B
bear06
Guest
Well, that save me some work. I guarantee that was more concise than I would have made it.
So, in a nutshell, Cardinal Gantin’s (not sure who Gabin is) is the competent authority in the matter, not Fr. Murray…
- Status
So, in a nutshell, Cardinal Gantin’s (not sure who Gabin is) is the competent authority in the matter, not Fr. Murray…
K
Kristopher
Guest
Dear Fransisca:
I see no relevance to your speculation and schism as it either may, or may not pertain to SSPX, but you will make the relevance more clear to me; I trust.
I understand that between at the time, Cardinal Ratzinger, and Marcel Lefebvre, according to a protocol cited in Ecclesia Dei of 05 MAY–one bishop was to be ordained; nonetheless, Marcel Lefebvre in effect, said no, four bishops ordained. There was no way one bishop ordained would insure the continuation of SSPX and hence, three more than the agreed upon one bishop were ordained.
Ecclesia Dei called into question Vatican II and its consistency with tradition. It did not occur within Ecclesia Dei to be the other way around that SSPX is to be questioned about its consistency with tradition, but this should be painfully clear: SSPX was founded in 1970 to train priests within the traditions of the Catholic Church, and to keep the traditions of the Catholic Church.
I see no relevance that question concerning schism, not overt, but covert according to Ecclesia Dei–this accusation of schism is based on “something”, God knows what, Ecclesia Dei recognized as implicit.
It should be recognized in Ecclesia Dei what can be construed as a very bold contradiction of terms, and I quote the nucleus of the contradiction: “…the ordination of bishops whereby the apostolic succession is sacramentally perpetuated. …implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy…”.
Can evidence be provided on the part of Ecclesia Dei to demonstrate that Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre through sacramental perpetuation of the faith, through consecration of bishops–be at all construed as a “rejection of the Roman primacy”?
Ecclesia Dei stated: “…respect must everywhere be shown for the feelings of all those who are attatched to the Latin liturgical tradition,…of the directives already issued…by the Apostolic See for the use of the Roman Missal according to the typical edition of 1962. …”.
I will look-up those documents that you mentioned, and give time to read them; though, I hope that you will agree the priorities are Ecclesia Dei, the body of it, and those sources cited in the footnotes.
A comment given earlier by Mosher, about Archbishop Lefebvre’s disobedience canonically exhonerated on the basis of need was argued against as being only subjective–this of course, we find contrary to Ecclesia Dei in part II of the document: “…particular circumstances, both objective and subjective in which Archibshop Lefebvre acted,…”. We should approach first the objective characteristics of those circumstances.
We should look first, objectively, at the contrast between the two perspectives, or is it three: when we consider another person directly involved, Cardinal Ratzinger, whatever the case–there are two perspectives that appear to be given. One perspective stated that the need of SSPX to train priests in the traditions of the Catholic Church, and to keep the traditions of the Catholic Church by sacramental perpetuation of apostolic succession, could best be satisfied with the consecration of one bishop. The second perspective of course stated four bishops. We of course, have the advantage of history and therefore, contrasts and comparisons and the adequate ratio of authorities requisite to minister to the faithful available to us; unavailable at the time, we now have the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter, and the extant SSPX. We have a means to measure the growth of SSPX; foreseeable we may adequately assume by Archbishop Lefebvre. Additionally, we have in America the state of the Catholic Church to contrast with Latin Masses, and with those masses, whom others may reasonably claim function with a particular emphasis on the “new” doctrines brought to the faithful by Vatican II. What have been the effects: do they compare; do they contrast? Can we regionally assess that one superior to the other has been effective?
Most sincerely,
Kristopher
P.S. It might seem, too, irrelevant on the basis of a quote provided in 1994 MAY 03, by Cardinal Edward Cassidy, President of the Pontifical Council for Christian Unity, when he stated: “…I would point out at once that the Directory on Ecumenism is not concerned with the Society of Saint Pius X. …”; therefore, the issue concerning SSPX would appear to have nothing at all to do with the unity of the Catholic Church–it is an “internal matter” as the president is quoted to have said; this of course, might easily and accurately be regarded as further support to claim that Ecclesia Dei is lacking cogent arguements, with specific mention to part III: “…the act was one…of supreme importance for the unity of the church,…”.
B
bear06
Guest
How do you figure that Ecclesia Dei balled into question Vatican II?
Read Ecclesia Dei again.
Lefebvre thought that he had necessity. He was told this was not the case (the pope is the arbiter of necessity if you remember) he rejected this by his deed. He also went onto reject that the pope is the one who authorizes the ordaining of bishops by ordaining the bishops. He also rejected,by his deeds, the fact that the pope is the final authoirty on the matter and that there is no higher judgment.
And… I agree with this.
Again, the pope is the arbiter of need.
Most sincerely,
Sigh! First of all, this was a private reply of which we’ll probably never see first hand and since the SSPX is audacious enought o misquote constantly, I don’t take this at face value. Secondly, Cardinal Cassidy is not the competent authority in the matter. He deals with the Protestants. Ecclesia Dei deals with the SSPX and the Congregation of Bishops deals with the bishops. Remember, these priests are still valid although illicit. They are not protestant pastors. If you send the same letter to 50 congregations in Rome, you’re bound to get the wrong answer from the ones who don’t deal with the issue at hand (although again, due to the SSPX’s deception in the Fr. Murray case, I have reason to doubt the content of this letter).
M
mosher
Guest
Yes, the Prefect of the Congregation of Bishops was the competent authority in the matter. Even further the Holy Father in himself holding full and immediate jurisdiction inserted himself as the Competent Authority and final Authority in his Moto Proprio Ecclesia Dei. In this legal act he made very specific judgments:
- The Episcopal Ordination was unlawful (illicit). PP1
- Unity of the Society with the Church is imperfect. PP1
- The act (episcopal ordination) was an act of disobedience against the person of the Holy Father. PP3
- The act was grave PP3
- The act did violence to the visible unity of the Church PP3
- The act effectively rejected the authority of the Roman Pontiff and is thus a schismatic act. PP3
- The Bishop and new Bishops incur excommunication. PP3
- All Catholics must not support the Society. PP5c
- Formal adherence to the schism carries the penalty of excommunication. PP5c
K
Kristopher
Guest
Dear Bear, Mosher, Fransisca, et. al.
I will continue attending an SSPX chapel, with this: I end my part in this discussion. I apologize that I left a question or two unanswered, and will not follow through my earlier desire to explore Ecclesia Dei in this thread, but I can reserve it for private study.
Your arguements to me sound unreasonable; and your minds clearly are made-up on a matter that has been disputed across eighteen yrs. at the least.
I disagree with your point that the relevant competent authorities on canon law should be disputed and therefore, recognized as incompetent by both Mosher and Bear.
I disagree with your point that in effect, Motu Propio can be legally relevant to the situation concerning SSPX.
I disagree with your point that in effect, Ecclesia Dei as a rescind can be legally relevant to the situation of SSPX.
The competent authority of Ecclesia Dei, Motu Propio, should have been Pope John Paul II, as you, both Bear and Mosher have pointed out–it was Cardinal Gantin, and the Sacred Congregation of Bishops together with PJPII, which I see cannot qualify Ecclesia Dei as Motu Propio–it is another contradiction of terms.
Most sincerely,
Kristopher
I will continue attending an SSPX chapel, with this: I end my part in this discussion. I apologize that I left a question or two unanswered, and will not follow through my earlier desire to explore Ecclesia Dei in this thread, but I can reserve it for private study.
Your arguements to me sound unreasonable; and your minds clearly are made-up on a matter that has been disputed across eighteen yrs. at the least.
I disagree with your point that the relevant competent authorities on canon law should be disputed and therefore, recognized as incompetent by both Mosher and Bear.
I disagree with your point that in effect, Motu Propio can be legally relevant to the situation concerning SSPX.
I disagree with your point that in effect, Ecclesia Dei as a rescind can be legally relevant to the situation of SSPX.
The competent authority of Ecclesia Dei, Motu Propio, should have been Pope John Paul II, as you, both Bear and Mosher have pointed out–it was Cardinal Gantin, and the Sacred Congregation of Bishops together with PJPII, which I see cannot qualify Ecclesia Dei as Motu Propio–it is another contradiction of terms.
Most sincerely,
Kristopher
T
Trident59
Guest
Well, I’ve thought long and hard on this one and prayed till I’m blue in the face but I think I’ve finally decided on a course of action.
If there is no signing of the Motu Proprio by B16 and if the French Bishops have their way, I’ll be returning to SSPX.
I’ve waited faithfully for the last 18 1/2 years by attending the Novus Ordo. I’m at the end of my rope.
I’ve listened to all the “liturgical lawyers” on this forum explain why I’m going to hell but I still agree with Kristopher and Dr. Bombay; SSPX is NOT in schism. And I’m going over to that Other Forum. You know, the one that is more favorable to Traditionalists.
If there is no signing of the Motu Proprio by B16 and if the French Bishops have their way, I’ll be returning to SSPX.
I’ve waited faithfully for the last 18 1/2 years by attending the Novus Ordo. I’m at the end of my rope.
I’ve listened to all the “liturgical lawyers” on this forum explain why I’m going to hell but I still agree with Kristopher and Dr. Bombay; SSPX is NOT in schism. And I’m going over to that Other Forum. You know, the one that is more favorable to Traditionalists.
B
bear06
Guest
As I pointed out, if we were to rely on the canon lawyers, which ones would we rely on. I have a canon lawyer that also wrote a thesis on SSPX and his conclusion is different then Fr. Murray’s original conlusions which he, himself, has changed. This actually would take a protestant mentality because we would then be picking and choosing the canon lawyer that we like. We are to rely on the ones who are charged by the Holy Father to deal with this situation.
I think you miss the point that the pope is the ultimate authority on the matter and he has assigned different congregations to deal with the different aspects of this schism. Somehow I don’t think you’d have a problem when the same course of action is taken against a liberal.
I’d suggest reading Pastor Aeternus ewtn.com/faith/teachings/papae1.htm
B
bear06
Guest
With misrespresentations/misquotes like that I’m not surprised. Sad but not surprised.
B
bear06
Guest
So, shockers of shockers, some think that SSPX is not in schism and some do. How 'bout we all got to pizza now?
M
mosher
Guest
The issue of schism is irrelevant to me. Schism is not something that can be legislated (St. Thomas Aquinas) but is rather an interior disposition. All that can be judged are acts that seems to express a schismatic disposition.
The real issue is the excommunication. This is the primary issue that keeps me away from the chapels. Until this excommunication is lifted certain sacraments are not valid and full unity is not present. Such scandal is not something that one who is Catholic should tolerate or adhere to in any time under any circumstance. If, then, we see a lifting of the excommunication then for me the door is open assuming that a schismatic disposition does not persist in the sense that true obedience to a licit Ordinary is established.
So, the question about schism is silly as it goes around and around. However, a legal act of the Roman Pontiff such as excommunication can only be lifted by him or a later Pontiff and to that legal judgment there is no recourse (as canon law states). Thus, as long as the judgment of excommunication remains then it is the obligation of the faithful to not patron SSPX chapels if they are truly to call themselves “the faithful.”
The real issue is the excommunication. This is the primary issue that keeps me away from the chapels. Until this excommunication is lifted certain sacraments are not valid and full unity is not present. Such scandal is not something that one who is Catholic should tolerate or adhere to in any time under any circumstance. If, then, we see a lifting of the excommunication then for me the door is open assuming that a schismatic disposition does not persist in the sense that true obedience to a licit Ordinary is established.
So, the question about schism is silly as it goes around and around. However, a legal act of the Roman Pontiff such as excommunication can only be lifted by him or a later Pontiff and to that legal judgment there is no recourse (as canon law states). Thus, as long as the judgment of excommunication remains then it is the obligation of the faithful to not patron SSPX chapels if they are truly to call themselves “the faithful.”
M
Michael_Francis
Guest
Having run it’s course, this thread is now closed.
C
childofmary1143
Guest
I just read the following article at this website: renewamerica.us/columns/mershon/061019
and in it had a quote from Cardinal Hoyos saying about SSPX it was not a case of formal Schism but of imperfect communion.
Is this true? I am not sure if this thread is in the right category but I read it in the news.
and in it had a quote from Cardinal Hoyos saying about SSPX it was not a case of formal Schism but of imperfect communion.
Is this true? I am not sure if this thread is in the right category but I read it in the news.
- Status