Vatican Allows Nun to Join the SSPX

[CopticChristian]

I do disagree with the information you’ve provided, for one its simplistic, for another thing its out of date and lastly its ambigous.

1)Its an oversimplification, as even a cursory glance at Archbishop Lefebvre’s work or Bishop fellays will show you the SSPX does not reject the entirity of Vatican II, they reject what they see as irreconciliable with Catholic Tradition. Their founder and the society itself remains open to the idea of it being ‘read in the light of tradition’
2)This idea of ‘the holy spirit blesses ecumenical councils’ is an oversimplification of complicated theology. Catholic doctrine is that ecumenical councils can be protected from error by The Holy Ghost as regards matters of faith and morals in much the same way the Pope is when speaking Ex Cathedra. The society’s position is that in view of the councils admission that it is pastoral, that its statements are only binding when it explicitly states so and the opinion of numerous theologians that it is pastoral and thus that whilst it could have had recourse to infallibility it chose not to invoke it.
3)The Holy See has repeatedly stated that the SSPX is not in schism, you can read an article on the subject here It makes reference to several interviews given by Cardinal Castrillon in which he states that the society are not in schism and are not heretical.

I can only assume that the article you have quoted was written before these interviews or that the person writing it was unaware of these interviews.

It is however undeniable that the relations between the society and Rome need to be normalised.

Cardinal Castrillón’s most recent interview with an Italian journalist published on March 17, 2007, repeats this affirmation that while there may be a danger of schism and/or heresy for some priests and bishops within the SSPX, theirs is not a formal schism./

QUOTE]

Cardinal Castrillón, in his capacity as PCED president, has recently rehabilitated priests

formerly associated with the SSPX and

"The Fraternity of St. Pius X is not a consolidated schism per se,

but its history has included some schismatic actions…" The Cardinal continues to explain the illegal consecration of bishops against the express will of the Holy Father and further warns about the danger of schism, and schism leading to heresy and vice versa, according to St. Jerome.

It is Archbishop Lefebrve who has undertaken an illicit Episcopal consecration and therefore performed a schismatic act.

It is for this reason that the Bishops consecrated by him have been suspended and excommunicated. The priests and faithful of the Society have not been excommunicated. They are not heretics.

Of course, Msgr. Perl has always emphasized that the PCED does not, and cannot, encourage long-term attendance at SSPX chapels

due to what it calls the danger of potential schism,

Yes it is clear. Protestanism is a heresy according to Belloc as per Calvin, Luther, Knox and Zwingli however the offspring are not. Thus separated brethren.

I have given this example. Rape is an evil, the child conceived is innocent.

Lefebrve is schismatic and the resultant offspring are innocent. September 14 will be the date for resolving this.

I pray for resolution for you and all of your SSPX supporters and those caught up in the SSPX controversy caused by Bisop Lefebrve.

 

[CopticChristian]

2 people on another part of the forum who couldn’t provide a shred of evidence to support their position, as to why you feel you need to involve the events of other threads on this one thats beyond me

Amusingly several of the people criticising the society for not accepting Vatican II, do themselves not believe that it was an ecumenical council or discount many of the 21 ecumenical councils of the church as ‘not ecumenical’ because they didn’t involve the east.

I looked at the forum rules and nowhered do I see your name as one that designates, formulates or dictates how threads are posted or the directions they go. I do know that there are interventions and I do not recall your name as the one that terminates threads, redirects threads or admonishes that threads are going astray.

 

[jmj1984]

You have clearly not read the article in its entirity and quoted anything you did find out of context.

Cardinal Castrillón Declares SSPX not in Schism on Italian TV

Shortly after the publication of the 30 Days interview, Cardinal Castrillón was interviewed on Italian television channel 5, November 13, 2005 regarding the status of the SSPX. In this interview, the Cardinal said the following:

We are not confronted with a heresy. It cannot be said in correct, exact, and precise terms that there is a schism. There is a schismatic attitude in the fact of consecrating bishops without pontifical mandate. They are within the Church. There is only the fact that a full, more perfect communion is lacking — as was stated during the meeting with Bishop Fellay — a fuller communion, because communion does exist.

Church Clarification to “Adherence to the Schism”

On September 29, 2006, some news regarding a PCED ruling for the Archdiocese of Salzburg was posted at musicasacra.com/blog/archive/2006_09_01_sacredmusic_archive.html, which is a web blog dedicated to the restoration of sacred music.

While never making its way into the mainstream secular or Catholic media, this announcement in the official Gazette of the Archdiocese of Salzburg contained an English translation from the Verordnungsblatt der Erzdioezese Salzburg no. 5 (5 May 2006) page 85, with the headline “Priestly Fraternity of St Pius X : Information.”

Relevant parts of the extended text, shown below, include the following regarding the proper attitude of dioceses and parish priests regarding baptisms administered by priests of the SSPX.

Laymen Who Attend SSPX “Catholic Faithful” Per PCED

The communication to the Archdiocese of Salzburg came from the PCED with a brief history and outline of the facts concerning how the Holy See views the canonical situation of the SSPX:

The four bishops consecrated by Archbishop Lefebvre are excommunicated. Priests ordained within the Fraternity are suspended for lack of a valid incardination.

Regarding the faithful who sympathize with the SSPX, we must insist that

    we are dealing with Catholic faithful who — provided they have performed no explicit actions — in no way wish to leave the Roman Catholic Church;

    attending Masses celebrated by priests of the SSPX is not in itself a delict and does not bring about excommunication;

    only those of the faithful who see the SSPX as the only true church, and who make this visible externally, incur the penalty of excommunication;

    it is consequently not at all appropriate to regard as non-Catholic the children baptized in the chapels of the SSPX, and to treat their marriages to another Catholic as mixed marriages;

    when baptism by a priest of the SSPX is attested in writing and the parents of the newly baptized do not see the SSPX as the only true church, then this attestation suffices for registration of the baptism in the Liber Baptizatorum of the parish of baptism, under the running number 0. On the basis of this registration, a baptismal certificate can be issued.

The earlier edict concerning marriage to a Catholic who was baptized in an SSPX chapel (see below) is to be applied only if the Catholic thus baptized sees in the SSPX the only true church and who makes this visible externally.

In order to prevent misunderstandings, the Archiepiscopal Chancery Office will examine each case individually.

From the Archiepiscopal Chancery, on 10 May 2006. Protocol number 579/06.

According to the author of this website, several months earlier the same Chancery Office in Salzburg (in the Verordnungsblatt 2006, page 126) had published an edict according to which persons baptized by an SSPX priest were considered to be “non-Roman Catholic Christians,” who in the event of marriage to a Catholic, were to be treated as though they were entering a “mixed marriage.”

It is clear from the contents of the official communiqué issued by the PCED for the Archdiocese of Salzburg that those lay faithful who attend SSPX chapels and have their children baptized there are Catholics in good standing who should be treated as such by the Archdiocese.

Because this new edict was published publicly after a specific communication from the PCED, it may be regarded as the official view of the Holy See regarding the status of Catholics baptized at SSPX chapels by SSPX priests or SSPX priest “friends” who serve SSPX chapels.

Prof. Georg was the Professor of Canon Law, Law of Church-State Relations and Canonical HIstory from 1960 to 1994 at Mainz University. He has been a well-respected priest for more than 40 years in the Archdiocese of Mainz. The Professor’s conclusions appear to be consistent with those of the Holy See as expressed in numerous public interviews and written correspondence emanating from the PCED, specifically Cardinal Castrillón and Msgr. Camille Perl, president and secretary of the commission.

The SSPX is not schismatic, because she neither rejects the subordination to the Roman Pope nor rejects the communion with the bishops (can. 751). Rather the latter reject communion with the Society.

Because the Society is not schismatic, its members are not excommunicated. Both are untrue allegations, made by those, whom the reflective mirror presented to them by the Society irritates.

Absolutely nobody incurs any punishment by attending the masses of the Society. Of course one can fulfill one's Sunday obligation by attending a Sunday mass in a chapel or church of the Society. Whoever alleges otherwise, reveals that he merely fears concurrence.

And no I am not encouraging people to attend SSPX mass’s, nor prosletysing for them merely presenting the facts as seen by The Holy See and canonists

 

[jmj1984]

I looked at the forum rules and nowhered do I see your name as one that designates, formulates or dictates how threads are posted or the directions they go. I do know that there are interventions and I do not recall your name as the one that terminates threads, redirects threads or admonishes that threads are going astray.

Looks like you need to go to the cooler and cool down

I’ll be adding you on the ignore list as you’ve shown yourself completely incapable of rational discussion

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

You have clearly not read the article in its entirity and quoted anything you did find out of context.

And no I am not encouraging people to attend SSPX mass’s, nor prosletysing for them merely presenting the facts as seen by The Holy See and canonists

And yet the Pope has stated that they do not have a ministry in the Chruch and that their status is ilregulare. Let the spin begin.

 

[jmj1984]

And yet the Pope has stated that they do not have a ministry in the Chruch and that their status is ilregulare. Let the spin begin.

Very well, as long as people have all the facts I’m not going to engage in polemics. My sole point was to present the facts, hopefully september 14th will provide us with a definitive judgement

 

[Will_S]

And yet the Pope has stated that they do not have a ministry in the Church and that their status is irregular.

All priests of the SSPX are suspended. That is why they have no legitimate ministry in the Church. It has nothing to do with schism.

And of course their status is irregular. The SSPX is (at least defacto) a suppressed order, and yet they continue not only to function, but to grow and expand.

The consecration of the four bishops by Archbishop Lefevbre was a “schismatic action” in that the Archbishop acted in disobedience to the command of lawful authority in a matter affecting the constitution of the Church.

However, it was not an actual schism, because the Archbishop never had any intent, and never took any action, to separate himself or the SSPX from the Church, or formally to withdraw himself or the SSPX from the authority of the Church.

If the distinction being made with respect to schism is difficult to grasp, consider a teenage boy whose father tells him he can’t go out, but who nonetheless takes his father’s keys and drives off in his father’s car and enjoys an evening out with his friends, coming home late. The boy has disregarded his father’s lawful authority and disobeyed a direct command, but his actions have not separated him from membership of his family and his father’s household. In order for that to happen, he would have to abandon his father’s household and declare himself independent of his father.

 

[CopticChristian]

Looks like you need to go to the cooler and cool down

I’ll be adding you on the ignore list as you’ve shown yourself completely incapable of rational discussion

Gratias ago vos. EGO can agnosco vestri sententia. Ignarus mihi. EGO sum non sane.

 

[CopticChristian]

You have clearly not read the article in its entirity and quoted anything you did find out of context.

And no I am not encouraging people to attend SSPX mass’s, nor prosletysing for them merely presenting the facts as seen by The Holy See and canonists

It is Archbishop Lefebrve who has undertaken an illicit Episcopal consecration and therefore performed a schismatic act.

Let’s see if I rob, I am a thief
If I lie I am a liar
If I perform a schismatic act, I am a schismatic.

I am so glad that people can read this and you will ignore me.

 

[ProVobis]

Gratias ago vos. EGO can agnosco vestri sententia. Ignarus mihi. EGO sum non sane.

Cicero would be turning over in his grave.

 

[CopticChristian]

Cicero would be turning over in his grave.

Why Cicero?

 

[ProVobis]

Why Cicero?

Ovid? Cornelius Nepos? Pope Victor? It was a good try, though. Or did you use the google translator?

 

[CopticChristian]

Ovid? Cornelius Nepos? Pope Victor? It was a good try, though. Or did you use the google translator?

So it could have been Caesar or Nero:thumbsup:

 

[ProVobis]

So it could have been Caesar or Nero:thumbsup:

I don’t think Nero had much love for the Christians so I doubt he would care how you or I would write in Latin.

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

Long thread

Is this the correct synopsis?:

1. Pope allows nun to switch to an SSPX order (is there a Vatican link that states this?)
2. Pope lifts ban on SSPX bishops
3. Faithful may attend an SSPX Mass, but only if no RC Mass is available
4. Bishops not suspended, but priests for now are
5. First step in “reunion” (I put it in quotes for those that contend that the SSPX never really left)
6. I ask again: if reunion (no quotes this time–I want to be fair to both sides ) occurs, will this mean that there will be 2 Franciscan Third Orders: the SSPX Third Order and the SFO?

Thanks

PS May God bless our Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI!

 

[At_Trent]

Long thread

Is this the correct synopsis?:

1. Pope allows nun to switch to an SSPX order (is there a Vatican link that states this?)
   that is what the blog entry stated… but it has been removed from the blog
2. Pope lifts ban on SSPX bishops
   ** no, H.H. lifted their excommunications**
3. Faithful may attend an SSPX Mass, but only if no RC Mass is available
   ** they may attend if it is for the desire for the EF and not out of schismatic attitude. If a diocesan EF is available, one should go to it instead. ( I think that’s right)**
4. Bishops not suspended, but priests for now are
   all SSPX clergy are suspended
5. First step in “reunion” (I put it in quotes for those that contend that the SSPX never really left)
   ** yes the first steps have been taken… years ago**
6. I ask again: if reunion (no quotes this time–I want to be fair to both sides ) occurs, will this mean that there will be 2 Franciscan Third Orders: the SSPX Third Order and the SFO?
   ** Can’t answer that one. I suspect the SSPX order will remain, but may have to change their name as the Transalpine Redemtorists did**

Thanks

PS May God bless our Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI!

And yes, I join you in prayer for H.H.BXVI. May our Father in Heaven grant H.H. many more years if it be His will.

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

And yes, I join you in prayer for H.H.BXVI. May our Father in Heaven grant H.H. many more years if it be His will.

Thank you for your reply. Can you expand a bit on the Transalpine Redemptorists, please?

 

[At_Trent]

Thank you for your reply. Can you expand a bit on the Transalpine Redemptorists, please?

Sure. When they were received back into the Church, since they are not affiliated with the official Redemptorists order, they had to change their name. The chose the name Sons of the Most Holy Redeemer (F.SS.R.)

papastronsay.blogspot.com/

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

Sure. When they were received back into the Church, since they are not affiliated with the official Redemptorists order, they had to change their name. The chose the name Sons of the Most Holy Redeemer (F.SS.R.)

papastronsay.blogspot.com/

Thanks so much.

With the Franciscans, it should be easy as the “regular” Franciscans are SFO, so they should be able to keep TOF or TOSF

 

[Will_S]

Sure. When they were received back into the Church, since they are not affiliated with the official Redemptorists order, they had to change their name. The chose the name Sons of the Most Holy Redeemer (F.SS.R.)

papastronsay.blogspot.com/

Informally, the F.SS.R. are still “The Transalpine Redemptorists”.

But they had always considered themselves members of the Congregation of the Most Holy Redeemer (C.SS.R.). Upon approaching the Holy See for regularization, they were required to change their name, which makes sense to me, because they did not wish to be subject to the Redemptorist Superior or the current Redemptorist constitution and laws.

So they are now the Sons of the Most Holy Redeemer (F.SS.R.) a.k.a. Transalpine Redemptorists.

---

The SSPX are a completely different situation. There is no “conciliar” SSPX, so there is no reason for them to change their name. They will always be the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X.