sspx

[thistle]

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

Imperfect communion is not schism.

Are you saying Pope John Paul II lied when he said in Ecclesia Dei that SSPX is in schism?

 

[giuseppeTO]

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.

No, there is a big difference with Luther and Calvin, they taught heresy regarding dogmatic and infallibly proclaimed beliefs. This canon doesn’t apply to them

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

No, there is a big difference with Luther and Calvin, they taught heresy regarding dogmatic and infallibly proclaimed beliefs. This canon [necessity] doesn’t apply to them

I strongly suspect that “necessity” is intended to cover the case of the Chinese bishop held in some huge labour camp, incommunicado, who wants to ordain another bishop to carry on after his death. It is not meant to provide a loophole for a bishop to ignore explicit instructions not to ordain another bishop.

 

[bear06]

No, there is a big difference with Luther and Calvin, they taught heresy regarding dogmatic and infallibly proclaimed beliefs. This canon doesn’t apply to them

I’m not so sure about that. Pastor Aeternus is infallible and yet they still reject it in deed. They can say they believe in it all they want, but do they?

 

[francisca]

anyone can now touch, without consecrated fingers, the Holy Eucharist.

The chruch has moved from Hagai 2:11-14 to Luke 8:43-44

Holiness according to works of the Law
Hagai 2

11 Thus says the LORD of hosts: Ask the priests for a decision:
12 2 If a man carries sanctified flesh in the fold of his garment and the fold touches bread, or pottage, or wine, or oil, or any other food, do they become sanctified? “No,” the priests answered.
13 Then Haggai said: If a person unclean from contact with a corpse touches any of these, do they become unclean? The priests answered, “They become unclean.”
14 Then Haggai continued: So is this people, and so is this nation in my sight, says the LORD: And so are all the works of their hands; and what they offer there is unclean.

Our holiness comes from God :
Luke 8
43 And a woman afflicted with hemorrhages for twelve years, 15 who (had spent her whole livelihood on doctors and) was unable to be cured by anyone,
44 came up behind him and touched the tassel on his cloak. Immediately her bleeding stopped.

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.

This is how the church handle different opinions nowadays:

“There should be no more condemnations for those who are in Christ Jesus” (From Romans 8)

This has become the basic principle of ecumenism. Thus the church does not condemn anymore. But I think sspx has big problem with “no more condemnations”. So…?

 

[bear06]

I strongly suspect that “necessity” is intended to cover the case of the Chinese bishop held in some huge labour camp, incommunicado, who wants to ordain another bishop to carry on after his death. It is not meant to provide a loophole for a bishop to ignore explicit instructions not to ordain another bishop.

Yes, this is a very good suspicion. Not on that, the pope is the arbiter of necessity.

 

[Dr.Bombay]

Are you saying Pope John Paul II lied when he said in Ecclesia Dei that SSPX is in schism?

John Paul II never said the SSPX is in schism.

Don’t put words in the late Holy Father’s mouth. :tsktsk:

 

[Dancelittleewok]

John Paul II never said the SSPX is in schism.

Don’t put words in the late Holy Father’s mouth. :tsktsk:

Hmm…What about the Eccelsia Dei?

 

[Dr.Bombay]

Hmm…What about the Eccelsia Dei?

Ecclesia Dei does not say that the SSPX is in schism. No where does it say that.

Document trawlers and out-of-context quote pasters like to claim that it says that. But it doesn’t.

 

[Kristopher]

For the sake of reference to a document that we may all be on the proverbial “same sheet of music”, here is Ecclesia Dei; those portions relevant at this point in the discussion:

“…the unlawful episcopal ordination conferred on 30 June last by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre,…of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X founded by the same Mons. Lefebvre. …The particular circumstances, both objective and subjective in which Archbishop Lefebvre acted, …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,…which implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy - constitutes a schismatic act. …such an act, notwithstanding the formal canonical warning sent to them by the Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops on 17 June last,…incurred the grave penalty of excommunication envisaged by ecclesiastical law. …The root of this schismatic act can be discerned in an incomplete and contradictory notion of Tradition. …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. …”.

 

[bear06]

For the sake of reference to a document that we may all be on the proverbial “same sheet of music”, here is Ecclesia Dei; those portions relevant at this point in the discussion:

“…the unlawful episcopal ordination conferred on 30 June last by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre,…of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X founded by the same Mons. Lefebvre. …The particular circumstances, both objective and subjective in which Archbishop Lefebvre acted, …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,…which implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy - constitutes a schismatic act. …such an act, notwithstanding the formal canonical warning sent to them by the Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops on 17 June last,…incurred the grave penalty of excommunication envisaged by ecclesiastical law. …The root of this schismatic act can be discerned in an incomplete and contradictory notion of Tradition. …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. …”.

As I see it, the new argument is that a schismatic act doesn’t make you in schism. Not sure how one gets their head to think this but apparently some do. As long as we’re quoting documents…This one is the document in it’s entirety so the ridiculous charges of quoting out of context cannot bet tried. IT’s short and sweet so I doubt anyone can have a problem with posting a long document.

From the Office of the Congregation for Bishops, 1 July 1988.

Monsignor Marcel Lefebvre, Archbishop-Bishop Emeritus of Tulle, notwithstanding the formal canonical warning of 17 June last and the repeated appeals to desist from his intention, has performed a schismatical act by the episcopal consecration of four priests, without pontifical mandate and contrary to the will of the Supreme Pontiff, and has therefore incurred the penalty envisaged by Canon 1364, paragraph 1, and canon 1382 of the Code of Canon Law.

Having taken account of all the juridical effects, I declare that the above-mentioned Monsignor Marcel Lefebvre, and Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta have incurred ipso facto excommunication latae sententiae reserved to the Apostolic See.

Moreover, I declare that Monsignor Antonio de Castro Mayer, Bishop emeritus of Campos, since he took part directly in the liturgical celebration as co-consecrator and adhered publicly to the schismatical act, has incurred excommunication latae sententiae as envisaged by canon 1364, paragraph 1.

The priests and faithful are warned not to support the schism of Monsignor Lefebvre, otherwise they shall incur ipso facto the very grave penalty of excommunication.

From the Office of the Congregation for Bishops, 1 July 1988.

+BERNARDINUS Card. GANTIN

Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops

sspx.agenda.tripod.com/id57.html

 

[Kristopher]

Dear Bear:

Thank you for the quote, it is as you say, not from Pope John Paul II, but from the Prefect of the Sacred Congregation of Bishops, Cardinal Gantin.

Another quote, I should find the document, its source; nonetheless, this should suffice: “The act of consecrating a bishop (without the Pope’s permission) is not in itself a schismatic act”

Lara, Castillo. “La Republica.” 1988 OCT 7.

This is Cardinal Castillo Lara of 1988; he was at the time, President of the Pontifical Commission for the Authentic Interpretation of Canon Law.

You are right, Bear, to argue; as you do–if and only if in fact the act of consecrating a bishop is canonical. At best from the above quote, Marcel Lefebvre is guilty only of having been disobedient. This in and of itself, is not schismatic, but only disobedient.

Another quote from an inquiry about the status of the Society of Saint Pius X, 1994 MAY 03: “Dear Mr. X…the Directory on Ecumenism is not concerned with the Society of Saint Pius X. The situation of the members of this Society is an internal matter of the Catholic Church. The Society is not another Church or Ecclesial Community…the Mass and Sacraments administered by the priests of the Society are valid. The Bishops are validly, but not lawfully, consecrated…”.

This was a quote from Edward Cassidy, President of the Pontifical Council for Christian Unity.

These are those whom Mosher in a previous most mentioned as poorly educated, an extant situation in need of reform even after, thirty-two yrs. of Vatican II.

A younger Father Gerald E. Murray of what more than likely is the most prestigious institution of higher learning within the Church is quoted to have said, from an interview of 1995 JUN: “They’re not excommunicated as schismatics, as far as I can see, because the Vatican has never said they are…canonically speaking, he’s not guilty of a schismatic act punishable by canon law. He’s guilty of an act of disobedience to the Pope, but he did it in such a way that he could avail himself of a provision of the law that would prevent him from being automatically excommunicated (latae sententiae) for this act.”.

There is no schism. There is no excommunication. There is only a Cardinal Gabin, Prefect of the Sacred Congregation of Bishops, probably the same bishops disobediently obfuscating Pope John Paul II’s own efforts in accord, with the Blessed Virgin Mary’s instructions to illiterate shepherd children, to consecrate the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), to the BVM’s Immaculate Heart–this Cardinal Gabin against Rome, “…Rome had agreed in principle on the point of episcopal consecration, but did not agree on the Archbishop’s choice of candidates. He, nevertheless, went ahead with the consecrations, despite Rome’s disapproval…”.

Good for Marcel Lefebvre, at least someone of this woefully anemic Vatican II church knew when to make a stand, and against whom!

Most sincerely,

Kristopher

 

[bear06]

Thank you for the quote, it is as you say, not from Pope John Paul II, but from the Prefect of the Sacred Congregation of Bishops, Cardinal Gantin.

Cardinal Gantin is the competent authority in the matter.

“The act of consecrating a bishop (without the Pope’s permission) is not in itself a schismatic act”

This is true because there may be necessity. That said, because of Pope John Paul II was directly involved with the case, Lefebvre new that the Church viewed no necessity. And the pope is the competent authority of necessity.

Schism, accorting to canon law is:
Can 751 Heresy is the obstinate denial or doubt, after baptism, of a truth which must be believed by Divine and Catholic faith. Apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith. Schism is the withdrawal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or from communion with the members of the Church subject to him.

sspx-schism.com/JurisdictionAndSchism.htm#What_is_Schism

If you’ll notice in Ecclesia Dei, this canon is sited as footnote number 3.

You are right, Bear, to argue; as you do–if and only if in fact the act of consecrating a bishop is canonical. At best from the above quote, Marcel Lefebvre is guilty only of having been disobedient. This in and of itself, is not schismatic, but only disobedient.

JPII, in citing canon 751 shows us that no only is Lefebvre’s act excommunicable, it constitutes schism.

Another quote from an inquiry about the status of the Society of Saint Pius X, 1994 MAY 03: “Dear Mr. X…the Directory on Ecumenism is not concerned with the Society of Saint Pius X. The situation of the members of this Society is an internal matter of the Catholic Church. The Society is not another Church or Ecclesial Community…the Mass and Sacraments administered by the priests of the Society are valid. The Bishops are validly, but not lawfully, consecrated…”.

This was a quote from Edward Cassidy, President of the Pontifical Council for Christian Unity

.

Yes, we don’t treat them as another Church.

A younger Father Gerald E. Murray of what more than likely is the most prestigious institution of higher learning within the Church is quoted to have said, from an interview of 1995 JUN: “They’re not excommunicated as schismatics, as far as I can see, because the Vatican has never said they are…canonically speaking, he’s not guilty of a schismatic act punishable by canon law. He’s guilty of an act of disobedience to the Pope, but he did it in such a way that he could avail himself of a provision of the law that would prevent him from being automatically excommunicated (latae sententiae) for this act.”.

The Vatican need not declare them schistmatics by name. Ipso facto is the key here.

There is no schism. There is no excommunication. There is only a Cardinal Gabin, Prefect of the Sacred Congregation of Bishops, probably the same bishops disobediently obfuscating Pope John Paul II’s own efforts in accord, with the Blessed Virgin Mary’s instructions to illiterate shepherd children, to consecrate the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), to the BVM’s Immaculate Heart–this Cardinal Gabin against Rome, “…Rome had agreed in principle on the point of episcopal consecration, but did not agree on the Archbishop’s choice of candidates. He, nevertheless, went ahead with the consecrations, despite Rome’s disapproval…”.

Don’t fall for this highly misquoted letter. Please see Fr. Murray’s letter taking them to task.

 

[bear06]

They did it again!!! Look at the tacked on chunk right after the word “act” in the first line of this page. The line is stuck there between the finished quote and the start of the next quote giving the impression that Fr. Murray said those words when he did not. Also, look at the title of Fr. Murray’s thesis: The Canonical Status of the Lay Faithful Associated with the Late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and the Society of Saint Pius X: Are they Excommunicated as Schismatics? It deals with the canonical status of the lay faithful!!! This has NOTHING to do with the status of the Bishops of the Society. Look in the middle of the paragraph and notice how they added the words “Therefore the priests and faithful are not excommunicated”. The Vatican may not have declared that individual priests or lay people are schismatics (though they could be as schism can be a personal act and is not strictly a corporate one), but that does not make it immediately okay to attend Society Masses and receive the sacraments from them as if nothing is wrong. Also, they are bringing up for their support the opinion of someone who was not even a canon lawyer and (even if he was one) taking his word over and against that of Pope John Paul II. The Supreme Pontiff is trumped by a canon law understudy according to the SSPX. But are they really being fair to Fr. Murray in the manner with which they are quoting him??? For that answer, Fr. Gerald E. Murray can defend what he said versus what the SSPX claims he said:

Fr. Peter R. Scott, District Superior
c/o Regina Coeli House

2918 Tracy Avenue

Kansas City, MO 64109

Phone: 816-753-0073, Fax: 816-753-3560

June 14, 1996

I was recently sent a copy of your pamphlet, “Is the Society of Saint Pius X Schismatic? Excommunicated? Rome Says No.” In this publication you make use of modified quotations from my interview in the Fall 1995 issue of The Latin Mass. You have intentionally misquoted me and even put words into my mouth. I shall illustrate this flagrant dishonesty below.

But first some preliminary observations. You state that I have a doctorate in canon law (a J.C.D.). I do not have a J.C.D., and nowhere in my interview do I claim to have this degree. You made that up. You also assert that the Gregorian University, where I completed my license and where I am currently studying for a doctorate in canon law, “says that the Society of Saint Pius X is neither in schism, nor is it excommunicated… and that anyone can fulfill their Sunday obligation by attending the Society’s Masses.” The Gregorian has not said anything of the sort. The contents and conclusions of my license thesis are my own, not the Gregorian’s.

My license thesis was approved and graded solely by my moderator – who, by the way, did not agree with my conclusions regarding the possible invalidity of the declaration of excommunication issued by the Holy See against Archbishop Lefebvre and the other bishops involved. It was incorrectly reported in The Latin Mass that I successfully defended my thesis, thereby implying a public defense by an academic board, but that is not the case. No such public defense before the canon law faculty is required for a license thesis at the Gregorian (but it is required for a doctoral thesis).

In any event, even supposing a public defense, it should be clear that my thesis is my work, and the Gregorian University as an institution is not the author of my conclusions.

Following the publication of my interview and excerpts from my thesis in The Latin Mass, I have rethought and changed some of my conclusions, and I stated those emendations in a letter to be published in the Summer 1996 issue of the same magazine. I enclose a copy of that letter for your interest.

Now as to the specific fabrications and deceptions in your pamphlet, I include below my actual words from the interview in The Latin Mass, and your falsified version:

1. You say that I said: “I have received a doctorate in canon law and I’ve studied this topic, the
   excommunication of Archbishop Lefebvre, for my doctorate thesis.”

I actually said: “I have received a license in canon law and I’ve studied this topic, the excommunication of Archbishop Lefebvre, for my license thesis.”

continued…

 

[bear06]

continuation…

1. You say that I said: “They’re not excommunicated as schismatics, because the Vatican has never said they are.”

I actually said: “They’re not excommunicated as schismatic as far as I can see, because the Vatican has never said that they are.”

1. You say I said: “…You can…show that Lefebvre himself was not excommunicated and therefore no one else was.”

I actually said: “Or you can attempt to show that indeed Lefebvre himself was not excommunicated and therefore no one else was.”

1. You say I said: “The Holy See has never stated that mere attendance at a Mass said by a priest in the Society of Saint Pius X constitutes a schismatic act.”

I actually said: “As far as I can see the Holy See has never stated that mere attendance at a Mass said by a priest in the Society of Saint Pius X constitutes a schismatic act.”

1. You say I said: “Could you go to a Society of Saint Pius X chapel to receive good doctrine? That seems better to me than hearing truly heretical sermons, e.g., denying hell, or that divorced and remarried people could receive Communion.”

What I actually said in response to a question from the interviewer (“You’re not encouraging people to attend these Masses, but you’re simply saying – and by the way, Cardinal Ratzinger implied this, too, in a press interview – that just attending that Mass doesn’t mean they’re schismatic.” Ratzinger said he knew people who attend SSPX Masses ‘in the conviction that they are still in full communion with the Pope.’ He called for an 'attitude…of generosity towards these people, many of whom are anguished. 'So you’re on the one hand not advocating that people attend these Masses, but, on the other you’re saying that it is not a schismatic act, necessarily") was:

“Let’s say that you knew that the priest at your parish was teaching things contrary to the moral law or Catholic doctrine. Let’s say he denied the existence of Hell, or taught that divorced and remarried people could receive Communion, and you knew that he was being tolerated by your local bishop. Could you go to an SSPX chapel to receive good doctrine? That seems better to me than hearing truly heretical sermons. I may be wrong, but I think you have a more important right to be at peace in your Faith than to listen to heresy.”

You have misquoted me extensively in support of your propagandistic assertions. You naturally ignored my critical remarks directed towards the Society of St. Pius X in the interview.

I cannot expect you to cite what is not in your favor. But I can and do expect you to report my remarks truthfully and completely, and in their proper context, in your publication. Instead, you have fabricated and falsified my remarks. This is thoroughly dishonorable and disreputable. And it is entirely shameful to attempt to legitimize your claims by invoking my wrongly alleged status as a doctor of canon law.

I demand that you withdraw this publication from circulation immediately. To do otherwise is to engage in public lying about what I have said. The public record of my remarks in The Latin Mass contradicts you. You have an obligation in truth and justice not to spread falsehoods, and in particular not to represent me as saying things I did not say, while leaving out the things I did say, but which you wish I had not said.

A refusal to remove this misleading pamphlet from circulation would confirm for me that your misrepresentation of my words was indeed wholly intentional, and that you are remorseless regarding your falsification of my actual statements.

I expect you to do the honorable thing and immediately withdraw this pamphlet. If you refuse to remove this pamphlet from further circulation, I will be compelled to take action to uphold my right to be accurately quoted for publication.

Rev. Gerald E. Murray, Rome, Italy [9]

 

[bear06]

Now, regardless of the whole Fr. Murray debacle, he is still not the competent authority.

 

[Kristopher]

Dear Bear:

Please, substantiate your view that Cardinal Gabin is “the”, “the” is the word that you used, “competent authority” as you say.

Do you mean: all the authorities are incompetent, except Gabin, (You begin to sound like a Protestant out to pick, and to choose what you will of scripture that makes your faith more comfortable to yourself); additionally, if what you say is true that Fr. Murray’s quote from an interview is taken out of some context, the interview when it was given, then how may his quote be consistent with the other authorities, of canon law, which you seem to exact as inferior to competency of an authority belonging to the Sacred Congregation of Bishops–what you say, it is non-sensical; hardly believable, remotely discernable, and you provide no source of the interview; do you have a link to the interview; taken from the Latin Mass magazine, I suspect that you do that we might take the quote in the context it was given.

You cannot mean: all the authorities are not authorities, but you have no reason to make the judgement that they are, or they were–incompetent authorities in anycase, it would be absurd, or it must be absurd of you to argue that Cardinal Gabin of the time, should somehow be recognized as a competent authority with respect to canon law, superior to those in positions, which must undoubtedly both by position, and by experience have to be superior in competency with respect to Canon law, even to the Pope as it may be inferred, when it is their judgement called upon in such matters concerning a Pope. Your apparent arguement is hinting to me that you might take an unreasonable course in this discussion, and begin to argue that in fact the papacy is despotic: when in fact, it is by definition a monarchy, with inferior aspects of it that clearly within orders may be defined as democracies.

Clearly the Pope is not God, but only by proxy is he Vicar of Christ; additionally, it is the antichrist of the end times, who will as head of the Church call himself God, thus, a division between man and God–the anti-Christ.

To whom in matters of canon law, must the Pope submit? You cannot attribute to the Vicar of Christ his authority as theocratic–he is not God, but it is monarchical: he must submit to established laws–The Ten Commandments, the precepts of the Church, the Beatitudes. The Church is at times, and within certain bodies submissive to a portion of members of The Church, thus it is at times, democratic; nonetheless, the vow of Holy Orders is to a bishop, and hence to laws; though, we do have the Holy Trinity, and since it is three persons, divine, then we may say, The Church is not only theocratic, but also democratic for it is as stated: our world ruled by a body of person, three; though divine–you know the visible head of the Church is THE BISHOP, which again leaves us with a monarchy.

Most sincerely,

Kristopher

 

[francisca]

I wonder what sspx position on Vatican II council. Do they accept this council and all of it’s documents, for example Unitatis Redintegratio, Decree on Ecumenism.

Then after we can say whether they are in schism.

 

[bear06]

Kristopher,
Mea culpa on not providing a link. I had to rearrange the letter a few times before I got it to fit. Apparently I cut the link before the cutting and pasting.

LMM has actually posted the same letter from Fr. Murray in their articles. Please see his letter for the corrections and the reality of his situation. If you were under the impression that he had his J.C.D. then I think you probably got this quote from a radical traditionalist site.

Here’s the link to the text I provided. Scroll down to find the part on Fr. Murray.

matt1618.freeyellow.com/treatise8.html

Or you can also go here to find the letter with a forward by LMM.

sspx.agenda.tripod.com/id93.html

Please note that Fr. Murray has changed some of his positions.

I’ll have to address the rest tomorrow (or rather when it’s light out side). I’m going to bed.

 

[mosher]

For Kristopher:

Competent authority is a canonical term meaning the person who is the rightful judge. There can be various competent authorities on a single case based on the type of offense and the location of the offense.