What Makes SSPX schismatic?

[Sure]

The good Cardinal is not exactly a nobody, his statements are fairly, well , extremely well known and since he has never been censured, shut down or otherwise told to be quiet by the Vatican, I have to assume his views are not out of line with offical Vatican thought.

Yes, they are weighty statements. But they are not nearly as weighty as the motu proprio Ecclesia Dei or the interpretation issued by the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legal Texts.

Fr. Z, the esteemed traditionalist priest, had this to say of the apparent disconnect between the statements of Cardinal Castrillon and the official Church documents:

He (Cardinal Castrillon) states fairly strongly that, while Archbishop Lefebvre committed a schismatic act by consecrating bishops without permission of the Holy See, the bishops, priests and faithful of the SSPX are not schismatics.

With all due respect to His Eminence, I would like to be instructed about how accepting ordination from a bishop (consecrated during an act of schism) who is suspended and excommunicated, taking orders from him and receiving money from him for your service is not, in fact, adherence to schism.

Adherence to schism incurs excommunication.

Yet, Card. Castrillon says that priests and faithful are not excommunicated.

I remain bewildered.

wdtprs.com/blog/2007/02/card-castrillon-hoyos-interviewed-about-tridentine-indult/

In light of this statement by the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legal Texts, I too remain bewildered:

1. …As long as there are no changes which may lead to the re-establishment of this necessary communion,** the whole Lefebvrian movement is to be held schismatic**, in view of the existence of a formal declaration by the Supreme Authority on this matter.

---

1. In the case of the Lefebvrian deacons and priests there seems no doubt that their ministerial activity in the ambit of the schismatic movement is a more than evident sign of the fact that the two requirements mentioned above (n.5) are met, and thus that there is a formal adherence.

catholicculture.org/library/view.cfm?recnum=1224

Hopefully, clarification will be forthcoming. In the meantime, it is probably most prudent to take our direction from the actual Vatican documents and not from interviews given to the media.

 

[old_altar_boy]

Then you have to assume the same about Cardinal Kaspar, who runs around saying that the goal of the Catholic Church is not the conversion of non-Catholics. I don’t think that’s Church teaching or truth.

The fact remains until the Pope acts to rescind or reverse Ecclesia Dei, it remains in force. The Archbishop and the four bishops are excommunicated, the priests are suspended ad divinis (and thus have no faculties), and the laity are warned against the grave sin of schism by association. Let’s pray that changes.

If that was indeed the case then no one could attend their Masses or have I misunderstood that one as well?. If all the Priests are suspended, then they can no longer offer the sacrifice correct? So attending one of their Masses could not serve as fulfilling the Sunday obligation or even be a true Mass. Is that what you are saying?

As far as Cardinal Kapar saying that the goal is not to convert, based on everything I’ve seen, that also appears to be where Rome stands on the issue. Lets face it, the Catholic Church has pretty much stopped trying to convert anybody, Christian or otherwise to the Catholic faith, accepting Jews, Muslims and anybody else as worshiping the one true God.

 

[Sure]

If that was indeed the case then no one could attend their Masses or have I misunderstood that one as well?. If all the Priests are suspended, then they can no longer offer the sacrifice correct? So attending one of their Masses could not serve as fulfilling the Sunday obligation or even be a true Mass. Is that what you are saying?

There is some dispute as to your first point. There is no document that indicates that attending the Mass of an excommunicated priest is advisable.

Yes, the Masses said by them are VALID but they are illicit (illegal) in that they are saying these Masses despite having been ordered by the Church NOT to say Mass. Thus their act of saying Mass is also a grave act of disobediance and is sinful.

Again, there appears to be a tension between what Msgr. Perl has advised in a private letter and what the Church has taught in official documents and canon law.

Hopefully, clarification will be forthcoming.

 

[bobzills]

As far as Cardinal Kapar saying that the goal is not to convert, based on everything I’ve seen, that also appears to be where Rome stands on the issue. Lets face it, the Catholic Church has pretty much stopped trying to convert anybody, Christian or otherwise to the Catholic faith, accepting Jews, Muslims and anybody else as worshiping the one true God.

Correct. The new teaching is that the Old Covenant is salvific for the Jews.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

If that was indeed the case then no one could attend their Masses or have I misunderstood that one as well?. If all the Priests are suspended, then they can no longer offer the sacrifice correct? So attending one of their Masses could not serve as fulfilling the Sunday obligation or even be a true Mass. Is that what you are saying?

As far as Cardinal Kapar saying that the goal is not to convert, based on everything I’ve seen, that also appears to be where Rome stands on the issue. Lets face it, the Catholic Church has pretty much stopped trying to convert anybody, Christian or otherwise to the Catholic faith, accepting Jews, Muslims and anybody else as worshiping the one true God.

What Sure said is accurate.

 

[old_altar_boy]

There is some dispute as to your first point. There is no document that indicates that attending the Mass of an excommunicated priest is advisable.

Yes, the Masses said by them are VALID but they are illicit (illegal) in that they are saying these Masses despite having been ordered by the Church NOT to say Mass. Thus their act of saying Mass is also a grave act of disobediance and is sinful.

Again, there appears to be a tension between what Msgr. Perl has advised in a private letter and what the Church has taught in official documents and canon law.

Hopefully, clarification will be forthcoming.

If the Priests are suspended and no faculties, then how can the Mass possibly be valid?

 

[BobP123]

Masses said by suspended priests are as valid as any Mass having proper form, intent, and matter. Once a priest, always a priest.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

If the Priests are suspended and no faculties, then how can the Mass possibly be valid?

There was never a question of validity. They are quite valid. They simply are not licit.

 

[GerardP]

They are both Catholic bishops.

They share the exact same status under canon law = Excommunicated

They were both excommunicated for schismatic acts.

They both choose to ordain men illicitly.

They both continue to celebrate the Sacraments despite being prohibited from doing so under canon law.

Don’t forget that they are both males. None of what you posted is relevant to your claim that they share the same “flawed” interpretation of Canon law.

Want to try again? Or will your original comment stand as being ludicrous?

 

[Sure]

Don’t forget that they are both males. None of what you posted is relevant to your claim that they share the same “flawed” interpretation of Canon law.

Want to try again? Or will your original comment stand as being ludicrous?

Sorry, I thought you’d get it from what I wrote.

Both men choose to exercise their priestly office despite their excommunicated state.

Both men do this because they believe that they are justified in what they do.

According to the authoritative documents of the Church what they do is NOT justified, hence their excommunications.

The fact that they refuse to admit this and continue to act as though the law does not apply to them leads me to believe that their interpretation of the law is flawed.

 

[bear06]

I’m just curious, and maybe this would give us some good comparisons. Has a bishop who ordained another bishop without papal mandate, who had been in discussions with the Vatican about such and act, ever not been held a schismatic by the Church? I really don’t know the answer to this one but maybe AJV will know the answer.

 

[bobzills]

Yes, the Masses said by them are VALID but they are illicit (illegal) in that they are saying these Masses despite having been ordered by the Church NOT to say Mass. Thus their act of saying Mass is also a grave act of disobediance and is sinful.

In the case of necessity when there exist serious reasons, a Catholic may exercise precaution. For example, if a Catholic is sick, the obligation to attend Mass on Sunday does not hold. Similarly, if a Catholic finds that he is losing his faith by attending Peter, Paul and Mary rock and roll Masses, clown Masses, Halloween Masses, gay Masses, feminist Masses or Masses which have similar elements, he may attend a respectful Mass at SSPX in order to preserve his Catholic faith.

 

[GerardP]

Sorry, I thought you’d get it from what I wrote.

No. You didn’t put any “it” into what you wrote.

Both men choose to exercise their priestly office despite their excommunicated state.

What common flaw do they have in their interpretations? Are you saying that Fellay is disobedient for the exact same reasons that Milingo is disobedient? I haven’t met Mrs. Fellay. Have you?

Both men do this because they believe that they are justified in what they do.

That’s an internal conviction. Not a view of Canon Law. Pope Stephen believed he was justified in putting the corpse of Pope Formosus on trial. And consequently, JPII supposedly believed he was justified in what he did. Does that make him correct?

According to the authoritative documents of the Church what they do is NOT justified, hence their excommunications.

Excommunications have a canonical aspect and a spiritual aspect. A canonical excommunication can be just, unjust or invalid. The responsibilities of the person excommunicated depend on the validity of the excommunication. An unjust excommunication must still be submitted to. An invalid excommunication can justifiably be ignored.

The fact that they refuse to admit this and continue to act as though the law does not apply to them leads me to believe that their interpretation of the law is flawed

Again, for the third time. That doesn’t prove that they have the **same **flawed view of Canon Law.

JPII had an obviously flawed view of Canon Law and the facts of the case. Heck, his denial of an emergency in the Church is an indication that he was either dishonest or detached from reality.

When a Pope overturns a previous Pope, does right suddenly become wrong? Or is it a realignment to correct something that was incorrect.

 

[GerardP]

Fr. Z, the esteemed traditionalist priest, had this to say of the apparent disconnect between the statements of Cardinal Castrillon and the official Church documents:

wdtprs.com/blog/2007/02/card-castrillon-hoyos-interviewed-about-tridentine-indult/

In light of this statement by the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legal Texts, I too remain bewildered:

catholicculture.org/library/view.cfm?recnum=1224

Hopefully, clarification will be forthcoming. In the meantime, it is probably most prudent to take our direction from the actual Vatican documents and not from interviews given to the media.

What is truly bewildering is the dishonesty of someone like Fr. Z.

As long as he doesn’t place the blame too close to bite the hands that feed him, he’s okay to pretend he’s being totally honest.

He complains about a bunch of bishops that can’t touch him. But does he ever make a peep to complain about the boss of those bishops? This is the old “Wanderer” mentality. It assumes everyone is not going to notice or bring this “bewildering” myopia to anyone’s attention because he throws a few crumbs to traditionalists. This allows conservatives to be moved to liberality by the dynamic of compromise between conservative and liberal forces as described by Pope St. Pius X in “Pascendi”

NO! The emperor’s new clothes are just beautiful! Popes are perfect until they are dead a few centuries.

He’s not bewildered. If he is, he’s an idiot. I think he’s smarter than that and just dishonest with his readers and a coward for not telling the truth no matter what the cost.

 

[Sure]

No. You didn’t put any “it” into what you wrote.

What common flaw do they have in their interpretations? Are you saying that Fellay is disobedient for the exact same reasons that Milingo is disobedient? I haven’t met Mrs. Fellay. Have you?

That’s an internal conviction. Not a view of Canon Law. Pope Stephen believed he was justified in putting the corpse of Pope Formosus on trial. And consequently, JPII supposedly believed he was justified in what he did. Does that make him correct?

Excommunications have a canonical aspect and a spiritual aspect. A canonical excommunication can be just, unjust or invalid. The responsibilities of the person excommunicated depend on the validity of the excommunication. An unjust excommunication must still be submitted to. An invalid excommunication can justifiably be ignored.

Again, for the third time. That doesn’t prove that they have the **same **flawed view of Canon Law.

JPII had an obviously flawed view of Canon Law and the facts of the case. Heck, his denial of an emergency in the Church is an indication that he was either dishonest or detached from reality.

When a Pope overturns a previous Pope, does right suddenly become wrong? Or is it a realignment to correct something that was incorrect.

I know you have a lot to say. I stand with the official documents of the Church. You disagree and so those documents are wrong. That’s really all there is to say.

 

[Sure]

What is truly bewildering is the dishonesty of someone like Fr. Z.

As long as he doesn’t place the blame too close to bite the hands that feed him, he’s okay to pretend he’s being totally honest.

He complains about a bunch of bishops that can’t touch him. But does he ever make a peep to complain about the boss of those bishops? This is the old “Wanderer” mentality. It assumes everyone is not going to notice or bring this “bewildering” myopia to anyone’s attention because he throws a few crumbs to traditionalists. This allows conservatives to be moved to liberality by the dynamic of compromise between conservative and liberal forces as described by Pope St. Pius X in “Pascendi”

NO! The emperor’s new clothes are just beautiful! Popes are perfect until they are dead a few centuries.

He’s not bewildered. If he is, he’s an idiot. I think he’s smarter than that and just dishonest with his readers and a coward for not telling the truth no matter what the cost.

Calm down…let’s have a rational discussion without trying to impute everyone’s motives. Fr. Z makes a good point that there is tension and inconsistency between the interview comments of Card. Castrillon and the official documents of the Church. One more reason why we need a clarification from the Church on this matter.

 

[bear06]

In the case of necessity when there exist serious reasons, a Catholic may exercise precaution. For example, if a Catholic is sick, the obligation to attend Mass on Sunday does not hold. Similarly, if a Catholic finds that he is losing his faith by attending Peter, Paul and Mary rock and roll Masses, clown Masses, Halloween Masses, gay Masses, feminist Masses or Masses which have similar elements, he may attend a respectful Mass at SSPX in order to preserve his Catholic faith.

Where’s the documentation for this? Also, it is very rare to find at least one Mass on Sunday in a dioceese that doesn’t have your above. I find that the 6 & 8 AM Masses are usually pretty stark, no music, dancing girls, etc. even at the worst parishes.

 

[bobzills]

Where’s the documentation for this? .

There is no documentation from a doctor or hospital needed if you are sick. You can simply stay at home on Sunday and miss Mass and there is no sin. To prove it, just ask any priest if you have committed a sin by missing Mass when you were sick, and he will tell you: NO, and he will not require any documentation from a doctor or nurse that verifies that you have been sick.

 

[GerardP]

Calm down…let’s have a rational discussion without trying to impute everyone’s motives. Fr. Z makes a good point that there is tension and inconsistency between the interview comments of Card. Castrillon and the official documents of the Church. One more reason why we need a clarification from the Church on this matter.

I’m perfectly calm. This is how I see it. It’s funny that Bishop Fellay’s motives, archbishop LeFebvre’s motives are always under attack. But no one ever questions JPII’s motives or Fr. Z’s mysterious silence on the papal culpability concerning the “bewildering” lack of discipline concerning the bad catechesis, liturgical destruction and collapse of moral norms within the Church organizational structure itself.

One personin all the world had the power to deal with bad bishops, vile priests, heretics among the religious and did virtually nothing to stem it.

Tension and inconsistency? Fr. Z only sees it in Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos? C’mon! He knows that Cardinal Castrillon suffers from the same lack of fortitude he does.

Castrillon is afraid to lay the blame where it belongs. At the foot of the late Holy Father. Paul VI and JPII are the patrons of tension and inconsistency. Especially when it concerned tradition and doctrine.

Fr. Z has the same problem. He’s afraid to say, “Pope John Paul II was wrong. He behaved badly and irrationally towards archbishop LeFebvre and did not protect the Church from bad bishops, bad priests, bad nuns and bad religious of all stripes. He didn’t protect Our Lord in the liturgy and many many other instances of malfeasance in high office.”

It’s not bewildering at all.

JPII provided the vehicle for the truth to come out when he perpetrated this crime against the SSPX… They have nothing to lose. They can’t be silenced. (what’s the Pope going to do? double-secret excommunicate them?) And they are the only priests and bishops out there able to speak frankly, honestly and in charity about what is really going on.

Fr. Z should take a lesson from them. If he did speak the truth, I’m sure he’d suddenly find pressures on him that he never even dreamed existed. But if that happens, he can always seek help from the SSPX thanks to the work of Archbishop LeFebvre. Romanita doesn’t cut any ice with them.

 

[Sure]

I’m perfectly calm. This is how I see it. It’s funny that Bishop Fellay’s motives, archbishop LeFebvre’s motives are always under attack. But no one ever questions JPII’s motives or Fr. Z’s mysterious silence on the papal culpability concerning the “bewildering” lack of discipline concerning the bad catechesis, liturgical destruction and collapse of moral norms within the Church organizational structure itself.

One personin all the world had the power to deal with bad bishops, vile priests, heretics among the religious and did virtually nothing to stem it.

Tension and inconsistency? Fr. Z only sees it in Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos? C’mon! He knows that Cardinal Castrillon suffers from the same lack of fortitude he does.

Castrillon is afraid to lay the blame where it belongs. At the foot of the late Holy Father. Paul VI and JPII are the patrons of tension and inconsistency. Especially when it concerned tradition and doctrine.

Fr. Z has the same problem. He’s afraid to say, “Pope John Paul II was wrong. He behaved badly and irrationally towards archbishop LeFebvre and did not protect the Church from bad bishops, bad priests, bad nuns and bad religious of all stripes. He didn’t protect Our Lord in the liturgy and many many other instances of malfeasance in high office.”

It’s not bewildering at all.

JPII provided the vehicle for the truth to come out when he perpetrated this crime against the SSPX… They have nothing to lose. They can’t be silenced. (what’s the Pope going to do? double-secret excommunicate them?) And they are the only priests and bishops out there able to speak frankly, honestly and in charity about what is really going on.

Fr. Z should take a lesson from them. If he did speak the truth, I’m sure he’d suddenly find pressures on him that he never even dreamed existed. But if that happens, he can always seek help from the SSPX thanks to the work of Archbishop LeFebvre. Romanita doesn’t cut any ice with them.

Whoa. I guess I hit a nerve. You believe there was massive incompetence perhaps unholiness on the part of the Holy Father. I don’t. Sorry, I believe what the Church teaches in her documents. Period. Nothing more to discuss.