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

[Melchior_1]

Maybe that’s the endgame some have in mind. Rather than have invalid Confessions and illicit ordinations, if they get declared schismatic then the law no longer applies and things become valid and licit again?

 

[JReducation]

Maybe that’s the endgame some have in mind. Rather than have invalid Confessions and illicit ordinations, if they get declared schismatic then the law no longer applies and things become valid and licit again?

I’m not sure it’s quite that simple. It’s a very tragic way to get that, because the people involved will be outside of the Catholic Church.

Also, I’m not a Canon Lawyer, but my take on this is that the sacramental actions of the schismatics remain unlawful.

In the case of the Orthodox, the Church has said that they are not culpable of the schism. It’s our ancestors who bear the burden of culpability. We’re talking about 1,000 years of Orthodox tradition. What I’m trying to say is that I don’t know if the same rules apply to the first generation, since it’s directly responsible for the schism. That first generation would be excommunicated. Which is not the case with today’s Orthodox. They’re not excommunicated, because they were never Catholic.

If there were to be a schism and there were to be an SSPX Catholic Church or go by some other name, my guess is that it would be the next generation who would not incur the penalties, because it was born into that Church, not the generation that broke away from the Church.

Take that with a grain of salt, because I’m not a canon lawyer.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[ProVobis]

In the case of the Orthodox, the Church has said that they are not culpable of the schism. It’s our ancestors who bear the burden of culpability. We’re talking about 1,000 years of Orthodox tradition. What I’m trying to say is that I don’t know if the same rules apply to the first generation, since it’s directly responsible for the schism. That first generation would be excommunicated. Which is not the case with today’s Orthodox. They’re not excommunicated, because they were never Catholic.

Br JR, I’m confused here. Didn’t you mention elsewhere that the Orthodox pronounced that the Roman Rite was in schism way back when as well? And that when the Orthodox excommunications were lifted in the 60’s, the Orthodox lifted those excommunications (of the Romans) at the same time?

 

[Digitonomy]

ProVobis:

I was replying to someone who had already presumed schism on their part and his use of the word “free” bothered me a little. It would be like me saying “I’ve been excommunicated; I no longer have a Sunday obligation or need to do penance on Friday.”

I think either you misunderstood what Inego de Loyola was saying, or I misunderstand what you are saying. Back in post 124 (sorry for this late reply)he was explaining to me that SSPX clerics were morally free (though he didn’t actually use that word) to disavow any promises they had made to their SSPX bishops. I think it was clear that such clerics could get away with this not because they were in schism and so not subject to canon law, but because the SSPX bishops had no authority to receive such promises. That and JR’s explanation answered most of what I was wondering.

I still think it would be proper for such a priest to inform the bishop either in person or in a formal letter - assuming that the priest respected the bishop as a person, and felt the bishop had acted honorably toward him in the past.

 

[JReducation]

Br JR, I’m confused here. Didn’t you mention elsewhere that the Orthodox pronounced that the Roman Rite was in schism way back when as well? And that when the Orthodox excommunications were lifted in the 60’s, the Orthodox lifted those excommunications (of the Romans) at the same time?

Yes, this is true. During the first 1,000 years of the Church’s history, there were so many conflicts between the Eastern Churches and the Roman Church, that many of the Eastern Patriarchs excommunicated the Romans and any Easterners who followed the Romans.

This is one of the most fascinating points of ecclesiology, because it turns out that the Patriarchs did have the authority and power to excommunicate us. That’s one of the powers of a Patriarch, which diocesan bishops in the Roman Church can only exercise with the approval of the Holy Father.

For the talks on reconciliation to begin, in 1965 Pope Paul VI and His Holiness Patriarch Athenagoras signed the mutual lifting of excommunication between the Roman Church and the Greek Orthodox. From there, the rest of the Orthodox Patriarchs followed, albeit cautiously and slowly. One by one, Pope Paul VI brokered the deal.

We have to remember that Pope Paul VI was a legal genius. He was one of the best Canon Lawyers of the 20th century. He wrote the Code of 1983, but died before the last draft was ready. Bl. John Paul finished the work and added a few things.

Pope Paul was also known for being a very astute and effective diplomat. He had served both Pope Pius XII and Bl. John XXIII in some very difficult diplomatic situations alongside with a young cleric from Poland who would someday be pope.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[ProVobis]

I think either you misunderstood what Inego de Loyola was saying, or I misunderstand what you are saying.

To be honest, I forgot what my train of thought was at the time. In any case, Br JR has since answered my (and others’, I hope) concerns about schisms.

I’ll have to agree with you on the loyalty part on the priest’s side aside from his canonical “freedoms,” though I’m sure there’s a diplomatic way to break that.

 

[mabelm]

Just sad I hope formal schism does not happen, but the signs are all pointing that direction. As one comment states “Neocats in, SSPX out” I completely agree, btw one group that scares me more than political liberal is them. St. Pius X pray for them.