Would A Schismatic Appeal To Rome?

[PedroX]

I believe that it (appealing to Rome) would depend on what the issue in question would be. For example, a Sede would probably not appeal to Rome because they do not recognize the current Vicar's authority. However, if you were schismatic over translations, or chasubules or such, you might very well.

I see it as a good sign that Fr. is appealing to Rome. When when appeals to an authority they are de facto recognizing that authority as being authoritative. IMHO.

peace...

[MichaelFilo]

Appealing to Rome, and receiving approval, is the acceptance by the Universal Church. You consider if they would or not.

God bless,

Mikey

[Donna]

hs Mom- ROTLF!
__________________

Anna, Fr. Somerville (if you can believe it) in earlier Summer-of-2004 letters was [i]promoting[/i] 'Why Tradition Shouldn't be Excommunicated' types of writings to his superiors. This was part of his apologia, but he also highly recommended his superior(s) read them. And this done in sort of a childlike, enthusiastic way. It was not received well...BOOM, the hammer come down via suspension.

If you want these things, I will gladly post them. I'm afraid they may drive folk crazy here, tho.

I agree completely, that he's about the parable you quoted, or at least started out that way, who knows? However, he wishes to be immersed in traditional practice and ideas. He doesn't believe the SSPX is schismatic.
____________________________________________

Pedrox, I see his appeal as a good sign, too. So, my opinion is that a schismatic wouldn't appeal to Rome. It's an oxymoron: to appeal to an authority you don't believe in.

Beside the "Hawaii Six", I'm not aware of any others (charged w/ SSPX-ish offenses) who have appealed to Rome, but my memory may be to blame here.

That's why I asked about $: is it needed for a religious to defend himself in ecclesiastical court? His [i]own[/i] money, I mean? If they did need to raise their own money, it would make sense why we don't often hear of appeals. Then again, it wasn't commonplace in the past 10 years, maybe, the amt of suspensions that Crusader spoke of happening nowadays (ie, diocesan, non-SSPX clergy being disciplined for exclusively saying the Old Mass). It's happening w/ alarming frequency now.
______________________________________________

MichaelFilo, please explain your last post, I don't get it.

[MorphRC]

[quote name='Donna' date='Aug 29 2004, 04:01 PM'] Off-topic:

Morph, I am thinking about your comment:

[i]Imo, if they were a Sede, no.[/i] I agree...at least they'd wait to appeal til they did recognize a Pope.

I'm reaching a first-draft conclusion that there's a diference between not recognizing [b]a [/b]Pope as the supreme head, etc;, and not recognizing [b]the Papacy[/b], as a whole. Luther didn't recognize either thing... Sedes now-a-days do. They in fact set up a "parellel church" (when they elect "Popes"), but it's with a real Pope elected they have issue (I think), not necessarily the Papacy itself. But I guess that's how these bad breaks (sects) get started. However, I do see a difference (vast) between SSPV and Luther. The latter threw out sacraments, scripture, etc, whereas SSPV don't.

Maybe it doesn't matter in this discussion.

(Anna, I agree, this -Fr. Somerville situation/backround- is huge). [/quote]
What i know of Sedev's is that they recognize the papacy up until Vatican 2. Ive heard the phrase "The chair of St. Peter is empty". I guess when another traditional supporting Pope is elected, they might come back. I dont like the NO that much, but nevertheless its just as valid.

[p0lar_bear]

Some schismatics (such as the SSPX) don't think they are in schism...

He appeals to Rome, but refuses to accept the authority that the Church has to change disciplines and the authority of his local ordinary

[Anna]

[quote name='Donna' date='Aug 30 2004, 03:33 AM']

Anna, Fr. Somerville (if you can believe it) in earlier Summer-of-2004 letters was [i]promoting[/i] 'Why Tradition Shouldn't be Excommunicated' types of writings to his superiors. This was part of his apologia, but he also highly recommended his superior(s) read them. And this done in sort of a childlike, enthusiastic way. It was not received well...BOOM, the hammer come down via suspension.

If you want these things, I will gladly post them. I'm afraid they may drive folk crazy here, tho.

I agree completely, that he's about the parable you quoted, or at least started out that way, who knows? However, he wishes to be immersed in traditional practice and ideas. He doesn't believe the SSPX is schismatic.
[/quote]
As I understand it, though, he was sent numerous letters in the form of warnings and admonishments to cease his activities with the followers of Lefevre. But he did not heed those in authority, and was ultimately disciplined for that disobedience.

He has my sympathy, but...not my full support. I hope he reconciles with the Church, and hopefully he can reconcile many who are in schism. But they definitely are in schism, whether he thinks so or not isn't the issue. Perhaps that's part of the problem right there: he doesn't recognize the problem.

Just because an alcoholic refuses to admit there's a problem, it doesn't mean there's no problem.

If he really wants to help these sincere people, then he must admit that they have strayed from the authority Christ established here on earth...and so has he.

Pax Christi. <><

[Donna]

Anna, yes, he was sent warnings.

I understand what you say.

Perhaps Fr. Somerville would too if (for example) [i]Quo Primum [/i]had been superceded [i]specifically[/i], and the old Mass abrogated.

The Hawaii Six's excommunication on that basis of schism was overturned. What will happen here w/ Fr. Somerville?

(For some reason I can't get hs Mom's take of this out of my mind...???)