C
CesarAugustus
Guest
You’re welcome!Thanks for sharing these. They’re awesome to see.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
Blessings!
- Status
Blessings!
J
JReducation
Guest
Oh yeah! We’re still cleaning up that one too, aren’t we?
I don’t think that an SSPX schism would be on the same grand scale as the great schism between the Eastern Churches, but a schism is a schism nonetheless.
From what I’ve heard from people who are connected to the SSPX, one reason that this situation is not yet resolved is because the Society (meaning the priests) and its lay constituency is very divided into three camps: a) accept what Rome says and move on, b) wait it out until “Rome converts” and c) sedevacantism. The last group is small, but it’s there.
My guess is that Bishop Fellay is trying to keep the unit together. I’m not sure that he will succeed. It would be great if he could keep it together and it would come home as one body.
What is equally important here is that what Pope Benedict has said is necessary for the SSPX to enter into full communion does not just apply to the SSPX. It applies to all of us. The Holy See is not going to make these demands of the SSPX and give the rest of us a free pass. Life does not work that way.
There are many Catholics who are not SSPX constituents who still feel that they have the right to question Vatican II, even though Pope Benedict has said that it is what it is. There are many who feel that they have the right to refer to the OF as ilicit or banal, when Pope Benedict has said the opposite. What he calls ilicit and banal are the things that people add or detract from it, not the form as is prescribed in the missal. People are not making this distinction. There are people who insist that the teachings of previous popes, saints and doctors trump the current papacy and the Holy Father is saying that they do not and that it is he who decides what is and is not compatible with tradition, not others outside of himself. But some people are not listening.
Even though these people are not SSPX constituents, they really need to stop and think that the requirements for the SSPX are not different than what they are for the rest of us. We’re also bound by the same authority.
Before anyone cries “infallibility”, the pope does not have to speak infallibly to invoke his authority and his power over the Catholic world. The Ordinary Magisterium can also speak infallibly. In this case, if Bishop Fellay’s report on the response that he received from Pope Benedict is accurate, it looks like Pope Benedict just pulled the “boss card.”
People can claim that the boss is mistaken. However, until the boss commands us to violate the Commandments, he has the last word. Saint Benedict, the Master on Obedience always said that obedience was not about being right, but about the right to govern. The right to govern is lost only when you command what is immoral. Even then, we can only disobey the immoral command, not the rest. St. Francis takes it to the next level. It is not we who decide what is and is not a sin. It is the Church. St. Teresa of Avila takes it further. A child of the Church cannot attempt to govern the Church. One cannot be both parent and child. Often, we see ourselves as children of the Church with the right to tell the mother how to do things. In a typical household, this would be a child labeled as oppositional-defiant.
Given what the Holy Father responded to Bishop Fellay, it would be good for all of us to take inventory of our opinions and what we have said on these matters and make sure that they are consistent with what Peter says. We do not have the right to defy Peter’s right to govern.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
In essence, 2 against, 1 for.
Not a good start.
My motto for my formation, heck my life.
Really takes the burden of obedience away when one looks at it like this.
I wonder if this would sound cooler in Latin, like the cooks motto (faith knows).
M
Mike30
Guest
Well I suppose that in a pinch the SSPX could schism off, wait some years, and then enter into dialogue with the Church. At that point , they would probably be looked upon as any other group that has schismed off, the Orthodox and Anglicans not to mention the protestants for example, and be accepted as they are. Heck they might even be accepted back with open arms and be allowed to use their own customs, traditions and rites with impunity much as do the Anglicans.Oh yeah! We’re still cleaning up that one too, aren’t we?
I don’t think that an SSPX schism would be on the same grand scale as the great schism between the Eastern Churches, but a schism is a schism nonetheless.
From what I’ve heard from people who are connected to the SSPX, one reason that this situation is not yet resolved is because the Society (meaning the priests) and its lay constituency is very divided into three camps: a) accept what Rome says and move on, b) wait it out until “Rome converts” and c) sedevacantism. The last group is small, but it’s there.
My guess is that Bishop Fellay is trying to keep the unit together. I’m not sure that he will succeed. It would be great if he could keep it together and it would come home as one body.
What is equally important here is that what Pope Benedict has said is necessary for the SSPX to enter into full communion does not just apply to the SSPX. It applies to all of us. The Holy See is not going to make these demands of the SSPX and give the rest of us a free pass. Life does not work that way.
There are many Catholics who are not SSPX constituents who still feel that they have the right to question Vatican II, even though Pope Benedict has said that it is what it is. There are many who feel that they have the right to refer to the OF as ilicit or banal, when Pope Benedict has said the opposite. What he calls ilicit and banal are the things that people add or detract from it, not the form as is prescribed in the missal. People are not making this distinction. There are people who insist that the teachings of previous popes, saints and doctors trump the current papacy and the Holy Father is saying that they do not and that it is he who decides what is and is not compatible with tradition, not others outside of himself. But some people are not listening.
Even though these people are not SSPX constituents, they really need to stop and think that the requirements for the SSPX are not different than what they are for the rest of us. We’re also bound by the same authority.
Before anyone cries “infallibility”, the pope does not have to speak infallibly to invoke his authority and his power over the Catholic world. The Ordinary Magisterium can also speak infallibly. In this case, if Bishop Fellay’s report on the response that he received from Pope Benedict is accurate, it looks like Pope Benedict just pulled the “boss card.”
People can claim that the boss is mistaken. However, until the boss commands us to violate the Commandments, he has the last word. Saint Benedict, the Master on Obedience always said that obedience was not about being right, but about the right to govern. The right to govern is lost only when you command what is immoral. Even then, we can only disobey the immoral command, not the rest. St. Francis takes it to the next level. It is not we who decide what is and is not a sin. It is the Church. St. Teresa of Avila takes it further. A child of the Church cannot attempt to govern the Church. One cannot be both parent and child. Often, we see ourselves as children of the Church with the right to tell the mother how to do things. In a typical household, this would be a child labeled as oppositional-defiant.
Given what the Holy Father responded to Bishop Fellay, it would be good for all of us to take inventory of our opinions and what we have said on these matters and make sure that they are consistent with what Peter says. We do not have the right to defy Peter’s right to govern.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
After all, they do have valid orders and valid lines of succession.
Interesting thought… At what point does a group in schism cease being in schism and turn into another Church or community?
Maybe they just need to wait it out:shrug:
M
Mrs_Sally
Guest
I would think the wait has to be in the hundreds of years - from after the schism is final. The Church thinks in millennials and the Orthodox are not all back, and neither are the Anglicans.Well I suppose that in a pinch the SSPX could schism off, wait some years, and then enter into dialogue with the Church. At that point , they would probably be looked upon as any other group that has schismed off, the Orthodox and Anglicans not to mention the protestants for example, and be accepted as they are. Heck they might even be accepted back with open arms and be allowed to use their own customs, traditions and rites with impunity much as do the Anglicans.
After all, they do have valid orders and valid lines of succession.
Interesting thought… At what point does a group in schism cease being in schism and turn into another Church or community?
Maybe they just need to wait it out:shrug:
I certainly hope and pray that schism and then waiting to “age out” is not the plan that they go with. In fact, I pray for the reverse - that with the EF available, new “members” don’t join the SSPX, that they don’t ordain any new bishops, and that the movement slowly “ages out” in another meaning of the phrase. Sort of like what is now happening to the “spirit of VII”.
M
Mike30
Guest
The problem with that is that the Extraordinary Form still is not available in many areas due to opposition from various Bishops and Priests and I am not really hopefull that will change very much any time soon. I would almost guarantee you that the SSPX will ordain new Bishops at some point if the reconciliation doesn’t come about relatively quickly. In fact I don’t really see how it could be otherwise.I would think the wait has to be in the hundreds of years - from after the schism is final. The Church thinks in millennials and the Orthodox are not all back, and neither are the Anglicans.
I certainly hope and pray that schism and then waiting to “age out” is not the plan that they go with. In fact, I pray for the reverse - that with the EF available, new “members” don’t join the SSPX, that they don’t ordain any new bishops, and that the movement slowly “ages out” in another meaning of the phrase. Sort of like what is now happening to the “spirit of VII”.
And in all honesty, much of the opposition to the post conciliar Church isn’t solely about the availability or unavailability of the Extraordinary Form of the Mass. Far from it. At this point it is good to recall that the SSPX wasn’t even founded for the purpose of preserving the Extraordinary Form of the Mass. That was a by product.
The SSPX was founded to present a conservative and orthodox seminary experience to those who desired it due to the multiplicity of abuses that were allegedly going on in European seminaries of the times. A balanced and nuanced reading of reports of the time will pretty much confirm that seminaries at that time were not, how shall we say it, the most orthodox in presentation and instruction in the faith? In fact it appears that most if not all change was considered good and anything even remotely orthodox or conservative was considered bad in those days. That led in great part to the rigid positions that the SSPX has staked out. namely that Catholicism as practiced today, bears little resemblence to the Catholicism that existed prior to Vatican II.
I would be surprised if the majority of those in the SSPX will ever 100% accept the current, popular interpretation of the documents of Vatican II.
M
Mrs_Sally
Guest
Well if their founding principle was to ensure better seminaries, then they have even less reason for resistence. Seminaries are much, much improved and the guidelines for accepting men have been greatly clarified – throughout the world.
The question of availability of the EF is resolving itself also. More new priests are learning to say it, and if people can restrain themselves from being the rubric police, priests will be more willing to say it.
I don’t blame any bishop or priest for refusing to accomodate people who are demanding, overly critical, and bad mannered - no matter what they are asking for. If we ask with humility, asking for the good of our spiritual development and not our aesthetic desires, we may be pleasantly suprised.
Edit: Ordaining more SSPX bishops would be such a bad move!!
The question of availability of the EF is resolving itself also. More new priests are learning to say it, and if people can restrain themselves from being the rubric police, priests will be more willing to say it.
I don’t blame any bishop or priest for refusing to accomodate people who are demanding, overly critical, and bad mannered - no matter what they are asking for. If we ask with humility, asking for the good of our spiritual development and not our aesthetic desires, we may be pleasantly suprised.
Edit: Ordaining more SSPX bishops would be such a bad move!!
J
JReducation
Guest
Aside from the fact that you have to wait many generations to do this, the Anglicans have not been accepted back unconditionally. They have several conditions that they have to meet, besides the profession of the Catholic faith.
- They must accept Vatican II and its documents.
- They must adopt the CCC
- They must accept that the OF is valid and licit.
- They must accept the the pope is the only authority who can say what is and is not part of tradition
- They must accept to be governed by whomever the Holy See appoints
- Their bishops can no longer be bishops, they are reduced to presbyters
- Their clergy must go through a formation program before ordination
- They must be conditionally ordained
- As far as absolution is concerned, the Church must take them through radical sanation, which is not an easy process
- They must be self-supporting
- Once this generation of priests dies, the Anglican form of the mass may die as well, because newly ordained priests are not allowed to celebrate it. That question is still on the table. Unless the permission is granted to any priest who wants to celebrate it, the ite will die. Right now, it’s a case by case basis and there are not many Latin Rite priests asking to celebrate the Anglican form.
They are a Church as soon as they break away, because they have bishops. Their clergy and probably their laity will be excommunicated as was the case with the Orthodox and the Roman Catholics until the 1960s and 70s. We lifted the excommunication against them and they lifted the excommunications against us.Interesting thought… At what point does a group in schism cease being in schism and turn into another Church or community?
UE says that no one who is connected to an irregular institute or society (ie. SSPX) has the right to request the EF from the local bishop. If you’re an SSPX constituent and it is known that you are, you first have to divorce yourself from them before you can approach your pastor or bishop to ask for the EF. Already we see the Holy See treating the laity that follows these groups (SSPX, SSPV and others) differently and putting restrictions on them.
Bad move is an understatement. If they do so without a papal mandate, they will be excommunicated again and this time, there are going to be laymen going with them. That’s how the schism begins. As a human being, I’m stunned that anyone can accept the idea of being in schism rather than submit to the Holy Father’s requirements.
I know that the documents of Vatican II are a stumbling block. However, if one listens very carefully to what he has been saying since the day of the 50th anniversary of Vatican II, he has not said that one cannot ask questions for the sake of clarity. What he has said is that one cannot say that the Council or the documents teach error.
I can say, “I don’t understand document X, because it sounds as if it contradicts document A from Vatican I. Can someone please help me understand?” That’s very legitimate.
To say, “Document X teaches error, because it obviously contradicts docuemnt A from Vatican I,” is not allowed. That’s calling into question the operation of the Holy Spirit over the Church and the Council.
My point is that one can always ask for great clarity without resorting to saying that something is in error because it’s different. I found myself in a similar situation when we were founding our community and were reading Perfectae Caritatis. There were parts that were not quite clear. When we asked, two bishops, one canon lawyer, a theologian and a vicar for religious helped us to get through it. We never said that PC was in error, because it’s not saying what religious founders have said. When it was explained to us, we actually found out that it actually defends the founders. The mistake that many religious communities made was not to see how the document was written to protect the vision of the founder. They read it to say that religious life had to change for the future.
It did, but in order to change for the future, it had to look at the founder’s vision and look at the future through his eyes.
This an certainly happen with other documents. You ask and you find out all kinds of interesting things that are not errors at all, but simply very different use of language. If they take that approach, they can avoid a schism.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
J
Justin_Swanton
Guest
‘Schism’ is a word used frequently when talking about the SSPX, but it needs clarification.
Canonically, the worst thing that has happened to the SSPX to date is that its priests’ sacraments were declared illicit*, and the two consecrating and four consecrand bishops of 1988 were excommunicated. There was mention made of a ‘danger of schism’, but the general position was that the SSPX, even by the 1988 consecrations, had not become schismatic.
Should the SSPX consecrate more bishops, the same canonical penalties applied in 1988 would be applied again. What is there this time that would make the SSPX schismatic which did not make it schismatic then?
My understanding of schism is that it is not an ecclesiastical penalty, but a self-inflicted condition resulting from a clear and definitive rejection of the ***principle ***of the Pope’s universal jurisdiction and the local jurisdiction of the bishops under him, as opposed to a rejection (justified or not) of a particular exercise of that jurisdiction. The Greek Orthodox and the Anglican Churches rejected the Pope’s right to govern them per se, becoming schismatic. Can one say the SSPX has done or looks like doing the same?
*in practice nobody is actually questioning them. SSPX faithful who re-enter regular Church life are not asked to redo their marriages or confessions.
Canonically, the worst thing that has happened to the SSPX to date is that its priests’ sacraments were declared illicit*, and the two consecrating and four consecrand bishops of 1988 were excommunicated. There was mention made of a ‘danger of schism’, but the general position was that the SSPX, even by the 1988 consecrations, had not become schismatic.
Should the SSPX consecrate more bishops, the same canonical penalties applied in 1988 would be applied again. What is there this time that would make the SSPX schismatic which did not make it schismatic then?
My understanding of schism is that it is not an ecclesiastical penalty, but a self-inflicted condition resulting from a clear and definitive rejection of the ***principle ***of the Pope’s universal jurisdiction and the local jurisdiction of the bishops under him, as opposed to a rejection (justified or not) of a particular exercise of that jurisdiction. The Greek Orthodox and the Anglican Churches rejected the Pope’s right to govern them per se, becoming schismatic. Can one say the SSPX has done or looks like doing the same?
*in practice nobody is actually questioning them. SSPX faithful who re-enter regular Church life are not asked to redo their marriages or confessions.
J
JReducation
Guest
The difference is not the law. The difference is the pope. It was Pope Benedict who first said that if the SSPX does not come home, it can lead to a break that will do incredible damage. It was also the pope who told an interviewer that if they ordained another bishop, they would be denying the the authority of the pope and breaking with the Primacy. It is Pope Benedict who has said that he and only he can decide what is and is not part of tradition. This is de fide. It is the pope who has asked them to come home. They would be turning their back on him.
One can do something that places one outside of the physical Church or in schism or one can do something that motivates the pope to jettison you out of the Catholic Church.
After everything that Rome has done to bring back the SSPX, such an ordination would be a slap across the Holy Father’s face. That’s much different from the first time around. The Holy Father said so in an interview a few years ago, right after he lifted the excommunication.
Pope Benedict is not Bl. John Paul II. Bl. John Paul waited, prayed and hoped that people would come around if he showed them patience and charity. Pope Benedict is patient and charitable, but his limit is not as ample as that of Bl. John Paul.
All we have to do is look at what he did to the preamble to which Cardinal Levada and Bishop Fellay had agreed. Unknown to either one of them, he edited it and then had it sent to Bishop Fellay. That’s the action of a man who is putting his foot down.
That’s the big difference between now and then. This is a different pope and we know that the law is subject to the pope, not the pope to the law.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
D
Dee_S
Guest
MULLER-CONTINUITY Nov-29-2012
Reading Vatican II as break with tradition is heresy, prefect says
XArchbishop Muller (CNS file/Paul Haring)
By Carol Glatz
Catholic News Service
VATICAN CITY (CNS) – Traditionalist and progressive camps that see the Second Vatican Council as breaking with the truth both espouse a “heretical interpretation” of the council and its aims, said the prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
“Outside this sole orthodox interpretation unfortunately exists a heretical interpretation, that is, a hermeneutic of rupture, (found) both on the progressive front and on the traditionalist” side, the archbishop said.
What the two camps have in common, he said, is their rejection of the council: “the progressives in their wanting to leave it behind, as if it were a season to abandon in order to get to another church, and the traditionalists in their not wanting to get there,” seeing the council as a Catholic “winter.”
A “council presided over by the successor of Peter as head of the visible church” is the “highest expression” of the Magisterium, he said, to be regarded as part of “an indissoluble whole,” along with Scripture and 2,000 years of tradition."
catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1205009.htm
Reading Vatican II as break with tradition is heresy, prefect says
XArchbishop Muller (CNS file/Paul Haring)
By Carol Glatz
Catholic News Service
VATICAN CITY (CNS) – Traditionalist and progressive camps that see the Second Vatican Council as breaking with the truth both espouse a “heretical interpretation” of the council and its aims, said the prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
Code:
What Pope Benedict XVI has termed "the hermeneutic of reform, of renewal in continuity" is the "only possible interpretation according to the principles of Catholic theology," Archbishop Gerhard Muller said in remarks published Nov. 29.What the two camps have in common, he said, is their rejection of the council: “the progressives in their wanting to leave it behind, as if it were a season to abandon in order to get to another church, and the traditionalists in their not wanting to get there,” seeing the council as a Catholic “winter.”
A “council presided over by the successor of Peter as head of the visible church” is the “highest expression” of the Magisterium, he said, to be regarded as part of “an indissoluble whole,” along with Scripture and 2,000 years of tradition."
catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1205009.htm
D
Dee_S
Guest
To quote BR JR:
"Even though these people are not SSPX constituents, they really need to stop and think that the requirements for the SSPX are not different than what they are for the rest of us. We’re also bound by the same authority.
Before anyone cries “infallibility”, the pope does not have to speak infallibly to invoke his authority and his power over the Catholic world. The Ordinary Magisterium can also speak infallibly. In this case, if Bishop Fellay’s report on the response that he received from Pope Benedict is accurate, it looks like Pope Benedict just pulled the “boss card.”
People can claim that the boss is mistaken. However, until the boss commands us to violate the Commandments, he has the last word. Saint Benedict, the Master on Obedience always said that obedience was not about being right, but about the right to govern. The right to govern is lost only when you command what is immoral. Even then, we can only disobey the immoral command, not the rest. St. Francis takes it to the next level. It is not we who decide what is and is not a sin. It is the Church. St. Teresa of Avila takes it further.** A child of the Church cannot attempt to govern the Church. One cannot be both parent and child. Often, we see ourselves as children of the Church with the right to tell the mother how to do things. In a typical household, this would be a child labeled as oppositional-defiant."**
Nostra Aetate is one of the VII documents much criticized by the SSPX (even though Archbishop Lefebvre did sign this at the Council) as are the talks at Assissi:
"In an essay published Oct. 11, the eve of the 50th anniversary of the opening of the Second Vatican Council, Pope Benedict XVI wrote about the ongoing importance of “Nostra Aetate” for Catholics in increasingly multi-religious societies.
"Archbishop Muller, in his Assisi speech of Oct 29, said that “to respect the religious conscience of humanity, in fact, does not mean forgetting that historical religions also present obstacles, as well as sick and disturbed forms of religion.”
“Saying that all religions basically are similar actually means “negating or doubting the possibility of real communication between God and human beings,” Archbishop Muller said, because the truths of Judeo-Christian faith are not human inventions, but the result of God’s revelation.”
“Not believing that Christ’s death and resurrection make Christianity unique among religions is, in essence, the equivalent of denying that God became human in Christ or of saying that Christ’s divinity is “a poetic metaphor, beautiful but unreal,” the archbishop said.”
However, because dialogue presumes that participants, in an atmosphere of respect for others, are sharing who they are and what they believe, he said,** interreligious dialogue can “create a context where it also is possible to witness to faith in Jesus Christ.”
**
****“It would be lying,” he said, to hide one’s faith in Jesus “in the name of a ‘politically correct’ dialogue.”
****catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1204591.htm
"Even though these people are not SSPX constituents, they really need to stop and think that the requirements for the SSPX are not different than what they are for the rest of us. We’re also bound by the same authority.
Before anyone cries “infallibility”, the pope does not have to speak infallibly to invoke his authority and his power over the Catholic world. The Ordinary Magisterium can also speak infallibly. In this case, if Bishop Fellay’s report on the response that he received from Pope Benedict is accurate, it looks like Pope Benedict just pulled the “boss card.”
People can claim that the boss is mistaken. However, until the boss commands us to violate the Commandments, he has the last word. Saint Benedict, the Master on Obedience always said that obedience was not about being right, but about the right to govern. The right to govern is lost only when you command what is immoral. Even then, we can only disobey the immoral command, not the rest. St. Francis takes it to the next level. It is not we who decide what is and is not a sin. It is the Church. St. Teresa of Avila takes it further.** A child of the Church cannot attempt to govern the Church. One cannot be both parent and child. Often, we see ourselves as children of the Church with the right to tell the mother how to do things. In a typical household, this would be a child labeled as oppositional-defiant."**
Nostra Aetate is one of the VII documents much criticized by the SSPX (even though Archbishop Lefebvre did sign this at the Council) as are the talks at Assissi:
"In an essay published Oct. 11, the eve of the 50th anniversary of the opening of the Second Vatican Council, Pope Benedict XVI wrote about the ongoing importance of “Nostra Aetate” for Catholics in increasingly multi-religious societies.
"Archbishop Muller, in his Assisi speech of Oct 29, said that “to respect the religious conscience of humanity, in fact, does not mean forgetting that historical religions also present obstacles, as well as sick and disturbed forms of religion.”
“Saying that all religions basically are similar actually means “negating or doubting the possibility of real communication between God and human beings,” Archbishop Muller said, because the truths of Judeo-Christian faith are not human inventions, but the result of God’s revelation.”
“Not believing that Christ’s death and resurrection make Christianity unique among religions is, in essence, the equivalent of denying that God became human in Christ or of saying that Christ’s divinity is “a poetic metaphor, beautiful but unreal,” the archbishop said.”
However, because dialogue presumes that participants, in an atmosphere of respect for others, are sharing who they are and what they believe, he said,** interreligious dialogue can “create a context where it also is possible to witness to faith in Jesus Christ.”
**
****“It would be lying,” he said, to hide one’s faith in Jesus “in the name of a ‘politically correct’ dialogue.”
****catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1204591.htm
F
Faithdancer
Guest
I thought that the response of SSPX (thus far) to the statements of Archbishop Mueller was less reactive then I might have expected- sspx.org/sspx_and_rome/is_the_sspx_heretical_1_11-30_2012.htm
F
Faithdancer
Guest
What if Pope Benedict were to ordain a new SSPX Bishop himself? I know this sounds completely far-fetched, but what if? Could he do so and if so, and he did so, how would that change the dynamic and the dialogue?The difference is not the law. The difference is the pope. It was Pope Benedict who first said that if the SSPX does not come home, it can lead to a break that will do incredible damage. It was also the pope who told an interviewer that if they ordained another bishop, they would be denying the the authority of the pope and breaking with the Primacy. It is Pope Benedict who has said that he and only he can decide what is and is not part of tradition. This is de fide. It is the pope who has asked them to come home. They would be turning their back on him.
One can do something that places one outside of the physical Church or in schism or one can do something that motivates the pope to jettison you out of the Catholic Church.
After everything that Rome has done to bring back the SSPX, such an ordination would be a slap across the Holy Father’s face. That’s much different from the first time around. The Holy Father said so in an interview a few years ago, right after he lifted the excommunication.
Pope Benedict is not Bl. John Paul II. Bl. John Paul waited, prayed and hoped that people would come around if he showed them patience and charity. Pope Benedict is patient and charitable, but his limit is not as ample as that of Bl. John Paul.
All we have to do is look at what he did to the preamble to which Cardinal Levada and Bishop Fellay had agreed. Unknown to either one of them, he edited it and then had it sent to Bishop Fellay. That’s the action of a man who is putting his foot down.
That’s the big difference between now and then. This is a different pope and we know that the law is subject to the pope, not the pope to the law.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
J
Justin_Swanton
Guest
To sum up: if a Pope keeps patience with a disobedient flock, they are not schismatic; if he loses patience with them, they are.The difference is not the law. The difference is the pope. It was Pope Benedict who first said that if the SSPX does not come home, it can lead to a break that will do incredible damage. It was also the pope who told an interviewer that if they ordained another bishop, they would be denying the the authority of the pope and breaking with the Primacy. It is Pope Benedict who has said that he and only he can decide what is and is not part of tradition. This is de fide. It is the pope who has asked them to come home. They would be turning their back on him.
One can do something that places one outside of the physical Church or in schism or one can do something that motivates the pope to jettison you out of the Catholic Church.
After everything that Rome has done to bring back the SSPX, such an ordination would be a slap across the Holy Father’s face. That’s much different from the first time around. The Holy Father said so in an interview a few years ago, right after he lifted the excommunication.
Pope Benedict is not Bl. John Paul II. Bl. John Paul waited, prayed and hoped that people would come around if he showed them patience and charity. Pope Benedict is patient and charitable, but his limit is not as ample as that of Bl. John Paul.
All we have to do is look at what he did to the preamble to which Cardinal Levada and Bishop Fellay had agreed. Unknown to either one of them, he edited it and then had it sent to Bishop Fellay. That’s the action of a man who is putting his foot down.
That’s the big difference between now and then. This is a different pope and we know that the law is subject to the pope, not the pope to the law.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
With respect, this seems a rather arbitrary definition of schism, depending as it does on the personality of the reigning Pope. There must be some objective criteria by which one can determine that so-and-so is in fact schismatic. I see as one criterion the rejection of the principle of Church authority, as opposed to the rejection of a particular exercise of that authority. Are there any other criteria I am unaware of?
Rejecting any act of the Church’s Magisterium would, I think, constitute a schismatic act. Does the SSPX officially and definitively reject Vatican II? As seen elsewhere, one can criticize certain portions of the conciliar texts that are not of the Magisterium, and one can ask for an interpretation, in the light of Tradition, of other problematic texts. This does not constitute a rejection of the Council. Bishop Fellay’s latest sermons seem however to imply a rejection of the Council as such, but I don’t know if they are to be taken as the official and definitive position of the SSPX.
J
Justin_Swanton
Guest
and
A
Aramis
Guest
Canon-law defines: 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.
A group can, as the “Old Catholics” (and the Anglicans before them) did, declare itself free of Rome. At that point, even the popes must bow to practical reality.
A group can, as the Mariavites did, refuse to accept that it lacks jurisdiction, and establish itself as a parallel church claiming jurisdiction it nominally lacks. Specifically, in establishing a diocese without patriarchal approval, one is usurping and denying the authority of that patriarch. (Establishing dioceses is a patriarchal perogative within traditional lands.) Likewise, the Mariavites sought illicit ordination of a bishop (going to the Old Catholics for their Apostolic Lineage) in order to establish their parallel church.
J
Justin_Swanton
Guest
True, but some canons require a little explanation, hence canon lawyers. I’m trying to get a handle on the exact meaning of ‘refusal of submission’. It could range from a single act of disobedience all the way up to a rejection of the Pope’s right to command. ‘Communion with the members of the Church’ can also run through a whole gamut of meanings.
So far, despite everything that has happened over the past 40 years, the Popes have not declared the SSPX to be schismatic, which would seem to imply that resistance to Papal authority must be of quite a radical nature before one enters into a schismatic state.
I’m looking for clarification on this issue, founded on the Church’s practice. In the past schismatics usually became so either by denying the Pope’s universal jurisdiction or by rejecting a recently defined dogma. The SSPX would seem to be a special case as it has thus far done neither.
A
Aramis
Guest
They are a special case, in that they haven’t made a clear act that would establish a separate church. Unlike the OC’s, they haven’t told Rome to go away. Unlike the Mariavites, they haven’t established new dioceses, nor have they usurped an old one and expanded its territorial authority past its Rome-recognized borders, unlike what happened with some other schismatic groups.
They are, however, in open, visible, disobedience. They don’t deny Rome’s technical authority. They just refuse to obey all the rules.
It’s kind of like a recent situation with a friend’s teenage son. He doesn’t deny that his mom has the right to set rules in her home, nor does he deny she’s his mother, nor that he loves her and she him; he does openly defy those rules, and until he went too far, was allowed to stay in the home. Now, he openly broke the rules in front of his younger siblings, and she demanded he admit the error of his actions or leave. In his case, he left. He’s still part of the family, and there’s a hole. And, while he can mend that hole, if he wants to move back in, he has to agree to obey the rules.
F
Faithdancer
Guest
Interesting analogy.
Again, what if the Pope took matters into his own hands and consecrated a new SSPX bishop himself? Who would he choose, and how? How might it play out, and what might the consequences be? I can think of a wide range of possibilities…
Again, what if the Pope took matters into his own hands and consecrated a new SSPX bishop himself? Who would he choose, and how? How might it play out, and what might the consequences be? I can think of a wide range of possibilities…
- Status