What Makes SSPX schismatic?

[TraditionalCath]

Irresistible is what I’m asking.

That’s good to know but irrelevant since the actions of archbishop LeFebvre and the SSPX attributed in Ecclesia Dei don’t concern faith and doctrine.

The office is one that demands respect. Whether the individual occupant of the office commands respect is contingent on the character of the individuals. We’ve certainly had Popes in the past who were not respectable as people.

What I mean by irresistible in all things is. No matter what the Pope says, you have to believe it to be true. If he tells you 2+2=5, then you say, “5 it is!”

No. It has everything to do with the SSPX. If the Pope is resistible in some matters then that opens up the whole issue for justifying the position of the SSPX.

If the Pope is irresistible in all things then it doesn’t and the case is closed.

You are saying this is an infallible declaration then?

So you are saying that he is irresistible no matter what?

The question is, did they justifiably disobey the pope.

Actually, no. They looked at the objective standard established by the Magisterium of the Church and sacred tradition and the moral teaching of the Church.

Interesting point. It’s been established that at no point did JPII actually command them not to consecrate the bishops. Requests were made, appeals and cajolings. Schism was never mentioned till after the event. JPII made his will known but never commanded that his will be implemented. This is important.

Why was papal approval not given when it had previously been understood that the consecration of a bishop would be beneficial?

Does right and wrong weigh equally on the obligations of the Pope and the hierarchy as it does on the SSPX?

iam not saying what john paul ii said in regards to the sspx and ecclesia dei is an infallible statement. what iam saying is he was absolutely correct in what he said. should everyone just up and disobey the authority of the pope? no! do you think that is the correct thing to do? nope. it isn’t. ecclesia dei document states clearly the status of the sspx. this is all i have to say on the issue. have a nice day, and God bless you!

 

[Aramis]

So who appointed you God?

No one. Just go read canon law, Bob, and you will see that a priest functioning in violation of a roman punishment is in fact serious matter.

Canon 1334 is vital; it prohibits function by an excommunicated person, such as Mr. Fellay. It further injoins the faithful and the clergy to prevent their attempt.

 

[GerardP]

iam not saying what john paul ii said in regards to the sspx and ecclesia dei is an infallible statement. what iam saying is he was absolutely correct in what he said. should everyone just up and disobey the authority of the pope? no! do you think that is the correct thing to do? nope. it isn’t. ecclesia dei document states clearly the status of the sspx. this is all i have to say on the issue. have a nice day, and God bless you!

I realize that descending into details won’t validate your table pounding.

But I should draw attention to the simple fact that you can’t seem to admit or are unwilling to face the facts that a person can be a good Catholic and resist the Pope. And in the case of the SSPX during an unprecendented crisis helped along by the astonishing behavior of priests,nuns, bishops and Popes over the post- conciliar period, they were quite justified to continue to provide for the faithful that requested orthodoxy, valid sacraments and traditional instruction. The very fact that Paul VI and JPII did absolutely nothing of consequence to quash the liberalism run amock in the Church until their deaths despite the cries and petitions of the faithful continues to justify the existence and actions of the SSPX and others like them.

I’m sure we can all hope and pray that Pope Benedict will provide the necessary leadership to reassure the faithful that they will not be subjected to modernism, modernist leading bishops and priests in the future. When he does that, he will have the SSPX ready to defend him to the death. (Of course the majority of the rest of the Church will have formally defected at that point and will be calling for his head.)

 

[GerardP]

No one. Just go read canon law, Bob, and you will see that a priest functioning in violation of a roman punishment is in fact serious matter.

Canon 1334 is vital; it prohibits function by an excommunicated person, such as Mr. Fellay. It further injoins the faithful and the clergy to prevent their attempt.

That’s bishop Fellay. If the Holy Father and all the rest of bishops acknowledge bishop Fellay as a true and valid bishop, and refer to him as a brother bishop, you should pay him the dignity of his title as the recipient of the fullness of the sacrament of Holy Orders licit or not.

As far as Canon law goes, it is serious times which call for serious solutions. Legalisms don’t carry much weight with God when they are abused to persecute good, faithful orthodox Catholics. The law against trespassing isn’t designed to prevent you from bringing a hose onto your neighbors lawn when you are putting the fire in his house out.

Canon law was not made to prevent orthodoxy and the traditional practice of Catholicism from getting to the faithful seeking it.

 

[BobP123]

Just go read canon law, Bob, and you will see that a priest functioning in violation of a roman punishment is in fact serious matter.

And what are the three conditions of mortal sin again?

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

The law against trespassing isn’t designed to prevent you from bringing a hose onto your neighbors lawn when you are putting the fire in his house out.

You have a recording of an interview between Bishop Williamson and Bernard Jansen, don’t you?

 

[Joab_Anias]

Speaking of disobedience, I hope your bishop isn’t one who will soon be getting a little letter from Rome.

The foxes will soon become the chickens they had planned to eat.

LOL, no idea what your talking about. Does anyone?

Surely there is no comparison of rebuke with obstinate disobedience.

 

[GerardP]

You have a recording of an interview between Bishop Williamson and Bernard Jansen, don’t you?

Absolutely! I’ve actually listened to the whole “Faith in Crisis” series multiple times. If I recall the name of that tape was “True and false obedience.” Bernard Janzen did an excellent service in documenting those interviews. The interviews done in the 1980’s especially surrounding the time of the consecrations are particularly revealing.

Interestingly, I’ve been reading some of “The Final Conclave” by Malachi Martin and the pages referring to LeFebvre and Paul VI’s meeting are very interesting. Later it was reported that LeFebvre verified and was stunned at how Fr. Martin was able to document the events so accurately.

It seems that Paul VI was afraid of two people because of their doctrinal orthodoxy and unwillingness to let a Pope dismantle the Church in the name of “kenosis” Cardinal Siri and Archbishop LeFebvre. Cardinal Villot is credited with actually pressing the issue with Paul VI that LeFebvre was to be crushed.

 

[Aramis]

That’s bishop Fellay. If the Holy Father and all the rest of bishops acknowledge bishop Fellay as a true and valid bishop, and refer to him as a brother bishop, you should pay him the dignity of his title as the recipient of the fullness of the sacrament of Holy Orders licit or not.

As far as Canon law goes, it is serious times which call for serious solutions. Legalisms don’t carry much weight with God when they are abused to persecute good, faithful orthodox Catholics. The law against trespassing isn’t designed to prevent you from bringing a hose onto your neighbors lawn when you are putting the fire in his house out.

Canon law was not made to prevent orthodoxy and the traditional practice of Catholicism from getting to the faithful seeking it.

Ecclesia Dei, in his excommunication, does NOT recognize his elevation as valid, and he’s excommunicated as a priest, not as a bishop.

When he comes back into union with the Catholic Church OR quits claiming to be Catholic, then I will acknowledge him as a priest.

He’s not resisting. He’s rebelling. There’s a difference. He walked away from orthopraxis by ignoring his excommunication.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

Absolutely! I’ve actually listened to the whole “Faith in Crisis” series multiple times. If I recall the name of that tape was “True and false obedience.” Bernard Janzen did an excellent service in documenting those interviews. The interviews done in the 1980’s especially surrounding the time of the consecrations are particularly revealing.

Yeah, they are interesting. I have 10 of the interviews on CD and also listen to them all the time. With my job I spend a lot of time in the car. Since giving up talk radio, I’ve spent untold hours listening to those CD’s. I am pretty sure that the water hose example did come from the “true and false obedience” interview.

Interestingly, I’ve been reading some of “The Final Conclave” by Malachi Martin and the pages referring to LeFebvre and Paul VI’s meeting are very interesting. Later it was reported that LeFebvre verified and was stunned at how Fr. Martin was able to document the events so accurately.

It seems that Paul VI was afraid of two people because of their doctrinal orthodoxy and unwillingness to let a Pope dismantle the Church in the name of “kenosis” Cardinal Siri and Archbishop LeFebvre. Cardinal Villot is credited with actually pressing the issue with Paul VI that LeFebvre was to be crushed.

Interesting. I think I’ll read that book.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

Ecclesia Dei, in his excommunication, does NOT recognize his elevation as valid, and he’s excommunicated as a priest, not as a bishop.

It’s valid. Being illicit does not effect the validity. The SSPX Bishop are recognized as Bishops. In fact, when the Pope sent a copy of the recent Motu Proprio to all of the Bishops in the world, one week prior to its being released publicly, he also sent a copy to each of the SSPX Bishops.

 

[bobzills]

Actually it is now been medically proven that Coke and Pepsi lead to grave obesity. In almost all cases this obviously denotes Gluttony.

Have you read the Summa Theologic By St Thomas Aquinas concerning Gluttony and that it is a Mortal Sin?

Correct. However, considering all the junk food available in the USA, and the psychological brainwarping by television commercials, there may be mitigating circumstances which tend to lessen the gravity of the offense.

 

[Sure]

Fellay and Milingo should join forces since the have the exact same (flawed) interpretation of canon law and authority.

 

[GerardP]

Fellay and Milingo should join forces since the have the exact same (flawed) interpretation of canon law and authority.

Care to back that ludicrous statement up?

 

[old_altar_boy]

I don’t know if this has been brought up yet, but here is something of interest from Cardinal Castrillon

In a much overlooked and little discussed interview published February 8, 2007, in the German Die Tagespost, Cardinal Castrillón said he rejected the term and idea of “ecumenism” from within the Church as a reasoning behind the continuing discussions and open communications with the leadership of the SSPX. Specifically, he said the following:

Please accept that I reject the term “ecumenism ad intra.” The bishops, priests and faithful of the Society of St Pius X are not schismatics. It is Archbishop Lefebrve who has undertaken an illicit Episcopal consecration and therefore performed a schismatic act. It is for this reason that the Bishops consecrated by him have been suspended and excommunicated. The priests and faithful of the Society have not been excommunicated. They are not heretics.

Again, it bears repeating. **The president of the PCED, Cardinal Castrillón has repeatedly stated in at least five separate public interviews in Catholic and secular media that the lay faithful and priests of the SSPX are not schismatics nor in formal schism.**Catholic Laymen Incur No Penalty

Following this quote in the German interview, Cardinal Castrillón emphasized again what he said in the March 17 interview, his fearing the possibility of schism and heresy, quoting St. Jerome. However, the fact remains that the lay faithful who attend SSPX masses to fulfill their Sunday obligation are not sinning nor incurring any canonical penalty by doing so

I’ll take the Cardinals word on this one as being the view of Rome on the situation.

 

[bear06]

I don’t know if this has been brought up yet, but here is something of interest from Cardinal Castrillon

In a much overlooked and little discussed interview published February 8, 2007, in the German Die Tagespost, Cardinal Castrillón said he rejected the term and idea of “ecumenism” from within the Church as a reasoning behind the continuing discussions and open communications with the leadership of the SSPX. Specifically, he said the following:

Please accept that I reject the term “ecumenism ad intra.” The bishops, priests and faithful of the Society of St Pius X are not schismatics. It is Archbishop Lefebrve who has undertaken an illicit Episcopal consecration and therefore performed a schismatic act. It is for this reason that the Bishops consecrated by him have been suspended and excommunicated. The priests and faithful of the Society have not been excommunicated. They are not heretics.

Again, it bears repeating. **The president of the PCED, Cardinal Castrillón has repeatedly stated in at least five separate public interviews in Catholic and secular media that the lay faithful and priests of the SSPX are not schismatics nor in formal schism.**Catholic Laymen Incur No Penalty

Following this quote in the German interview, Cardinal Castrillón emphasized again what he said in the March 17 interview, his fearing the possibility of schism and heresy, quoting St. Jerome. However, the fact remains that the lay faithful who attend SSPX masses to fulfill their Sunday obligation are not sinning nor incurring any canonical penalty by doing so

I’ll take the Cardinals word on this one as being the view of Rome on the situation.

Oh yes! We’ve heard this one several times. That said, there’s positively no official Church document to back this up. I hope this document arrives soon!

 

[old_altar_boy]

Oh yes! We’ve heard this one several times. That said, there’s positively no official Church document to back this up. I hope this document arrives soon!

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.

 

[Sure]

Care to back that ludicrous statement up?

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.

 

[bear06]

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.

Again, are you saying that his statements are contained in official Church documents?

 

[JKirkLVNV]

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.

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.