not, I believe, denied by anybody with sanity. Nonetheless there have been major writers, e.g. S. Robert Bellarmine, who have asserted the possibilty of resisting the pope. Genuine schismatics, as the stooges of the Chinese Patriotic church, the Protestant ‘Reformers’ - to give them their own self-assessment - et al., certainly knew what they were doing in rejecting the chair of Peter. Mgr Lefebvre and the others have maintained from the beginning that they were (and are) acting in support of the Papacy and the Church. The documents show that they were leaders in defending the primacy of the Pope against the ‘conciliar’ faction at the Second Vatican Council who were pushing to have the Chair of Peter demoted to the formula ‘First Among Equals’. As I have submitted above, the refusal of compliance with one instruction is not in itself a schismatic act.

 

[numealinesimpet]

I don’t think Holy Mother the Church ever had her spring time innocence, even from the very beginning. The frailty of her children will always stain her. However, the promise of her Groom to stay with her until the end of time sustains and cleanses her, and, together with the Holy Spirit, guides her.

My question to you is why would the sanctions be unjust and illegitimate? The Pope is a LEGITIMATE Pope and he his right to govern the Church is JUST. Deny this and you are denying Tradition.

Moreover, the Pope nor the hierarchy didn’t have to pronounce the sanction. Abp. Lefebvre and the four bishops placed the sanction upon themselves, when they paid no heed to Pope John Paul II’s warnings and still went ahead with the consecrations. The excommunications were AUTOMATIC as prescribed by canon law. How many times does this have to be repeated here?

It is because the ‘automatic’ sanction in one part of Canon Law is effectively nullified by another part. It has been noted that this made for bad legislation. It is pointless to blame Mfr Lefebvre and the others for this.

 

[numealinesimpet]

*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
*Sorry, Simple Soul - The whole issue of the Trads is very complex and subtle. The posts on this thread are coming thick and fast and there are many strands of thought being unravelled at the same time, about important matters. That is why people of obvious great erudition and goodwill in the Church (I’m not talking just about CAF!!) are finding themselves with differing viewpoint. Yet I believe there is a coherent case that can be made. And we all have our other tasks of life to keep going - I will reply asap.

 

[Dee_S]

I just cannot get on board with your logic and thinking. You are in dangerous territory not just in CAF but in your entire theological point of view.
Trust me, I sympathize more than you know with traditionalists but I cannot and should not make the leap you are doing. Neither should you.

And neither should you…I understand exactly where you are ‘coming from’ (being an ex-SSPXer myself) - and believe me, everything you have said on this thread causes me to nod my head and say “been there, done that”… I’ve heard, read, believed, promoted all the same points of view, and funnily enough, almost word-for-word, …and yes, you are in dangerous territory because without realising it, it is all too possible to become so convinced that one ends up in “formal adherence to the schism”.

It’s worth taking a look at the article this extract came from, it has some very valuable insights:

1. In effect no. 4. of the Motu Proprio explains the nature of the “doctrinal root of this schismatic act,” and no. 5. c) warns that a **“formal adherence to the schism” **(by which one must understand “the movement of Archbishop Lefebvre”) would bring with it the excommunication established by the universal law of the Church (CIC, can. 1364 para.1). Also the decree of the Congregation for Bishops makes explicit reference to the “schismatic nature” of the aforesaid episcopal ordinations and mentions the most grave penalty of excommunication which adherence “to the schism of Monsignor Lefebvre” would bring with it.
   catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=1224

Also see the canonical status of SSPX and the encyclical Ecclesia Dei of Pope John Paul II:

In 1999, the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei stated that it was likely, but not certain, that the SSPX priests were adhering to the schism, which would mean that they were excommunicated, but that people who, “because of their attraction to the traditional Latin Mass and not because they refuse submission to the Roman Pontiff or reject communion with the members of the Church subject to him”, attended Mass celebrated by those priests, were not excommunicated, although, the longer they frequented SSPX chapels, the greater the likelihood of imbibing a schismatic mentality that would seem to involve adherence to the schism and so excommunication.[10] It judged that documentation sent to it in 1998 clearly indicated the extent to which “many in authority in the Society of St. Pius X” were in conformity with the formal definition of schism.[11]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canonical_situation_of_the_Society_of_St._Pius_X

Granted, the bishops are no longer excommunicated, but given their open rebellion against the Holy Father and their canonical status - which renders their marriages and confessions invalid - there is a point where one adheres to a schismatic mentality
%between%

 

[choliks]

It is because the ‘automatic’ sanction in one part of Canon Law is effectively nullified by another part. It has been noted that this made for bad legislation. It is pointless to blame Mfr Lefebvre and the others for this.

Oh… you mean the “state of emergency”? I’m sorry numea. Nobody, not us, but the Pope, can declare that such and such canon nullified such and such sanction. Why? Because his right to govern the Church is God-given, and nobody on this planet can take that away. This time, Pope John Paul II said the sanctions hold. Guess who lifted the sanctions later.

 

[choliks]

It could be argued that the decision whether or not to eat with the Gentiles was doctrinal as well as disciplinary.
The question whether or not to close the only remaining seminary in the world for no other apparent reason than that it was following the successful practice of at least 4 centuries, in favour of innovations that were already well documented as being associated with grave abuses, was a momentous one. The Pope is the Guardian, the Keeper of the Keys. There are those, including of the highest rank in the Church, who maintain that it is questionable at least - some say certain that it is not the case - that the partimony of the centuries was his to throw away. That Pope Paul himself believed he was doing the right thing is not, I believe, denied by anybody with sanity. Nonetheless there have been major writers, e.g. S. Robert Bellarmine, who have asserted the possibilty of resisting the pope. Genuine schismatics, as the stooges of the Chinese Patriotic church, the Protestant ‘Reformers’ - to give them their own self-assessment - et al., certainly knew what they were doing in rejecting the chair of Peter. Mgr Lefebvre and the others have maintained from the beginning that they were (and are) acting in support of the Papacy and the Church. The documents show that they were leaders in defending the primacy of the Pope against the ‘conciliar’ faction at the Second Vatican Council who were pushing to have the Chair of Peter demoted to the formula ‘First Among Equals’. As I have submitted above, the refusal of compliance with one instruction is not in itself a schismatic act.

Ironically, when you defy the Pope, you are treating him as your equal, even to the point of making yourself above him.

 

[Dee_S]

Ironically, when you defy the Pope, you are treating him as your equal, even to the point of making yourself above him.

that can happen all too easily.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
The Bishop of Lausanne, Geneva and Freiburg, Charles Morerod

The Bishop of Lausanne, Geneva and Freiburg, Charles Morerod, has signed a decree forbidding SSPX priests to use chapels in his diocese

The stance he has taken is significant and indicative: the Bishop of Lausanne, Geneva and Freiburg Charles Morerod – also a Dominican theologian, Rector of Angelicum, Secretary of the International Theological Commission and member of the delegation representing the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in the Church’s talks with the Society of St. Pius X (SSXP)** – has published a decree forbidding Lefebvrian priests to celebrate mass in churches and chapels in his diocese. He also stressed that the Fraternity’s priests are suspended “a divinis”.**

…Morerod dedicates three brief paragraphs to the Lefebvrians, recalling, above all, that “the excommunication declared regarding the bishops of the Society on June 30, 1988, was lifted by a decree of the Congregation for Bishops, of January 21, 2009.”

The document then quotes a letter dated 10 March 2009 and sent by Benedict XVI to bishops across the world in the aftermath of the Williamson scandal:** “The fact that the Society of Saint Pius X does not possess a canonical status in the Church is not, in the end, based on disciplinary but on doctrinal reasons. As long as the Society does not have a canonical status in the Church, its ministers do not exercise legitimate ministries in the Church” [suspensio a divinis].**

Due to the aforementioned reasons, - the decree goes on to say **- it is forbidden to the priests of the Society of Saint Pius X to use the Catholic churches and chapels for all priestly service, in particular for the dispensation of the sacraments.”
**vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/world-news/detail/articolo/lefebvriani-lefebvrianslefebvrianos-21883/

 

[Aramis]

that can happen all too easily.

http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/typo3temp/pics/b8ef71c3ce.jpg
The Bishop of Lausanne, Geneva and Freiburg, Charles Morerod

The Bishop of Lausanne, Geneva and Freiburg, Charles Morerod, has signed a decree forbidding SSPX priests to use chapels in his diocese

His Excellency has merely enforced the extant canon law.

The SSPX are still suspended ad divinis, unless Rome’s removed the suspension in the last few days.

Canon 903 says:
Can. 903 A priest is to be permitted to celebrate even if the rector of the church does not know him, provided that either he presents a letter of introduction from his ordinary or superior, issued at least within the year, or it can be judged prudently that he is not impeded from celebrating.

The SSPX clergy ARE impeded - suspension ad divinis is the surest sign of impediment to licit celebration.

The bishop is merely making it clear to his priests that he’s not willing to waive canon law for the SSPX. Which, really, shows he’s OBEYING the pope’s declarations on the matter.

 

[numealinesimpet]

I don’t think Holy Mother the Church ever had her spring time innocence, even from the very beginning. The frailty of her children will always stain her. However, the promise of her Groom to stay with her until the end of time sustains and cleanses her, and, together with the Holy Spirit, guides her.

I am sure you are right in this, choliks. I read the above phrase in a paperback ‘History of the Church’ 30+ years ago. Yes, every Age has its specific blessings and specific crosses. We possibly differ on the precise nature of the present crisis. Would you accept, ‘The problem of trying to manage a reform without letting it either get out of hand or come to nothing?’

 

[Tomdstone]

His Excellency has merely enforced the extant canon law.

The SSPX are still suspended ad divinis, unless Rome’s removed the suspension in the last few days.

Canon 903 says:
Can. 903 A priest is to be permitted to celebrate even if the rector of the church does not know him, provided that either he presents a letter of introduction from his ordinary or superior, issued at least within the year, or it can be judged prudently that he is not impeded from celebrating.

The SSPX clergy ARE impeded - suspension ad divinis is the surest sign of impediment to licit celebration.

The bishop is merely making it clear to his priests that he’s not willing to waive canon law for the SSPX. Which, really, shows he’s OBEYING the pope’s declarations on the matter.

Is there a law which says that in a case of an emergency, a priest may celebrate without having such a letter?

 

[JReducation]

Before going out on a limb in defense of Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX (I mean clergy not laity), it would do well to remember that Archbishop DiNoia is a Dominican Friar.

Many of you may wonder what this has to do with the price of eggs in China. The answer is simple. As far as the Mendicant Orders are concerned the pope always has the final say, unless he’s a heretic or commands an objective sin. Neither situation has ever happened with the popes since Pope Paul VI to today.

Aquinas position on authority was never accepted by the Dominicans or any of the Mendicants. To this day it is not accepted by the Mendicants. The Church has never embraced his position as her own. The most that the Church has ever said is that his position does not contradict doctrine, but that does not mean that his position IS doctrine.

Many people uphold the Lefebvrist position grounding themselves on Aquinas. But you can’t ground yourself on a statement that was never integrated into the faith or the law of the Church. Aquinas position on obedience to God first and pope second only applies if the pope is a heretic. The only other application of his position is as Bonaventure explains, if the pope commands sin. In that case, he is not a heretic. He is a sinner drawing another into sin, which is not the same as heresy; but which cannot be obeyed.

In the case of the popes from Paul VI to Benedict XVI, we know that they have not always made wise decisions. That’s part of being a saint. Saints can be geniuses in matters of theology and the spiritual life and very naive in matters of daily life. Just look at the saint whom the Church holds up as the Mirror of Perfection, St. Francis of Assisi.

The popes of the latter part of the 20th century and beginning of the 21st century were not always the most organized or most practical administrators. However, being a good administrator is not a requirement for either sanctity or the papacy. If that were the case, Jesus would have chosen Judas as pope and not Peter.

You can always turn a sinner into a saint, but it’s almost impossible to turn a saint into an effective CEO.

Because of their experience with this reality, the Mendicants and the monks have never paid particular attention to the qualifications of pope or to their mistakes, but to their holiness and to their authority. If the pope commands what may be foolish and what may look to us to be a risk, but it is not a sin, then there is nothing to think about. You do it.
Popes John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II and Benedict XVI are not the Borgias, nor are they heretics. In fact, they are very holy men and very scholarly.

Until we get a pope who is either a heretic or another Borgia, and as long as we have a Dominican in a prominent position at the CDF, there is no way that the SSPX and Archibishop Lefebvre are ever going to be thought of as being right and the pope wrong.

There may be situations when the Dominicans may rule that the SSPX is not heretical or schismatic. But they will not agree to what many are trying to defend here that there is a remote possibility that Archbishop Lefebvre was right.

This is truly an interesting point. Monday night, we had a formation class for the postulants. One of the guys is a Traditionalist. He was explaining his belief on which this was good and that was better. Everyone was paying close attention. I’m not saying that everyone agreed with him, but everyone did allow him to express his opinion.

Suddenly, he made a statement that was a direct quote of something that Archbishop Lefebvre had said contrary to what the Pope had said. Immediately, the formation director reminded him that a mendicant never questions a pope. A mendicant can only ask one question. “Is it a sin?”

You can’t even ask, “Can it lead to sin,” because many things in life CAN lead to sin, but it does not mean that they WILL lead to sin. That choice is up to the individual.

With this background and a Dominican at the lead of this process, every Catholic involved with the SSPX needs to remember that there will be no way that the CDF is ever even going to allow us to entertain the notion that Archbishop Lefebvre was right. What Pope Paul said is probably the best way to approach the SSPX and Archbishop Lefebvre.

 

[PaulinVA]

Brother Jay, I think that this thread has run it’s course, and then you post something like you did below, and I realize I have to keep coming back to learn more.

Thank you.

 

[Melchior_1]

It could be argued that the decision whether or not to eat with the Gentiles was doctrinal as well as disciplinary.
The question whether or not to close the only remaining seminary in the world for no other apparent reason than that it was following the successful practice of at least 4 centuries, in favour of innovations that were already well documented as being associated with grave abuses, was a momentous one. The Pope is the Guardian, the Keeper of the Keys. There are those, including of the highest rank in the Church, who maintain that it is questionable at least - some say certain that it is not the case - that the partimony of the centuries was his to throw away. That Pope Paul himself believed he was doing the right thing is not, I believe, denied by anybody with sanity. Nonetheless there have been major writers, e.g. S. Robert Bellarmine, who have asserted the possibilty of resisting the pope. Genuine schismatics, as the stooges of the Chinese Patriotic church, the Protestant ‘Reformers’ - to give them their own self-assessment - et al., certainly knew what they were doing in rejecting the chair of Peter. Mgr Lefebvre and the others have maintained from the beginning that they were (and are) acting in support of the Papacy and the Church. The documents show that they were leaders in defending the primacy of the Pope against the ‘conciliar’ faction at the Second Vatican Council who were pushing to have the Chair of Peter demoted to the formula ‘First Among Equals’. As I have submitted above, the refusal of compliance with one instruction is not in itself a schismatic act.

You’re seriously skating on thin ice, my friend. Very dangerous thinking. The issue between Peter and Paul was a discipline issue.

In the end, you can quote Aquinas, however he was wrong with a few things (such as people using his stance on habitats to say that Native Canadians could eat beavers during Lent, as they live like fish). In matters of Canon Law, the buck stops with the man who holds the keys.

If you don’t like it, there’s someone here who you should talk to: