Sspx: Preamble Signed

[Aloysius]

I saw what you said the first time, I just disagree. There was a massive threat to the faith as it was once presented, and that threat went all the way to the highest levels of the Church. the SSPX did not make up innovations or try to ressurect some non-existent past belief like some sect; +Lefebvre was trying to pass down the doctrine fully intact as he had received it, he didn't change or alter it. he was disobedient and I cannot condone the direction he took, though I can understand why he felt he had to, and I don't agree with all of his positions; but I cannot say that those positions preclude anyone from being a Catholic in good standing.

the unity between the faith and worship that they were tryin to pass down was fully intact, and both were fully acceptable modes of transmitting the faith. the level of teaching that Vatican II chose to employ means that presenting things the way they were presented before the Council cannot be forbidden on the basis of the Council, the Council pronounced no anathemas, so if you present the faith exactly as it was presented in pre-conciliar times you can still be a Catholic in good standing. and that is what the SSPX does, it does not alter the way the faith was presented prior to the Council, and therefore to condemn their doctrinal positions is to present a hermeneutic of rupture.

again, I get the impression that people are looking for the Society to be repudiating all its past positions, but that's not where it seems Rome is going with this.

[Totus Tuus]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1335152116' post='2422050']
I saw what you said the first time, I just disagree. There was a massive threat to the faith as it was once presented, and that threat went all the way to the highest levels of the Church. the SSPX did not make up innovations or try to ressurect some non-existent past belief like some sect; +Lefebvre was trying to pass down the doctrine fully intact as he had received it, he didn't change or alter it. he was disobedient and I cannot condone the direction he took, though I can understand why he felt he had to, and I don't agree with all of his positions; but I cannot say that those positions preclude anyone from being a Catholic in good standing.

the unity between the faith and worship that they were tryin to pass down was fully intact, and both were fully acceptable modes of transmitting the faith. the level of teaching that Vatican II chose to employ means that presenting things the way they were presented before the Council cannot be forbidden on the basis of the Council, the Council pronounced no anathemas, so if you present the faith exactly as it was presented in pre-conciliar times you can still be a Catholic in good standing. and that is what the SSPX does, it does not alter the way the faith was presented prior to the Council, and therefore to condemn their doctrinal positions is to present a hermeneutic of rupture.

again, I get the impression that people are looking for the Society to be repudiating all its past positions, but that's not where it seems Rome is going with this.
[/quote]

Yeah, then this is definitely just an "agree to disagree."

Peace, and prayers for the SSPX.

[Aloysius]

indeed it is. I tend to defend the SSPX because I think they get an unfair treatment, but I am not a follower of the Society. We will have to see what Benedict does here, I have a feeling it's going to be something that doesn't exactly coincide with the demands for the society to repent of its positions but will, in effect, see the regularization of the society largely unchanged. which is a good thing, IMO.

[Skinzo]

[quote name='Totus Tuus' timestamp='1335232401' post='2422451']
Yeah, then this is definitely just an "agree to disagree."

Peace, and prayers for the SSPX.
[/quote]

I don't think there will be an "agree to disagree" because the Pope has already spelled out the conditions the SSPX must fulfill in his letter to the bishops. To begin with, he makes it clear that the SSPX currently has no canonical mission because of DOCTRINAL reasons: "This will make it clear that the problems now to be addressed are essentially doctrinal in nature and concern primarily the acceptance of the [url="http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/index.htm"]Second Vatican Council [/url]and the post-conciliar magisterium of the Popes." And: "The Church’s teaching authority cannot be frozen in the year 1962 – this must be quite clear to the Society."
This is the same problem spelled out by Paul VI in his letter to Lefebvre so many years ago: "[b]You say that you are subject to the church and faithful to tradition by the sole fact that you obey certain norms of the past that were decreed by the predecessor of him to whom God has today conferred the powers given to Peter. That is to say, on this point also, the concept of "tradition" that you invoke is distorted" [/b]
One of the errors of the SSPX is in this novelty of what they think is "tradition". But as Paul VI went on to say, tradition in fact is a living thing and cannot be separated from the living Magisterium: "Hence tradition is inseparable from the living magisterium of the church, just as it is inseparable from sacred scripture. "Sacred tradition, sacred scripture and the magisterium of the church . . . are so linked and joined together that one of these realities cannot exist without the others, and that all of them together, each in its own way, effectively contribute under the action of the Holy Spirit to the salvation of souls" (Constitution [i]Dei Verbum[/i], 10). "
Those who claim the SSPX is faithful to "tradition" and therefore does not teach any novel doctrines are quite simply wrong because their notion of "tradition" is very novel indeed.

What is very important in the current context also is to look at the other communities similar to the SSPX which have reconciled with Rome in recent years. Those communities have not been allowed "to agree to disagree". On the contrary as Mgr. Pozzo's recent letter to one of those communities shows there really is no leeway to continue criticism of Vatican II. I am referring to the Institute of the Good Shepherd. During a recent canonical visitation of the community it was found that some there are still persisting in criticism of Vatican II. Pozzo's letter states: " Rather than criticize, however rightly and constructively, the Vatican II, educators should channel their efforts in conveying the whole of the Church teachings, focussing on the hermeneutics of renovation within continuity and starting, as a base, from the integrity of the Catholic doctrine as exposed in the catechism of the Catholic Church”.
I think it is hard to see how the SSPX can be handled any differently without creating a double standard.

S.

[Skinzo]

[quote name='Totus Tuus' timestamp='1335232401' post='2422451']
Yeah, then this is definitely just an "agree to disagree."

Peace, and prayers for the SSPX.
[/quote]

Sorry Totus Tuus, I misread your post as suggesting the SSPX and the Pope would "agree to disagree".

S.

[dells_of_bittersweet]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1335152116' post='2422050']
+Lefebvre...he was disobedient [/quote]

Imprecise...he was schismatic. There is a big difference in gravity between liberals who disobey but remain within the church, and Lefebvre, who disobeyed and left.

[Slappo]

[quote name='dells_of_bittersweet' timestamp='1335249382' post='2422523']
Imprecise...he was schismatic. There is a big difference in gravity between liberals who disobey but remain within the church, and Lefebvre, who disobeyed and left.
[/quote]

Please locate for me a place where the Church declared +Lefebvre to be in [b]schism[/b].

By the way. many of those "liberals who disobey but remain within the church" have actually separated themselves from the Church through a latae sententiae excommunication.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='Slappo' timestamp='1335299779' post='2422823']


Please locate for me a place where the Church declared +Lefebvre to be in [b]schism[/b].

By the way. many of those "liberals who disobey but remain within the church" have actually separated themselves from the Church through a latae sententiae excommunication.
[/quote]As I understand it, excommunication implies schism, so an excommunicated person would be in the state of schism.

[Skinzo]

[quote name='Slappo' timestamp='1335299779' post='2422823']
Please locate for me a place where the Church declared +Lefebvre to be in [b]schism[/b].
.
[/quote]

Not a problem. In his motu proprio on the schism "Ecclesia Dei Adflicta" Pope John Paul II confirmed the excommunications as well as the schism: "In itself, this act was one of [i]disobedience[/i] to the Roman Pontiff in a very grave matter and of supreme importance for the unity of the church, such as is the ordination of bishops whereby the apostolic succession is sacramentally perpetuated. Hence such disobedience - which implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy - constitutes a [i]schismatic[/i] act."
And: "In the present circumstances I wish especially to make an appeal both solemn and heartfelt, paternal and fraternal, to all those who until now have been linked in various ways to the movement of Archbishop Lefebvre, that they may fulfil the grave duty of remaining united to the Vicar of Christ in the unity of the Catholic Church, and of ceasing their support in any way for that movement. Everyone should be aware that formal adherence to the schism is a grave offence against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church's law."

[url="http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/motu_proprio/documents/hf_jp-ii_motu-proprio_02071988_ecclesia-dei_en.html"]http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/motu_proprio/documents/hf_jp-ii_motu-proprio_02071988_ecclesia-dei_en.html[/url]

S.

[KnightofChrist]

The Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei (PCED), fully aware of "Ecclesia Dei Adflicta", during Holy Week in 2008 officially confirmed that the Society of Saint Pius X "is not in formal schism" and that "there has been no official declaration on the part of the Holy See that the Society of St. Pius X is in schism."

We can choose to believe the Church, the competent ecclesiastical authority on this matter or we can choose to believe laymen or those who lack the competent ecclesiastical authority to declare the SSPX to be in schism.

Lastly it is a great and grave sorrow to see that even if the Holy Pontiff accepts the Society "as is", that some will still not except the faithful of the SSPX, our beloved brethren, as faithful and true Catholics.

Let us pray for unity rather than rip open old wounds which Pope Benedict XVI and Bishop Felly are attempting to heal for the sake of Holy Mother Church.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1335317146' post='2423008']
The Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei (PCED), fully aware of "Ecclesia Dei Adflicta", during Holy Week in 2008 officially confirmed that the Society of Saint Pius X "is not in formal schism" and that "there has been no official declaration on the part of the Holy See that the Society of St. Pius X is in schism."

We can choose to believe the Church, the competent ecclesiastical authority on this matter or we can choose to believe laymen or those who lack the competent ecclesiastical authority to declare the SSPX to be in schism.

Lastly it is a great and grave sorrow to see that even if the Holy Pontiff accepts the Society "as is", that some will still not except the faithful of the SSPX, our beloved brethren, as faithful and true Catholics.

Let us pray for unity rather than rip open old wounds which Pope Benedict XVI and Bishop Felly are attempting to heal for the sake of Holy Mother Church.
[/quote]I don't think anyone here has tried to claim that they are in schism.

We were just talking about Archbishop Lefebvre, whose excommunication was never lifted. Therefore, it is legit to speak about him as being in schism up to death.

Also, we can want people to act less schismatically regardless of their official status. It isn't working against the Holy Father to say that followers of the society are not acting in accord with its head.

[KnightofChrist]

Again, the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei (PCED), has stated "there has been no official declaration on the part of the Holy See that the Society of St. Pius X is in schism." The PCED believed the Archbishop to have committed a "schismatic act". But this is not the same as saying he is or was in formal schism. As he was the offical head of the Society if he was in actual former schism so too would be the SSPX. Also the PCED stated, even before the lifting of the bishops excommunications, that the bishops were not in schism or schismatics. This contradicts the stance that excommunication implies formal schism.

[Jaime]

Hey look who's back!

[qfnol31]

Ecclesia Dei, particularly Cardinal Hoyos, spoke only about a formal schism between the Church and the people who attend Masses with SSPX. Neither spoke to the status of the bishops as not schismatic before the excommunications were lifted. The people who attend the Masses are not themselves in a state of formal schism, and no one here has said otherwise.

Archbishop Lefebvre, by committing a formal schismatic act, incurred [i]latae sententiae[/i] excommunication of himself and all those bishops involved. In doing so, they and they alone were in schism from the Church. Excommunication implies a break from the Church. One can be excommunicated as a heretic, which is not the case here. Otherwise one can be excommunicated from disobedience. In this case all of the bishops were in a state of formal schism from the Church. I don't think that even Cardinal Hoyos' words can extend to the six or so bishops involved. The context of his statement speaks to the state of the fraternity and its followers as a whole. A leader can be in the state of schism without drawing his entire order into schism. This is possible so long as the other members did not partake in the act which brought about the excommunication in the first place.

[KnightofChrist]

Again BEFORE the lifting of the excommunications. The head of the PCED stated "[b]The bishops[/b], priests and faithful of the Society of St Pius X [b]are not schismatics[/b]."

This was stated before the lifting of the excommunications, and it is contrary to your stance that "[color=#282828]excommunication implies schism."[/color]

Edited April 25, 2012 by KnightofChrist