Vatican on Society of St. Pius X: Position Insufficient to Restore Full Unity With Church at Present

[Exsilivm]

Once they cease to submit to him, they have denied him what is his by right, which is their governance.

Taking the coin, He asked “Whose head, and whose superscription is on the penny?”

 

[Exsilivm]

The pope is more than the guarantor of orthodoxy. He is also the Vicar or Christ, making him the earthly ruler. He can and does mandate that all ordinations of bishops have to have his approval. He can withdraw from communion and declare formal schism for a violation of this procedure should he desire. Blessed John Paul did so for individuals already. Groups can experience the same punishment.

Again, I am afraid that we will have to agree to disagree. One is hard pressed to conceive of anything “more” than being the guarantor of orthodoxy. The purpose of the pope is to ensure and protect orthodoxy. In Greek thinking, the focus on Christ’s charge to St. Peter is not so much “Upon this rock,” as it is “Love me thou more than these? Feed my sheep.”

But even granting all you say as true, Newton, the approach of Brother JR still seems more consistent with tradition, and more likely to answer the question posed in this thread (which as he and others have observed, is merely theoretical at this stage): If the SSPX go into schism, it is because there is a doctrinal dispute somewhere.

It is very interesting, and suggestive, that the opposite is not always true!

 

[Megan7]

Schism is not a matter of orthodoxy or heterodoxy. It is a question of relationship to the Chair of Peter.

I am not as bright or full of knowledge regarding the Faith as all of the posters on this thread.
However, even if I agree with everything the SSPX stands for, and I love orthodoxy, tradition,
the Latin Mass, the reverence, the values, etc. at the end of the day,
it all boils down to obedience.

And I think that is what Pnewton is saying here.
OBEDIENCE is key!

I will continue to pray for the SSPX, so they will bend at least a little and not
go into schism.
I pray that the Latin Mass will increase all over the world!

Blessings,

PAX,
Megan

 

[choliks]

I am not as bright or full of knowledge regarding the Faith as all of the posters on this thread.
However, even if I agree with everything the SSPX stands for, and I love orthodoxy, tradition,
the Latin Mass, the reverence, the values, etc. at the end of the day,
it all boils down to obedience.

And I think that is what Pnewton is saying here.
OBEDIENCE is key!

I will continue to pray for the SSPX, so they will bend at least a little and not
go into schism.
I pray that the Traditional Latin Mass will increase all over the world!

Blessings,

PAX,
Megan

Corrected for you. The OF is a form of Latin Mass, though often done in the vernacular and it’s widespread all over the world. Almost all Latin Rite parishes and chapels use them.

The EF/Traditional Latin Mass/Tridentine Mass is kept alive and is also gaining ground thanks to intitutes like the FSSP. Even in a country where Latin is very uncommon like the Philippines, the number of parishes using the EF are increasing though very slowly. In fact, a Jesuit university here has a group of faculty and students that attend an EF Mass offered by a Jesuit.

Sorry if I derailed the thread a bit. Now back to regular programming.

 

[WaltVio]

If you are over the age of 50 you know that you can’t trust anything coming out of Rome and you surely can’t trust the U.S. Bishops and Cardinals. I say “Bravo” to SSPX for standing their ground against this touchy feely effiminant Novus Ordo Church. SSPX are true men and do not care one bit what is said about them. They will not and should not budge.

Have you noticed how this new Church and the Obama administration have much in common? Both have created nothing but disasters since taking power and yet they take no responsibility for their action and results but instead keep making excuses and attacking those that speak against them. Liberal Church and Liberal Society are one in the same.

Without SSPX we would have nothing in the way of true Catholicism left in this world and Christ surely put SSPX in place to combat this destructive Novus Ordo Church leadership that claims to be Catholic.

The press loves throwing out words like “SSPX is not being obedient to Rome” or “The Pope needs to stop playing with SSPX”. Have we learned nothing about this modern liberal press and Novus Ordo church? They are one in the same. They use labels to get what they want. It doesn’t work anymore because we know they are both phoney.

The Blessed Mother will surely protect SSPX and the Christ will protect Bishop Fellay along with the Holy Spirit providing him with the necessary guidance.

If any one trusts Rome or these US Bishops and Cardinals they deserve everything they get. It is time for men to stand up and be counted and do all you can to support SSPX with time, money and prayers.

Viva Christo Rey

Walt

 

[Inego_de_Loyola]

Pope John Paul the second:
Ecclesia Dei:

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.(4)

Emphasis mine

Pope Benedict XVI:

** Another mishap which I sincerely regret, is that the scope and limits of the measure of 21 January 2009 have not been set out clearly enough at the time of the publication of the procedure. The excommunication affects persons, not institutions. **Episcopal consecration without papal mandate means the danger of a schism, because it calls into question the unity of the Bishops’ College with the Pope. The Church must, therefore, react with the harshest punishment, excommunication, and that is to call back the persons thus punished to repentance and into unity. 20 years after the ordinations this goal has unfortunately still not been achieved. The withdrawal of the excommunication serves the same purpose as the punishment itself: once more to invite the four bishops to return. This gesture was possible after the affected had expressed their fundamental recognition of the pope and his pastoral authority, albeit with reservations as far as obedience to his magisterial authority and that of the Council is concerned. This brings me back to the distinction between person and institution. The releasing of the excommunication was a measure in the field of ecclesial discipline: the persons were freed of the burden of conscience of the heaviest ecclesial censure. From this disciplinary level one has to distinguish the doctrinal area. That the Fraternity of Saint Pius X does not possess a canonical position in the Church is not based ultimately on disciplinary grounds but on doctrinal ones. As long as the Fraternity does not possess a canonical position in the Church, its officials do not exercise legitimate offices in the Church. One has therefore to distinguish between disciplinary level affecting the persons as persons, and the level of doctrine, at which office and institution are concerned. To say it once again: As long as the doctrinal issues are not resolved, the Fraternity has no canonical status in the Church and its ministers, even if they are free from ecclesiastical censure, do not exercise in a legitimate way any ministry in the Church.

Emphasis mine.

John Paul II said SSPX is in schism, and Benedict the XVI said his actions did not change that. Unless I have missed something very important then sadly SSPX is in a state of formal schism.

 

[TrueLight]

 

[choliks]

oh boy… a schismatic troll

 

[TrueLight]

oh boy… a schismatic troll

Well, the SSPX is not in schism, but I don’t expect that post to last for long.

 

[TheDoctor]

If you are over the age of 50 you know that you can’t trust anything coming out of Rome and you surely can’t trust the U.S. Bishops and Cardinals. I say “Bravo” to SSPX for standing their ground against this touchy feely effiminant Novus Ordo Church. SSPX are true men and do not care one bit what is said about them. They will not and should not budge.

Have you noticed how this new Church and the Obama administration have much in common? Both have created nothing but disasters since taking power and yet they take no responsibility for their action and results but instead keep making excuses and attacking those that speak against them. Liberal Church and Liberal Society are one in the same.

Without SSPX we would have nothing in the way of true Catholicism left in this world and Christ surely put SSPX in place to combat this destructive Novus Ordo Church leadership that claims to be Catholic.

The press loves throwing out words like “SSPX is not being obedient to Rome” or “The Pope needs to stop playing with SSPX”. Have we learned nothing about this modern liberal press and Novus Ordo church? They are one in the same. They use labels to get what they want. It doesn’t work anymore because we know they are both phoney.

The Blessed Mother will surely protect SSPX and the Christ will protect Bishop Fellay along with the Holy Spirit providing him with the necessary guidance.

If any one trusts Rome or these US Bishops and Cardinals they deserve everything they get. It is time for men to stand up and be counted and do all you can to support SSPX with time, money and prayers.

Viva Christo Rey

Walt

You are so wrong my brother - where is this anger against the Holy Father and our Bishops coming from? I would respond to you but honestly I think you will not be around here too much longer.

Go back and reread this thread. It is informative and civil. Your posts should be also.

 

[Digitonomy]

If the bishops decide to walk, their men don’t have to go with them. They can come into full communion by doing one of several things.

What is the status of any promises of obedience to these bishops a priest would have made? Is it proper for a priest to just drive down to the cathedral and send a text message to his SSPX bishop saying “adios”? Or is there a more deliberate process within the SSPX he would likely follow to terminate his membership?

 

[Farmville]

The Holy See says that the SSPX is not doctrinally correct in all of its positions. That’s enough for the Church. That’s all that we need to know.

What if people want to “know” more? Like why are they not doctrinally correct?

The pope does not have to prove himself to us.

 

[Inego_de_Loyola]

What is the status of any promises of obedience to these bishops a priest would have made? Is it proper for a priest to just drive down to the cathedral and send a text message to his SSPX bishop saying “adios”? Or is there a more deliberate process within the SSPX he would likely follow to terminate his membership?

The bishop has no rightful authority over him, so he can leave whenever he pleases, morally speaking.

 

[Digitonomy]

The bishop has no rightful authority over him, so he can leave whenever he pleases, morally speaking.

Is it as simple as that? I’m not a priest, so I have no priestly rules that apply to me, but if I make a promise to you, Inego, don’t I have an obligation to fulfill that promise to the best of my ability?

 

[Farmville]

Schism is not a matter of orthodoxy or heterodoxy. It is a question of relationship to the Chair of Peter.

This is pertinant to my previous post.

In your opinion, what is preferable, Orthodoxy in “Schism” or hetorodoxy in “Union”? If either?

But if you choose either, it seems like the nature of the Chair of Peter is must be understood in the light of Orthodoxy, not only obdience.

Remember, Christ also tells in the Gospel of St. Mark us after rebuking James and John,

"Ye know that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles excercise lordship over them; and their great ones exercise authority upon them.

But so shall it not be among you: but whosoever will be great among you, shall be your minister: And whosoever of you will be the chieftest, shall be servant of all"(Mk. 42-44).

Thus it seems that even the Pope must “minister” unto the Orthodox believers that all may worship in Catholicity.

 

[Farmville]

QUOTE=JReducation;9085905]

The SSPX is not and never was a diocesan institute, subordinate to a diocesan bishop. Therefore, it would be contrary to tradition and logic for the Apostolic See to submit to what is legitimately and legally subordinate to it. That which is subordinate has to come into complete cooperation with that which is juridically above it. That’s what the Civil War was about. The Federal Government does not submit to the states. Its the other way around.

But if the SSPX believs the Apostolic See is in error, they could, in an effort to try to bring about the changes they want, tell it that, which is what it looks like they are doing. From your post it is obvious that this is under normal circumstances illegitimate, but from their standpoint is seems justifiable to them.

Kind of like if, say the Federal Government, became unbearable due to unjust law, opression etc. and people instead of investing in power of the Federal Government, sided with their States which (in this hypothetical scenario) for whatever reasons upheld justice and proper goverance, in an effort to reestablish good and legitame authority?

 

[TrueLight]

Pope John Paul the second:Emphasis mine

Pope Benedict XVI: Emphasis mine.

John Paul II said SSPX is in schism, and Benedict the XVI said his actions did not change that. Unless I have missed something very important then sadly SSPX is in a state of formal schism.

Performing a schismatic act, is not the same thing as being in formal schism. I believe Br. Jr explained the difference somewhere if I’m not mistaken.

 

[Inego_de_Loyola]

Is it as simple as that? I’m not a priest, so I have no priestly rules that apply to me, but if I make a promise to you, Inego, don’t I have an obligation to fulfill that promise to the best of my ability?

Yes but an immoral or illicit promise does not bind. If you promised to help me defraud old ladies out of their retirement you would be under no moral obligation to do so.

 

[JReducation]

What if people want to “know” more? Like why are they not doctrinally correct?

 

[JReducation]

This seems that the Pope and Orthodox belief are at odds.

That’s irrelevant. This is a disciplinary issue with Catholics, not Orthodox. The Holy See deals with the Orthodox in different terms, because the Orthodox are not part of the Catholic Church.

Thus it seems either current beliefs on the nature of the Roman Pontiff and or the rule of Tradition etc. in the Roman Catholic Church need a serious reconsidering, if that is not entirelly extraneous given that all a Christian needs to know is what the present Pope says he/she must do in order to be in communion with him.

This point is irrelevant as well. Every pope is in communion with his successors. Therefore, if you’re in communion with the present pope, you’re in communion with the entire line. We have to separate Revelation on one side and everything else on the other. Nothing and no one outside of Divine Revelation is binding on the pope.

The faith of the Church regarding the primacy was best expressed by Boniface VII in **De ConstitI

The sovereign pontiff is the most fruitful source of canon law; he can abrogate the laws made by his predecessors or by Ecumenical councils; he can legislate for the whole church or for a part thereof, a country or a given body of individuals; if he is morally bound to take advice and to follow the dictates of prudence, he is not legally obliged to obtain the consent of any other person or persons, or to observe any particular form; his power is limited only by Divine law, natural and positive, dogmatic and moral. Furthermore, he is, so to say, the living law, for he is considered as having all law in the treasury of his hear.t**

"; Boniface VIII. c. i, “De Constit.” in VI).

But if the SSPX believs the Apostolic See is in error, they could, in an effort to try to bring about the changes they want, tell it that, which is what it looks like they are doing. From your post it is obvious that this is under normal circumstances illegitimate, but from their standpoint is seems justifiable to them.

This is relativism at its finest. Just because they believe that the Apostolic See is in error, does not make it so. At the end of the day, Catholics owe their allegiance to the Apostolic See, not to the SSPX. There is only one Magisterium and it’s not the SSPX. Their understanding and questions may have legitimacy within the context of subordination, but not outside of that.

You cannot set yourself as equal to that who created you and through whom you received life and who can terminate your existence. As an institute of Pontifical Right, the SSPX exists only at the bene placito of the Holy Father. The moment that it says that it exists because it (The SSPX) says it exists, it is in schism. All institutes of Pontifical Right exist only as long as the Holy Father gives them the right to exist. Once he suppresses them, by taking away their right to call themselves Catholic, they cease to exist within the Church. Or they can do this to themselves, if they assume the position that they do not have to submit to the rights of the Pontiff.

Once either of those happens, anyone who supports them, goes into schism with them, as it happened in the Great Schism 1000 years ago. The bishops went and so did those who followed them. They all ceased to be Catholic. They retain Apostolic Succession. That cannot be taken from them. They are outside of the Catholic Church. This is what would happen to the SSPX is the Pope took away their right to be called Catholic or if they decided that they do not have to submit to the Pontiff. Understand, that we’re talking about the Institute. Individuals do not cease to be Catholic. Anyone baptized in the Catholic Church continues to be Catholic, even when he or she is in schism. For that reason, he can return with a simple confession of sins and reasonable penance.

Kind of like if, say the Federal Government, became unbearable due to unjust law, opression etc. and people instead of investing in power of the Federal Government, sided with their States which (in this hypothetical scenario) for whatever reasons upheld justice and proper goverance, in an effort to reestablish good and legitame authority?

That does not work in the Church, because the Church is vertical. All power and authority flows from the top down. The people are led in worship by the priest. The priest shares in the priesthood of his bishop. The bishop governs in communion with the Pontiff. The Pontiff accounts to no one except to God.

The USA was not instituted by Christ. The Church was.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF