Sspx: Preamble Signed

[qfnol31]

If you read the rest of that quote, it says that the bishops that participated in the consecrations by Lefebvre also incurred the same punishment.

Interestingly, I cannot find the original German text, but either the Cardinal wasn't thinking his thoughts through, or something was lost in translation. You cannot both partake in something and not partake in something in the same respect at the same time.

[qfnol31]

Also, just to be absolutely clear: people can take an attitude of schism with them. It is with these people that my main problem lies.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1335330094' post='2423083']
If you read the rest of that quote, it says that the bishops that participated in the consecrations by Lefebvre also incurred the same punishment.

Interestingly, I cannot find the original German text, but either the Cardinal wasn't thinking his thoughts through, or something was lost in translation. You cannot both partake in something and not partake in something in the same respect at the same time.
[/quote]

I know the rest of the statement, it does not invalidate that your postion is contrary to that of the PCED. Again, according to the head of the PCED, Archbishop Lefebvre did not commit formal schism.


[indent=1]Cardinal Castrillón: Unfortunately Monsignor Lefebvre went ahead with the consecration and hence the situation of separation came about, even if [b]it was not a formal schism[/b].[/indent]

[indent=1]Source: [url="http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=6754"]http://www.catholicc...cfm?recnum=6754[/url][/indent]

What I what believe the Cardinal's saying is that the Archbishop committed an act of disobedience, yes, but one that did not rise to the level of formal schism.

Edited April 25, 2012 by KnightofChrist

[Skinzo]

[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]

Sure. The ENTIRE SSPX is not in schism, but those who formally adhere to the schism would be. And that's probably quite a few. In no sense would a declaration of the Ecclesia Dei commission reverse anything in a motu proprio anyway, it that is what you are trying to argue. I choose to believe the Popes. As Mgr. Perl pointed out the declarations of the "Ecclesia Dei" are NOT declarations of the Holy See. And if you are going to quote the Ecclesia Dei commission provide a source please.
The act of schism and those who formally adhere to it is sadder than anything you are speaking of I think.

S.

[Skinzo]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1335326245' post='2423058']
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.
[/quote]

Again, none of that means some or many members of the SSPX are NOT in formal schism. The Pope's language is quite clear in "Ecclesia Dei Adflicta" as what constitutes a schism. But as the Ecclesia Dei commission pointed out on another occasion:

"thus far the Church has not officially declared what Constitutes "formal adherence to the schism" inaugurated by the late Archbishop Lefebvre (cf. Ecclesia Dei 5, c), but the Code of Canon Law defines schism as "refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him" (canon 751)
Canon 751: "Schism is the withdrawal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or from communnion with the members of the Church subject to him"
[url="http://www.ewtn.com/library/curia/cedsspx2.htm"]http://www.ewtn.com/library/curia/cedsspx2.htm[/url]

Canon 751 is pretty plain.

S.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Skinzo' timestamp='1335335560' post='2423093']


Sure. The ENTIRE SSPX is not in schism, but those who formally adhere to the schism would be. And that's probably quite a few. In no sense would a declaration of the Ecclesia Dei commission reverse anything in a motu proprio anyway, it that is what you are trying to argue. I choose to believe the Popes. As Mgr. Perl pointed out the declarations of the "Ecclesia Dei" are NOT declarations of the Holy See. And if you are going to quote the Ecclesia Dei commission provide a source please.
The act of schism and those who formally adhere to it is sadder than anything you are speaking of I think.

S.
[/quote]

I dont know the hearts of enough of the faithful associated with the SSPX to know if quite a few of them are in formal schism.

I dont believe the head of the of the PCED offers a postion counter to the Moto Proprio of John Paul II. But rather its correct interpretation and understanding as well as the offical current stance of the current Holy Pontiff he was appointed to represent in the Church's talks and issues with the SSPX.

[Skinzo]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1335336608' post='2423095']
I dont know the hearts of enough of the faithful associated with the SSPX to know if quite a few of them are in formal schism.

I dont believe the head of the of the PCED offers a postion counter to the Moto Proprio of John Paul II. But rather its correct interpretation and understanding as well as the offical current stance of the current Holy Pontiff he was appointed to represent in the Church's talks and issues with the SSPX.
[/quote]

I don't know their hearts either but if their minds comprehend enough, then sure it's quite possible a goodly number of them are in schism. And nothing Hoyos says is stating that everyone in the SSPX is not in schism, far from it. Otherwise why would the Ecclesia Dei commision call out attention to Canon 751? Hoyos as I've pointed out in other threads was never consistent. At times he said they were in schism, at times he said they were not. However, in his outgoing interview in February 2009, he stated: "I have always had truth as a norm. The Holy Father knows this. We are moving forward, trying to rebuild the unity of the Church, and put an end completely to this schism."
No question as to what he thought in 2009.
[url="http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/cardinal_castrillon_hoyos_the_goal_was_to_heal_a_schism_not_to_support_antisemitism/"]http://www.catholicn...t_antisemitism/[/url]



S.

Edited April 25, 2012 by Skinzo

[KnightofChrist]

Your position is 20 years outdated and not the position shared by the current Holy Pontiff or those he appoints to represent him in the talks and issues pertaining to the SSPX. But quite frankly I do not care about beating this dead horse who long ago turned to vapor and dust. If even that much remains. Every, single, time, there is even a hint of our brethren in the SSPX being fully recognized by the Church, instead of talk of and hopes for unity the discussion must always degrade into a divisive argument of accusations that reopens old wounds that the Pope and the SSPX are indeed attempting to heal. This does not help the efforts of the Holy Pontiff, no more than it would help a General in peace talks to end a civil war if those under his command continued to fire at the other side. When there is disunity where there should be unity this is nothing more than the works of Satan.

Let us pray for unity. For the Holy Pontiff, the bishops of the SSPX, and the true and faithful Catholics who are associated with that Society.

[color=#000000][font=Arial][size=4][b][background=transparent]That all be one O dearest Lord, we pray,[/background][/b][/size][/font][/color]
[color=#000000][font=Arial][size=4][b][background=transparent]That all be drawn within Thy one true Fold,[/background][/b][/size][/font][/color]
[color=#000000][font=Arial][size=4][b][background=transparent]Back to Thy Church from which the wand'rers stray,[/background][/b][/size][/font][/color]
[color=#000000][font=Arial][size=4][b][background=transparent]And Thy true Faith she keeps, like saints of old.[/background][/b][/size][/font][/color]
[color=#000000][font=Arial][size=4][b][background=transparent]O bring them back Good Shepherd of the sheep;[/background][/b][/size][/font][/color]
[color=#000000][font=Arial][size=4][b][background=transparent]And rouse the heathen nations from their sleep.[/background][/b][/size][/font][/color]
[color=#000000][font=Arial][size=4][b][background=transparent]Then praise we God the Father, God the Son,[/background][/b][/size][/font][/color]
[color=#000000][font=Arial][size=4][b][background=transparent]And God the Holy Spirit, Three in One,[/background][/b][/size][/font][/color]
[color=#000000][font=Arial][size=4][b][background=transparent]That one in Him and one together we[/background][/b][/size][/font][/color]
[color=#000000][font=Arial][size=4][b][background=transparent]In unity may praise the Trinity,[/background][/b][/size][/font][/color]
[color=#000000][font=Arial][size=4][b][background=transparent]Till all the ransomed fall before His Throne[/background][/b][/size][/font][/color]
[color=#000000][font=Arial][size=4][b][background=transparent]And give all glory to our God alone. Amen.[/background][/b][/size][/font][/color]

[Skinzo]

I gather you don't want to answer the last post and I can see why as you can no longer claim Hoyos as your own. My thinking is not 20 years outdated, since I am citing a quote from Hoyos of 2009, that remark of yours that cannot be accurate. My thinking is quite in sync with what the Holy Father said in his letter to the bishops on the SSPX as I have already quoted here in this thread, mainly that the SSPX suffers from doctrinal deficiencies which are still not addressed. Talk and hopes of unity remain far I believe not only for doctrinal reasons but because even if a formula is found that the SSPX will agree to that is only a first step, as the SSPX itself has noted in its recent communique. Many other questions would then remain as to what extent the SSPX is ready to be governed by anyone having governed themselves for so long. It would be helpful if members of the SSPX do not engage in attacks on this Holy Father, as well as the previous ones. But the ones I have known gleefully proclaim that they don't care what the Pope says, they don't care if they are excommunicated since they won't recognize that anyway, and the list goes on. So when you say the SSPX is trying to heal wounds, that is certainly not the case with the members of the SSPX I have known, nor do you see that even in a casual visit to their website. As of right now the opening page is trumpeting Lefebvre's 1974 declaration including his attack on "the Rome of neo-Protestant and neo-Modernist tendencies" How is highlighting that going to "heal wounds"?? There are quite a few other examples on their site and until those are cleaned up and/or gone any claim to an interest in "healing" by the SSPX sounds pretty lame. All of us pray for unity of course. But in fact I see no prayer for healing and unity on the SSPX site.

S.

[KnightofChrist]

I told you I do not care to keep beating the long dead horse. I see no reason to except your outdated stance which is not shared by the current Holy Pontiff. The current offical stance of the Vatican is that the SSPX is not in formal schism. You take a different stance that is counter to that so be it.

I pray for unity and await the decision of Pope Benedict XVI.

[Skinzo]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1335348944' post='2423110']
I told you I do not care to keep beating the long dead horse. I see no reason to except your outdated stance which is not shared by the current Holy Pontiff. The current offical stance of the Vatican is that the SSPX is not in formal schism. You take a different stance that is counter to that so be it.

I pray for unity and await the decision of Pope Benedict XVI.
[/quote]

If you don't want to continue the discussion you can keep stop posting. The Holy See has not in fact said what constitutes formal schism in this case, that's all. That does not preclude some members of the SSPX being in schism. We may however as the Vatican warned Fellay recently be approaching that point. And, yeah the current Pope lays emphasis on the doctrinal issues, and that is what caused Fellay so much anguish that he issued his February statement calling for Rome to convert!

S.

Edited April 25, 2012 by Skinzo

[Totus Tuus]

[quote name='Skinzo' timestamp='1335240504' post='2422503']
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.
[/quote]

Great post... I am glad you posted it... but I meant "agree to disagree" between me and Aloysius.

[Totus Tuus]

[quote name='Skinzo' timestamp='1335240504' post='2422503']
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.
[/quote]


I would just like to say, thank you for saying what I was trying to say but very unsuccessfully.

[Totus Tuus]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1335236092' post='2422477']
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.
[/quote]

I think Skinzo's above points demonstrate that the popes are not in agreement with your statement that "it's going to be something that doesn't exactly coincide with the demands for the society to repent of its positions." In order for the society to be reunited, they are going to have to repent of their position that tradition is not what the Church is CURRENTLY handing on, that Vatican II is invalid, among many other things. I think Pope Benedict is making it very clear that the misconception is precisely what you're avowing -- that the SSPX just needs to be regularized, not fundamentally changed, in order to reunite with Rome (unless I'm misreading your words). He is making it clear that it is not a matter of superficial reconciliation and accepting the Society as she is, for the most part. It's a matter of fundamental change.

I sympathize with the SSPX to some degree. As I've said, I have a lot of personal experience (meaning, friendships) with people who patronize SSPX Masses over in-union-with-Rome Masses, and my sympathy comes from the fact that I am sad that these people have a cloud over their eyes. It doesn't come from the fact that I believe the SSPX has some valid points that Rome needs to recognize. I pray for 1. the enlightenment of SSPX followers to the truth that the Church as she is today is more holy and more orthodox than the church they are attending, and therefore more worthy of their fidelity, and 2. that the SSPX will accept the grace they have been offered to reunite provided that certain fundamental changes take place.

[Slappo]

Umm... the SSPX did have some valid points that needed to be recognized.

I'm pretty sure Pope Benedict recognized some of those points with Summorum Pontificum and Universae Ecclesiae.