SSPX Update - Redux

[TimothyH]

Hello everybody!

Hey! I’ve prayeed that you were well and at peace. Good to hear from you.

-Tim-

 

[Melchior_1]

Hello everybody!

Tee El!

 

[Dee_S]

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.

That he is - and it seems (as seen in this extract from the same article) that he is re-enforcing the law of the Church on who can and who cannot celebrate or be admitted to use Roman Catholic churches and chapels.

"The bishop…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”.

"The document which was signed last 20 January regards “the admission of other religions, denominations or religious groups, such as the SSXP and groups of “independent theologians”, to Roman Catholic churches and chapels.”

In the document, Mgr. Morerod, a prelate whom Benedict XVI knows well, explains that if non Christian religious communities ask to use a Catholic church the answer will be no. In as far as Christian communities and denominations go, on the other hand, the bishops said that based on the indications of the Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms on Ecumenism of 1993, “permission for placing churches and chapels at the disposal of communities of other Christian confessions may be granted for reasons of pastoral need.

If the aforementioned pastoral need presents itself, Catholic churches and chapels can only be placed at the disposal of Catholic-Christian, Evangelical-Reformed, Lutheran, Orthodox, and Anglican communities.”

According to the decree, SSPX priests do not fall into these categories.
vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/world-news/detail/articolo/lefebvriani-lefebvrianslefebvrianos-21883/

 

[Oneofthewomen]

Not quite sure how this answers my question?
In simple terms- the SSPX has a problem with VII, the Missal of Paul VI, the Catechism and 1983 Code of Canon Law, yet they want to use said Canon Law to justify their actions.
Sorry this just does not make any sense at all.

Part of being “Catholic” is accepting that we have a Pope who make the rules/enforces, and if the “Rule-maker” says you are not following the rules or that they do not apply to your situation, well then they don’t!
***PERIOD!
END OF DISCUSSION!
ROMA LOCUTA CAUSA FINITA! ***

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.

 

[Dee_S]

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.

Thank you Br JR you have clarified the St Thomas Aquinas position very nicely. I’m particularly grateful for this (name removed by moderator)ut, because when ‘in’ the SSPX I heard so much about this particular point of who to obey first and lots about this saint who is constantly quoted. I now understand the correct application:thankyou:

 

[Rich_C]

If the aforementioned pastoral need presents itself, Catholic churches and chapels can only be placed at the disposal of Catholic-Christian, Evangelical-Reformed, Lutheran, Orthodox, and Anglican communities.”

Does anyone know if this includes using the sanctuary and the altar? Wouldn’t it offend God to let false* sacrifices be offered in His house? I hope they mean using the parish hall, at most.

• not referring to the Orthodox liturgy, which as far as I understand it would be in more or less the same boat as the SSPX Mass

 

[Aramis]

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

• Baptism: Canons 857-862, 865, 868
• Confirmation: Canon 883
• Eucharist - Celebration of: none I can find, tho the location of celebration is in 931-933
• Viaticum from reserved Body: Canon 911
• Confession - only in danger of death. Can. 976, 986.
• Annointing of the sick - requires permission from the person’s pastor, or a reasonable presumption permission would be given. Can. 1003
• Ordination - none I can find. Historical precedent for bishops in persecution, but it’s not blackletter.
• Marriage - Danger of death or no access to a priest or deacon for 30 days, with consent of the local bishop. But Canon 1109 forbids delegation from the bishop to witness a marriage to anyone suspended, interdicted, or excommunicated. Explicitly forbids.
• Sacred Vows - none I can find

Can. 976 Even though a priest lacks the faculty to hear confessions, he absolves validly and licitly any penitents whatsoever in danger of death from any censures and sins, even if an approved priest is present.

Can. 986 §1. All to whom the care of souls has been entrusted in virtue of some function are obliged to make provision so that the confessions of the faithful entrusted to them are heard when they reasonably seek to be heard and that they have the opportunity to approach individual confession on days and at times established for their convenience.

§2. In urgent necessity, any confessor is obliged to hear the confessions of the Christian faithful, and in danger of death, any priest is so obliged.

The exemptions which apply to the SSPX apply equally to my cousin Tommy, a laicized priest - danger of death.

Historical precedent would allow an SSPX priest or a laicized priest to celebrate the eucharist if completely isolated from the rest of the church for a year or more (in order to fullfil the requirements for communion annually), but blackletter does not.

 

[pnewton]

Many people uphold the Lefebvrist position grounding themselves on Aquinas.

I have also hear Athanasius and Bellarmine. The convenient thing about using the deceased is that they are not around to correct misapplications of what they said. They speak in theories of extreme situations and then we see it today in defense of matters that lack far less weight than the past has seen. The modern papacy is not bought and sold with money or murder. There is no Arian heresy threatening to destroy Christianity. In comparison, our issues today are minor.

One can no more use quotes from them to proof-text excuses for disobedience than the Protestants can use select Bible quotes to prove the pope is the antichrist. It is the same logical failing. The Church carries authority for a reason. This authority is not to be ignored lightly.

 

[Tomdstone]

If the aforementioned pastoral need presents itself, Catholic churches and chapels can only be placed at the disposal of Catholic-Christian, Evangelical-Reformed, Lutheran, Orthodox, and Anglican communities.”

According to the decree, SSPX priests do not fall into these categories.]

So Catholic chapels can be used by Lutherans and Anglicans which have women ministers, but not by SSPX?

 

[Mrs_Sally]

Hello everybody!

Hey Friend! Long time no see! Hope all is well.

This may not be the best thread to come back into. Maybe we can talk about traditional practices for Lent instead.

 

[numealinesimpet]

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.

(1) Aquinas is important not for every detail of his conclusions, but for his method - that has been dubbed ‘the perennial philosophy’. Natch, if the (name removed by moderator)ut is faulty on contingent facts, the conclusion will be wrong. But the method is unassailable. The method is to start by defining one’s terms, then building on ascertainable facts by the laws of logic (which are the laws of thought) to reach conclusions which are as reliable as the (name removed by moderator)ut facts. His philosophy was mandated as normative in all Catholic seminaries - although many, in disobedience, refused to do so. However, once their own ideas gained the backing of influential clerics, after Vatican II, they suddenly discoverd the beauties of Obedience.
(2) No, the buck stops with Christ – the Divine Law. In extreme circumstances (and we have not yet identified them) we are required to say, “I must obey God before Man”. Even if the Pope himself gives such a command. See later posting.

 

[numealinesimpet]

So Catholic chapels can be used by Lutherans and Anglicans which have women ministers, but not by SSPX?

The irony of this kind of absurdity has not been lost on all non-Catholics, however lost it is on many Catholics.

 

[pnewton]

So Catholic chapels can be used by Lutherans and Anglicans which have women ministers, but not by SSPX?

The SSPX have been granted access. If you are referring to the ban by that one bishop, that is his perogative within his diocese. I do not know if he allows others. One can not take a specific action here, glue it to a general action here and come up with an inconsistency.

Besides, I though everyone here already knew that canon law only applies to Catholics. Come on, let us have a little intellectual honesty, especially before we try and remove a speck of inconsistency from the eye of someone else.

 

[Mrs_Sally]

So Catholic chapels can be used by Lutherans and Anglicans which have women ministers, but not by SSPX?

Nothing in the document said a chapel/church had to be offered to every group that asked. There could easily be conditions placed by the individual parishes, particularly that women ministers don’t officiate.

However, since we are welcoming many Anglican people and entire parishes into the Curch in the Anglican Use, and are deep in discussions about something similar for Lutherans, it only makes sense that we would be hospitable to those denominations.

If the SSPX (who are already Catholic) were obedient to the local Ordinary, there wouldn’t be an issue with them having to have special permission to use a chapel or parish - they would be running parishes within the diocese.

 

[numealinesimpet]

Nothing in the document said a chapel/church had to be offered to every group that asked. There could easily be conditions placed by the individual parishes, particularly that women ministers don’t officiate.

However, since we are welcoming many Anglican people and entire parishes into the Curch in the Anglican Use, and are deep in discussions about something similar for Lutherans, it only makes sense that we would be hospitable to those denominations.

If the SSPX (who are already Catholic)

nume: See previous quotes. they are said to be ‘not in full communion’ and then - when it suits the authorities - are treated as full schismatics - which means, not in communion at all – until it comes time for ‘ecumenical charity’ - then they don’t qualify and can be slighted with impunity.

were obedient to the local Ordinary, there wouldn’t be an issue with them having to have special permission to use a chapel or parish - they would be running parishes within the diocese.

Nume:
If you actually tried that, I think you might be surprised at the response. the Local Ordinary just wants them to Go Away and the Parish to Flourish. They want the fruits, but won’t plant the tree.

Many years ago, I was organising Tridentine Masses in local parishes for the Latin Mass Society (which operates strictly with diocesan approval). In this particular parish, we were being granted a 3pm Sunday Mass. But although the Baptist Ecumenical Service was always printed in the (Catholic ) parish newsletter, the priest kept forgetting tp publicise the Tridentine Mass.

I don’t all that often get to talking about the TLM, but when I describe the recent history to young people who did not live through ‘The Changes’, they always ask, ‘But what’s the problem with having the Latin Mass alongside the New Mass? Why do they make it so difficult?’
I’m only telling you what they say.
Any comments?

 

[Melchior_1]

(1) Aquinas is important not for every detail of his conclusions, but for his method - that has been dubbed ‘the perennial philosophy’. Natch, if the (name removed by moderator)ut is faulty on contingent facts, the conclusion will be wrong. But the method is unassailable. The method is to start by defining one’s terms, then building on ascertainable facts by the laws of logic (which are the laws of thought) to reach conclusions which are as reliable as the (name removed by moderator)ut facts. His philosophy was mandated as normative in all Catholic seminaries - although many, in disobedience, refused to do so. However, once their own ideas gained the backing of influential clerics, after Vatican II, they suddenly discoverd the beauties of Obedience.
(2) No, the buck stops with Christ – the Divine Law. In extreme circumstances (and we have not yet identified them) we are required to say, “I must obey God before Man”. Even if the Pope himself gives such a command. See later posting.

1. Aquinas is not infallible, he was never Pope. Yes his method is used, but we have other methods from other Doctors and other Saints.
2. You do understand you are sounding like a Protestant when you say things like this, right?

My friend, you need to assent. Not assenting on matters like this will take you down a dangerous road.

 

[numealinesimpet]

1. Aquinas is not infallible, he was never Pope. Yes his method is used, but we have other methods from other Doctors and other Saints.

I repeat my other comments.

1. You do understand you are sounding like a Protestant when you say things like this, right?

I disagree. Certain possible statements are against either the original mandate to Peter, or to the Divine Law. It is not ‘Protestant’ (whatever that means, as Aquinas would probably say) to recall this.

My friend, you need to assent. Not assenting on matters like this will take you down a dangerous road

But assent to what? I note that my request to be told what ‘teachings’ of Vatican II I had to obey - have so far elicited no response (unless I missed the posting). Assuming I did not, I repeat that this is the response that I (& others) have always received. This merely confirms me in the speculation that ‘Obedience to Vatican II’ might be a mere smoke screen.

 

[jwinch2]

The irony of this kind of absurdity has not been lost on all non-Catholics, however lost it is on many Catholics.

I am not supportive of the actions taken by the SSPX, but I would hesitate to call this irony. Absurdity however, is right on the money.

 

[Melchior_1]

But assent to what? I note that my request to be told what ‘teachings’ of Vatican II I had to obey - have so far elicited no response (unless I missed the posting). Assuming I did not, I repeat that this is the response that I (& others) have always received. This merely confirms me in the speculation that ‘Obedience to Vatican II’ might be a mere smoke screen.

Well first you need to assent to the canonical authority of the Pontiff. My primary concern is regarding your spiritual health, since you seem insistent on saying that several Pontiffs abused their canonical powers regarding the SSPX.

Second, maybe listening to this guy. Seeing what this fella says too.

 

[jwinch2]

I love the Pope, but we really need to get out of the habit of thinking that everything which comes out of his mouth is either infallible or another form of magisterial teaching. This is not accurate. The Pope is human and is only protected by the Holy Spirit from error when he is teaching in communion with the other bishops of the Church or in the deliberate exercise of his authority as the successor of Peter. Furthermore, a statement was made earlier that everything which the Pope says is law. This is also inaccurate. The idea that the Pope walks around re-writing Canon Law every time he opens his mouth or picks up a pen is completely wrong.

I am not for one minute suggesting that we ignore the Pope when he is teaching authoritatively or, for that matter, that we get into the habit of dismissing his other thoughts because they are not authoritative. However, presenting Papal authority in that manner is entirely false.