sspx

[bear06]

Santaro75,

If the SSPX’ers are disobedient to the Pope, thus excommunicated; then what about the dozens of Bishops and Cardinals that roam about this world who totally ignore the Pope?

.

Probably in material schism.

 

[mosher]

inter-communion which has been condemned by every Pope and Council until recently.

And has not ceased to be condemned. All know that it is a violation of canon law to hold comunio in sacris. Granted the level of rigidity on this is not as strong but the reception of the sacraments is still sacrosanct.

I speak as someone who witnessed the Vatican 2 revolution as a teenager and I keenly remember the feelings of loss and disorientation when, overnight, I was told that it’s OK to eat meat on Friday, St. Christopher never existed, the Mass is now in English and we don’t need Altar Boys to respond to any prayers anymore, anyone can now touch, without consecrated fingers, the Holy Eucharist. …]

While your experience is common among your age group I wonder some times if it is because of this that persons like yourself hold to groups like the SSPX because of the emotional attachment that came along with the perceived stability of the Church prior to Vatican II. I also mourn that priests and religious and even Bishops were so poorly formed in the faith prior to Vatican II that they did not understand Vatican II. However, the experience of a person who was born one year exactly after John Paul II was enthroned as Pope I can say that I don’t have such an experience. While it is a battle to fight against the modernists that do exist there is much orthodoxy out there and many fighting to work toward an authentic reading of Vatican II including an authentic liturgical reform - which was badly needed as everyone knew all the way back to Leo XIII.

I have many friends in the FSSP, ICK, as well as Indultarians. I will go to any of these Masses. My wife and several children are in the Novus Ordo and myself and several other children attend Traditional Mass and sacraments, exclusively. I was in the Novus Ordo much longer that being associated with Tradition so I feel that I do have a very keen insight into the Church as a whole. And, I had a front row seat for the implemenation of the Counciliar Reformation.

Again why I feel that it is an emotional knee jerk reaction to flee to groups like the SSPX. I find it difficult to understand the position that they hold because it is very intellectually dishonest and in fact it seems at times just triumphalism especially the American side of the SSPX.

You throw around the word “schism” like a weapon, and it does hurt. In this time of upheaval in the church, I would bet there is not one person in the SSPX who doesn’t daily worry about their salvation. I am one of those people. I beg the Lord to hear my prayers, accept my devotion, help me raise Catholic children, and forgive me if I have misinterpreted Canon Law. The fruits of Traditional worship seemed to have paid off a hundred-fold in my family. I take my children to Mass, we pray the rosary, we pray for reunification of the Church. We pray among people who believe and demonstrate by their reverence, that Our Lord physically rests in the Taberbacle. I can’t go into a modern church and tolerate the social club atmosphere in front of the Blessed Sacrament, no genuflecting, and Led Zepplin tee-shirts at Sunday Mass.

Again, it seems that it is not a matter of being with the SSPX but rather it seems that your experience in normalized parishes is a bad experience. I can’t say how upsetting that is to me and to others. However, we must always be careful not to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

I can’t rebut most of your schism accusations. I take consolation that Cardinal Hoyos has said what he has recently said that a schism does not exist and the church treats it as an internal matter. SSPX priests have recently been allowed to offer Mass at St. Peter’s. I feel and pray that there is a breakthrough at hand.

I too hope that a full reconciliation is made as I think that the SSPX has much to say and I fear that the SSPX has a tendency toward at least practical Jansenism which I worry about. But the fact remains that schism does exist but it seems that formal schism does not exist at least currently. Remember that schism cannot be legislated but rather it is an internal disposition that manifests itself through public acts. I fear that because of the definition of schism it is very hard to make blanket statements. However, the recent comments of Cardinal Hoyos does not contradict John Paul II but rather clarifies and narrows the discussion which is good because it shows that there have been fruits from the discussions thus far.

 

[Trident59]

“Material Schism”. OK, so then all that follow said Bishops are in “material schism”? Is that what I am to derive from that comment?

What conclusion may we arrive at if what you say is true. What difference between SSPX’ers and “material schismatics”?

Just curious.

 

[bear06]

“Material Schism”. OK, so then all that follow said Bishops are in “material schism”? Is that what I am to derive from that comment?

What conclusion may we arrive at if what you say is true. What difference between SSPX’ers and “material schismatics”?

Just curious.

I’m guessing that, as Ecclesia Dei states, those that* formally adhere* to the schism are probably in material schism too. There are many factors that come into play. That’s while “probably” is as firm as you can get unless the pope says “They are in schism”. And yes, this goes for the liberals as well as the conservatives. You get all kinds. You get the kind that say “I know that the Church teaches X but I reject it.” You get the “I know what the Church is saying but they are in error according to previous Magisteriums so I reject it because I’m really doing what the Church has always taught”. And you also get those who don’t know a thing about Church teaching and come from the “I think this is good”. There are probably a multitude of other degrees that fit in there too.

So there is a difference in why they have a schismatic mentality but it all comes down to the fact that they know the Church teaching but reject it for one reason or another. I doubt the third group is in schism because the don’t know they’re rejecting the Magisterium so I doubt they could be culpable.

 

[OSPX]

The SSPX is not shismatic. It is in a state of imperfect communion. They committed a shismatic act…but that does not render their congregations as shismatic groups. And they have not endangered their salvation as somone here has said…since their sacraments are still valid and their mortal sins are constantly being forgiven through confession.

The SSPV however, is shismatic.

 

[thistle]

The SSPX is not shismatic. It is in a state of imperfect communion. They committed a shismatic act…but that does not render their congregations as shismatic groups. And they have not endangered their salvation as somone here has said…since their sacraments are still valid and their mortal sins are constantly being forgiven through confession.

The SSPV however, is shismatic.

Read Ecclesia Dei.
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/motu_proprio/documents/hf_jp-ii_motu-proprio_02071988_ecclesia-dei_en.html

You are wrong. SSPX is in schism. It is not “imperfect communion”.
What the Pope says outranks anything a cardinal has said in an interview or opposing opinions of any forum members.

1. 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

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.

The last sentence in para c) applies to everyone, i.e. bishops, priests and congregations.

 

[bear06]

The SSPX is not shismatic. It is in a state of imperfect communion. They committed a shismatic act…but that does not render their congregations as shismatic groups. And they have not endangered their salvation as somone here has said…
The SSPV however, is shismatic.

A few things to comment on here. Their sacraments of marriage and confession are not valid. They must have faculties from the local ordinary to officiate these two sacraments. Ergo, if they have committed a mortal sin, they haven’t been forgiven which is just one of the dangers of SSPX.

This is canon law.

Can. 966 §1. The valid absolution of sins requires that the minister have, in addition to the power of orders, the faculty of exercising it for the faithful to whom he imparts absolution.

§2. A priest can be given this faculty either by the law itself or by a grant made by the competent authority according to the norm of ⇒ can. 969.
Can. 969 §1. The** local ordinary alone **is competent to confer upon any presbyters whatsoever the faculty to hear the confessions of any of the faithful. Presbyters who are members of religious institutes, however, are not to use the faculty without at least the presumed permission of their superior.

 

[bear06]

The SSPX is not shismatic. It is in a state of imperfect communion. They committed a shismatic act…but that does not render their congregations as shismatic groups. And they have not endangered their salvation as somone here has said…
The SSPV however, is shismatic.

A few things to comment on here. Their sacraments of marriage and confession are not valid. They must have faculties from the local ordinary to officiate these two sacraments. Ergo, if they have committed a mortal sin, they haven’t been forgiven which is just one of the dangers of SSPX.

This is canon law.

Can. 966 §1. The valid absolution of sins requires that the minister have, in addition to the power of orders, the faculty of exercising it for the faithful to whom he imparts absolution.

§2. A priest can be given this faculty either by the law itself or by a grant made by the competent authority according to the norm of ⇒ can. 969.
Can. 969 §1. The** local ordinary alone **is competent to confer upon any presbyters whatsoever the faculty to hear the confessions of any of the faithful. Presbyters who are members of religious institutes, however, are not to use the faculty without at least the presumed permission of their superior.

You are quite correct that their congregations aren’t automatically in schism. They must adhere to the schism and this wouldn’t be done in blanket fashion but on a case by case issue. That said, I believe they now have a third order (lay) and I’m sure many people think that Lefebvre’s schismatic act was just peachy. It must not be too terribly hard to adhere to the schism since the Pope warned that it’s a dangerous thing to be linked to them. Besides that, Bishop Bruskewitz’s excommunications of those attending SSPX in his diocese has been challenged and has stood with the Vatican.

 

[Kristopher]

Dear Reader:

Yesterday, Sun., I attended mass at an SSPX chapel.

What makes an SSPX mass schismatic. The simplest answer is the following: Ecclesia Dei and the legitimacy of it being Motu Propio.

What exactly is the act commited by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, after all, an arcbishop may ordain bishops, especially it would seem reasonable to assume within his own soceity. The Society of Saint Pius X came into existence within the Cathoic Church. It occurred at a time when Marcel Lefebvre returned from his mission work, excellent mission work, in Africa. He had been in Africa for enough yrs. to miss many changes occuring in a world that technologically was very primitive to our own in fact, the “Jet Set” by means of jet travel, was just coming into existence; so, travelling the globe by jet propulsion was a recent phenomenon peculiar to the wealthy.

He continued his practice of the Latin Mass (LM) when he returned to France, because it was what he knew. There was a controversey about this that upset Lefebvre, as stated: he simply was doing what he had always done–the education Marcel Lefebvre received largely from encyclicals from popes that condemned many errors at times when Karl Marx was becoming public, and when the Masonic Order was growing with those discharged in the US from service after WWII allowed him very clearly to identify, to assess with erudite expertise and veracity the events of the time upon return from Africa.

Additionally, Lefebvre himself had witnessed those who taught him in seminary in Rome, if I am not mistaken–he witnessed Communist and Masonic forces within seminaries, an infiltration acknowleged in encyclicals that I have read that Marcel Lefebvre read that are available to you at

vatican.va

this infiltration persecuted not only Lefebvre, but also those who taught him, actually assigning him and first those who taught him–to positions delayed beyond what should have been provided to them at the time earned that too, were beneath all too often the excellence of fidelity.

Some of you may recall, as I do, your witness of Pope John Paul II shot, on TV, then hospitalized. You might recall, as I do, the death of Pope John Paul I. I do not bring to you these points as matters of intrigue, but as points to establish an arguement that with the aforementioned paraphrases of Marcel Lefebvre’s own words, and the contents of encyclicals–some points that all of you should find reasonable and therefore, believable.

What makes Marcel Lefebvre and SSPX schismatic? I will find more specific sources to quote within the guidelines of this site another time. Nonetheless, it is a difficult question to answer largely for the reason that Pope John Paul II himself wanted to ordain these bishops. This Ecclesia Dei came four yrs. after Pope John Paul II was shot. He was a pope that many found shocking against their expectations after the death of Pope John Paul I that only eternity and those involved might ever unravel–those shocked expected a very liberal pope; they were disappointed.

There may in fact have been no schism, no excommunication at all, and the use of Motu Propio might very well have been a legal emphasis on the word “grave” frequently used, or at least as a matter of prominence in the writing of Ecclesia Dei–significant as a matter of intensity. Motu Propio is a form of law decidedly exclusive only to the authority of a pope, without council. Peculiar, when you look at the history of SSPX and the excellence of Marcel Lefebvre’s priestly service, and the context of attacks, such as abortion attested to by the late Dr. Bernard N. Nathanson in his narrative The Silent Scream.

Motu Propio historically from what I understand has been recognized as a rather derogatory form of law. What the word “derogatory” might mean is perhaps beyond my lack of education in law; nonetheless, Motu Propio is supposed to be signed by the pope, with a phrase that will essentially say, and this in contradiction to The Code of Canon Law, which Pope John Paull II wrote himself. Peculiar, I think.

I hope that I sufficiently answered your question from two points of view; there are actually a number of very well respected theologians at the time of this Ecclesia Dei whom are known and recognized, or were, authorities of Canon Law, perhaps both of Vatican II and of the Council of Trent, which saw nothing done either schismatic, or worthy of excommunication, and were there any such actual legal evidence to support the view; it might beyond any reasonable doubt be demonstrated that canon law itself exonerates SSPX, and Marcel Lefebvre, because laws made by popes, et. al. are void by mental conditions, or coercive powers, which undoubtedly existed during the papal reign of Pope John Paul II, and have a longstanding history of recognition by popes, at least 100 yrs., given by encyclicals.

Most sincerely,

Kristopher

 

[Kristopher]

A brief address to a concern about those going to Hell–there is no certainty of Heaven, among Catholics or anyone else.

For many yrs. in Japan, maybe 200 yrs. during a time of intense persecution in Japan, without any priests the faith was maintained by the faithful largely due to a Japanese translation of a book by a writer during the time that Spain commissioned Columbus to discover America; defeated the Moors after 800 yrs., and other phenomenal accomplishments–the author’s name is unfamiliar to me, Granada?, and the book was a favorite of many very prominent Catholic saints, Vincent De Paul, John, Therese, etc.: “The Sinner’s Guide”.

Salvation is not for Catholics, but for those whom love God, and keep His Commandments, not for all, but for many. Hell is very real. Glad you mention it. Purgatory is very real, too.

We are responsible for our own salvation.

We should be alive in the Catholic Church, not dead in it.

 

[mosher]

Motu Propio historically from what I understand has been recognized as a rather derogatory form of law. What the word “derogatory” might mean is perhaps beyond my lack of education in law; nonetheless, Motu Propio is supposed to be signed by the pope, with a phrase that will essentially say, and this in contradiction to The Code of Canon Law, which Pope John Paull II wrote himself. Peculiar, I think.

This is not quite correct. It is derogatory in the sense that it is done without council. Also what “that line” essentially says is “of my own authority” not in contradiction to Canon Law. Rather, it can be an addition or a subtraction to the Universal or Particular application of the law on a juridical person or group of persons.

I hope that I sufficiently answered your question from two points of view; there are actually a number of very well respected theologians at the time of this Ecclesia Dei whom are known and recognized, or were, authorities of Canon Law, perhaps both of Vatican II and of the Council of Trent, which saw nothing done either schismatic, or worthy of excommunication, and were there any such actual legal evidence to support the view;

Unfortunately this demonstrates the poor training of those priests and “experts” prior to the Council. The Moto Proprio issued by Pope Pius XII that inserted the required mandate to ordain Bishops was a well established principle. Only poor education would argue otherwise as the only legal arguments that can be made are:

1. Grave necessity existed, and/or
2. The Moto Proprio was effectively overturned in the promulgation of the 1982 Code.

The second was obviously false and the first was deemed false by the Holy Father himself who has the right to determine such things as he is always free.

it might beyond any reasonable doubt be demonstrated that canon law itself exonerates SSPX, and Marcel Lefebvre, because laws made by popes, et. al. are void by mental conditions, or coercive powers, which undoubtedly existed during the papal reign of Pope John Paul II, and have a longstanding history of recognition by popes, at least 100 yrs., given by encyclicals.

This sounds very conspiratorial and is an argument from silence and thus void as a credible argument. Further, it is only for a later Pontiff to determine if legal actions taken by a previous Pontiff where valid or not. Thus far the only person with the power to make that determination has not varied from the position.

We are responsible for our own salvation.

And yet at the same time we are our brother’s keeper. Recall that formal excommunication means separation from heaven. It is the use of the Keys to bind. If one dies excommunicated and unrepentant it is impossible for them to enter heaven. We must never forget the seriousness of excommunication.

 

[giuseppeTO]

Unfortunately this demonstrates the poor training of those priests and “experts” prior to the Council.

This is quite a disturbing theory that prior to the Council, experts were poorly trained. I’m not sure Aquinas and the pre-conciliar Popes and Councils would agree. But somehow, those trained after 1969, were somehow better trained in Canon Law?

1. Grave necessity existed, and/or
2. The Moto Proprio was effectively overturned in the promulgation of the 1982 Code.

The second was obviously false and the first was deemed false by the Holy Father himself who has the right to determine such things as he is always free.

Since the Canon provides that there is an exception in the time of grave need, even if the gravity is only in the mind of the accused, I don’t see how the Pope can determine the mind and heart of Marcel Lefebvre, Bishop DeCastro-Meyer, or the consecrated Bishops. He could certainly decide whether the gravity existed, but not what the Archbishop believed. That would be in the hands of the Almighty.

 

[bear06]

Since the Canon provides that there is an exception in the time of grave need, even if the gravity is only in the mind of the accused, I don’t see how the Pope can determine the mind and heart of Marcel Lefebvre, Bishop DeCastro-Meyer, or the consecrated Bishops. He could certainly decide whether the gravity existed, but not what the Archbishop believed. That would be in the hands of the Almighty

I don’t think it’s correct to say that you can’t ever know what’s in someone else’s mind and heart. If the person tells you, you can. If you’re going to apply your above theory to Lefebvre then it would also have to be applied to Luther, Calvin and all of the schismatics in history.

Lefebvre claimed necessity and acted upon his supposed necessity and that showed he felt he was the arbiter of said necessity which, of course, is the popes jurisdiction, not Lefebvre.

 

[bear06]

This is quite a disturbing theory that prior to the Council, experts were poorly trained. I’m not sure Aquinas and the pre-conciliar Popes and Councils would agree. But somehow, those trained after 1969, were somehow better trained in Canon Law?

BTW, I think he was referring to all of those who had already started heading off the liberal way long before Vatican II. I’m not sure that he was speaking of all priests through all times.

 

[Kristopher]

bear06: "…If you’re going to apply your above theory to Lefebvre then it would also have to be applied to Luther, Calvin and all of the schismatics in history.

Lefebvre claimed necessity…"

Bear,

You are drawing a comparison between Lefebvre, Calvin, Luther and other schismatics across history: what characteristics are similar between at least Luther and Lefebvre with respect to schism, or even Calvin and Lefebvre?

Most sincerely,

Kristopher

 

[mosher]

This is quite a disturbing theory that prior to the Council, experts were poorly trained. I’m not sure Aquinas and the pre-conciliar Popes and Councils would agree. But somehow, those trained after 1969, were somehow better trained in Canon Law?

I am speaking about proximate “experts”. This was evident that the Bishops in council could not communicate with each other in Latin any longer. So, this problem of poor instruction did not begin with Vatican II but existed well before it.

Also, it is still a sparse selection of skilled “experts” on topics since the Council. There have been some strides to correct the near hundred years of poor instruction but we still haven’t seem adequate progress on a large scale.

Since the Canon provides that there is an exception in the time of grave need, even if the gravity is only in the mind of the accused, I don’t see how the Pope can determine the mind and heart of Marcel Lefebvre, Bishop DeCastro-Meyer, or the consecrated Bishops. He could certainly decide whether the gravity existed, but not what the Archbishop believed. That would be in the hands of the Almighty.

Correct and the Holy Father judged that no such grave necessity existed and yet the late Archbishop continued with the act that led to his and their excommunication. The issue of grave necessity cannot be in opposition to the Holy Father as the Holy Father is by definition always free. The issue of grave necessity is not a blank check for subjective disposition but rather it must be based in objective necessity. In this case the Supreme Legislator ruled against the late Archbishop and so under obedience Archbishop Lefebvre should have withdrawn. However, he held to his subjective perspective instead of objective truth.

 

[Kristopher]

mosher: “…the Holy Father judged that no such grave necessity existed…Lefebvre should have withdrawn. However, he held to his subjective perspective instead of objective truth.”

Mosher,

What was Marcel’s subjective perspective?

Kristopher

 

[mosher]

mosher: “…the Holy Father judged that no such grave necessity existed…Lefebvre should have withdrawn. However, he held to his subjective perspective instead of objective truth.”

Mosher,

What was Marcel’s subjective perspective?

Kristopher

That a grave necessity existed to protect the Church against the modernists.

 

[bear06]

bear06: "…If you’re going to apply your above theory to Lefebvre then it would also have to be applied to Luther, Calvin and all of the schismatics in history.

Lefebvre claimed necessity…"

Bear,

You are drawing a comparison between Lefebvre, Calvin, Luther and other schismatics across history: what characteristics are similar between at least Luther and Lefebvre with respect to schism, or even Calvin and Lefebvre?

Most sincerely,

Kristopher

This argument was made:

Since the Canon provides that there is an exception in the time of grave need, even if the gravity is only in the mind of the accused, I don’t see how the Pope can determine the mind and heart of Marcel Lefebvre, Bishop DeCastro-Meyer, or the consecrated Bishops. He could certainly decide whether the gravity existed, but not what the Archbishop believed. That would be in the hands of the Almighty.

The Pope not knowing the mind of Lefebvre doesn’t matter because the pope is the arbiter of necessity. Schism doesn’t depend on knowing what the person believes. He could quite well think he’s following Church teachings but that doesn’t mean his acts were not schism. The similarity lies in the fact that they knew what the Pope taught and they chose to disobey him. I’m sure all of them had the best of intentions but they were wrong.

 

[Dr.Bombay]

The SSPX is not in schism nor does the Church consider them as such.

Imperfect communion is not schism.