Posted on 06/15/2008 7:30:44 AM PDT by blu
Ecclesia Dei president offers clarification on motu proprio
Vatican, Mar. 28, 2008 (CWNews.com) - In an interview with the Vatican newspaper, the head of the Ecclesia Dei commission has indicated that priests do not require permission from their bishops in order to celebrate the extraordinary form of the Latin liturgy.
Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos (bio - news) told L'Osservatore Romano that "all can celebrate" the traditional Latin Mass. While the "ordinary form"-- the Novus Ordo-- remains "the Mass that normally all priests say," the cardinal said that Pope Benedict, in his motu proprio broadening access to the traditional liturgy, authorized all priests to use the older liturgy.
"Some ask permission, as if this were some sort of concession or exception," Cardinal Castrillon said. "But there is no need for that."
The Colombian cardinal, whose Ecclesia Dei commission supervises the implementation of the motu proprio, said that "some practical difficulties" have delayed the worldwide acceptance of the motu proprio. But when questioned about the criticisms of that document expressed by some bishops, the cardinal said that it was "a controversy born from a lack of understanding." He said that the Ecclesia Dei commission plans new efforts to educate the clergy about the liturgical norms in order to eliminate those misunderstandings.
When asked how the wider use of the older liturgy might affect relations with the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), Cardinal Castrillon said that Summorum Pontificum could help to pave the way for a restoration of the traditionalist group to full communion with the Church.
However, the cardinal took pains to say that members of the SSPX are not separated from the Catholic Church. "The excommunication applied only to the four bishops," he said. While the Mass celebrated at SSPX chapels is not licit, he said, it is unquestionably valid. "Certainly neither the priests nor the faithful are excommunicated," he added.
Also, I found the last paragraph, where he explains that SSPX masses are not licit but ARE VALID, and that only the 4 bishops are excommunication, not the member encouraging.
Point of clarification. Any Priest may privately say the TLM without the permission of his Ordinary or the Apostolic See. However, a parish Priest does need the permission of the Rector to say a public Mass and said Rector is not required to grant permission, in effect implementing the aversion to the TLM held by many Bishops, ala Chaput in Denver.
True, but I think now the Cardinal and the Pope are “fine tuning” the document in response to the lack of participation by priests and bishops.
The condition for a priest to offer the extraordinary form of the Roman Rite publicly is not a “stable group of faithful who adhere to the earlier liturgical tradition.” Rather, according to the law, the “stable group of faithful” presents a special pastoral need that must be met by the pastor in some fashion. This “stable group” is not required for a priest to offer the extraordinary rite. Instead, the law provides that the pastor must provide appropriate pastoral care for the “stable group.” The law does not command that a pastor make the appropriate provisions to offer the extraordinary form of the rite except in the case of a “stable group” requiring it. In other words, the law does not command that a priest says the Mass according to the Missal of 1962 UNLESS there is a pastoral need presented by the so-called “stable group.” Neither does it prohibit him from saying it, even in the absence of a “stable group of faithful.”
A priest is a priest forever. The late Luther was and is a priest but that does not make Luther any more of a Catholic than was Lefebvre.
Fortunately Dario Cardinal Castrillon de Hoyos who has been making public verbal love to the SSPX schism for several years without observable success in getting their excommunications lifted is a bit too long in the tooth now to expect to ever be elected pope.
Traditionally, one must confess one's sins (and recognize them as sins) and express genuine sorrow for them before receiving forgiveness. Somehow, it seems unlikely that His self-appointed Majesty Fellay, or Williamson the Holocaust denier or the remarkably foul-mouthed revolutionary malcontent de Mallerais are likely to ever to submit to the authority of the papacy and the Magisterium. Some of their misguided dupes come back through repentance and are welcomed. For the ringleaders, the methods of the saintly Tomas de Torquemada would be appropriate in the absence of total prostration by the SSPXers before Roman authority.
Also note that the SSPX have no authority whatsoever to preside over matrimony, annulments, the sacrament of penance and a number of other often necessary elements of Catholicism because they have NO FACULTIES from any Catholic diocesan bishop. May the Church never weaken on that score either.
IF the SSPX excommunicated schismatics are NEVER reconciled to the Church by the humiliation they richly deserve or otherwise, Catholicism has lost nothing but a small pack of malicious and cancerous malcontents.
LOL! I like this a lot -- of course what they don't "understand" is that there's a new sheriff in town! ;-)
The SSPX adherents are not excommunicated, only Lefebvre and the bishops he illicitly excommunicated.
CONGREGATIONIS PRO EPISCOPIS, Monitum d.no Marcello Lefebvre, p. 2
“Since on June 15th, 1988 you stated that you intended to ordain four priests to the episcopate without having obtained the mandate of the Supreme Pontiff as required by canon 1013 of the Code of Canon Law, I myself convey to you this public canonical warning, confirming that if you should carry out your intention as stated above, you yourself and also the bishops ordained by you shall incur ipso facto excommunication latae sententiae reserved to the Apostolic See in accordance with canon 1382.”
CONGREGATION FOR BISHOPS, Decree of Excommunication, 1 July 1988, trans. in The Pope Speaks, 33 (1988), p. 205
“Monsignor Marcel Lefebvre, Archbishop-Bishop Emeritus of Tulle, notwithstanding the formal canonical warning of 17 June last and the repeated appeals to desist from his intention, has performed a schismatic act by the episcopal consecration of four priests, without pontifical mandate and contrary to the will of the Supreme Pontiff, and has therefore incurred the penalty envisaged by Canon 1364, paragraph 1, and canon 1382 of the Code of Canon Law... Having taken account of all the juridical effects, I declare that the above-mentioned Archbishop Lefebvre, and Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta have incurred ipso facto excommunication latae sententiae reserved to the Apostolic See.”
Thus, we see that in accordance with Canon 1382, only the consecrating bishop and the priests who are illictly ordained as bishops are excommunicated latae sententiae.
However, those who adhere to a schismatic group BECAUSE IT IS SCHISMATIC incur a latae sententiae excommunication according to Canon 1364. Now, the SSPX is not in its essence, as judged by the competent authorities, a group in schism. In fact, its canonical status is officially ‘uncertain.’ Therefore, one’s mere membership or adherence in the group does not cause him to incur ecclesiastical penalties. Rather, if his motivation for adhering to the SSPX is from a spirit of schism, then he incurs the penalty automatically (latae sententiae). This is not manifestly the case with adherents of SSPX. In fact, a procedural presumption of good will prevents us from judging it as schism unless it is manifested publicly. The bottom line is that a person, and hence a whole group of people, joined by some bond of affection to the SSPX need not be considered schismatic or as having incurred the ecclesiastical sanction of excommunication.
A lot of people think that Canon 1382 was drafted specifically to counter the illicit consecration of 4 bishops by Msgr Lefebvre, but this is historically impossible, since the Codex Iuris Canonici was promulgated in 1983, about 5 years before the illicit consecrations in question. In fact, Canon 1382 has more to do with illicit consecrations in China in the Patriotic Catholic Church.
Additionally, in what fashion was Archbishop Lefebvre under a vow of obedience to the Holy Father?
I am a pretty conservative guy, but your ecclesiology is deficient. It is ultramontanist in a manner rejected clearly at Vatican I with its promulgation of the dogma of papal infallibility.
Finally, even St. Thomas says that one cannot be compelled to give obedience to his superiors if it is contrary to his well-formed conscience. “All that is against conscience is sin” (Summa Theologiae Ia-IIae, q.19, a.5 sed). If Lefebvre was being asked to violate conscience, it would have been sinful for him to obey. His disobedience of the Pope may well result in excommunication, but his disobedience of conscience (correctly understood) would be sin.
>> “The excommunication applied only to the four bishops,” he said. While the Mass celebrated at SSPX chapels is not licit, he said, it is unquestionably valid. “Certainly neither the priests nor the faithful are excommunicated,” he added. <<
Any priests ordained by the excommunicated bishops are schismatic, though, right?
The masses are valid, sure. My understanding is that Orthdox masses are valid.
>> Any priests ordained by the excommunicated bishops are schismatic, though, right? <<
It depends on their subjective reasons for seeking Holy Orders from these bishops. The bishops may be schismatic because the law interprets their illicit ordinations as schismatic though licit. That does not mean that the priests are schismatic. That is, the law does not interpret their intentions the way it does for the bishops under question.
>> It depends on their subjective reasons for seeking Holy Orders from these bishops. The bishops may be schismatic because the law interprets their illicit ordinations as schismatic though licit. That does not mean that the priests are schismatic. That is, the law does not interpret their intentions the way it does for the bishops under question. <<
Are you supposing that the priests are unaware that the bishops are schismatic? Or that the law would find that priests are potentially justified in seeking ordination from a schismatic bishop? If the latter, what would potentially justify such an action?
“It depends on their subjective reasons for seeking Holy Orders from these bishops. The bishops may be schismatic because the law interprets their illicit ordinations as schismatic though licit. That does not mean that the priests are schismatic. That is, the law does not interpret their intentions the way it does for the bishops under question.”
That's quite a stretch.
Some years back I remember a conversation on Catholic Online’s forum about this very question. The illustrious Fr. Zuhlsdorf summed it up this way, and I paraphrase: If you're a priest and you're taking your paycheck and your orders and assignments from schismatic bishops, you're a schismatic.
Any other argument is, at best, tendentious.
sitetest
Dear sitetest,
It is true that to be in “full communion” with the Catholic Church, hierarchical communion must be respected and maintained. Disagreement or even dissent, however, does not break the bond of ecclesiastical government required for full communion (cf c 213, p 3).
Schism is defined by the CIC in c 751 as “the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.” Schism results in a latae sententiae excommunication in accordance with c 1364. Canon 1382 stipulates that a bishop who consecrates another bishop and the person who receives the consecration without a pontifical mandate incur latae sententiae excommunication. This is because it is a severe rupture of hierarchical communion and the law interprets the intention of consecrating bishop and the one who receives consecration as be schismatic.
The whole understanding of whether or not the men who are subsequently ordained priests by these bishops are in schism as well depends upon what we understand by “intention.” A classic analysis of intention in the moral act is given by Fr. Thomas Higgins in his “Man as Man: the Science and Art of Ethics” (Bruce Publishing Co., 1958). There are four types of intention:
(1) actual intention - a will act which here and now produces a given effect,
(2) virtual intention - a will act which has been posited and has been interrupted but morally continues and produces a given effect,
(3) habitual intention - a will act that has been posited, and since it has never been revoked, is regarded as extending to a given effect, and
(4) interpretive intention - a will act which is not actually placed but would be if it were thought of and hence is regarded as productive of an effect.
According to Higgins, “When a human act is necessary for the fulfillment of an obligation or the placing of a valid act, a virtual intention is the least that will suffice. Certain types of obligations may be fulfilled by a habitual intention. Certain courses of actions may be justified by appeal to interpretive intention.”
Then, c 1382 is justified in presuming schism precisely because the act under question violates ecclesiastical communion. That is, the law interprets the intention of the bishop and the one he consecrates as being schismatic. The law DOES NOT provide the same thing for a man ordained to the priesthood by a schismatic bishop. What you are doing is interpreting the intention of the men who submitted themselves to priestly orders, but your interpretation may not be correct. (Indeed, it may also be correct.) But we cannot know for certain what the intention is apart from the public manifestation of their intention.
Now, I do not mean to imply that they are necessarily NOT schismatic. Indeed, many of the priests may be. Many probably are schismatic. But we don’t know for sure because (1) the law does not interpret their intention and (2) intention is not public, it is private, unless it is disclosed publicly.
In fact, c 221 provides for the right of due process for anyone accused to vindicate himself. Indeed, several of the principles guiding the development of the new CIC include “the organization of a procedure which envisions the protection of subjective rights” and that the Code must “define and protect the rights and obligations of each person toward others and toward ecclesiastical society” (Preface to the Latin Edition of the CIC). The CIC makes great effort at providing procedural remedies in such a way that the number of offenses that previously had resulted in latae sententiae excommunications were now to be resolved in the external forum.
>>The illustrious Fr. Zuhlsdorf summed it up this way, and I paraphrase: If you’re a priest and you’re taking your paycheck and your orders and assignments from schismatic bishops, you’re a schismatic.<<
Fr. Zuhlsdorf merely engaged in what may very well be a prudent interpretation of their intentions. I say “prudent” because any Catholic who seeks the sacraments from the SSPX have adopted an attitude in close proximity to schism. But it is merely his interpretation of their intention.
And I delightfully respond, that none of the above is a stretch. This is Thomistic ethics.
Dear dangus,
Of course the priests are aware that the bishop is schismatic. But that is not enough to presume that these priests are schismatic. Let’s take the example of a man ordained to the priesthood by a very liberal bishop. Does that mean that that priest is a liberal as well? Absolutely not. (I know many priests who have been ordained by liberal bishops who are not themselves liberal.)
>>what would potentially justify such an action?<<
I am really not in a position to know since I have never been in an SSPX chapel nor do I know any members. But I could suggest possibilities.
(1) A person was raised as a member of the SSPX who is not personally schismatic but wants to be a priest
(2) A person fines the common life and apostolic work of the SSPX attractive
(3) A person believes (rightly or wrongly) that Ecumenism as it is presently understood is wrong-headed.
(4) A person who likes the Tridentine Mass but has had no opportunity to attend an indult mass and who now wants to be a priest only knows the SSPX.
I am sure there are others. But you’d have to ask the men themselves. None of the above necessarily entails schism, the refusal to submit to the legitimate authority of the Holy Father.
Is this a new ecclesiastical summer dance?
Something like
a gibberish gibberish here
a gibberish gibberish there
and a pocket full of posies?
Are you suggesting that the deceased excommunicatus LeFebvre was right in his disobedience to Pope John Paul II??? That those who enthusiastically support him in his offense are not in schism??? That they do not by virtue of supporting the schismatic bishops against the pope deny papal authority???
While mortal sin requires grave matter, knowledge of the gravity of the matter and an intention to nonetheless perform the grave offense, are you suggesting that willful ignorance is a legitimate defense for the maliciously "faithful" of the SSPX schism? Did not John Paul II specifically declare adherents of SSPX to be in schism? The documents you are citing from the Congregation on Bishops came from Cardinal Gantin's office AFTER Ecclesia Dei was issued by the pope himself. Cardinal Gantin was not purporting to deal with the question of schism (John Paul II had already dealt with that) but rather with terminating the archschismatic LeFebvre's status as Catholic and in light of the fact that he had been consecrated as a bishop when he was still Catholic.
That those members of a bank robbery gang who perpetrate a bank robbery on May 1 are arrested, prosecuted, convicted, sentenced and punished does not exculpate other members of a bank robbery ring as to the robbery of another bank on another date. Indeed, under appropriate circumstances, those participating in the same robbery may be tried separately. So it is also with ecclesiastical miscreants such as SSPX schismatics and excommunicati (latae sententiae or otherwise).
The suggestion that LeFebvre had a "well-formed conscience" begs the question. If he had a "well-formed conscience" then it would not have been just to excommunicate him. I am going with the pope on that one. What LeFebvre had was a grossly inflated imagination as to his own importance and wisdom, a grossly offended Gallic temper, a non-stop internal temper tantrum over the fact that a mere pope had refused to submit to the ecclesiastical and liturgical tastes of his imagined majesty LeFebvre (and similar followers) and the delusion that LeFebvre's eccentric opinions somehow trumped papal authority. LeFebvre was a modern day Luther without the numbers of followers.
I don't have a copy of Canon Law handy but it does not require one to understand that when LeFebvre and his consecrated ecclesiastical criminals were excommunicated and declared in schism by John Paul II, they were excommunicated and declared in schism. Schism is like syphilis. You have it or you don't. That Cardinal Gantin whose responsibility was only as to bishops did not excommunicate and declare schismatic the followers of LeFebvre is the equivalent of a Los Angeles prosecutor not acting against a speeding offense in NYC. Jurisdiction did not reside with Gantin on that question of SSPX-adhering laity.
The argument that those who adhere to SSPX are not schismatic and excommunicated IF they believe that they and Marcel and the SSPX are right and the pope is wrong is about as valid as an argument that those who commit or contract for the killing of their unborn by abortion are somehow OK if their conscience says so. As a Church, we have no need of blatant subjectivism allowing each deviant from doctrine and authority his or her own individual delusional excuses for revolution against established Church authority. We are not a "do it yourself" Church whatever feminazis, eccentrics, schismatics or their respective sympathizers might prefer.
The SSPX Masses are valid if they otherwise meet the standards of Catholic Masses (which I would generally concede) but as dangus has stated elsewhere here, so are the Masses of the Eastern Orthodox valid or the Masses of some other schismatics. That question depends upon apostolic succession. Since the SSPX priests lack lawful faculties from actual diocesan ordinaries, they are not saying lawful Masses nor can they serve to grant absolution of sins absent emergencies and there are many other consequent evils of their unlawful practice of their priesthoods as well.
Most Eastern Orthodox were born into Families long associated with Eastern Orthodoxy. These folks differ from the SSPX adherents who have mostly chosen specifically and personally to rebel against the Roman Catholic Church.
Regrettably, they are in no danger of being burned at the stake after an appropriate inquiry but that does not mean that they should be indulged in the fantasy that they are Catholic.
Time was when numerous apologists for SSPX could be found here on FR. They have departed some time ago for the most part. The inventive quality of their arguments often exceeded the quite minimal quality of the evil leaders and movement that they defended.
As Jesus Christ promised, He is with us all days until the end of the world and the very gates of hell (including this soon to be forgotten SSPX schism) will not prevail against His Church.
If defense of the papacy and the Church itself from the vicious mouths and actions of the LeFebvres, the Fellays, the Williamsons, the de Mallerais, and their apologists and followers amounts (in your mind) to ultramontanism, then make the most of it.
St. Thomas Aquinas was a magnifient fellow but lacked the gift of infallibility. For instance, he expressed the view that God infused an immortal soul into a male fetus considerably earlier than in the female fetus and in neither event at conception. If Aquinas were with us today, he would, upon learning that the soul is infused in each at conception, likely slap himself on the forehead and say: "Of course, why didn't I think of that?" Many people today practice contraception or abortion on the claim that their "conscience" does not allow them to bring children into a world of (war? pollution? global warming? bad manners? bad diets? or whatever liberal delusion is the trend of the week). Somehow I imagine the Angelic Doctor lodging his disagreement with the almightiness of such "consciences." BTW, I share their taste in Masses favoring the Tridentine over the Novus Ordo but do so fully recognizing the validity of the Novus Ordo Mass.
Dear BlackElk,
>>”Are you suggesting that the concededly (and quite justly) excommunicated Marcel LeFebvre was ordained a priest but took no vow of obedience to his religious superiors which would seem to include the pope???”<<
I am suggesting that he had no vow of obedience to the Pope, at least no special vow. A diocesan priest, for example, makes no vow to the Pope. He makes three promises (vows) to his bishop: obedience, simplicity of life, and celibate chastity. Similarly, those in religious life make three vows adopting the evangelical counsels: poverty, chastity, obedience. Only the Jesuits, as far as I know, make a special vow of fealty to the Pope.
Of course he should obey the Pope in matters pertaining to the ordination of bishops. I am not suggesting the Lefebvre was justified in ordaining 4 men without the approval of the Pope. I support the excommunication. What he did was an act of manifest schism.
>>”Are you suggesting that the deceased excommunicatus LeFebvre was right in his disobedience to Pope John Paul II??? That those who enthusiastically support him in his offense are not in schism??? That they do not by virtue of supporting the schismatic bishops against the pope deny papal authority???”<<
No. I am not suggesting these things. He was not right in his disobedience. Neither are those who support him in his schism. They who support him in his schism participate in his schism.
>>”While mortal sin requires grave matter, knowledge of the gravity of the matter and an intention to nonetheless perform the grave offense, are you suggesting that willful ignorance is a legitimate defense for the maliciously “faithful” of the SSPX schism?”<<
No. I am not suggesting that willful ignorance is a legitimate defense. It is not a defense. “Affected” ignorance increases the depravity of the act.
What I do contend is that not everyone who is involved with the SSPX is involved with it because they are in agreement with Lefebvre’s schism.
>>”Did not John Paul II specifically declare adherents of SSPX to be in schism?”<<
No. He did not. In fact, the CDF under then-Cardinal Ratzinger said that Catholics could remain in good standing while attending SSPX masses and could even contribute financially to them, provided that they do not do these things in the spirit schism.
>>”The documents you are citing from the Congregation on Bishops came from Cardinal Gantin’s office AFTER Ecclesia Dei was issued by the pope himself. Cardinal Gantin was not purporting to deal with the question of schism (John Paul II had already dealt with that) but rather with terminating the archschismatic LeFebvre’s status as Catholic and in light of the fact that he had been consecrated as a bishop when he was still Catholic.”<<
First of all, John Paul II did not deal with the problem of the schism in the manner you suggest. (Not all of SSPX is excommunicated.) Cardinal Gantin was clarifying who the excommunicati were: Lefebvre and the 4 he consecrated. That is all I suggest in quoting those documents.
(By the way, excommunication does not destroy someone’s status as Catholic. Anathematization used to do that, but it is no longer a legal remedy in the 1983 CIC. Excommunication prohibits someone from receiving the sacraments unless he renounces his offense.)
>>”That those members of a bank robbery gang who perpetrate a bank robbery on May 1 are arrested, prosecuted, convicted, sentenced and punished does not exculpate other members of a bank robbery ring as to the robbery of another bank on another date. Indeed, under appropriate circumstances, those participating in the same robbery may be tried separately. So it is also with ecclesiastical miscreants such as SSPX schismatics and excommunicati (latae sententiae or otherwise).”<<
Your analogy limps in that you presume the schism of the other members of the SSPX, which has not been established, as well as their participation in the illicit ordinations, which the CIC does not allow for. The only people who can actually participate in an ordination are the minister and the subjects of the sacrament. However, whereas the first “bank robber gang” was convicted for a separate instance of the crime of schism, are you suggesting that the second “bank robber gang” not enjoy the presumption of innocence and a second trial?
>>”The suggestion that LeFebvre had a “well-formed conscience” begs the question. If he had a “well-formed conscience” then it would not have been just to excommunicate him. I am going with the pope on that onee.”<<
I am not suggesting that he necessarily had a well-formed conscience. In fact, in none of my arguments do I even seek to exonerate him. I am defending the priests that have been ordained. I was speaking of THEIR consciences. Moreover, even IF (a big ‘if’) he was bound by his conscience to defy the Pope, the Pope would still be just in excommunicating him. Even IF Lefebvre was bound by his conscience, he still promoted a public scandal that demands public remedies.
>>”What LeFebvre had was a grossly inflated imagination as to his own importance and wisdom, a grossly offended Gallic temper, a non-stop internal temper tantrum over the fact that a mere pope had refused to submit to the ecclesiastical and liturgical tastes of his imagined majesty LeFebvre (and similar followers) and the delusion that LeFebvre’s eccentric opinions somehow trumped papal authority. LeFebvre was a modern day Luther without the numbers of followers.”<<
You don’t know any of this to be true. You do not know the state of his mind or imagination or temper. And you also seem to labor under the machination that Papal authority is unlimited. Is has limits. Though I do not mean to suggest that it was exercised illegitimately in Lefebvre’s case. It certain was. The Pope was well within his rights.
>>”I don’t have a copy of Canon Law handy but it does not require one to understand that when LeFebvre and his consecrated ecclesiastical criminals were excommunicated and declared in schism by John Paul II, they were excommunicated and declared in schism. Schism is like syphilis. You have it or you don’t. That Cardinal Gantin whose responsibility was only as to bishops did not excommunicate and declare schismatic the followers of LeFebvre is the equivalent of a Los Angeles prosecutor not acting against a speeding offense in NYC. Jurisdiction did not reside with Gantin on that question of SSPX-adhering laity.”<<
Once again, I never suggested that Lefebvre and the ones he consecrated did not enter into schism. They did! But because they entered into schism, it does not follow that the entire SSPX did. Cardinal Gantin, speaking on behalf of the Pope, said that the only ones excommunicated were the Lefebvre and the ones he illicitly consecrated. Since Lefebvre was a bishop, Gantlin was the right authority to consult. In the Bull of Excommunication, the Holy Father only named Lefebvre and the ones he consecrated. This is what the law stipulates. THE HOLY FATHER NEVER EXCOMMUNICATED THE LAY ASSOCIATES OF THE SSPX. You seem to think he did.
>>”The argument that those who adhere to SSPX are not schismatic and excommunicated IF they believe that they and Marcel and the SSPX are right and the pope is wrong is about as valid as an argument that those who commit or contract for the killing of their unborn by abortion are somehow OK if their conscience says so.”<<
I never said any of this. If they endorse the schism, they are schismatic. It’s that simple. But even if lay people go to an SSPX chapel, it does not logically follow that they endorse the schism. Maybe they just have horrible parishes around them. I know people in this situation.
I never said it is okay to do the wrong thing simply because someone’s conscience says so. For Thomas Aquinas, even an erring conscience binds someone. But just because it binds them, it doesn’t excuse them. Moreover, as you conceded above, grave sin can only occur given 3 necessary and jointly sufficient conditions: sufficient knowledge, sufficient use of the will, and sufficiently grave matter. If either of these is lacking, it may not be a mortal sin. It may not be a sin at all. (In the case of abortion, it would be hard to argue that someone is unaware of the gravity of the sin.) It is much easier to argue that even IF attendance at an SSPX chapel were an act of schism (it isn’t) that a lay person would not be sufficiently aware of the gravity of the offense.
>>”As a Church, we have no need of blatant subjectivism allowing each deviant from doctrine and authority his or her own individual delusional excuses for revolution against established Church authority. We are not a “do it yourself” Church whatever feminazis, eccentrics, schismatics or their respective sympathizers might prefer.”<<
I agree.
>>”The SSPX Masses are valid if they otherwise meet the standards of Catholic Masses (which I would generally concede) but as dangus has stated elsewhere here, so are the Masses of the Eastern Orthodox valid or the Masses of some other schismatics. That question depends upon apostolic succession. Since the SSPX priests lack lawful faculties from actual diocesan ordinaries, they are not saying lawful Masses nor can they serve to grant absolution of sins absent emergencies and there are many other consequent evils of their unlawful practice of their priesthoods as well.”<<
I largely agree. SSPX cannot validly conduct marriages or offer sacramental absolution.
What other consequent evils? That is a vague claim.
>>”Most Eastern Orthodox were born into Families long associated with Eastern Orthodoxy. These folks differ from the SSPX adherents who have mostly chosen specifically and personally to rebel against the Roman Catholic Church.”<<
This argument is impossible to substantiate. I know people who were raised in schismatic sects even more “out there” than the SSPX.
>>”Regrettably, they are in no danger of being burned at the stake after an appropriate inquiry but that does not mean that they should be indulged in the fantasy that they are Catholic.”<<
What a horrendous thing to say.
>>”Time was when numerous apologists for SSPX could be found here on FR. They have departed some time ago for the most part. The inventive quality of their arguments often exceeded the quite minimal quality of the evil leaders and movement that they defended.”<<
You presume they are evil. You are not fit to judge that. You may judge their actions. Actions are public. But their hearts are private. We can judge their actions and prudently decide that they hurt us or not and what remedies we should apply to prevent that harm. Let God judge their hearts.
>>”As Jesus Christ promised, He is with us all days until the end of the world and the very gates of hell (including this soon to be forgotten SSPX schism) will not prevail against His Church.”<<
I agree, the Church will outlast the gates of hell. Yet you are still presuming the SSPX is in schism. Its official canonical status is “uncertain.” You are begging the question. You do it over and over again.
>>”If defense of the papacy and the Church itself from the vicious mouths and actions of the LeFebvres, the Fellays, the Williamsons, the de Mallerais, and their apologists and followers amounts (in your mind) to ultramontanism, then make the most of it.”<<
All I am doing is making an effort to suggest that not all the priest ordained into SSPX are schismatic. I am also suggesting that the lay members need not be schismatic. I agree with you to the extent that we should defend the papacy and the Church from schism. But I do not agree in your witch hunt that assumes guilt before it is established by competent authorities.
>>”St. Thomas Aquinas was a magnifient fellow but lacked the gift of infallibility. For instance, he expressed the view that God infused an immortal soul into a male fetus considerably earlier than in the female fetus and in neither event at conception. If Aquinas were with us today, he would, upon learning that the soul is infused in each at conception, likely slap himself on the forehead and say: “Of course, why didn’t I think of that?” Many people today practice contraception or abortion on the claim that their “conscience” does not allow them to bring children into a world of (war? pollution? global warming? bad manners? bad diets? or whatever liberal delusion is the trend of the week). Somehow I imagine the Angelic Doctor lodging his disagreement with the almightiness of such “consciences.” BTW, I share their taste in Masses favoring the Tridentine over the Novus Ordo but do so fully recognizing the validity of the Novus Ordo Mass.”<<
I fully agree. Thomas Aquinas was operating with faulty Aristotelian biology. Given modern successes in understanding biology, he would change his views. Even though he held that ensoulment took place some 40 days after conception, he still was against contraception and abortion. He probably would “slap himself in the head.” For him, and for me, it is as simple as Roma locuta est: Rome has spoken.
Nonetheless, Thomas Aquinas is the Angelic Doctor of the Church, and his theology has been used prolifically by the Magisterium in its offical formulations of doctrine, sometimes word-for-word. At the Council of Trent, two books were placed on the altar to convene the Council, the Holy Bible and the Summa Theologica. His moral theology is THE accepted moral theology of the Church.
I also share their taste in the Tridentine Mass. And I recognize the validity of the Novus Ordo. I am not an apologist for the SSPX, but I want to defend the presumption of innocence for those who have NOT BEEN FOUND GUILTY by competent authorities. You and I do not constitute competent authorities to judge their guilt or innocence.
My argument has never been to vindicate Lefebvre, nor the men he consecrated, nor those who agree with their schism. My attempt is simply to show that just because someone is associated with the SSPX either as a priest or lay person does not mean that he is schismatic. Indeed, Rome has said that it is possible to be a Catholic in good standing and be associated with the SSPX. But the motivation for associating with them must not be one of a schismatic spirit.
“The whole understanding of whether or not the men who are subsequently ordained priests by these bishops are in schism as well depends upon what we understand by ‘intention.’”
I disagree with your premise.
I don't think that intention isn't the issue, objective observable actions are.
These priests are in schism because they have literally formally adhered to the schism. They have sought out ordination by schismatic bishops, already an action of serious disobedience to the Supreme Pontiff. They are, therefore, suspended a divinis, yet continue to commit objectively grave evil acts by saying Mass and performing invalid confessions (except in immediate danger of death) and marriages.
These are evil deeds enough.
But what makes them in schism is literally that they have put themselves under the ecclesiastical authority of schismatics.
These priests have formally joined a schismatic organization.
You make the comparison of a man who seeks out ordination from a liberal bishop. The difference is that the liberal bishop serves at least with the sufferance of the pope. Thus, the man does not defy the ecclesiastical authority of the Catholic Church by submitting to the liberal bishop.
If the man is incardinated in the bishop's diocese, he is submitted to ecclesiastical authority in union with the Roman Pontiff.
But the priest of the SSPX is submitted to ecclesiastical authority that is in schism from the Roman Pontiff.
The priest cannot both be in union with his illicit SSPX schismatic bishop AND with the Catholic Church with which the illicit SSPX schismatic bishop is in schism.
The act of formally joining the schismatic organization, of recognizing the ecclesiastical authority of bishops in schism from the Catholic Church, is schism and is, according to Pope John Paul II, "is a grave offense against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church's law."
sitetest
Dear sitetest,
That is a really interesting reply. It actually makes a lot of sense. I will conceded that they have put themselves under the ecclesiastical authority of schismatics. And I agree that that is a precarious position for one to be in. But the Vatican has never called the SSPX a schismatic organization. I come back to that. The Vatican has never declared the priests or lay followers to be excommunicated because of schism.
It may be precarious to be involved with them. I’ll grant all that. But for a lay person, it may be less precarious than being involved in their local parish which has a pastor who denies the existence of hell, supports women’s ordination, supports same-sex marriage, etc. If I were in that situation and had no other alternative, I’d attend an SSPX chapel.
Pope John Paul II, in Ecclesia Dei Afflicta, names those who have committed schism, and then refers to “the schism” and warns against “formally adhering” to it, as that will, of course, make one in schism, as well as bring about excommunication latae sententiae.
Whether one wishes to say that mere membership in the organization SSPX is formal adherence, or one ties it to submission to schismatic ecclesiastical authority, for me, it's a bit of splitting hairs, as to do one is to do the other.
Thus, for these priests to submit to the ecclesiastical authority of schismatic bishops is formal adherence to the schism, whether by “the schism,” we only mean that “society” comprising the ecclesiastical rebellion of the four bishops, or the formal organization that they run to further their rebellion.
“The Vatican has never declared the priests or lay followers to be excommunicated because of schism.”
The Vatican seldom declares a particular abortionist excommunicated, either.
Then, too, what penalties accrue for saying Mass while suspended a divinis? Or from hearing invalid “confessions”? I believe that simulating a sacrament (and hearing an invalid “confession” certainly qualifies) receives automatic excommunication. I believe that is part of the justification of automatic excommunication for women who attempt ordination.
But in any event, my principle argument is not that they're excommunicated (although I believe these priests are) but rather that they are in schism by placing themselves under the phony jurisdiction of schismatic bishops, putting themselves in full communion with bishops who are not in communion with the Holy See.
“But for a lay person,...”
I don't think I said anything about laypersons except that it was an open question as to whether a particular layperson might or might not be formally adhering to schism.
I suspect some are and some aren't, but that's just a guess on my part.
sitetest
Dear sitetest,
That is a very compelling argument. I appreciate the avoidance of useless invective, and I think it may have convinced me. I’ll have to think about. Thank you.
In Christ
You're welcome.
“I appreciate the avoidance of useless invective,...”
Oh heck, what would be the fun of posting without the employment of useless invective?? LOL!!
It can be hard to avoid it, but one seldom regrets having done so.
I haven't seen you post much here, maybe I just missed you; I hope to see you more often.
sitetest
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.