J
jwinch2
Guest
Yes it is. And they are a major part of the problem with their own disobedience.
- Status
T
TradCatholic7
Guest
So true, and good point. To leave the Tradition of the church, to save the tradition doesn’t make sense to me. Reform within??I don’t know. The whole, “I must disobey the Church to save it” mentality is self contradictory. They must act in a schismatic manner to preserve the Tradition of the Church?
I understand where the SSPX priests are coming from, but if everyone acted in the same manner (I believe I am right and Rome is wrong)we would not have a Church.
In fact, a lot of people DO act in that manner, and they are the people that SSPX say they are protecting the Church from.
J
JReducation
Guest
The letter may be beautiful, but they were told that they could not do this. Therefore, they should not be doing what has been prohibitted. A beautiful letter does not justify doing what you’re not allowed to do.
Those who promote women’s ordination also write beautiful statements about women in the Church, women of faith and the place of women in worship. We certainly do no support them ordaining women or concelebrating with women priests.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
C
CHCatholic
Guest
LOL how backwards.So true, and good point. To leave the Tradition of the church, to save the tradition doesn’t make sense to me. Reform within??
The SSPX never committed a schismatic act, Rome has said so herself.
And how did they leave Tradition exactly?
J
JReducation
Guest
Rome did say that the ordination of the four bishops was a schismatic act. You can find it in Light of the Word. Pope Benedict refers to it. What they are not is schismatics or in schism either.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
P
Puer_Catholicus
Guest
According to Canon 751, “Schism is the withdrawal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or from communion with the members of the Church subject to him.” It is true that Archbishop Lefebvre committed an act of disobedience in the consecration of the four bishops without papal permission, however:Rome did say that the ordination of the four bishops was a schismatic act. You can find it in Light of the Word. Pope Benedict refers to it. What they are not is schismatics or in schism either.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
"not every disobedience is a schism; in order to possess this character it must include besides the transgression of the commands of superiors, denial of their Divine right to command” (Catholic Encyclopedia).
The SSPX has never denied that the Supreme Pontiff possesses divine authority.
From a July 1, 2008 press release by the Society: “The SSPX does not claim the exercise of a magisterium superior to the Holy Father’s, nor does it seek to oppose the Church. Following in the footsteps of its founder, it wants to hand down what it has received, namely ‘what has always been believed everywhere and by all.’ It claims as its own the profession of faith addressed by Archbishop Lefebvre to Paul VI on September 24, 1975: ‘Jesus Christ has entrusted to His Vicar the charge of confirming his brethren in the faith, and has asked him to make sure that every bishop faithfully keep the deposit of the faith, according to St. Paul’s recommendation to Timothy.’”
I do not see how one can claim that the SSPX is in schism when it has not denied the authority of the Pope. It has disobeyed, that is fact, but it is not in schism.
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
I think you need to reread Br JR’s reply, specifically the end of it which I have quoted here;
It is important to remember that the pope is the supreme legislator and the final arbiter for Canon Law, his word is final regardless of what some commentary might say.
As a side note:
People really need to start reading the full thread before replying or at a minimum the full post they are replying to.
J
JReducation
Guest
While it is good to read the canons and the commentaries, it is important to remember that the highest voice is always that of the pope.
We have to learn to put aside our “American” way of viewiing law in order to understand what is happening here.
You see, in our system of law, only congress can change law and only the people can amend the Constitution. In Eclesial Law (Canon Law) the pope is always above the law. It does not apply to him and it applies to us according to his wishes and his intepretation.
This is an example. The commentary says that a schismatic act must include the denial of the pope’s divine right to command. The Society says that it has never denied this. Pope Benedict denies their claim.
On several occasions the Holy Father has said that the act of ordaining the bishops was a schismatic act. Bl. John Paul said the same. Pope Benedict has also said that it was a break with the Primacy. No Catholic has the right to contradict the Law Giver.
We also need to keep in mind that the Canon Law exists at the pope’s discretion. We are bound to it in the manner that he interprets it, not as we understand it. He is the giver of law and the arbiter. In the end, his is legislator, judge, and jury. If he says that it was a schismatic act, then we have to give the assent of the will and accept what he says.
However, it is important to note two things. Neither pope has ever said that the Society is schismatic. If that were the case, the relationship would be between Churches, not between the Church and one of its organizations.
The second, the Holy Father himself, while condemning the actions of Archbishop Lefebvre and the four bishops, defends and protects the priests, sisters and brothers of the Society. We must treat them with the same respect and kindness as we want for us. It is wrong to use them as a scapegoat.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
P
PaulinVA
Guest
This is technically true. SSPX has performed numerous schismatic acts but has never been declared schismatic. They should be applauded for walking such a fine line! (And then told to stop)
J
JReducation
Guest
I think the problem is that we’re not separating Tradition and the SSPX. In our effort to protect tradition, we’re engaging in a defense of the SSPX. I don’t think that Traditionalists need to put that much pressure on themselves. To do so is very dangerous, because it blurs the line between Tradition and the SSPX.
I think we can and should take example from men like Pope Benedict and Cardinal Levada. Both are defenders and protectors of orthodox tradition, while they work to bring the SSPX into compliance with the Holy See.
When we blur the line between tradition and the SSPX, we run the risk of trying to bring the Church into compliance with the SSPX’s understanding of tradition.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
I think we can and should take example from men like Pope Benedict and Cardinal Levada. Both are defenders and protectors of orthodox tradition, while they work to bring the SSPX into compliance with the Holy See.
When we blur the line between tradition and the SSPX, we run the risk of trying to bring the Church into compliance with the SSPX’s understanding of tradition.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
T
TrueLight
Guest
Okay, I’m a newcomer and there is a lot of background information I don’t have, but I will always have respect for the SSPX simply for the fact that they did stand for the traditional Latin mass. The FSSP, who is doing a fabulous job AND is in full communion with Rome, came from the SSPX. Without the SSPX, maybe the Latin mass wouldn’t be where it is now?I think the problem is that we’re not separating Tradition and the SSPX. In our effort to protect tradition, we’re engaging in a defense of the SSPX. I don’t think that Traditionalists need to put that much pressure on themselves. To do so is very dangerous, because it blurs the line between Tradition and the SSPX.
I think we can and should take example from men like Pope Benedict and Cardinal Levada. Both are defenders and protectors of orthodox tradition, while they work to bring the SSPX into compliance with the Holy See.
When we blur the line between tradition and the SSPX, we run the risk of trying to bring the Church into compliance with the SSPX’s understanding of tradition.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
Maybe there is a reason why our Holy Father has not outright said they are in schism.
J
JReducation
Guest
If you read what Pope Benedict has to say about them, he states that the issue is not their defense of tradition. The issue is that they broke with the Primacy. This is where the laity have to stand by the pope. It’s a wonderful thing to protect tradition, to correct errors and to recover what we may have lost. It is unacceptable to break with the Primacy.
While the lay simpathizers of the SSPX say “they disobeyed, because . . .” The pope says that they did more than disobey. “They broke with the Primacy.” That’s a very serious accusation, not to be taken lightly and one that I would never make. When you make such a statement, you’re accusing the person of committing a schismatic act.
Pope Benedict minces no words when speaking about the Archbishop and the other bishops. He has made it clear that the problem was not the EF or Tradition. He has also made it clear that with time and submission, the misunderstanding regarding the EF would have been clarified. Pope John Paul had already approved an indult to celebrate it. The next logical step was to do what Pope Benedict did, to clarify that it had never been abrogataed, but that it is no longer the ordinary way that we celebrate the mass, hence his use of the term “forma extraordinaria”.
Everytime the poor man is interviewed he is asked about the SSPX and he says the same thing. He lifted the excommunication, because the four bishops asked and they expressed a willingness to work toward reconciliation. He also states unequivocally that it was an act of mercy.
We must understand that an act of mercy is not the same as an act of justice. An act of mercy is one that we do not deserve, but it done out of love. This is the pope speaking, not me. He said that it was mercy to lift the excommunication. It was he who said that they broke with the Primacy. And it was he who said of Bishop Williamson, “I would never introduce a anti-Semite into polite society. Had we known, we would have separated him from the others. He was never part of the Church.”
While in his decree lifting the excommunication he speaks very positively about the reasons for doing so, in many statements he comes down very hard. He has a balance between mercy and indignation when he speaks about the SSPX.
What is happening among many people is that the focus is on the mass and the arguments with the Vatican II, but the pope is not interested in that subject. He is interested in submission to authority. The way that he expresses himself, it seems that saying that they beleive that the pope is the Successor of Peter is not enough for him. They have to comply with what he puts before them.
Compliance is the line in the sand. That’s why one must separate Tradition from the SSPX. Tradition is good and holy, non compliance is not good and only hurts the Body.
This was the same speech that he gave to the bishops of the Italian conference. The Holy Father holds up St. Francis as the example and model for the true reformer.
Every True Reformer Is Obedient to the Faith
…] 1. In these days you have gathered in Assisi, the city in which “a sun was born to the world” (Dante, Paradiso, Canto XI), proclaimed patron of Italy by venerable Pius XII: Saint Francis, who preserves intact his freshness and his relevance – the saints never fade away! – due to his being conformed totally to Christ, of whom he was a living icon.
Every true reformer, in fact, is obedient to the faith: he does not act in an arbitrary manner, he does not appropriate any discretion over the rite; he is not the owner, but the custodian of the treasury instituted by the Lord and entrusted to us. The whole Church is present in every liturgy: adhering to its form is a condition of authenticity for what is celebrated. …]
I find it very beautiful that he calls Francis an Icon of Christ. Popes in the past called him the Mirror of Perfection. Yet, he is a reformer. This tells us what a reformer must be. He must mirror perfection, be an icon of Christ.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
P
ProVobis
Guest
Now if we can only get the FSSPX to say nice things about St. Francis…
J
JReducation
Guest
I can’t speak for the SSPX, but I have noticed that many Traditionalists would like to pretend that Francis of Assisi never existed or at least, try to minimize his role in Church history. If you accept that he was one of the most influential reformers in Church history, then you have to accept certain things that Francis did, which annoy many Traditionalists. I believe that I’ve mentioned them all.Now if we can only get the FSSPX to say nice things about St. Francis…
- Taking Gregorian chant out of the mass and Divine Office
- Eliminate communion rails in Franciscan chapels
- Introduction of music and hymns in the vernacular into the mass and the Divine Office
- Minimizing the separation between the ordained brothers and the non ordained brothers
- Empowering women to govern themselves without male interference
- Creating the first real secular order to bridge the gap between the religious life and the secular world
- Taking the consecrated life out of the monastery and into the world
- Creating the Custody of the Holy Land with the promise never to preach to the Muslims or the Jews, but to convert by the life and charity of the friars
- Defending the rights of the Muslims to live free of Christian oppressors
- Commanding absolute and obedience even when authority is wrong, unless authority commands to sin (which many say that Aquinas said differently. Which is not true. Aquinas said it differently, but it was the same concept)
- Defending the right of the papacy to govern without resistance from the laity and the clergy
- Moving the tabernacle from the traditional side chapel and placing it on the main sanctuary.
- Introducing dramatization and pageants into the liturgies of Christmas and Good Friday
Also many Traditionalists do not whince or bat an eyelash when Franciscans complain that novelties were introduced into our way of life such as Gregorian Chant, clericalism, scholas, communion rails.
Obviously, we do not always understand Catholic Tradition in its broadest sense. Unless we pay attention to the masters of the spiritual life, we miss a big piece of it. We have to take a hollistic approach to Tradition or we’re in trouble.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
C
Cinaed57
Guest
Schismatic? Some say this? On what basis?
They teach no creed other than the creed traditionally taught, the Nicene Creed and the Catechism of the Council of Trent.
They acknowledge no other leader of the Catholic Church other than the successor of Peter, the Pope of Rome.
On what possible basis are they schismatic?
D
Dragonslayer
Guest
A good question. How can they be schismatic when they are simply Catholic?
Yes, they are disobedient, but could not the same thing be said about millions of Catholics? Those that disobey the Sunday obligation, or ignore the sacrament of confession, or who routinely use contraception, who support abortion or gay marriage, or who deny the real presence, or the existance of hell etc, etc, etc?
At least the SSPX have a reason for their disobedience, as they argue they were only disobedient in order to preserve the one true Holy Catholic & Apostolic Church.
M
Melchior_1
Guest
Y’all are proving Brother JR’s point though. Two posts after his people keep on talking about disobedience, when the actual issue is they directly went against the papacy.
I wonder how much of this is because people agree with them, and try to couch things in a certain way to validate their thoughts. Because if a more “liberal” group did something like this (flagrantly disregard the Pope), there’d be calls for excommunications and they’d all be called heretics.
Imagine if St. James told St. Peter “I know you’re the Rock, but Jerusalem is my territory so I’m going to run this council, not you, regardless of what you say” in Acts. Or any of the Apostles tell Jesus “I don’t like what you’re doing. Can I do this?”, Jesus saying no, and the fellow did it anyway.
I wonder how much of this is because people agree with them, and try to couch things in a certain way to validate their thoughts. Because if a more “liberal” group did something like this (flagrantly disregard the Pope), there’d be calls for excommunications and they’d all be called heretics.
Imagine if St. James told St. Peter “I know you’re the Rock, but Jerusalem is my territory so I’m going to run this council, not you, regardless of what you say” in Acts. Or any of the Apostles tell Jesus “I don’t like what you’re doing. Can I do this?”, Jesus saying no, and the fellow did it anyway.
T
TrueLight
Guest
A rebuttal example would be Paul’s account of his small beef with Peter:
So Paul stood up to Peter because he believed Peter was in error.
Disclaimer: I am not siding with the SSPX in any way. I’m just sayin’.
M
Melchior_1
Guest
He lodged his concerns, yes. But he didn’t flagrantly disregard Peter’s authority. He didn’t question Peter’s authority. In matters of faith and morals, when push came to shove, they all remained loyal to the Chair of Peter.A rebuttal example would be Paul’s account with his small beef with Peter:
So Paul stood up to Peter because he believed Peter was in error.
Disclaimer: I am not siding with the SSPX in any way. I’m just sayin’.
The Archbishop raised his concerns with the Pope, and gave his idea for what he wanted to do. The Pope weighed the options and said “I appreciate your concerns, but you can’t do what you want”. The archbishop} went ahead and did it anyway, and look where that got him.
J
JReducation
Guest
The argument that Paul stood up to Peter is often used very incorrecctly, proving that those who use it, do not do proper exegesis.
Let’s look at the facts.
We have to observe how careful Paul is to disagree with Peter, but to stop at the edge. He never crosses the line. Peter is still in charge. Paul does not proceed to change the rules without Peter behind him. This is the key.
Peter was wrong on a prudential matter, but even there, the bishops did not cross the line. They did not disregard him or disobey him. They argued, they debated, they pleaded, they did whatever it took to bet Peter to see what they were saying. The whole Council of Jerusalem was spent convincing Peter of many things. I call it “Peter’s Council”.
PS. Don’t use that in a Church History class. It’s a title I made up, not a real academic title.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
Let’s look at the facts.
- Paul was the head of several sui iuris Churches, as were the other Apostles.
- Peter was in Jerusalem.
- A council is called and all of the Apostles, which were more than 12 by then, go to Jerusalem.
- Jerusalem was under siege by the Romans. It was a crime to be a Christian in any part of the Roman Empire.
- So . . . why do they go to Jerusalem? Answer: because where Peter is, there is the Church.
- Paul reacognizes his authority over his Churches. This is very clear in how he governs them.
- Paul chooses to bring up his concern a the Council, in Jerusalem, before Peter.
- Paul was a bishop, just like Peter. He could have chosen to do his thing with his Gentile converts. Peter was not involved with the Gentile converts. He had not yet gone to Rome.
- Paul presents his case before the council, headed by Peter.
- At no time during his address does he ever call him, Simon. his given name. He calls him Cephas, his title. This is very important. Jews only used titles for heirarchy.
- Paul’s desire to go to Jerusalem, his manner of addressing Cephas and the fact that Cephas opinion is important to him, are clear evidence that he is submissive to Cephas.
- Paul did not threaten to leave or to defy Cephas. He presented his point until he persuaded Cephas. We all know, from reading the Gospels and reading his letters, that Peter was bull-headed. It was probably no an easy sell. Peter, was also not as good a theologian as Paul.
- Cephas, not Simon, finally concedes the point. Paul does not go away and do his thing.
- The issue was not decided at Antioch. The debate began during a visit by Peter to Antioch. It was not at Antioch that Peter concedes the point. It was at the Council of Jerusalem.
We have to observe how careful Paul is to disagree with Peter, but to stop at the edge. He never crosses the line. Peter is still in charge. Paul does not proceed to change the rules without Peter behind him. This is the key.
Peter was wrong on a prudential matter, but even there, the bishops did not cross the line. They did not disregard him or disobey him. They argued, they debated, they pleaded, they did whatever it took to bet Peter to see what they were saying. The whole Council of Jerusalem was spent convincing Peter of many things. I call it “Peter’s Council”.
PS. Don’t use that in a Church History class. It’s a title I made up, not a real academic title.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
- Status