E
EcceAgnusDei
Guest
This is exactly what I am saying, brother.
No, it does not. Here is the law:
Not a word of schism in the law, only excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See.
- PAX
- Status
R
Rich_C
Guest
I’m no expert, but since no one else responded: I don’t see anything wrong with this particular passage. Then again, I’ve never been to the SSPX website that I can recall so I can’t speak to the context of this quote.Think this got lost in all the commotion!Still hoping somebody might be able to tell me if there are any problems with what SSPX has written here…
I actually think they did a tactful job of bringing up the fact that there are supposed to be limits to infallibility. Some Catholics do not seem to get this, but I avoid pointing it out to them because I’m afraid it will come off as me being critical of the papacy.
B
Boulder257
Guest
I think the SSPX is confusing the entire definitions of Tradition, tradition, and customs. They tend to convenienty and selectively apply certain canons while completely ignoring other ones. The bottom line is that they have created their own authority and denied that which was established by Chirst. I admire their passion, but I think it is now manifesting itself in pride as well as a lack of proper priorities. They have become so wrapped up in a battle about certain topics (those of which they have no authority to fight) that they have now overlooked the very basic principles and tenets of cannon law.Think this got lost in all the commotion!
Sorry to those who feel that the SSPX will somehow revive the Church. In reality, even bringing them back into the fold isn’t going to save the Church, but it is going to save the SSPX.
J
JReducation
Guest
I had very good training in law, even though I have always said, “I’m not a canon lawyer.”
I already made a separate reference to that law. Read above.
Schism (from the Greek schisma, rent, division) is, in the language of theology and canon law, the rupture of ecclesiastical union and unity, i.e. either the act by which one of the faithful severs as far as in him lies the ties which bind him to the social organization of the Church and make him a member of the mystical body of Christ, or the state of dissociation or separation which is the result of that act.
newadvent.org/cathen/13529a.htm
The violation of the above mention code the first time was viewed as a schismatic act, but the Society was not in schism. Now, the Society has been warned that to stay the course can lead to an regrettable break. Which as everyone knows is Vaticanese for schism. Why schism? Because the second time around would be defiance and a total disregard for what the Holy Father has tried to do to bring the SSPX into full communion. The act itself breaks with ecclesiastical union. The schism would result from the act, not from a decree of the pope.
How the pope responds is an unknown variable here. We can only speak from the canonical tradition. We cannot predict what either the pope or the Society are going to do next.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
E
EcceAgnusDei
Guest
Where does the Church connect the dots that you are connecting? Canon Law says excommunication. The first breaking of the Canon resulted in excommunication, as per law, and then was confirmed by Pope John Paul II, during which he called it a “schismatic act.” Is there a tradition that first consecrations are “schismatic acts” but second consecrations are “formal schism”? Are there precedents you can provide for us as part of the Canonical tradition?
If the first consecration did not result in schism, then the second wouldn’t either, unless there is something written in the law or in canonical tradition (or unless the Pope declares it to be so, which is of course the position I’m maintaining). Your application of the definition of schism to the act is your interpretation, unless you can provide precedents that second illicit consecrations automatically incur formal schism when the first one did not.
I’m not understanding why you are so adamant on declaring that a second consecration would automatically result in schism. Automatic excommunication, yes, obviously – that’s plain to see in Canon Law. Is it too hard to say: “in my opinion” or “according to my understanding” or “it seems to me” or “perhaps, due to the definition of schism” or “they would be running the danger of” or some other such phrase that doesn’t sound like you are speaking authoritatively on a position that would only be made clear after the fact?
- PAX
A
Aramis
Guest
*“Reserved to …” *means that the one to whom it is reserved is the only one who can absolve it. It does not mean they’re the only one who can implement it.
Two popes have publicly warned that further episcopal ordinations by the SSPX will be de facto schism. Popes Benedict XVI and John Paul II. Both. And, prior to enthronement as pope, Cardinal Ratzinger also stated that further ordinations of bishops would be a formal act of schism. Others have quoth the relevant canon for immediate excommunication for episcopal ordinations without permission (CIC 1382). I’ll instead cite the formal definition:
Can. 751
Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.
The other relevant laws show a requirement for trial - but formal schism doesn’t; it’s automatic excommunication per canon 1364.
And the warning having been given repeatedly, we knowledgable faithful must accept that, should they break that public warning, they are then into formal schism. We can’t reject the papal authority in the matter without ourselves becoming schismatic.
Can. 1364
§1. Without prejudice to the prescript of ⇒ can. 194, §1, n. 2, an apostate from the faith, a heretic, or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication; in addition, a cleric can be punished with the penalties mentioned in ⇒ can. 1336, §1, nn. 1, 2, and 3.
§2. If contumacy of long duration or the gravity of scandal demands it, other penalties can be added, including dismissal from the clerical state.
P
pnewton
Guest
I do not know that it was so much presumptious, as an informed opinion. If the SSPX continues on to the second generation of illicit bishop ordination, which is a schismatic act, according to Blessed John Paul, even after having their excommuncation lifted, I can easily see where that might be the final schismatic act the would be used to define formal schism. Who knows what the future holds. I hope we never have to know the result of this hypothetical situation. At the very least, since it is a possible scenario, one would think that it colors the actions of the SSPX leadership.
P
pnewton
Guest
I too see nothing wrong with the passage, except I do not believe it to be particularly relevant, but it is somewhat of a strawman. None of the conflict between the SSPX and the Church is based on some false idea of papal infallibility. In this particular set of Catholics (at CAF) I think we all know the limits of papal infallibility. These limits simply are not relevant to our reaction to disciplinary measures, canon law or other papal statements.
A
Alfonsus
Guest
I can say that the first ordination did not result in formal schism is simply because the Pope intervene by stop short at excommunication and suspension.
After that, John Paul II created the Ecclesia Dei to talk with SSPX, he had hope that healing is possible and gave definite judgement that by the ordination the Holy See saw it as a singular “schismatic act” and not wholesale schism. Pope John Paul II was very lenient in his judgement.
What if the Pope decided to just leave them at their peril? He can declared them in schism and break communion with them. Will this verdict come from Benedict XVI? Only God knows…
After that, John Paul II created the Ecclesia Dei to talk with SSPX, he had hope that healing is possible and gave definite judgement that by the ordination the Holy See saw it as a singular “schismatic act” and not wholesale schism. Pope John Paul II was very lenient in his judgement.
What if the Pope decided to just leave them at their peril? He can declared them in schism and break communion with them. Will this verdict come from Benedict XVI? Only God knows…
D
Dee_S
Guest
D
Dee_S
Guest
Thank you…but it does make one wonder why those who support the position of the SSPX are so adamant that no matter what they do or say, or which canon law they break, that they can never incur the penalty? A dichotomy in reasoning that is peculiar to them alone over the last 40 years - and that is, in spite of three Pope’s and thousands of hours of attempts to reason with them or their followersSchism (from the Greek schisma, rent, division) is, in the language of theology and canon law, the rupture of ecclesiastical union and unity, i.e. either the act by which one of the faithful severs as far as in him lies the ties which bind him to the social organization of the Church and make him a member of the mystical body of Christ, or the state of dissociation or separation which is the result of that act.
newadvent.org/cathen/13529a.htm
The violation of the above mention code the first time was viewed as a schismatic act, but the Society was not in schism. Now, the Society has been warned that to stay the course can lead to an regrettable break. Which as everyone knows is Vaticanese for schism. Why schism? Because the second time around would be defiance and a total disregard for what the Holy Father has tried to do to bring the SSPX into full communion. The act itself breaks with ecclesiastical union. ** The schism would result from the act**, not from a decree of the pope.
How the pope responds is an unknown variable here. We can only speak from the canonical tradition. We cannot predict what either the pope or the Society are going to do next.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
indeed, very strange.
D
Dee_S
Guest
Sorry, but I am not! I did not say that laypeople were canonically irregular, but that they were not in full communion with the Churchif they adhered to the schismatic mentality or position of the SSPX. This is said by Pope John Paul II in his motu proprio Ecclesia Dei, which I have quoted several times on this thread.
The ‘accusations’ of schism did not begin with Rome - it was their accusations of schism against the Holy Father and the Church - at the time of the sanctions against them, prior to the illicit consecration of the four bishops.
Interview with Archbishop Lefebvre in Écône, of August 2nd, 1976 and published in the French magazine Le Figaro, August 4, 1976. It is important for us to read this text again, 26 years later.
Le Figaro: “After the suspension ‘a divinis’ which struck him (in 1976), Archbishop Lefebvre by no means considers to submit. He does not believe in the possibility of a reconciliation with Rome and risks the pronouncement of an excommunication against him and his disciples.”
-“Your Excellency, are you not bordering on schism?”
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre: “That is the question that many Catholics ask after reading of the latest sanctions taken by Rome against us! Catholics, for the most part, define or imagine schism as a rupture with the Pope. They do not go any further in their investigation. You have ruptured with the Pope or the Pope has ruptured with you, therefore you are going into schism.”
“Why does a rupture with the Pope cause schism? Because where the Pope is, there is the Catholic Church. Thus, in reality, it is to depart from the Catholic Church. Now the Catholic Church is a mystical reality that exists not only in space and on the surface of the earth, but also in time and in eternity. For the Pope to represent the Church and to be its image, he must not only be united to her in space but also in time (throughout History), as the Church is essentially a living tradition.”
“To the degree that the Pope departs from this tradition, he becomes schismatic, he breaks with the Church…”
"We believe that we can affirm, taking into consideration the internal and external critique (review) on Vatican II, that is, in analysing the texts and in studying its circumstances and its consequences, that the Council, turning its back on Tradition and breaking with the Church of the past, is a SCHISMATIC COUNCIL…it is destroying the Catholic Church to such a degree that even the unbelievers and the secular governments are worried. A non-aggressive agreement has been made between the Church and masonry. It was covered up by calling it aggiornamento…
“From the time of the Council, the Church has accepted to not be the only true religion, the only way to eternal salvation. She recognizes the other religions as sister religions…”
“Accepting this NEW PRINCIPLE, all the doctrine of the Church must change, as well as its cult, its priesthood, its institutions, because everything in the Church until the Council had demonstrated that she alone possessed the Way, the Truth and the Life in Our Lord Jesus Christ, Whom she kept in person in the Holy Eucharist, and Who is present thanks to the continuation of His sacrifice. Thus a total overturning of Tradition and of the teaching of the Church has occurred since the Council and through the Council.”
"All those who cooperate in the application of this overturning accept and adhere to this new “Conciliar Church”…and they enter into the schism.
“The adoption of the liberal theses by a council could only have taken place in a pastoral council that was not infallible and cannot be explained except through a secret and meticulous preparation, that the historians will end up discovering to the great astonishment of the Catholics who confuse the eternal Roman Catholic Church with human Rome, susceptible of being invaded by enemies covered in scarlet.”
"How could we, through a servile and blind obedience, go along with these schismatics who demand us to collaborate in their attempt at the DESTRUCTION OF THE CHURCH?
"That the heresy come to us from someone that be as elevated in dignity as possible, the problem is the same for the salvation of our souls. In this regard many of the faithful are in grave ignorance as to the nature and the extension of the infallibility of the Pope. Many think that every word that comes from the mouth of the Pope is infallible."
"Because in fact a serious problem is being posed to the conscience and to the faith of all the Catholics since the beginning of the pontificate of Paul VI. How is it that a Pope, the true successor of Peter, assured of the assistance of the Holy Spirit, could preside at the destruction of the Church, the most profound and the most widespread in history to occur in so little space of time, that which no heretic has ever succeeded in doing?"
D
Dee_S
Guest
Agreed. Pope Pius XII’s papal encyclical Mystici Corporis says the following:
** “We think, how grievously they err who arbitrarily claim that the Church is something hidden and invisible, as they also do who look upon her as a mere human institution possessing a certain disciplinary code and external ritual, but lacking power to communicate supernatural life” (par. 64)"**
This extract from an article in Envoy Magazine, tells of a journey back into full communion with the Church. It is very interesting reading:
“Here, from the Church’s Tradition (this same encyclical), was the teaching that we cannot separate the Church into a mere spiritual communion as opposed to a mere human institution. In short, the Rome of Tradition and the Rome of Today were the same Rome. Everything suddenly made sense to me about Catholic ecclesiology. Just as at the Incarnation Christ was fully human and fully divine, without sacrificing either nature, so too must the Church, as Christ’s Mystical Body, be a perfect union of the visible and the invisible.”
“Furthermore, in frequenting the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass outside the visible communion of the Church, why was I dividing Christ’s Sacramental Body (Body, Soul and Divinity) in the Eucharist from Christ’s Mystical Body, the Church? For didn’t expressions such as “Body of Christ” and “Communion” carry this double meaning: the first sacramental, meaning the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist, and the second ecclesiological, meaning the sacred unity of the Church”
“Captivated by these questions forming in my conscience, I kept reading Mystici Corporis and came across the following section:
But we must not think that He rules only in a hidden or extraordinary manner. On the contrary, our Redeemer also governs His Mystical Body in a visible and normal way through His Vicar on earth. . . . Since He was all-wise He could not leave the body of the Church He had founded as a human society without a visible head. . . . That Christ and His Vicar constitute one only Head is the solemn teaching of Our predecessor of immortal memory Boniface VIII in the Apostolic Letter Unam Sanctam; and his successors have never ceased to repeat the same (par. 40)” catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0072.html
E
EcceAgnusDei
Guest
It appears that some people are finding my tone on the topic concerning formal schism abrasive. I apologize – it was not my intent at all to be abrasive, but simply to point out something that I disagreed with.
I will remove myself from the conversation concerning consecrations and schism. Carry on
I will remove myself from the conversation concerning consecrations and schism. Carry on
- PAX
R
Rich_C
Guest
I have no quarrel with your general position on the Society, but in regards to laity who associate with the SSPX, it seems Giuseppei is correct.
I checked “Ecclesia Dei.” I cannot corroborate your statement above after text-searching the copy of the moto propio as translated on the Vatican’s website. The only instance of the words “full communion” is a direct reference to Abp. Levebvre. Nowhere is the term used in reference to the faithful. No offense, but you are putting words in the Holy Father’s mouth.
Moreover, I think the conversation would be better facilitated by avoiding the phrase “not in full communion” except when directly quoting a competent authority in context, since out of context its meaning is awfully vague (could refer to anyone from Martin Luther to a Catholic who think its okay to use contraception).
Suspended, excommunicated, interdicted, un-incardinated, etc have clear meanings and would be more useful. To my knowledge, of all the penalties, layman can only be excommunicated, and in the few cases where they have been excommunicated for association with the SSPX, the Church overturned those rulings. (Hawaii 5, for example)
All I am saying is that we don’t need to go beyond the fact in refuting the SSPX charges against the papacy. Sticking to what the Church has said is enough.
G
giuseppeTO
Guest
Since I have yet to see a clear definition, could you describe your test for how to determine a Catholic is in “full communion with the church” and the source, if it is not your own personal criteria?
G
giuseppeTO
Guest
Well said, Rich. Do you go ever go to Mass at St. Alphonsus?
B
Boulder257
Guest
So, because the Church hasn’t chosen to use Her authority, the meer abscence of punishment can be interpreted as acceptance of the behavior? If anything it would be this argument that is “putting words” into the Holy Father’s mouth. The Church has spoken on the subject. Because she has chosen to be charitable and patient should not be mistaken for acceptance.
I think many times people mistake the Church’s patience and charity for weakness of argument. She has kept the door open this long not because She is wrong or even because she believes the subject to be negotiable. Instead, She is trying to offer every possible opportunity at obedience before she must close the door.
R
Rich_C
Guest
Now you’re just putting words in *my *mouth. Please stop.
I would say that laity who accept the SSPX’s positions against Vatican II and the OF are “not thinking with the mind of the Church.” That’s fair, right? It means they disagree, which is obvious. Going any further in generalizations seems like hyperbole to me, for now.
A
Aramis
Guest
I don’t know about the society as a whole, but several SSPX-fanboys of my acquaintance reject the 1983 canon law - and the automatic penalty for schism is in the new code. I don’t know if it is in the old code, as I can’t find a reliable translation into English of it online, and my latin is way too weak to be useful.Thank you…but it does make one wonder why those who support the position of the SSPX are so adamant that no matter what they do or say, or which canon law they break, that they can never incur the penalty? A dichotomy in reasoning that is peculiar to them alone over the last 40 years - and that is, in spite of three Pope’s and thousands of hours of attempts to reason with them or their followers
I’ve read several (2 or 3) SSPX members’ blogs where they doubt the authenticity of the new code of canon law, claiming it incorporates many violations of Tradition. Note that they don’t come out and say it’s invalid, they just carefully make public their doubts about it, in the manner of “If part B of the code is in violation, then the whole of the code from A-Z must be invalid.”
Keep in mind - they were in violation of the old code prior to their 1989 excommunication.
- Status