SSPX update?

[Boulder257]

QFT.

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.

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

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.

You’re going to have to help me on three points if you would be so kind:

1. I have no idea what QFT is, would you mind explaining?
2. In the case of the Hawaii Five, the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith overturned one excommunication saying the person, “did not commit the crime of schism.” I cannot find anywhere where the Congregation said laity were allowed, or not allowed, to support the SSPX. It appears as though this particular case dealt with one person, one situation, one place, and one moment in time. Am I missing something?
3. The document provided by the congregation did state that the actions of the individual were “blameworthy on several accounts” but “not worthy of excommunication.” Is our goal, as followers of Christ and His Church, to just avoid excommunication or are we called to something a little higher than that?

 

[Boulder257]

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

I appreciate the link. Although, as you point out, these include the SSPX’s interpretation of not only the documents but also their implication. I think it’s probably fair to say they may not be approaching it with the same mindset as the Church.

 

[JReducation]

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.

Slow down here. There is a problem here, maybe two problems. In Romance Languages, you can refer to a specific schismatic act as “the schism” and everyone understand what you mean by context. This is still the case in Italian, Spanish and Portuguese. The same is true of the mother of Romance Languages, Latin.

The schism refers to the ordination of the bishops. There is a subject to this sentence, which is not the ordination of the bishops. The subject is the “formal adherence”. In our language this would apply to those who would assume the same position as Archbishop Lefebvre and say that the ordination of the four bishops (the schism) is not a schismatic act at all, but a necessary act, because the pope has lost control of the Church. That’s what the statement is referring to. It is a followup to what Pope Paul VI had already said to the Archbishop. He had challenged the Archbishop reminding him that his position seemed to assume that Peter could not command the bark, so he was going to do it himself. That kind of mindset is schismatic and the product was a schismatic ordination.

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?

The excommunications overturned never happened and I wish that traditionalists would stop saying this. It’s not true. The excommunications were lifted. Overturning happens when there is a hearing and a higher authority says that they are not legal. Since the excommunications were built into the law, one would have to put the law on trial and that’s not possible. The law says that the penalty for ordaining a bishop without a papal mandate is excommunication. There is nothing to appeal. You can’t say that the law is wrong unless you put the law of trial. Pope Benedict lifted the excommunications at the request of the four bishops and he said so.
**
This gesture was possible once the interested parties had expressed their recognition in principle of the Pope and his authority as Pastor, albeit with some reservations in the area of obedience to his doctrinal authority and to the authority of the Council. Here I return to the distinction between individuals and institutions. The remission of the excommunication was a measure taken in the field of ecclesiastical discipline: the individuals were freed from the burden of conscience constituted by the most serious of ecclesiastical penalties.

LETTER OF HIS HOLINESS POPE BENEDICT XVI
TO THE BISHOPS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
concerning the remission of the excommunication
of the four Bishops consecrated by Archbishop Lefebvre
**

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?

It is a schismatic act when the individual supports the ideology of the Lefebvrist Movement. Allow me to clarify. I was reading another site that is very traditionalist, some posters I would describe a radical traditionalists. It is about them that I’d like to speak. There are among them some who have said that if Bishop Williamson starts his own movement, they will go with him rather than follow Bishop Fellay back to Rome. That’s formal adherence to schism.

It is not a schismatic act to attend the masses, like their homilies and like the priests.

I hope this helps at least a little bit.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV :christmastree1:

 

[Lormar]

Brother, are you allowed to receive Holy Communion if you attend a Mass there?

 

[EcceAgnusDei]

The excommunications overturned never happened and I wish that traditionalists would stop saying this.

Just to clarify, the question was being asked about the laity in Hawaii who were “excommunicated” by their Bishop for supporting the SSPX (erecting a chapel, etc). The question was not about the excommunication of the Bishops. In the case being asked about (the laity), the excommunications were overturned, not lifted. The excommunications were declared null and void. See my post above that contains a link to the official documents from the Vatican.

• PAX

 

[Moore11]

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

my bad…

 

[pnewton]

Overturned vs. lifted. Interesting difference. Still, I think it is a big jump from not being excommnicated to being “okay”. Adultery is not okay, but it doesn’t ex-communicate you.

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

Overturned vs. lifted. Interesting difference. Still, I think it is a big jump from not being excommnicated to being “okay”. Adultery is not okay, but it doesn’t ex-communicate you.

Excommunication is refusal of communion. Adultery, as a mortal sin (unconfessed) actually does excommunicate you, right? Am I missing something (again)?

 

[Moore11]

Excommunication is refusal of communion. Adultery, as a mortal sin (unconfessed) actually does excommunicate you, right? Am I missing something (again)?

Yes, excommunication does not just mean you are not in communion but rather is a legal state. It is a canonical situation. Being in the state of mortal sin (adultery) is not the same as Excommunication. Both may mean you may not receive but both are different.

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

Yes, excommunication does not just mean you are not in communion but rather is a legal state. It is a canonical situation. Being in the state of mortal sin (adultery) is not the same as Excommunication. Both may mean you may not receive but both are different.

Ahh, OK. Thank you

 

[JReducation]

Just to clarify, the question was being asked about the laity in Hawaii who were “excommunicated” by their Bishop for supporting the SSPX (erecting a chapel, etc). The question was not about the excommunication of the Bishops. In the case being asked about (the laity), the excommunications were overturned, not lifted. The excommunications were declared null and void. See my post above that contains a link to the official documents from the Vatican.

• PAX

1. Sorry about my dementia. I thought we were still speaking about the bishops. The case in Hawaii was a case of appeal and overrule.
2. The person who asked if we can receive Holy Communion at an SSPX chapel, the answer is affirmative.
3. On the question of excommunication and grave sin, the difference as Moore correctly pointed out, excommunication is a canonical penalty. It does not describe the state of your soul. You can be a saint and be excommunicated. St. Joan of Arc died excommunicated. It was overturned after her death. Not all excommunications are a result of grave sin. If you punch the pope in the nose, it’s an automatic excommunication. However, the Church admits that punching someone in the nose is not a grave sin. If you beat someone to a pulp, we’re talking about abuse. That’s a grave sin. If the Ratzinger brothers got into an argument and lost their tempers and Fr. Ratzinger punched Pope Benedict in the nose, he would be excommunicated automatically. Of course his brother can lift the excommunication, after he wipes his bloody nose. But no intelligent moral theologian would say that Father Ratzinger committed a mortal sin.

Hmmm . . . that would be an interesting fight to see considering that both men are up in years.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV :christmastree1:

 

[Moore11]

1. Sorry about my dementia. I thought we were still speaking about the bishops. The case in Hawaii was a case of appeal and overrule.
2. The person who asked if we can receive Holy Communion at an SSPX chapel, the answer is affirmative.
3. On the question of excommunication and grave sin, the difference as Moore correctly pointed out, excommunication is a canonical penalty. It does not describe the state of your soul. You can be a saint and be excommunicated. St. Joan of Arc died excommunicated. It was overturned after her death. Not all excommunications are a result of grave sin. If you punch the pope in the nose, it’s an automatic excommunication. However, the Church admits that punching someone in the nose is not a grave sin. If you beat someone to a pulp, we’re talking about abuse. That’s a grave sin. If the Ratzinger brothers got into an argument and lost their tempers and Fr. Ratzinger punched Pope Benedict in the nose, he would be excommunicated automatically. Of course his brother can lift the excommunication, after he wipes his bloody nose. But no intelligent moral theologian would say that Father Ratzinger committed a mortal sin.

Hmmm . . . that would be an interesting fight to see considering that both men are up in years.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV :christmastree1:

Hey, could you please tell me where the Church teaches that punching someone is not a mortal sin? Aside from our eastern bretherens story of St Nicholas and a certain heretic how do we know it is not a mortal sin. Seriously. Where is that teaching. It might come in handy for me someday…

 

[pnewton]

All of this, boys and girls, is why canon lawyers get rich. (or is that just regular lawyers? hmm) Okay, they do not get rich, but they are needed. This stuff gets complicated. If I have learned nothing else I have learned that words used in the Church are very precise, very specific and not easily interchangable. It is kind of like all English used to be before the days of the internet, texting, tweeting, etc.

 

[Moore11]

All of this, boys and girls, is why canon lawyers get rich. (or is that just regular lawyers? hmm) Okay, they do not get rich, but they are needed. This stuff gets complicated. If I have learned nothing else I have learned that words used in the Church are very precise, very specific and not easily interchangable. It is kind of like all English used to be before the days of the internet, texting, tweeting, etc.

Well, now the pope has twitter so get ready for some serious LOLing

 

[JM3]

QFT.

I don’t know what this means.

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.

I ask a simple question because I don’t know the answer to it and everyone jumps down my throat for it. Since the question has been answered, I will stop asking any more questions and just withdraw.

 

[choliks]

I don’t know what this means.

QFT means Quoted For The Truth. IOW, he agreed to what you said.

 

[Boulder257]

I don’t know what this means.

I ask a simple question because I don’t know the answer to it and everyone jumps down my throat for it. Since the question has been answered, I will stop asking any more questions and just withdraw.

Don’t let people get to you. You never know what kind of day someone is having or even what tone they were inferring in their post. No need to withdrawal. So long as you are being charitable you have just as much right to honest and fruitful discussion as anyone else.

 

[Moore11]

I don’t know what this means.

I ask a simple question because I don’t know the answer to it and everyone jumps down my throat for it. Since the question has been answered, I will stop asking any more questions and just withdraw.

Sorry I was one of the throat jumpers. Turns out I didn’t even know what you were referring to.
And since your question prompted some good answers I dont think there is a need for you to withdraw!

 

[pnewton]

Don’t let people get to you. You never know what kind of day someone is having or even what tone they were inferring in their post.

Or how mussh to drunk one haaas beennn at, drinnkigm, you know…

PS - For the sake of all don’t drink and post. I know we have all made mistakes here and had to apologize. There is no reason why CAF is any different than life.

 

[Dee_S]

The schism refers to the ordination of the bishops. There is a subject to this sentence, which is not the ordination of the bishops. The subject is the “formal adherence”. In our language this would apply to those who would assume the same position as Archbishop Lefebvre and say that the ordination of the four bishops (the schism) is not a schismatic act at all, but a necessary act, because the pope has lost control of the Church. That’s what the statement is referring to. It is a followup to what Pope Paul VI had already said to the Archbishop. He had challenged the Archbishop reminding him that his position seemed to assume that Peter could not command the bark, so he was going to do it himself. That kind of mindset is schismatic and the product was a schismatic ordination.

“3. In itself, this act was one of disobedience to the Roman Pontiff in a very grave matter and of supreme importance for the unity of the church, such as is the ordination of bishops whereby the apostolic succession is sacramentally perpetuated. Hence such disobedience - which implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy - constitutes a schismatic act.(3) In performing such an act, notwithstanding the formal canonical warning sent to them by the Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops on 17 June last, Mons. Lefebvre and the priests Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta, have incurred the grave penalty of excommunication envisaged by ecclesiastical law.(4)”
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/motu_proprio/documents/hf_jp-ii_motu-proprio_02071988_ecclesia-dei_en.html

“It is a schismatic act when the individual supports the ideology of the Lefebvrist Movement. Allow me to clarify. I was reading another site that is very traditionalist, some posters I would describe a radical traditionalists. It is about them that I’d like to speak. There are among them some who have said that if Bishop Williamson starts his own movement, they will go with him rather than follow Bishop Fellay back to Rome. That’s formal adherence to schism.”

"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)"
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/motu_proprio/documents/hf_jp-ii_motu-proprio_02071988_ecclesia-dei_en.html

“It is not a schismatic act to attend the masses, like their homilies and like the priests.”

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

If a person continues to support (or worse) encourages others to endorse in any way the SSPX, in defiance of this “heartfelt appeal” of the Holy Father - then it is time to take his advice and do some “sincere reflection.”

"5. Faced with the situation that has arisen I deem it my duty to inform all the Catholic faithful of some aspects which this sad event has highlighted.

a) The outcome of the movement promoted by Mons. Lefebvre can and must be, for all the Catholic faithful, a motive for sincere reflection concerning their own fidelity to the Church’s Tradition, authentically interpreted by the ecclesiastical Magisterium, ordinary and extraordinary, especially in the Ecumenical Councils from Nicaea to Vatican II. ** From this reflection all should draw a renewed and efficacious conviction of the necessity of strengthening still more their fidelity by rejecting erroneous interpretations and arbitrary and unauthorized applications in matters of doctrine, liturgy and discipline**."
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/j...ii_motu-proprio_02071988_ecclesia-dei_en.html

Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV :christmastree1: