What is de facto schism?

[otm]

Freeway4321:

I take it you’re not aware of Cardinal Mahony and his many abuses of the Liturgy?

I am aware of the complaints about Cardinal Mahoney.

The point I am trying to make is that I have no idea when the picture was taken; if it was taken prior to the issuance of Redemptionis Sacramentum, then you are using the picture to show that he is breaking a rule that had not yet been promulgated. you made an accusation. I am asking if the accusation you made - that at the time the picture was taken, Redemptionis Sacramentum had been issued - is in fact the case.

In fact, he may currently be saying Mass the same way. As I am not in Los Angeles, I have no way of knowing.

However, if the picture was taken before Redemptionis Sacramentum, and you have personal knowledge that he is still doing the same, I would suggest that you should so state.

If it was taken prior to Redemptionis Sacramentum being issued and you do not have personal knowledge that he is still doing the same, then I would suggest that your comment and picture juxtaposed is at the minimum uncharitable, and borders on sounding in libel.

And I still do not have an answer to my question.

 

[otm]

Kielbasi:

From another thread:

Although this is a phrase from just one individual poster, others have listened with an air of approval.

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean, are not American bishops appointed by the same pope in Rome as those elsewhere?

I think an objective look at American religion and American Catholicism , is that America is quite religious in comparison with the rest of the Christian world and considerably more strict even to the point of legalism.

De facto means in fact; in other words, effectively, someone has broken off from Rome. It is separate from De Jure (in law), which is an official break.

I wouldn’t put too much creedance in the comments. First, often the people they are referring to are not a group, but a bunch of individuals; there is no formal groups such as there was with SSPX.

Secondly, often those accusing others of schism cannot distinguish between a casual, laize faire attitude towards rules (violation of the rules) and a rejection of the authority of the rulemaker, as they see any intentional violation of the rules as rejection of the authority of the rulemaker, and that is not how it is understood. Much, if not most seems to reside in the area of rubrics, and that simply is not grounds of schism the vast majority of the time.

LeFebvre was in de facto schism when he ordained the four bihops, as a bishop cannot ordin other bishops without explicit permission of Rome, and he was told not to ordain. It was not simple mistake or onryness, it was a long, ongoing challenge to the Pope’s authority that culminated in the ordination.

Whe JP2 responded, the Lefbvre and his group were de jure in schism.

 

[Dr.Bombay]

Hmmmmm…I notice the good Cardinal, now the good Holy Father, didn’t correct Mr. Arroyo when he said:

Some have suggested, Your Eminence, that there is a de facto schism in the Church today.

Tacit acknowledgement that the American Church (don’t play semantic games, you know what I’m talking about) is in de facto schism.

What some of you fail to realize is that the Pope only has power over the bishops of the world as long as they acknowledge his power. The Pope has no legal standing in an American court. If Benedict told Mahoney to vacate his See, and Mahoney refused, what, exactly, would the Holy Father do? Send the Swiss Guard in to pistol whip him? Who owns the property of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles? It’s not Benedict XVI.

The Vatican is well aware of this fact and has to tread lightly. It wouldn’t take much to tip the American Church :tsktsk: into formal schism. And if one American bishop goes, he would not only take his diocese (all property as well as souls) with him, he could take several of his brother bishops, who would likely choose collegiality with a fellow American over obedience to a foreign Pontiff half a world away. Or have we forgotten the lesson of Henry VIII?

This would be a disaster, far worse than Archbishop

Lefebvre, who only took a couple thousand ankle biters with him.

However, this too shall pass. The Church can wait out the intransigent bishops who are retiring and/or dying off at an accelerated rate.

And this de facto schism goes far beyond violating the rubrics. It has nothing to do with Our Father hand-holding. Or has the sex scandal, poor catechesis and promotion of heterodoxy from inside Chancery offices not penetrated some of you people’s skulls for the past 30+ years?

 

[Dropper]

otm:

I am aware of the complaints about Cardinal Mahoney.

The point I am trying to make is that I have no idea when the picture was taken; if it was taken prior to the issuance of Redemptionis Sacramentum, then you are using the picture to show that he is breaking a rule that had not yet been promulgated. you made an accusation. I am asking if the accusation you made - that at the time the picture was taken, Redemptionis Sacramentum had been issued - is in fact the case.

In fact, he may currently be saying Mass the same way. As I am not in Los Angeles, I have no way of knowing.

However, if the picture was taken before Redemptionis Sacramentum, and you have personal knowledge that he is still doing the same, I would suggest that you should so state.

If it was taken prior to Redemptionis Sacramentum being issued and you do not have personal knowledge that he is still doing the same, then I would suggest that your comment and picture juxtaposed is at the minimum uncharitable, and borders on sounding in libel.

And I still do not have an answer to my question.

I answered you. I don’t know if the picture was taken before or after Redemptoris Sacramentum. I saw him saying a Mass on THE DAY that JP II died and he was using the same “chalice”.

It made my blood boil that he would be saying a Mass for JP II on the day that he was on death’s door and flaunt his disobedience at the same time.

 

[Freeway4321]

otm:

I am aware of the complaints about Cardinal Mahoney.

The point I am trying to make is that I have no idea when the picture was taken; if it was taken prior to the issuance of Redemptionis Sacramentum, then you are using the picture to show that he is breaking a rule that had not yet been promulgated. you made an accusation. I am asking if the accusation you made - that at the time the picture was taken, Redemptionis Sacramentum had been issued - is in fact the case.

In fact, he may currently be saying Mass the same way. As I am not in Los Angeles, I have no way of knowing.

However, if the picture was taken before Redemptionis Sacramentum, and you have personal knowledge that he is still doing the same, I would suggest that you should so state.

If it was taken prior to Redemptionis Sacramentum being issued and you do not have personal knowledge that he is still doing the same, then I would suggest that your comment and picture juxtaposed is at the minimum uncharitable, and borders on sounding in libel.

And I still do not have an answer to my question.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=42903

I know, the Bishops & Cardinals and certainly not the Pope can do no wrong. The Mass is fine and the church is in a great state.

The Protestants have the Gospel of nice, just in case anyones looking for it. Or you can just go to your local dissenting Catholic parish and see a new feminist ideal.

I think we all should take up the apostolate of reality.

By the way, no one needed “Redemptionis Sacramentum” Everyone knew what was appropriate and what wasnt. It was common sense at one time…

 

[otm]

Freeway4321:

So what you’re saying is… someone who apparently has no clue of what his duties are as a Bishop and certainly not of a Cardinal… should be praised? Commended? It is one thing to be a preist or a bishop. It’s another thing to be a priest or a bishop that acts more like a dissenting fool.

I don’t think we should be forced to close our eyes whenever we see things that are lacerating the church.

But maybe I care about the body of christ a little much, eh?

To say that there is a bishop or cardianl out there who has no clue what their duties are is to make a sweeping statement about both the Pope and those under him who vet the candidates for bishop and cardinal. They are certainly not infallible in the exercise of choosing someone for one of the offices; however, neither do they choose fools or simpletons.

And don’t presume that you are the only one who cares about the Body of Christ - His Church. Some of us are capable of distinguishing degrees of seriousness: for example, a priest or bishop having sex with a teenage boy, or using a glass chalice. Some of us would appear to lump the two together.

 

[otm]

Dr. Bombay:

Hmmmmm…I notice the good Cardinal, now the good Holy Father, didn’t correct Mr. Arroyo when he said:

Tacit acknowledgement that the American Church (don’t play semantic games, you know what I’m talking about) is in de facto schism.

What some of you fail to realize is that the Pope only has power over the bishops of the world as long as they acknowledge his power. The Pope has no legal standing in an American court. If Benedict told Mahoney to vacate his See, and Mahoney refused, what, exactly, would the Holy Father do? Send the Swiss Guard in to pistol whip him? Who owns the property of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles? It’s not Benedict XVI.

The Vatican is well aware of this fact and has to tread lightly. It wouldn’t take much to tip the American Church :tsktsk: into formal schism. And if one American bishop goes, he would not only take his diocese (all property as well as souls) with him, he could take several of his brother bishops, who would likely choose collegiality with a fellow American over obedience to a foreign Pontiff half a world away. Or have we forgotten the lesson of Henry VIII?

This would be a disaster, far worse than Archbishop

Lefebvre, who only took a couple thousand ankle biters with him.

However, this too shall pass. The Church can wait out the intransigent bishops who are retiring and/or dying off at an accelerated rate.

And this de facto schism goes far beyond violating the rubrics. It has nothing to do with Our Father hand-holding. Or has the sex scandal, poor catechesis and promotion of heterodoxy from inside Chancery offices not penetrated some of you people’s skulls for the past 30+ years?Stupid decisions about what to do with sexually active priests, having sex with teenage boys, absconding with funds from the church, violating various rubrics, and a host of other things that seem to make people angry are not indications that an individual, or a loosly defined group of individuals are in schism, de facto or de jure.

And as to what the Pope could do, you seem to have little knowledge of Canon Law and what he could do if he needed to. JP2 didn’t seem to have any problem dealing with Lefbrve.

 

[Freeway4321]

otm:

To say that there is a bishop or cardianl out there who has no clue what their duties are is to make a sweeping statement about both the Pope and those under him who vet the candidates for bishop and cardinal. They are certainly not infallible in the exercise of choosing someone for one of the offices; however, neither do they choose fools or simpletons.

And don’t presume that you are the only one who cares about the Body of Christ - His Church. Some of us are capable of distinguishing degrees of seriousness: for example, a priest or bishop having sex with a teenage boy, or using a glass chalice. Some of us would appear to lump the two together.

Apparently they failed here.

I wasn’t saying I was the only one. Wasn’t my intention either… There are people who care far more than me, and are doing much more than me.

 

[Dr.Bombay]

otm:

Stupid decisions about what to do with sexually active priests, having sex with teenage boys, absconding with funds from the church, violating various rubrics, and a host of other things that seem to make people angry are not indications that an individual, or a loosly defined group of individuals are in schism, de facto or de jure.

The Holy Father would appear to disagree with you.

otm:

And as to what the Pope could do, you seem to have little knowledge of Canon Law and what he could do if he needed to. JP2 didn’t seem to have any problem dealing with Lefbrve.

Congratulations. You’ve discovered my Achilles heel. Lack of knowledge of Canon Law.

Again…this isn’t about Canon Law. The Pope has no legal standing in an American Court. If an American bishop wanted to take his entire diocese into schism, there is nothing the Vatican could do to stop him. The Pope is not the legal owner of diocesan property. Lefebvre had the title Archbishop, but he wasn’t the ordinary of a diocese. There’s a difference.

 

[otm]

Dr. Bombay:

The Holy Father would appear to disagree with you.

Congratulations. You’ve discovered my Achilles heel. Lack of knowledge of Canon Law.

Again…this isn’t about Canon Law. The Pope has no legal standing in an American Court. If an American bishop wanted to take his entire diocese into schism, there is nothing the Vatican could do to stop him. The Pope is not the legal owner of diocesan property. Lefebvre had the title Archbishop, but he wasn’t the ordinary of a diocese. There’s a difference.

As I said, he has plenty he can do in Canon Law. He doesn’t need to go to Circuit/Superior Court to do it.

And as for the Holy Father disagreeing with me, perhaps a complete reading of what he said might be in order.

 

[Dr.Bombay]

otm:

As I said, he has plenty he can do in Canon Law. He doesn’t need to go to Circuit/Superior Court to do it.

And as for the Holy Father disagreeing with me, perhaps a complete reading of what he said might be in order.

It’s what he didn’t say that is instructive.

Canon Law can only be enforced with the consent of the enforcee. The Pope has no police powers.

 

[pnewton]

netmil(name removed by moderator):

Did you go to the site and read it?
It was much more than a Bishop.

The bishop wasn’t even the funny part. I like the Fr. McBrien part best. I can sympathize with the sentiment and frustration and think this writer has found a good outlet.

PS - We still shouldn’t be playing pope and calling those schismatics that he has not.