Do you support the SSPX?

[goldenchild17]

Okay. Let me run this by the person who originally brought it up to me. If you find that letter post it as well thanks.

[Amator Veritatis]

I say that the SSPX is within the Church because they are not in schism, at least according to Cardinal Hoyos and others. Cardinal Hoyos stated the following, which was omitted in the previous post by Cam:

CASTRILLÓN HOYOS: Purtroppo monsignor Lefebvre andò avanti nella consacrazione e quindi si verificò quella situazione di distacco, anche se non si tratta di uno scisma formale. Cf., 30 Giorni, N.9 Anno XXIII, Settembre 2005

CASTRILLÓN HOYOS: Unfortunately Monsignor Lefebvre went ahead with the consecration and hence the situation of separation came about, even if it was not a formal schism. Cf., 30 Days, No. 9 Year XXIII, September 2005

Citing his concluding remarks in which he uses the term unity does not suffice as evidence by which to understand the fact that he has clearly stated that the separation was not formal schism. The use of the word "unity" illustrates his previous comments that there was a "separation" but not that there was schism. The separation, which was not formal schism, constitutes an organisation which is within the Church that is universally suspended [i]a divinis[/i], tantamount to a diocese under interdict. A diocese under interdict, in some sense, is separated from or is in "imperfect communion" with the Church, but it is not schismatic. The same is true for the SSPX. In fact, Cardinal Hoyos was even more distinct in his statements on the 13th of November last year on TV Canal5:

"Non siamo di fronte ad una eresia. Non si può dire in termini corretti, esatti, precisi che ci sia uno scisma. C'è una attitudine scismatica nel consacrare vescovi senza il mandato pontificio. Loro sono dentro la Chiesa, solo che manca una piena, una più perfetta -come è stato detto nell'incontro con monsignor Fellay- una più piena comunione, perchè c'è la comunione." Cf., La Porte Latine, janvier 2006

"We are not dealing with a case of heresy. One cannot say in correct and exact terms that there is a schism. There is, in the act of ordaining bishops with out (sic) papal approval, a schismatic attitude. They are within the confines of the Church. The problem is just that there is a lack of a full, a more perfect -- and it was said during the meeting with Msgr. Fellay -- a more full communion, because the communion exists." Cf., La Porte Latine, janvier 2006


The good Cardinal could be no more exact regarding his opinion of the SSPX. He believes neither that they are heretical nor that they are schismatic. He believes that they are within the Church and have communion with the Church, though imperfect. As to the issue at hand, the fact remains that they have an irregular canonical status. They are suspended [i]a divinis[/i], i.e., from divine things, namely the offering publicly of the Sacraments. Such a suspension, however, in no way diminishes or brings into question the validity but only the liceity of their Sacraments, except those which require faculties from the local Ordinary, i.e., Confession and Matrimony. With that said, objectively speaking, their Sacraments of Penance and Matrimony would be invalid, but of course, as all know, the Church supplies jurisdiction in matters of common error. With that said, most of the Confessions heard by SSPX priest are, on a practical level, likely to be valid. In addition, were the SSPX in schism, they would not require faculties from their local Ordinary to validly administer the Sacraments of Penance and Matrimony, for they would validly obtain these faculties from their own bishops. Either the SSPX is not in schism and the Sacraments of Penance and Matrimony are invalid, objectively speaking, or they are in schism and all their Sacraments, including Penance and Matrimony, are valid. One may not have it both ways. The SSPX cannot both be in schism and administer invalidly the Sacraments of Confession and Marriage.

[Era Might]

Two Popes have judged Lefebvre's action as a schism. You can quote Cardinal Hoyos as much as you want, but he was not speaking for the Holy See.

[quote]In itself, this act was one of disobedience 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 schismatic act. In performing such an act, notwithstanding the formal canonical warning sent to them by the Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops on 17 June last, Mons. 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.

--Pope John Paul II, Apostolic Letter "Ecclesia Dei"[/quote]

[quote]If once again we succeed in pointing out and living the fullness of the Catholic religion with regard to these points, we may hope that the schism of Lefebvre will not be of long duration.

--Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, 1988

[url="http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=3032"]http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=3032[/url][/quote]

If Pope Benedict XVI has something to amend about his or Pope John Paul II's condemnation of the "SCHISM of Lefebvre", he will do so. Until then, the SSPX Bishops remain in schism and excommunicated.

Edited April 7, 2006 by Era Might

[Paphnutius]

[quote]. Such a suspension, however, in no way diminishes or brings into question the validity but only the liceity of their Sacraments, except those which require faculties from the local Ordinary, i.e., Confession and Matrimony.[/quote] I do not think anyone, well there was one but he has sinced reversed his position, is claiming that their sacraments are invalid.

As always we should be praying for full communion.

[Era Might]

In case Goldenchild didn't see it, I posted the text of John Paul's personal letter a few posts above.

[Era Might]

[quote]One cannot say in correct and exact terms that there is a schism. [/quote]

Two Popes have said just that:

[quote]Hence such disobedience - which implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy - constitutes a schismatic act.

--Pope John Paul II[/quote]

[quote]...we may hope that the schism of Lefebvre will not be of long duration.

--Pope Benedict XVI[/quote]

[Guest JeffCR07]

There comes a point when the personal theological opinions of even a Cardinal fail to constitute a valid position concerning a disagreement. When two consecutive popes, each having full authority of discipline over the Church, judge a group to be in schism, that point has been reached.

Edited April 7, 2006 by JeffCR07

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Apr 7 2006, 12:59 PM']The comes a point when the personal theological opinions of even a Cardinal fail to constitute a valid position concerning a disagreement. When two consecutive popes, each having full authority of discipline over the Church, judge a group to be in schism, that point has been reached.
[right][snapback]939264[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
With the wonderful lead in given by Jeff I would like to attempt to reconcile the first of the cardinal's statements. I do this for benefit but do not assure that I am correct. It is simply an attempt to reconcile the cardinal with the popes. If this fails to satisfy or cannot be done, then obedience should be given to the Vicar of Christ in disciplinary measures.[quote]Unfortunately Monsignor Lefebvre went ahead with the consecration and hence the situation of separation came about, even if it was not a formal schism. Cf., 30 Days, No. 9 Year XXIII, September 2005
[/quote]I have always wondered exaclty what was meant by the good cardinal's statement. In particular his phrase "formal schism." What is meant by these two words?

I believe that we understand what a schism is, but as a refresher I quote the Catholic Encyclopedia. [quote]Schism (from the Greek schisma, rent, division) is, in the language of theology and canon law, the [b]rupture of ecclesiastical union and unity[/b], i. e. either the act by which one of the faithful severs as far as in him lies the ties which bind him to the social organization of the Church and make him a member of the mystical body of Christ, or the [i]state of dissociation or separation which is the result of that act[/i].[/quote]

With schism being readily defined and understood, "formal" would appear to be the confounding word. It would be my understanding that by formal was meant there was no formal ceremony or notification on the part of the SSPX. The matter of the schism was most certainly there, the cardianl agrees with us here when he states, "There is, in the act of ordaining bishops with out (sic) papal approval, a schismatic attitude. " But would this mean that this is in reality a schism? I would answer in the affirmative for the bisop severed his union with the Church when he disobeyed canon law. This is supported by the document [i]Ecclesia Dei[/i].

Did the cardinal in this interview mean to state that there was no schism? I do not believe so, but simply point out that there was no formal proceedings on the part of the SSPX, albeit it was the penalty incurred by the action.

Here is some more information that may aid in our discussion on this matter. [quote] However, not every disobedience is a schism; in order to possess this character it must include besides the transgression of the commands of superiors, denial of their Divine right to command. On the other hand, schism does not necessarily imply adhesion, either public or private, to a dissenting group or a distinct sect, much less the creation of such a group. Anyone becomes a schismatic who, though desiring to remain a Christian, rebels against legitimate authority, without going as far as the rejection of Christianity as a whole, which constitutes the crime of apostasy.[/quote]


I would also like to mention the difference between active schism (here we may call this formal schism) and passive schism. Active schism is where the party openly rejects being communed with the Church. Passive schism is where the Church imposes a penalty, such as excommunication, due to an infraction or disobedience. It would appear as though this is a passive schism and hence the phrase "not a formal schism" if so properly understood.

Edited April 7, 2006 by Paphnutius

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Apr 7 2006, 12:49 PM']In case Goldenchild didn't see it, I posted the text of John Paul's personal letter a few posts above.
[right][snapback]939252[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I'm sorry, but was not that letter taking place AFTER Lefebvre did his thing? I was asking moreso for something from the pope that declared beforehand that Lefebvre was not to do such a thing.

Edited to say that I am not arguing here that the last two popes of the Vatican have not declared Lefebvre schismatic. This seems pretty clear from their statements. I am only wondering if such a declaration was called for, due to a lack of forbidding the action ahead of time. I believe Lefebvre asked for the permission to do such a thing ahead of time, and when he didn't recieve explicit permission he went ahead and did it anyways. But, is a lack of permission equal to a forbidding of the act? Just wondering if JPII actually told him ahead of time that he would not allow Lefebvre to do what he did.

Edited April 7, 2006 by goldenchild17

[Era Might]

[quote name='goldenchild17' date='Apr 7 2006, 06:46 PM']I'm sorry, but was not that letter taking place AFTER Lefebvre did his thing?  I was asking moreso for something from the pope that declared beforehand that Lefebvre was not to do such a thing.
[right][snapback]939441[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

No, that is the private letter sent on June 9th by Pope John Paul II to Marcel Lefebvre. He did not consecrate the Bishops until June 30th.

Besides that personal letter, a formal canonical warning was sent to Lefebvre on June 16th, which John Paul references in "Ecclesia Dei".

Edited April 7, 2006 by Era Might

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='goldenchild17' date='Apr 7 2006, 03:46 PM']I'm sorry, but was not that letter taking place AFTER Lefebvre did his thing?  I was asking moreso for something from the pope that declared beforehand that Lefebvre was not to do such a thing.
[right][snapback]939441[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
It was made public after the occasion happened I believe. There was also a warning on June 17th I believe.

[goldenchild17]

Is this the letter you posted?

"In itself, this act [b]was[/b] one of disobedience 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 schismatic act. In performing such an act, notwithstanding the formal canonical warning sent to them by the Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops on 17 June last, Mons. 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.

--Pope John Paul II, Apostolic Letter "Ecclesia Dei"

It certainly seems to be in the past tense. This is a letter designating their excommunication, which can only take place after the unlawful act... Right? Or am I missing something?

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='goldenchild17' date='Apr 7 2006, 03:57 PM']It certainly seems to be in the past tense.  This is a letter designating their excommunication, which can only take place after the unlawful act... Right?  Or am I missing something?
[right][snapback]939450[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]That is from [i]Ecclesia Dei[/i] as you pointed out. Era cited a different letter in post 45.

[Era Might]

Here is the post with the personal letter sent from Pope John Paul II to Marcel Lefebvre on June 9th, 1988 (exactly three weeks before the schismatic consecrations):

[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=50336&view=findpost&p=939238"]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?s...ndpost&p=939238[/url]

The full text:

[quote]In the letter that you sent me, you seem to reject all aquisition of previous discussions, since you clearly manifest your intention of "giving yourself the means of pursuing your Work," notably in proceeding under little and without apostolic mandate to one or many episcopal ordinations, this in flagrant contradiction not only of the prescriptions of canon law, but also with the protocol signed May 5th and the instructions relative to this problem contained in the letter that Cardinal Ratzinger sent you at my request May 30th.

With a paternal heart, but with all the gravity the present circumstances require, I exhort you, venerable brother, to renounce your project which, if it is realized, could not but appear as a schismatic act of which the inevitable theological and canonical consequences are known to you. I ardently invite you to return, in humility, to full obedeice towards the Vicar of Christ.

Not only do I invite you to this, but I ask it of you by the wounds of Christ our Redeemer, in the name of Christ who, on the eve of His passion, prayed for his disciples, "that they may be one." (John 17:21)[/quote]

Edited April 7, 2006 by Era Might

[Cam42]

[quote name='Amator Veritatis' date='Apr 7 2006, 03:41 PM']I say that the SSPX is within the Church because they are not in schism, at least according to Cardinal Hoyos and others. Cardinal Hoyos stated the following, which was omitted in the previous post by Cam:

CASTRILLÓN HOYOS: Purtroppo monsignor Lefebvre andò avanti nella consacrazione e quindi si verificò quella situazione di distacco, anche se non si tratta di uno scisma formale. Cf., 30 Giorni, N.9 Anno XXIII, Settembre 2005

CASTRILLÓN HOYOS: Unfortunately Monsignor Lefebvre went ahead with the consecration and hence the situation of separation came about, even if it was not a formal schism. Cf., 30 Days, No. 9 Year XXIII, September 2005

Citing his concluding remarks in which he uses the term unity does not suffice as evidence by which to understand the fact that he has clearly stated that the separation was not formal schism. The use of the word "unity" illustrates his previous comments that there was a "separation" but not that there was schism. The separation, which was not formal schism, constitutes an organisation which is within the Church that is universally suspended [i]a divinis[/i], tantamount to a diocese under interdict. A diocese under interdict, in some sense, is separated from or is in "imperfect communion" with the Church, but it is not schismatic. The same is true for the SSPX. In fact, Cardinal Hoyos was even more distinct in his statements on the 13th of November last year on TV Canal5:

"Non siamo di fronte ad una eresia. Non si può dire in termini corretti, esatti, precisi che ci sia uno scisma. C'è una attitudine scismatica nel consacrare vescovi senza il mandato pontificio. Loro sono dentro la Chiesa, solo che manca una piena, una più perfetta -come è stato detto nell'incontro con monsignor Fellay- una più piena comunione, perchè c'è la comunione." Cf., La Porte Latine, janvier 2006

"We are not dealing with a case of heresy. One cannot say in correct and exact terms that there is a schism. There is, in the act of ordaining bishops with out (sic) papal approval, a schismatic attitude. They are within the confines of the Church. The problem is just that there is a lack of a full, a more perfect -- and it was said during the meeting with Msgr. Fellay -- a more full communion, because the communion exists." Cf., La Porte Latine, janvier 2006
The good Cardinal could be no more exact regarding his opinion of the SSPX. He believes neither that they are heretical nor that they are schismatic. He believes that they are within the Church and have communion with the Church, though imperfect. As to the issue at hand, the fact remains that they have an irregular canonical status. They are suspended [i]a divinis[/i], i.e., from divine things, namely the offering publicly of the Sacraments. Such a suspension, however, in no way diminishes or brings into question the validity but only the liceity of their Sacraments, except those which require faculties from the local Ordinary, i.e., Confession and Matrimony. With that said, objectively speaking, their Sacraments of Penance and Matrimony would be invalid, but of course, as all know, the Church supplies jurisdiction in matters of common error. With that said, most of the Confessions heard by SSPX priest are, on a practical level, likely to be valid. In addition, were the SSPX in schism, they would not require faculties from their local Ordinary to validly administer the Sacraments of Penance and Matrimony, for they would validly obtain these faculties from their own bishops. Either the SSPX is not in schism and the Sacraments of Penance and Matrimony are invalid, objectively speaking, or they are in schism and all their Sacraments, including Penance and Matrimony, are valid. One may not have it both ways. The SSPX cannot both be in schism and administer invalidly the Sacraments of Confession and Marriage.
[right][snapback]939244[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

The act of "formal schism" doesn't need to be imposed because the bishops excommunicated themselves [i]latae sententiae[/i]. However, Pope John Paul II, as has been cited defined it as a schismatic action.

How, praytell can one be suspended from celebrating the Sacraments publicly, but still have them be licit? That is an paradox that you cannot recover from. The answer is that they cannot. The Sacraments are no more valid than that of a suspended priest from the current scandal celebrating the Sacraments licitly. The validity is there and no one is questioning the SSPX's validity, but the licitness of the Sacraments is a whole different conversation, with exception of the Sacraments of Matrimony and Reconciliation.

Your either or statement is simply incorrect. The reasoning is self evident as the premise is flawed and with that being said the rest of the statement is meaningless as it is invalid in and of itself. The SSPX is in schism and the SSPX does not have jurisdiction, which they do need and they don't have.

Grazie per la traduzione italiana, ma alcuni di noi gli non hanno esigenza. È inutile inviare quelle nelle due lingue. Ho studiato il Latino per dieci anni, incidentalmente. Non supponga prego che non conosco le mie lingue, li ringraziano.