Replies

The SSPX is not in schism. Nor are its followers. Nor was Archbishop Lefebvre. Your saying so over and over doesn't make it so.

Cardinal Castillo Lara, President of the Pontifical Commission for the Authentic Interpretation of Canon Law: "The act of consecrating a bishop [without the Pope's permission] is not in itself a schismatic act."

Count Neri Capponi, Doctor of Canon Law, renouned for his arguments before Rome's highest juridical body, the Apostolic Signatura: "The fact is that Msgr. Lefebvre simply said: 'I am creating bishops in order that my priestly order can continue. They do not take the place of other bishops. I am not creating a parallel church.' Therefore this act is not, per se, schismatic."

Fr. Patrick Valdini, Dean of the Faculty of Canon Law at the University of Paris: "It is not the consecration of a bishop that creates the schism. What makes the schism is to give the bishop an apostolic mission"--something the Archbishop never did.

Fr. Gerald E. Murray, Licentiate in Canon Law, Gregorian University: "I come to the conclusion that he's [Lefebvre's] not guilty of a schismatic act punishable by canon law. He's guilty of an act of disobedience to the Pope, but he did it in such a way that he would prevail himself of a provision of the law that would prevent him from being automatically excommunicated."

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, in responding to the decree issued by Bishop Ferrario of Honolulu excommunicating Catholics for attending Mass at an SSPX chapel: "From the examination of the case, conducted on the basis of the Law of the Church, it did not result that the facts referred to in the above-mentioned Decree, are formal schismatic acts in the strict sense, as they do not constitute the offense of schism; and therefore the Congregation holds that the Decree of May 1, 1991, lacks foundation and hence validity."

Professor Geringer, Canon Lawyer at the University of Munich: "With the episcopal consecrations, Archbishop Lefebvre was by no means creating a schism."

Cardinal Edward Cassidy, President of the Pontifical Council for Christian Unity: "I would point out at once that the Directory on Ecumenism is not concerned with the Society of Saint Pius X. The situation of the members of this Society is AN INTERNAL MATTER OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. The Society is not another Church or Ecclesial Community in the meaning used in the Directory. Of course the Mass and the Sacraments administered by the priests of the Society are valid."

I was searching around for a copy of the Vatican's 1997 Instruction on Certain Questions Regarding the Collaboration of the Non-Ordained Faithful in the Sacred Ministry of the Priest, when I found this interview with Fabian Bruskewitz and Paul Likoudis on the subject of Bishop Bruskewitz issuing a formal warning to Catholics who belong to groups which are opposed to the Catholic Church, telling them that they are in danger of excommunication.

Q. Isn't it true that the excommunication of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre did not apply to his followers or individual members? Is your decree, by including Catholics who belong to the St. Pius X Society, going beyond what the Vatican decree does?

A. The sanction of interdict and excommunication that is in the legislation of the Diocese of Lincoln applies to membership on the part of people who are in or of the Diocese of Lincoln in the Society of St. Pius X and/or the St. Michael the Archangel Chapel. Both have been fraudulently advertising themselves in Lincoln as "in full union with Rome," causing confusion, ambiguity, and uncertainty on the part of many of the faithful in Lincoln, and giving rise to many serious questions which the legislation was intended to answer.

Bishop Bruskewitz is someone I listen to. My parish priest calls him "medievil" and "out of touch" and so I know the liberals can't stand Bruskewitz which is a huge point in his favor, IMO.

Where to begin????

First, your denying the schismatic status of SSPX does not, by infinite repetition, make of schismatic insolent dissenters Catholics again instead of the schismatics they clearly are.

If you are citing the sorry likes of Edward Idris Cardinal Cassidy, who WILL you cite next in the ongoing contortions in which you must engage to defend yourself as delusional rather than schismatic? Validity was not in question. No one doubts, to the best of my knowledge, that the excommunicati are validly consecrated as bishops or ordained as priests nor does anyone doubt that they are capable of confecting the sacrament. A particular aspect of the outrages they have committed is that they are validly consecrated and ordained. What is denied is that they may licitly (lawfully) do ANY of these things. They are, with Lefebvre ecclesiastical and sacramental thieves who have stolen what is not their own and assumed authority not their own. If you call this holiness, you are about as Catholic as Luther, Calvin or Zwingli.

Cassidy, like Kaspar and Lehmann, or Keeler, Mahoney and Rembert Weakland have personal agendas militating in favor of undermining papal authority, don't they? See how easily it may be observed that when you lie down with dogs you will get up with fleas? No offense to noble canine creatures.

That technical legal defenses will be made of Lefebvre is no surprise since his track record previous to open rebellion was to loosen up the standards for annulments (leading to AmChurch annulment mills) as head of the Rota or Vatican marriage court.

Not one person you cite as authority other than, perhaps, the regrettable Cassidy is saying that Lefebvre was not in schism. They merely make somewhat arguable (if the quotes fairly reflect them) statements and highly specific and legally technical statements at that as to the consecration of bishops without assigning them not being in and of itself the ESTABLISHMENT of a schism. As you well know, the situation with Ferrario has a lot more relevant facts than you have cited and, in any event is not a whitewash of SSPX but a vindication of some Hawaii Catholics who were excommunicated by Archbishop Ferrario for contributing to his embarassment over the fact that he had stashed a generally compliant former altar boy in a San Francisco love nest for Ferrario's weekend entertainment. Neither the Vatican nor JPII nor anyone else in authority at Vatican HQ were amused by Ferrario abusing these folks for attending the only Mases where they would not be denied the sacraments. They would not have been excommunicatable for attending Russian Orthodox Masses either. Do you think that proves that Michael Celarius did not lead the east into schism or that the schism of the east is no longer a schism?

As to Father Murray at the Greg, he may or not be a good Canon lawyer but that is all the $64 term Licentiate in Canon Law means. Canon lawyers are a dime a dozen just like the secular kind. Did he use prevail instead of avail or was that a typo?

Soooooooo tiresome!!!!!!!!

De gustibus non disputandem est. But then there would be no reason to draw attention to yourself, right?

Ubi Petrus Ibi Ecclesia.