SSPX update?

[pnewton]

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

• PAX

Should you choose to return, and as a note for those who stay here. I think arriving at a point of legitimate disagreement is really quite an achievement and one seldom achieved. Once we have gotten past definitions of terms (quite a feat) and the rhetoric, sometimes we disagree. As laypeople on the sidelines, there is a lot a leeway for disagreement, though there are limits that define orthodoxy. What is the old saying about unity in essentials, liberty in non-essentials and in all things charity?

PS - I have seen a lot of things abrasive here. I do not see where you have wiggled the charity meter too much. Thank you for all your (name removed by moderator)ut.

 

[JM3]

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.

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.

Ecclesia Dei

5…c) in the present circumstances i wish especially to make an appeal both solemn and heartfelt, paternal and fraternal, to all those who until now have been linked in various ways to the movement of archbishop lefebvre, that they may fulfil the grave duty of remaining united to the vicar of christ in the unity of the catholic church, and of ceasing their support in any way for that movement. Everyone should be aware that formal adherence to the schism is a grave offence against god and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the church’s law.(8)

How does one incur a latae sententiae excommunication (Canon 1364) and still be in “full” communion?

 

[Faithdancer]

This brings me to tears: youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=c32brXXx5k8&NR=1

I shall redouble my prayers for full reconciliation of the SSPX. These are devout Catholics, and must be reunited.

 

[Dee_S]

Should you choose to return, and as a note for those who stay here. I think arriving at a point of legitimate disagreement is really quite an achievement and one seldom achieved. Once we have gotten past definitions of terms (quite a feat) and the rhetoric, sometimes we disagree. As laypeople on the sidelines, there is a lot a leeway for disagreement, though there are limits that define orthodoxy. What is the old saying about unity in essentials, liberty in non-essentials and in all things charity?

PS - I have seen a lot of things abrasive here. I do not see where you have wiggled the charity meter too much. Thank you for all your (name removed by moderator)ut.

:thankyou:I ‘second’ that. as to wiggling the charity meter, I’m sure none of us actually intend to do so…

 

[Dee_S]

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…

this is a very good point - it does appear that the patience and kindness of the Pope does play a big part at the end of the day.

---

Ecclesia Dei* commission**
"At the same time, the Pope set up the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia dei to help SSPX members and adherents who wished “to remain united to the Successor of Peter in the Catholic Church while preserving their spiritual and liturgical traditions” to enter “full ecclesial communion”.[5]

This Commission has issued many formal written clarifications about the canonical situation of people involved with the Society of St. Pius X."

“Apart from these formal statements, the Commission’s President, Cardinal Darío Castrillón Hoyos, who has long favored better relations between the society and the Holy See, commented in press and television interviews about the situation of the members of the Society. In one such interview, he said that the 1988 consecrations gave rise to a situation of separation, even if not a formal schism.[14]** While the members of the Society were not, in the full strict sense, in schism, they lacked full communion,** and the consecrations indicated a schismatic attitude.[15] While, in consecrating the bishops, Lefebvre committed a schismatic act, the members and adherents of the Society could not be called schismatics, but they were in great danger of falling into schism;.…”
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canonical_situation_of_the_Society_of_St._Pius_X

 

[JReducation]

Ecclesia Dei

How does one incur a latae sententiae excommunication (Canon 1364) and still be in “full” communion?

If you’re excommunicated you’re not in full communion with the Church. You are still a Catholic. This confuses people, because many folks believe that to be excommunicated is like being expelled from a club or a membership. It’s not.

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 indeed, very strange.

I think that people get very passionate and when they do get passionate, it is difficult to maintain objectivity. For this reason in traditional religious communities we teach our men and women not to have feelings for anything, not to have opinions other than those of the Church, not to desire or wish for anything. I’m talking about truly traditional communities, not the break-away communities that call themselves traditional. If you’re traditional, you don’t break away because you disagree with the Church. In a traditional community, you have no opinions unless the superior grants you the right to have one. It’s like the military. The method works, because it allows us to look at a situation like this and say: “This is good and that’s horrible” or “You’ll get rewarded for this, but you’re in serious trouble for that.” You have no feelings for the subject at hand. You try very hard not to feel. When he was Cardinal Ratzinger, he was one of my professors. He always said that the one thing that he had learned from male religious was the ability to put distance form themselves and their opinions.

Unless the person can do this, he’s going to have a tough time admitting that there are consequences for certain actions that the object of his love and respect is culpable.

I’m afraid you are the one that is mistaken here Dee. A layman cannot be canonically irregular.

Actually, there are situations in which a layman can be canonically irregular. Irregular is not the most common term. It’s term that was coined by Pope Benedict. The common term was “out of compliance.” A layman who marries after a divorce is canonically irregular. He’s not excommunicated, since the Code of 1983 no longer excommunicates for this, but he has not canonical right to the sacraments other than Anointing of the Sick.

A priest or a brother who is laicised is a canonically irregular layman. We don’t actually become laymen. We live as laymen the rest of our lives. However, you may never participate in any apostolic work of the Church without the permission of the local bishop, that means not even teaching CCD. We’re talking here about someone who leaves with a dispensation.

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.

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.

This is a very unrealistic position that they take. The Law Giver is Christ, but Christ gives the law to Peter. The law comes from Peter’s heart, where Christ has placed it. There is no law, no pope, no council, no authority on earth that can dictate Church law except the reigning pope. This was established by St. Boniface.

Many of these people are struggling because the Code of 1983 doesn’t say this or that which reflects what a previous pope has written or a previous council had said. Unless it was a matter of revealed dogma or revealed moral law, the reigning pope is not bound by his predecessors. Even if something was good for 1500 years, if it’s not revealed, the reigning pope is not obliged to include it in the law.

St. Boniface said that it was highly recommended that the pope consult with layers, since most popes are not lawyers. However, in the end, it is the pope who signs and promulgates the law.

Pope Benedict just added some canons to Canon Law that went into effect on December 10. Some of them are not very traditional and are very different from what Bl. John Paul would have said. But Bl John Paul is no longer pope. The only things by Bl. John Paul that bind us is that which has not been abrogated by Pope Benedict XVI, which is almost everything.

Canonical tradition works very differently from liturgical tradition. Liturgical tradition has an organic quality to it. Canonical tradition is very subjective. It is subject to the faith of the pope.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Dee_S]

I think that people get very passionate and when they do get passionate, it is difficult to maintain objectivity. For this reason in traditional religious communities we teach our men and women not to have feelings for anything, not to have opinions other than those of the Church, not to desire or wish for anything. I’m talking about truly traditional communities, not the break-away communities that call themselves traditional.** If you’re traditional, you don’t break away because you disagree with the Church**. In a traditional community, you have no opinions unless the superior grants you the right to have one. It’s like the military. The method works, because it allows us to look at a situation like this and say: “This is good and that’s horrible” or “You’ll get rewarded for this, but you’re in serious trouble for that.” You have no feelings for the subject at hand. You try very hard not to feel.** When he was Cardinal Ratzinger, he was one of my professors. He always said that the one thing that he had learned from male religious was the ability to put distance form themselves and their opinions. **

Unless the person can do this, he’s going to have a tough time admitting that there are consequences for certain actions that the object of his love and respect is culpable.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

Nicely put Brother. It is a great pity that the break-away’s consider that “Faith is greater than Obedience”. There was a book by this name that was well circulated in the SSPX to justify their stand.

 

[Rich_C]

Ecclesia Dei

5…c) in the present circumstances i wish especially to make an appeal both solemn and heartfelt, paternal and fraternal, to all those who until now have been linked in various ways to the movement of archbishop lefebvre, that they may fulfil the grave duty of remaining united to the vicar of christ in the unity of the catholic church, and of ceasing their support in any way for that movement. Everyone should be aware that formal adherence to the schism is a grave offence against god and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the church’s law

No argument, but it doesn’t say that any laity that assist at SSPX Masses incur a latae sententiae excommunication, does it?

First, the society was not declared to be in schism by this document (the Holy Father could have but showed clemency instead) so the reference to schism sounds like a line in the sand to go no further, not a statement that the laity has already crossed the line.

Second is the issue of how the Holy Father meant by “formal adherence.” It’s not defined as simply assisting at SSPX Masses, as far as I can tell. Logically, Third Order members of the SSPX seem to fit this description of “formal adherence,” but Joe Catholic in the pew? I say its far from clear, so how can a grave penalty be assumed? Safer not to assume that.

Third, in historical context we know of formal excommunications of SSPX attendees have been overturned by the Vatican, which flies in the face of an interpretation that they had already excommunicated themselves.

The Church has been very lenient to the laity here. There’s no reason to sidetrack the conversation with exaggerations about their situation.

 

[Boulder257]

The Church has been very lenient to the laity here. There’s no reason to sidetrack the conversation with exaggerations about their situation.

Let’s not mistake Her leniancy for approval.

 

[giuseppeTO]

Actually, there are situations in which a layman can be canonically irregular. Irregular is not the most common term. It’s term that was coined by Pope Benedict. The common term was “out of compliance.” A layman who marries after a divorce is canonically irregular. He’s not excommunicated, since the Code of 1983 no longer excommunicates for this, but he has not canonical right to the sacraments other than Anointing of the Sick.

A priest or a brother who is laicised is a canonically irregular layman. We don’t actually become laymen. We live as laymen the rest of our lives. However, you may never participate in any apostolic work of the Church without the permission of the local bishop, that means not even teaching CCD. We’re talking here about someone who leaves with a dispensation.

Thanks for the clarification BJR. Your examples do not sound like they apply to those who attend Mass at a Society chapel. I do certainly understand how one can be non-compliant with either canon law or the teachings of the Magisterium.

 

[JReducation]

Thanks for the clarification BJR. Your examples do not sound like they apply to those who attend Mass at a Society chapel. I do certainly understand how one can be non-compliant with either canon law or the teachings of the Magisterium.

I wasn’t trying to speak to the layman at an SSPX mass. I was responding to the statement, “There is no such thing as a canonically irregular layman.”

I guess that if I were to apply this to those who attend the mass at an SSPX chapel, a canon lawyer or a bishop can certainly raise some valid questions about canonical compliance (regularity to use Pope Benedict’s term) in the case of the layman who passes up the EF offered by the diocese, a religious or an FSSP priest to attend the mass at the SSPX chapel. That would certainly raise red flags about motive for attending the mass at the Society chapel. If the motive is solidarity with the Society, then there is a possibility of canonical non-compliance, which would place one in an irregular situation.

The directives have been very clear both overtly and subtly. In a letter that came out of the Ecclesia Dei Commission that has never been revoked, it discouraged the attendance at masses at the SSPX chapels. In the UE the Holy Father said that any group could apply to the bishop for an EF mass, except those who have been attending masses that are not approved by the Holy See. The SSPX masses are not approved by the Holy See, because the priests are celebrating them illegally. There are not that many groups in an irregular situation. It was very easy to read between the lines as to whom the Pope was referring without mentioning names.

This raises a canonical question. If such persons cannot apply to their local bishop for an EF mass, as long as they are in attendance at an SSPX chapel, why is that?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV :christree1:

 

[Rich_C]

Let’s not mistake Her leniancy for approval.

No confusion there.

 

[JM3]

No argument, but it doesn’t say that any laity that assist at SSPX Masses incur a latae sententiae excommunication, does it?

First, the society was not declared to be in schism by this document (the Holy Father could have but showed clemency instead) so the reference to schism sounds like a line in the sand to go no further, not a statement that the laity has already crossed the line.

Second is the issue of how the Holy Father meant by “formal adherence.” It’s not defined as simply assisting at SSPX Masses, as far as I can tell. Logically, Third Order members of the SSPX seem to fit this description of “formal adherence,” but Joe Catholic in the pew? I say its far from clear, so how can a grave penalty be assumed? Safer not to assume that.

Third, in historical context we know of formal excommunications of SSPX attendees have been overturned by the Vatican, which flies in the face of an interpretation that they had already excommunicated themselves.

The Church has been very lenient to the laity here. There’s no reason to sidetrack the conversation with exaggerations about their situation.

You would be correct that ‘it doesn’t say that any laity that assist at SSPX Masses incur a latae sententiae excommunication’.

As for the SSPX not being declared in schism, you may be correct. However, I would like to point out that the document says “formal adherence to the schism” and not “to any schism”, which would indicate to me that there is a schism.

As to excommunications being overturned, you give no references. May I ask how they were overturned? Were they told they were never excommunicated or no longer excommunicated?

It is not my intention to exaggerate the situation of the laity, but the document does say that we are not to support the movement in any way. Is it a schismatic act to disobey the Pope on this? Are we not to avoid the near occasions of sin?

 

[Rich_C]

You would be correct that ‘it doesn’t say that any laity that assist at SSPX Masses incur a latae sententiae excommunication’.

QFT.

As for the SSPX not being declared in schism, you may be correct. However, I would like to point out that the document says “formal adherence to the schism” and not “to any schism”, which would indicate to me that there is a schism.

You don’t have to take my word for it. Br. JR has gone over this and shown how they are not yet in schism.

As to excommunications being overturned, you give no references. May I ask how they were overturned? Were they told they were never excommunicated or no longer excommunicated?

Fair enough, but I don’t have the time. Google Hawaii Five + SSPX for the story.

It is not my intention to exaggerate the situation of the laity, but the document does say that we are not to support the movement in any way. Is it a schismatic act to disobey the Pope on this? Are we not to avoid the near occasions of sin?

Your intention makes no difference if you mislead people on the Internet who do not know better. You can very easily warn everyone that the Church says we should avoid SSPX Masses without going into falsehoods. Let’s stick to the facts.

 

[Moore11]

You would be correct that ‘it doesn’t say that any laity that assist at SSPX Masses incur a latae sententiae excommunication’.

As for the SSPX not being declared in schism, you may be correct. However, I would like to point out that the document says “formal adherence to the schism” and not “to any schism”, which would indicate to me that there is a schism.

As to excommunications being overturned, you give no references. May I ask how they were overturned? Were they told they were never excommunicated or no longer excommunicated?

It is not my intention to exaggerate the situation of the laity, but the document does say that we are not to support the movement in any way. Is it a schismatic act to disobey the Pope on this? Are we not to avoid the near occasions of sin?

How do you presume to know about the SSPX but yet do not know about the Excommunications being lifted? without all the rhetorical questions, positioning, and fancy maneuvering, what is your point?

 

[Boulder257]

How do you presume to know about the SSPX but yet do not know about the Excommunications being lifted? without all the rhetorical questions, positioning, and fancy maneuvering, what is your point?

I think they are speaking of laypeople, not the four Bishops who were illicitly ordained.

 

[pnewton]

Is it a schismatic act to disobey the Pope on this? Are we not to avoid the near occasions of sin?

No. It is not a schismatic act to disobey the Pope except in a handful of situations, like ordaining you own bishops without approval. The only acts that would be schismatic are those aimes at establishing one’s own Church and hieracrhy. Even then, the schismatic act does not equate to schism. They Church has never said the SSPX is in schism, so we should not, if we wish to be faithful, honest and charitable.

 

[Boulder257]

QFT.

QUOTE]

You’re going to have to help me…what is QFT?

 

[Megan7]

This brings me to tears: youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=c32brXXx5k8&NR=1

I shall redouble my prayers for full reconciliation of the SSPX. These are devout Catholics, and must be reunited.

 

[EcceAgnusDei]

As to excommunications being overturned, you give no references. May I ask how they were overturned? Were they told they were never excommunicated or no longer excommunicated?

Here is the page on the SSPX website that deals with the issue. While the website is of course going to be biased to the SSPX, the page does contain scanned copies of the official documents for your perusal. Here is the official letter signed by Cardinal Ratzinger.

To answer the question directly, the excommunications were not lifted. They were declared null and void, which means they were never truly excommunicated.

• PAX