Would A Schismatic Appeal To Rome?

[Donna]

Hey all.

I don't know if the following is delete-worthy, but just read the news that the "official chaplain to [i]The Passion of the Christ[/i]"- Father Stephen Somerville- is appealing to Rome re: a suspension he received in August of this year.

An interesting point was brought up by a journalist: [b]a true schismatic would [i]never[/i] appeal to Rome.[/b]

Do you think that is true or false? Why?

Thanks.

Edited August 28, 2004 by Donna

[Donna]

Forgot to add that apparently Fr. Somervile was suspended for [i]schismatic activity[/i] (my term).

[Laudate_Dominum]

interesting...

[Donna]

Hey, Laudate. I thought so, too.

And (we wonders) does a religious need to have[i] money [/i]to hire a canon lawyer to defend themselves (whatever the charge?). Or how does that work?

[Donna]

So, whaddaya think?

Would a schismatic appeal to Rome?

[MorphRC]

Imo. If they were a Sedev. No.

[Anna]

Hi Donna,
Do you have a link to this story.
This is huge, imho.
Fr. Somerville is the priest who publicly apologized for his involvement in ICEL, the group which translated the Mass into the English language.
Of course, the Lefevists quickly made him a hero, and he celebrated Masses for them, as I understand it.
I'm sure he felt somewhat responsible for this sect of lost sheep, since it was his activity (in part) which helped drive them out of the Roman Catholic Church.

However, he became so involved with them that disciplinary actions followed, and when not heeded, he was suspended from his priestly faculties.

Let's pray for this man. I hope his priestly faculties are restored, and that he is able to heal the great divide caused by Lefevre.

(Of course, this is a very simplistic and opinionated summary of events.)

Pax Christi. <><

[CatholicCrusader]

This is happening left and right... Priests get suspended for not saying the Novus Ordo because it is against their conscience to do so (I certainly will not blame them for it, when I become a Priest, God-willing, I will never say the NO either). That is an outrage-- the Liberals can "exercise freedom of conscience" proclaimed by, according to John Kerry, Pius XXIII (John XXIII), to reject infallible Church dogma or reject social and moral teaching, but when someone actually does what John XXIII actually meant (following his conscience but NOT rejecting Dogma), he gets suspended?! I don't know, you explain it to me...

[MichaelFilo]

I may find myself avoiding the NO mass. But Catholic, you also take a vow of obedience. If you go in disobediantly, you already invalidate yourself for that vow.

When you do become a priest (hopefully) and I do as well, we are both called to listen to our superiors. It is wrong to go in not expecting that.

God bless,

Mikey

Ps. Sorry forgot the topic. A schismatic may appeal to Rome yes. It's very likely. Martin luther did quite a few times.

Edited August 28, 2004 by MichaelFilo

[CatholicCrusader]

That is why I am going to the Fraternity of St. Peter, where I can't be "forced" into saying the NO. In any event, this Priest and the other "suspendees" probably did not fully understand the Latin Mass or know at all about it when they were ordained. Should be hold them accountable for wanting to return to it now that the current hierachy failed them? Should we hold them accountable for when their seminary and Bishop failed to instruct them in: the Mass of ALL Times, as declared by Pope St. Pius V?

Edited August 28, 2004 by CatholicCrusader

[cmotherofpirl]

If these "priests" cannot be obedient to the Church, then they should be suspended.

[Donna]

Can we try to stay on topic?

That is, would a schismatic appeal to Rome?
________________________________________________________

[color=purple]Anna[/color], [i]The Remnant [/i]posted this (and I did, too, in Open Mic. Goodness knows what page it's on, now, since I tiried to take over the board the other night).

What [i]The Remnant [/i]printed (Aug. 31, 2004 issue) was several letters of Fr. Somerville re: his appeal: to his bishop (Canada), to C. Hoyos ([i]Ecclessia Dei Commission[/i]), etc; Thought about pasting it here, but it's long, and I'm sure would detract from the topic.

[b]Ahem,[/b] Grand mah-mah, it was yours truly who posted the ICEL stuff, and Fr. Somervile's open letter renouncing his service w/ them when (sob!) back alley was still here. But that's an interesting comment you have (him helping out, IYO, believing he'd helped driven out the now-SSPX-ers in the first place).
_____________________________________________________________

[color=purple]Michael Filo[/color], I think it was rather the opposite: that Luther was called into explain his novelties and his diatribes against things Catholic. And called back quite a few times, as I recall: investigated over time, and finally refuted, point by point (would that othrs be examined the same way, and be judged also point-by-point via the Congregation For the Doctrine of the Faith, but I digress).
__________________________________________________________________

[b]Again...a schismatic is (from [i]The Concise Catholic Dictionary[/i]):

[i]One who of his own will departs from the unity of the Church and
refuses to acknowledge the Pope as the supreme head or to accept
his jurisdiction.[/i] [/b]

Jurisdiction: primarily the public power of the Church to govern the faithful
and to direct them to the supernatural ends of the Church (exceprt, above source).


So...put another way, would a schismatic appeal to that which he does not recognize as the supreme head or accept his jurisdiciton?

[Donna]

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).

Edited August 29, 2004 by Donna

[Anna]

[quote name='Donna' date='Aug 29 2004, 02:22 AM'] But that's an interesting comment you have (him helping out, IYO, believing he'd helped driven out the now-SSPX-ers in the first place).
[/quote]
Perhaps it's an assumption on my part, but this priest's apology seemed very sincere, and his contrition for the failures of ICEL was very evident.
Since the schismatics left the Church over the Novus Ordo vs. Latin Mass, we can easily "assume" that Father Sommerville feels some personal accountability for all of these lost sheep.
I would imagine that Father Somerville is attempting to live out the Gospel message of Luke 15 ~
[color=purple]"Which of you men, if you had one hundred sheep, and lost one of them, wouldn’t leave the ninety-nine in the wilderness, and go after the one that was lost, until he found it? When he has found it, he carries it on his shoulders, rejoicing. When he comes home, he calls together his friends and his neighbors, saying to them, ‘Rejoice with me, for I have found my sheep which was lost!’ I tell you that even so there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents, than over ninety-nine righteous people who need no repentance."[/color]
However, I admit, this is an assumption on my part.
Father hasn't been suspended for refusal to celebrate a Novus Ordo Mass, as I understand it, but by sympathyzing with (aiding and abetting?) the schismatic trads.
[quote][i]One who of his own will departs from the unity of the Church and
refuses to acknowledge the Pope as the supreme head or to accept
his jurisdiction.[/i] [/b]

So...put another way, would a schismatic appeal to that which he does not recognize as the supreme head or accept his jurisdiciton?[/quote]
So, yes and no, actually.
Fr. Somerville disobeyed his superiors by continuing his relationship with the trads.
However, he still must recognize the ultimate earthly authority, the Vicar of Christ, so "no."
It appears he walking a tightrope at the moment.
Oremus, lest he fall.

Pax Christi. <><

[homeschoolmom]

hehe... when I read the topic, I thought, "no certainly Rome would not find schismatics appealing... they would probably find them revolting." I really should not try to read the Debate Table this early in the morning... My brain doesn't function right... back to Open Mic...

[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