Jim Caviezel: How The Passion Changed Him

Catholic Exchange ^ | 1/30/04 | Tin Drake

[ultima ratio]

The following is an excerpt from an article by Christopher Ferrara which appeared a few years ago entitled, "Where Is the Real Schism?"

__________________________________________________________

The Putative Lefebvre Schism


On June 30, 1988, Archbishop Lefebvre consecrated four bishops without a papal mandate,an offense which, under Canon 1382, carries the penalty of excommunication, subject to various excuses from culpability under Canons 1321-23. One of these excuses is that the offender acted out of necessity or to avoid grave inconvenience.

Another is that the offender sincerely believed, however mistakenly, that his action was justified and he was thus not subjectively culpable for the offense. Given the current chaotic state of the Church, Lefebvre argued that his action was necessary to preserve some semblance of Catholic tradition. I do not take up that defense here, but merely note three things:

· First, that the defense of necessity was raised by the Archbishop, and that, right or wrong, His Eminence no doubt acted with a good intention, as envisioned by Canons 1321 and 1323.

· Second, the penalty for illicit episcopal consecrations under Canon 1381 is latae sententiae¾that is, automatic and without need of a formal declaration by ecclesiastical authority. However, the effects of the penalty become much more severe if the penalty is then declared by ecclesiastical authority. (Canon 1331) For one thing, the declared penalty cannot be remitted by a confessor in situations of urgency, outside of the danger of death. (Canon 1357)

· Third, the 1983 Code of Canon law nowhere provides that an illicit episcopal consecration constitutes in itself the canonical crime of schism. In fact, Cardinal Castillo Lara, President of the Pontifical Commission for the Authentic Interpretation of Canon Law, admitted to La Reppublica that “The act of consecrating a bishop (without a papal mandate) is not in itself a schismatic act…”[2] (Cardinal Lara claimed that Lefebvre was guilty of schism before the 1988 consecrations, for which claim he offered not the slightest proof.)

As we know, the Vatican’s reaction to the Lefebvre consecrations was immediate: On July 2, 1988, only two days later, the Pope issued his motu proprio Ecclesia Dei, which declares that “Archbishop Lefebvre and the priests Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta have incurred the grave penalty of excommunication envisaged by ecclesiastical law.” The motu proprio went even further than what the cited canon provides, declaring that “such disobedience,which implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy,constitutes a schismatic act.” Yet the canonical admonition sent to Lefebvre before the consecrations had contained no indication that his action would be deemed schismatic, and the only possible penalty cited was that of latae sententiae excommunication. The result was rather like being charged with only one offense, but then convicted of two. The motu proprio also warns that “formal adherence to the schism is a grave offense against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the church's law.” But the term “formal adherence” is nowhere defined. Later, however, the Vatican made it clear in particular decisions that mere attendance at an SSPX chapel in Arizona is not an act of schism, nor even recourse to an SSPX bishop for the sacrament of Confirmation at an independent chapel in Hawaii.[3]


The Neo-Catholics Helpfully Expand the Penalty


While the motu proprio applied the excommunication and the delict of schism by name only to Lefebvre and the four priests he consecrated, since then, true to form, neo-Catholic commentators at EWTN, The Wanderer and elsewhere have with great alacrity denounced as “schismatic” not only Lefebvre and the four bishops he consecrated, but all the priests of the Society of Saint Pius X, any member of the faithful who frequents their chapels, and anyone who defends Lefebvre’s actions. The neo-Catholics have even coined the terms “Lefebvrist” and “Lefebvrism” to stigmatize “extreme traditionalists” in general.

Thus, in the case of Lefebvre we have the following: an immediate declaration of excommunication, and, going beyond what the express terms of the Church’s law provide, the declaration of a schism; the unauthorized extension of those delicts by neo-Catholic organs to an entire class of Catholics who are not at all embraced in the original motu proprio; and, for good measure, the demonization of Archbishop Lefebvre and all his followers and sympathizers. Yet there is no question that those whom the neo-Catholics denounce as “Lefebvrists”, including the bishops, priests and laity actually affiliated with SSPX, possess the Catholic faith and follow the moral teaching of the Church, as even Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos admitted in the course of the recent negotiations toward “regularization” of the SSPX. Further, “Lefebvrist” priests and bishops profess their loyalty to John Paul II and pray for him at every Mass, along with the local ordinary.

In fact, the Vatican’s private approach to SSPX would indicate that the “Lefebvre schism” is illusory, and is really nothing more than an internal disciplinary problem of the Church. For example, as Cardinal Cassidy admitted in a letter of March 25, 1994, the Pontifical Council for Christian Unity “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.”

___________________________________________________________

The entire article may be read here: [http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Rhodes/3543/schisma.htm]

[ultima ratio]

Yes, he's the vicar. But he's not an absolute monarch, a law unto himself. He is subject like all of us to Sacred Tradition. His job is to protect that tradition, not to destroy it.

[GirlShortstop]

He is subject like all of us to Sacred Tradition. His job is to protect that tradition, not to destroy it.

The Vicar of Christ has destroyed tradition because he judged that SSPX is in schism?
Is Sacred Tradition found elsewhere besides in the Church that Jesus Christ founded?
His Church has not been destroyed because of SSPX.

[Land of the Irish]

There is no schism.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/983129/posts

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/985284/posts

[ultima ratio]

The SSPX was protecting the Roman Rite. The Pope sought to eliminate any possibility that it would survive the Archbishop's death. This was the rationale for forbidding the consecrations without which no traditional priests might be ordained. No traditional priests, no traditional Mass. This was part of an long-range attempt to destroy the Econe which was considered a "wildcat" seminary because of its traditional adherence to the ancient Mass. When the Pontiff realized there was no stopping the Archbishop and that the Mass would survive by virtue of his disobedience, he granted the Indult after the fact.

And no, the Church has not been destroyed--but it has been dealt serious damage. The Archbishop acted to preserve what he could from the wrecking-ball.

[Salvation]

And the Holy Spirit is the guide in this process!

[Salvation]

But Canticle, thank goodness that dioceses and archdioceses are changing and for the better. Today is today.

"I AM" no yesterday, not tomorrow, but today.

[Salvation]

"I AM" not yesterday, not tomorrow, but living truth today.

[AAABEST]

Something about you and me and the church and the dead doors not prevailing and....

WHAT'S IT MEAN!!!!!

Hehe.

[AAABEST]

The SSPX was protecting the Roman Rite. The Pope sought to eliminate any possibility that it would survive the Archbishop's death.

You know UR, I'm not entirely sure about this. If JPII wanted the SSPX gone it would be gone. At times it seems as if he's just "making a show of it" when he's taken certain actions.

Not only are we still here, but he won't even dare say we're in sin. It could be because he hasn't had the nerve or maybe deep down he's sympathetic. Maybe he doesn't want to anger God or maybe he's under political pressure... but who knows?

His behavior is unexplainable at times. "It is as it was" then the denial. This is a microcosm of what I'm trying to say.

[GirlShortstop]

The Archbishop acted to preserve what he could from the wrecking-ball.

I have just a moment to share:  Lefebvre wanted to direct the wrecking-ball.  JPII with the Holy Spirit guiding him halted Lefebvre.  'til later, FReegards.

[ninenot]

Uhhhhh...GS....

You can spend the rest of your life jousting with UR, who is as capable as ANY lawyer at obscuring the issues (see Ferrara cite, above...)

[Catholicguy]

smashing post.

Anticipate the "yes, but..." response.

[Catholicguy]

This is because Ecclesia Dei is in open contradiction to the Pope's own papal Canon Law which provides a definition for schism which differs from what the Pontiff has supposed; Canon Law also provides justifiable exemptions from any latae sententiae (automatic) excommunications--and the Archbishop legally and in good conscience took full advantage of these provisions.

you have been corrected on this repeatedly.

Aside from the facts which you routinely distort, it is laughable the Pope doesn't know Canon Law as well as you.

Please

[ultima ratio]

"For the Holy Spirit was not promised to the Successors of Peter that by His revelation they might disclose new doctrine, but that by His help they might guard the revelation transmitted through the apostles." (Vatican I, canon 3.)

In other words, the Pontiff's claim for a "New Advent", a "Second Pentecost" of ecumenical unity whereby differences in doctrine are papered-over has no divine protection. It is a new doctrine, never before pursued by a previous pope or council and is wholly outside of Catholic Tradition. Thus there is no justification for this novelty, especially since it has borne no fruits, even by the Pontiff's own admission recently. The results, in fact, have been disastrous.

There is no way, therefore, that it can be shown that the Holy Spirit is involved, however much you may admire this pope. He is not infallible in this instance, nor even in line with what the Magisterium had always taught.