Ice_nine Posted June 12, 2011 Posted June 12, 2011 [quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1307802812' post='2252348'] Wouldn't it have been 7th and 68th? [/quote] yes math fail X)
Jaime Posted June 12, 2011 Posted June 12, 2011 [quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1307850709' post='2252639'] No, they're not suspended. So? You're the one saying that the presence or lack of a canonical suspension is relevant to the traditionalist label, not me. Define traditionalism. Define precisely what aspect of the traditionalist label makes the presence of a canonical suspension relevant. Also please clarify, do you consider Bishop Tissier to be a traditionalist, but not Bishop Fellay or Williamson or de Galarreta? [/quote] a traditionalist is one who adheres 100% to the teachings of the Church. that's it. No ifs ands or buts. That's it. You adhere 100% to the teachings of the Church, you can consider yourself a Traditionalist.
Nihil Obstat Posted June 12, 2011 Author Posted June 12, 2011 Obedience to Tradition is a far wider thing that obedience to a single Pope. Yes, their act of disobedience was wrong, however, it was not as simple as "the Pope said X and Archbishop Lefebvre did Y." If that's all there was to it, this situation wouldn't exist. Archbishop Lefebvre wasn't an idiot. The heresy of Modernism does exist within the episcopate. I won't get into specifics because it would seem to be against the rules of this site, however the fact remains that it is there. It is easily established. When he saw the presence of Modernism within the hierarchy, Archbishop Lefebvre reacted according to his conscience. I think he was rash and incorrect in his actions, but I think at the end of the day he was obeying Tradition as closely as he knew how. Again, we should think of the Arian crisis. St. Athanasius saw heresy all around him, and he called it out. He was relentless. He acted according to Tradition. As it turns out, the Arian heresy was widespread. The Modernist heresy, I don't think we quite know yet. However, it is easy to see how Archbishop Lefebvre might have regarded the whole thing. He certainly was a lightning rod for the chaos after the Second Vatican Council. Maybe he overreacted. Maybe he saw more Modernism than there actually was. I think that is true. Who knows. Only God can judge his heart. However, I think he acted according to his conscience. He saw his consecrations as emergency measures. I'm sure he hoped that those emergency measures would later be sorted out and found to be reasonable. As it happens, that wasn't the case. It's too bad; he died in a very unhappy situation, and my heart goes out to him. I hope history will look more kindly upon him once this Modernist heresy is over and done with, if that ever happens. I was passed along information from a canon lawyer named Tim through an intermediary. I don't know him or anything about him, and since I'm not a canon lawyer I can make no comment on the truth or falsity of what he says, so I will simply copy and paste verbatim: "Now that the excommunications of the bishops have been revoked, all the Society’s adherents, both clergy and laity, must be presumed to be in “communion with the Universal Church.” The Code of Canon law does not recognize any such thing as “a group of Catholics in an irregular state.” The Society’s adherents are either Catholics, pure and simple, or they are not. Indubitably, they are Catholics. The suggestion that the physical chapels in which the Society celebrates Mass are not “in communion with the Universal Church” is pettifoggery. Ecclesial communion involves persons, not real estate. The exact canonical status of the chapels as places of Catholic worship is merely a matter for technical canonical resolution." Essentially, the 1983 CIC doesn't have a provision for irregular states. So, either Catholics are or are not in communion. The idea of irregular states only applies to the 1917 CIC, which doesn't hold any weight any longer, because of the promulgation of the 1983 CIC. "[...]the only bishop of the Society ever declared “suspended” was Archbishop Lefebvre, by a decree of the Sacred Congregation for Bishops dated July 22, 1976 imposing said penalty on account of the Archbishop’s ordination of seminarians in that year. The penalty became moot with the Archbishop’s death in 1991, and no such penalty was ever imposed on any of the surviving bishops, who were subjected only to the penalty of excommunication in 1988."[quote name='jaime (the artist formerly known as hot stuff)' timestamp='1307851432' post='2252645'] a traditionalist is one who adheres 100% to the teachings of the Church. that's it. No ifs ands or buts. That's it. You adhere 100% to the teachings of the Church, you can consider yourself a Traditionalist. [/quote] So then only saints are traditionalists?
Jaime Posted June 12, 2011 Posted June 12, 2011 [quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1307851726' post='2252647'] Obedience to Tradition is a far wider thing that obedience to a single Pope. Yes, their act of disobedience was wrong, however, it was not as simple as "the Pope said X and Archbishop Lefebvre did Y." If that's all there was to it, this situation wouldn't exist. Archbishop Lefebvre wasn't an idiot. The heresy of Modernism does exist within the episcopate. I won't get into specifics because it would seem to be against the rules of this site, however the fact remains that it is there. It is easily established. When he saw the presence of Modernism within the hierarchy, Archbishop Lefebvre reacted according to his conscience. I think he was rash and incorrect in his actions, but I think at the end of the day he was obeying Tradition as closely as he knew how. Again, we should think of the Arian crisis. St. Athanasius saw heresy all around him, and he called it out. He was relentless. He acted according to Tradition. As it turns out, the Arian heresy was widespread. The Modernist heresy, I don't think we quite know yet. However, it is easy to see how Archbishop Lefebvre might have regarded the whole thing. He certainly was a lightning rod for the chaos after the Second Vatican Council. Maybe he overreacted. Maybe he saw more Modernism than there actually was. I think that is true. Who knows. Only God can judge his heart. However, I think he acted according to his conscience. He saw his consecrations as emergency measures. I'm sure he hoped that those emergency measures would later be sorted out and found to be reasonable. As it happens, that wasn't the case. It's too bad; he died in a very unhappy situation, and my heart goes out to him. I hope history will look more kindly upon him once this Modernist heresy is over and done with, if that ever happens. I was passed along information from a canon lawyer named Tim through an intermediary. I don't know him or anything about him, and since I'm not a canon lawyer I can make no comment on the truth or falsity of what he says, so I will simply copy and paste verbatim: "Now that the excommunications of the bishops have been revoked, all the Society's adherents, both clergy and laity, must be presumed to be in "communion with the Universal Church." The Code of Canon law does not recognize any such thing as "a group of Catholics in an irregular state." The Society's adherents are either Catholics, pure and simple, or they are not. Indubitably, they are Catholics. The suggestion that the physical chapels in which the Society celebrates Mass are not "in communion with the Universal Church" is pettifoggery. Ecclesial communion involves persons, not real estate. The exact canonical status of the chapels as places of Catholic worship is merely a matter for technical canonical resolution." Essentially, the 1983 CIC doesn't have a provision for irregular states. So, either Catholics are or are not in communion. The idea of irregular states only applies to the 1917 CIC, which doesn't hold any weight any longer, because of the promulgation of the 1983 CIC. "[...]the only bishop of the Society ever declared "suspended" was Archbishop Lefebvre, by a decree of the Sacred Congregation for Bishops dated July 22, 1976 imposing said penalty on account of the Archbishop's ordination of seminarians in that year. The penalty became moot with the Archbishop's death in 1991, and no such penalty was ever imposed on any of the surviving bishops, who were subjected only to the penalty of excommunication in 1988." So then only saints are traditionalists? [/quote] Sorry to your intermediary and his all night canon lawyer staff but he's wrong. Lefebvre was not the only bishop suspended. That's just common knowledge. the rest of his argument falls apart in light of that don't believe me? here's a close personal friend of your intermediary [url="http://wdtprs.com/blog/author/fatherz/"]Fr. John Zuhlsdorf[/url] [quote]Whenever I post something about the SSPX, and I mention that the priests and bishops of that Fraternity are suspended, I get loads of email protesting that they aren't. They are. Sorry. [/quote]
KnightofChrist Posted June 12, 2011 Posted June 12, 2011 [quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1307809839' post='2252370'] [s]In my most humble opinion this is a time not to be focused on divisions, the negativity or the bad news. Rather it is time to pray for and focus on unity, positivity and the good news. Let's not make this another debate please. Because questions about the SSPX or what about this negative or that negative about the SSPX always seem to devolve into debate. Let us pray, trust God, and trust the wisdom of the Holy Pontiff.[/s] [/quote] What a bunch of stupid non-sense to think that was every possible [i]here.[/i]
Lil Red Posted June 12, 2011 Posted June 12, 2011 [quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1307852929' post='2252659'] What a bunch of stupid non-sense to think that was every possible [i]here.[/i] [/quote] no poo.
Jaime Posted June 12, 2011 Posted June 12, 2011 [quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1307852929' post='2252659'] What a bunch of stupid non-sense to think that was every possible [i]here.[/i] [/quote] That would make me want to leave forever and never come back for at least 10 minutes
BG45 Posted June 12, 2011 Posted June 12, 2011 [quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1307852929' post='2252659'] What a bunch of stupid non-sense to think that was every possible [i]here.[/i] [/quote] I don't know. Vee8's been posting gorgeous pictures of a Traditional Latin Mass and an FSSP vocations video. Nihil and Jamie are debating theological points. And no one has mentioned a certain bird being eaten yet. And a number of people have echoed your sentiment I think that we should pray for unity in the Church and not divisiveness.
Nihil Obstat Posted June 12, 2011 Author Posted June 12, 2011 [quote name='jaime (the artist formerly known as hot stuff)' timestamp='1307852612' post='2252652'] Sorry to your intermediary and his all night canon lawyer staff but he's wrong. Lefebvre was not the only bishop suspended. That's just common knowledge. the rest of his argument falls apart in light of that don't believe me? here's a close personal friend of your intermediary [url="http://wdtprs.com/blog/author/fatherz/"]Fr. John Zuhlsdorf[/url] [/quote] As I said, I am not a canon lawyer and cannot comment on the veracity of those comments. If you have studied canon law, do show us the relevant sections. [quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1307852929' post='2252659'] What a bunch of stupid non-sense to think that was every possible [i]here.[/i] [/quote] No kidding. The FSSPX is the whipping boy of some Phatmassers.
Jaime Posted June 12, 2011 Posted June 12, 2011 [quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1307853984' post='2252667'] As I said, I am not a canon lawyer and cannot comment on the veracity of those comments. If you have studied canon law, do show us the relevant sections. No kidding. The FSSPX is the whipping boy of some Phatmassers. [/quote] Showed you Fr Z. If he's not good enough for you, talk to your learned friend.
KnightofChrist Posted June 12, 2011 Posted June 12, 2011 [quote name='BG45' timestamp='1307853801' post='2252666'] Vee8's been posting gorgeous pictures of a Traditional Latin Mass and an FSSP vocations video. And a number of people have echoed your sentiment I think that we should pray for unity in the Church and not divisiveness. [/quote] It's really sad that we could not just do those two things. The latter more than the former of course.
Skinzo Posted June 12, 2011 Posted June 12, 2011 One can certainly hold the opinion that they are schismatic. According to Canon 751: [b][b][b][b][b][b]"schism is the withdrawal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or from communion with the members of the Church subject to him." [/b][/b][/b][/b][/b][/b]The SSPX has made no submission to Benedict XVI so one may certainly regard them as in schism. As to their being "friends", that's quite a stretch since their website is full of attacks against John Paul II, (Fellay is quite skeptical of his beatification and has even called into question the saints that have been canonized since Vatican II. There is plenty more of course. Here in this link from the SSPX the Novus Ordo is described as "illegitimate". http://sspx.org/news/does_the_new_mass_fulfill_the_notion_of_catholic_liturgy/does_the_new_mass_fulfill_the_notion_of_catholic_liturgy.htm To challenge the legitimacy of a rite promulgated by a pope is arguably in and of itself schismatic. I think the society has a mentality which is also somewhat schizoid. For years they denied that in fact their bishops were excommunicated. Then suddenly they petitioned Benedict XVI to lift the excommunications. ?? So what happened to all the arguments against the validity of the original excommunications? Don't answer, I don't want to get into that again. Abp. Lefebvre said this of the new Mass: "[font="Arial"][size="2"][color="#000000"]The [i]Novus Ordo Missae[/i], even when said with piety and respect for the liturgical rules, ...is impregnated with the spirit of Protestantism. It bears within it a poison harmful to the faith [i](An Open Letter to Confused Catholics[/i], p. 29 [[/color][/size][/font][font="Arial"][color="#BD1700"][url="http://sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/suggested_additional_reading.htm"][size="1"][u]APPENDIX II[/u][/size][/url][/color][/font][font="Arial"][size="2"][color="#000000"]])" This is still featured prominently on their website:[/color][/size][/font][color="#000000"][size="2"][font="Arial"]http://sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/q5_novus_ordo_missae.htm Do "friends" of the Church describe the reformed liturgy as "poison".?? I have problems with it myself but would never call it poison. In light of that and numerous other things posted on the SSPX website, it stretches credulity to call them "friends". The SSPX has spent over 30 years sitting in judgment on three popes and their actions as well as Vatican II. It's very doubtful they will accord much submission to anyone at this point unless the Church agrees with them on everything. Canon law states explicitly: "No one judges the Apostolic See". Pope Benedict made it quite clear in his letter to the bishops on this very subject that the real problems between the Holy See and the SSPX are doctrinal: "[/font][/size][/color]This will make it clear that the problems now to be addressed are essentially doctrinal in nature and concern primarily the acceptance of the Second Vatican Council and the post-conciliar magisterium of the Popes." http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2009/03/12/official-text-of-popes-letter-to-bishops-on-williamson-affair/ S.
Vincent Vega Posted June 12, 2011 Posted June 12, 2011 [quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1307854936' post='2252672'] It's really sad that we could not just do those two things. The latter more than the former of course. [/quote] There[i] is[/i] a prayer board for people who wish to post topics without having them discussed. Just saying.
KnightofChrist Posted June 12, 2011 Posted June 12, 2011 [quote name='USAirwaysIHS' timestamp='1307855180' post='2252674'] There[i] is[/i] a prayer board for people who wish to post topics without having them discussed. Just saying. [/quote] Had it been posted there the only thing keeping it from turning into a debate, like this is now, would have been the lack of people being able to respond. Just saying.
KnightofChrist Posted June 12, 2011 Posted June 12, 2011 Every time good news about the SSPX comes up on PM we must always ripped upon old wounds and debate the negatives about the SSPX. It's frankly sad.
Nihil Obstat Posted June 12, 2011 Author Posted June 12, 2011 [quote name='jaime (the artist formerly known as hot stuff)' timestamp='1307854260' post='2252668'] Showed you Fr Z. If he's not good enough for you, talk to your learned friend. [/quote] Fr. Z presented his conclusions, which I trust, but without his references and processes, which doesn't help me to understand. I imagine you don't know the specifics either, since you have not presented anything. [quote name='Skinzo' timestamp='1307855098' post='2252673'] One can certainly hold the opinion that they are schismatic. According to Canon 751: [b][b][b][b][b][b]"schism is the withdrawal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or from communion with the members of the Church subject to him." [/b][/b][/b][/b][/b][/b]The SSPX has made no submission to Benedict XVI so one may certainly regard them as in schism. As to their being "friends", that's quite a stretch since their website is full of attacks against John Paul II, (Fellay is quite skeptical of his beatification and has even called into question the saints that have been canonized since Vatican II. There is plenty more of course. Here in this link from the SSPX the Novus Ordo is described as "illegitimate". http://sspx.org/news/does_the_new_mass_fulfill_the_notion_of_catholic_liturgy/does_the_new_mass_fulfill_the_notion_of_catholic_liturgy.htm To challenge the legitimacy of a rite promulgated by a pope is arguably in and of itself schismatic. I think the society has a mentality which is also somewhat schizoid. For years they denied that in fact their bishops were excommunicated. Then suddenly they petitioned Benedict XVI to lift the excommunications. ?? So what happened to all the arguments against the validity of the original excommunications? Don't answer, I don't want to get into that again. Abp. Lefebvre said this of the new Mass: "[font="Arial"][size="2"][color="#000000"]The [i]Novus Ordo Missae[/i], even when said with piety and respect for the liturgical rules, ...is impregnated with the spirit of Protestantism. It bears within it a poison harmful to the faith [i](An Open Letter to Confused Catholics[/i], p. 29 [[/color][/size][/font][font="Arial"][color="#BD1700"][url="http://sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/suggested_additional_reading.htm"][size="1"][u]APPENDIX II[/u][/size][/url][/color][/font][font="Arial"][size="2"][color="#000000"]])" This is still featured prominently on their website:[/color][/size][/font][color="#000000"][size="2"][font="Arial"]http://sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/q5_novus_ordo_missae.htm Do "friends" of the Church describe the reformed liturgy as "poison".?? I have problems with it myself but would never call it poison. In light of that and numerous other things posted on the SSPX website, it stretches credulity to call them "friends". The SSPX has spent over 30 years sitting in judgment on three popes and their actions as well as Vatican II. It's very doubtful they will accord much submission to anyone at this point unless the Church agrees with them on everything. Canon law states explicitly: "No one judges the Apostolic See". Pope Benedict made it quite clear in his letter to the bishops on this very subject that the real problems between the Holy See and the SSPX are doctrinal: "[/font][/size][/color]This will make it clear that the problems now to be addressed are essentially doctrinal in nature and concern primarily the acceptance of the Second Vatican Council and the post-conciliar magisterium of the Popes." http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2009/03/12/official-text-of-popes-letter-to-bishops-on-williamson-affair/ S. [/quote] Cardinal Hoyos, who as you may recall was the Prefect of Ecclesia Dei, stated on more than one occasion that while the actions of the FSSPX in the Econe consecrations were schismatic acts, they are not and never were themselves in a formal state of schism. Recall, it was his job to know these things. Ecclesia Dei was specifically tasked with examining the situation of the FSSPX. I also think that it is helpful to read the Ottaviani Intervention. Cardinal Ottaviani was always in complete communion with Rome. In fact he was one of the highest ranking of the Cardinals. Yet he criticized many aspects of Paul's Mass that he found to be too friendly to Protestantism. He called it, in fact, " grave break with tradition", "a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass", and that "It has every possibility of satisfying the most modernist of Protestants."
HisChildForever Posted June 12, 2011 Posted June 12, 2011 When is the Holy Father going to make this proposal? And if the SSPX accept, they would be in full communion, yes?
Nihil Obstat Posted June 12, 2011 Author Posted June 12, 2011 [quote name='HisChildForever' timestamp='1307855740' post='2252679'] When is the Holy Father going to make this proposal? And if the SSPX accept, they would be in full communion, yes? [/quote] At this point it's only rumour. I hope that it will happen, and the rumours implied that it would occur very soon. If the FSSPX accept, they would be completely in communion with Rome, similar either to Opus Dei or to the new Anglican Ordinariate. The rumours I read imply something closest to the Ordinariate, though past rumours suggested a personal prelature like Opus Dei. In any case, they would be an entirely legitimate, approved society within the Church.
Skinzo Posted June 12, 2011 Posted June 12, 2011 [quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1307855477' post='2252677'] Every time good news about the SSPX comes up on PM we must always ripped upon old wounds and debate the negatives about the SSPX. It's frankly sad. [/quote] The only good news right now is a rumor. And discussing rumors is fruitless. Similar rumors circulated in 2008 provoking similar discussion here: http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=81846 And it was a waste of time as no reconciliation happened in 2008 though seasoned Vatican journalists such as Andrea Tornielli said it was imminent. If the SSPX cleans up their act, there will no negatives to discuss.The wounds they inflict on themselves and the Church are unfortunately quite fresh. S.
faithcecelia Posted June 12, 2011 Posted June 12, 2011 I hope and pray there is a reunification, and that all parties respond with Christian love and respect to the others. I pray that everyone will grow to accept that differences in style of worship does not mean that one is better or worse than another, just different, and that modern styles does not automatically mean liberal beliefs, nor that a preference for the Tridentine Mass means an unwillingness to consider spiritual progress. I feel so grateful to belong to the church that is more than big enough for us all and that allows us to worship and glorify God in the way we each prefer. I am also eternally grateful for the fact that I live in a country that also allows me this freedom - so many Christians throughout the world would give anything to be allowed to practise their faith freely.
Recommended Posts