No Compromise On Vatican Ii: Fellay

[Skinzo]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1949022' date='Aug 14 2009, 07:32 PM']If you read it, it explains how you are misinterpreting a motu proprio of the Supreme Pontiff.[/quote]

That is purely the opinion of the supporters of the SSPX. As noted before by me, the plain language of Ecclesia Dei is quite clear and was upheld by the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts. See: [url="http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=1224&CFID=8947484&CFTOKEN=34034319"]http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/lib...FTOKEN=34034319[/url]

Getting back to the subject of this thread Fellay continues to reject Vatican II, and Benedict XVI has ruled in his latest magisterial statement on the subject that the SSPX must accept Vatican II. So he has stated in "Ecclesiae Unitatem". He states the problems are doctrinal, and those who do not accept Catholic doctrine are what?

S.

Edited August 14, 2009 by Skinzo

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Skinzo' post='1949029' date='Aug 14 2009, 06:49 PM']That is purely the opinion of the supporters of the SSPX. As noted before by me, the plain language of Ecclesia Dei is quite clear and was upheld by the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts. See: [url="http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=1224&CFID=8947484&CFTOKEN=34034319"]http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/lib...FTOKEN=34034319[/url][/quote]

Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos, Monsignor Perl, Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, other Cardinals and Bishops among those 'supporters.' Of whose 'opinions' I will take over yours. The Church, the Holy See believe the problem with the SSPX to be a "internal" matter. Unless the Holy See is guilty of some type of double talk it can not be a internal matter if the SSPX are in formal schism, which would mean they would be outside not inside the Church.

[quote name='Skinzo' post='1949029' date='Aug 14 2009, 06:49 PM']Getting back to the subject of this thread Fellay continues to reject Vatican II, and Benedict XVI has ruled in his latest magisterial statement on the subject that the SSPX must accept Vatican II. So he has stated in "Ecclesiae Unitatem". He states the problems are doctrinal, and those who do not accept Catholic doctrine are what?

S.[/quote]

To that I will only say that I put my trust in the Holy Pontiff. Who knew that Bishop Fellay has stated 'no compromise on Vatican II' before. The Holy Pontiff has still chosen to lift the Bishops excommunication, and hold talks with the SSPX.

I am thankful to God for Pope Benedict XVI, and I trust his wise leadership of Holy Mother Church. None of the problems you have brought up have been deal breakers for him. He surely knows far more about this whole affair than us both. I believe that if this was really a problem there would have been no lifting of the excommunications, and there would be no talks.

Edited August 14, 2009 by KnightofChrist

[Skinzo]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1949043' date='Aug 14 2009, 08:15 PM']Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos, Monsignor Perl, Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, other Cardinals and Bishops among those 'supporters.' Of whose 'opinions' I will take over yours. The Church, the Holy See believe the problem with the SSPX to be a "internal" matter. Unless the Holy See is guilty of some type of double talk it can not be a internal matter if the SSPX are in formal schism, which would mean they would be outside not inside the Church.



To that I will only say that I put my trust in the Holy Pontiff. Who knew that Bishop Fellay has stated 'no compromise on Vatican II' before. The Holy Pontiff has still chosen to lift the Bishops excommunication, and hold talks with the SSPX.

I am thankful to God for Pope Benedict XVI, and I trust his wise leadership of Holy Mother Church. None of the problems you have brought up have been deal breakers for him. He surely knows far more about this whole affair than us both. I believe that if this was really a problem there would have been no lifting of the excommunications, and there would be no talks.[/quote]

As noted the opinions of Perl and Hoyos are inconsistent. So they don't matter. And the article you post omits the fact mentioned in "Ecclesia Dei" that excommunication can also fall on those who adhere to the schism.
By no means does the SSPX have a "supporter" in Benedict XVI. Only someone who is willing to talk. And as he made clear in his letter to the bishops the problems now are primary [b]doctrinal[/b] . In this area the pope cannot give any ground, the concessions now must come from the SSPX. He spells out his terms:

"The remission of the excommunication was a measure taken in the field of ecclesiastical discipline: the individuals were freed from the burden of conscience constituted by the most serious of ecclesiastical penalties. This disciplinary level needs to be distinguished from the doctrinal level. The fact that the Society of Saint Pius X does not possess a canonical status in the Church is not, in the end, based on disciplinary but on 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 Second Vatican Council and the post-conciliar magisterium of the Popes. The collegial bodies with which the Congregation studies questions which arise (especially the ordinary Wednesday meeting of Cardinals and the annual or biennial Plenary Session) ensure the involvement of the Prefects of the different Roman Congregations and representatives from the world’s Bishops in the process of decision-making. The Church’s teaching authority cannot be frozen in the year 1962 – this must be quite clear to the Society."

See:http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=8813

It's good that you trust the pope to handle the situation, and so I leave it at that.

S.

Edited August 16, 2009 by Skinzo

[Luthien]

[quote name='Skinzo' post='1948960' date='Aug 14 2009, 07:00 PM']Actually, the word is "schism". "Shism" is something you might say after a few drinks. And it is falsehoods, not "flasehoods".[/quote]


I bet you aced spelling bees as a kid.

[Skinzo]

[quote name='Luthien' post='1950664' date='Aug 16 2009, 06:17 PM']I bet you aced spelling bees as a kid. [/quote]

Shucks, I thought no one would ever notice! It is shucks isn't it, and not 'shux'??

S.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Skinzo' post='1950657' date='Aug 16 2009, 03:55 PM']As noted the opinions of Perl and Hoyos are inconsistent. So they don't matter.[/quote]

They do matter, and what they say does matter. What doesn't matter in comparison is your opinion. They know far more than us both about matters not revealed in public. What you call inconsistent may also be seen as the very difficult process of explaining the SSPX's [i]canonical gray area involving Catholics in an irregular situation. [/i]

Your charged that they don't matter is disrespectful, your change that they are supporters of a group you claim is in formal schism is also disrespectful.

[quote name='Skinzo' post='1950657' date='Aug 16 2009, 03:55 PM']And the article you post omits the fact mentioned in "Ecclesia Dei" that excommunication can also fall on those who adhere to the schism.[/quote]

It does not omit the part of Ecclesia Dei you are refering

"Moreover, there has never been any clear determination of the status of the priests and lay adherents of the SSPX who are not the subject of the penalties declared in the motu proprio. While the motu proprio speaks of “formal adherence to the schism” as grounds for incurring the same penalties as the five, the term “formal adherence” has never been defined in any universally binding pronouncement by a competent Vatican dicastery, which would appear to be either the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith or the Ecclesia Dei Commission.

None of these observations is meant to suggest that the 1988 motu proprio may be disregarded. Rather, they are offered to suggest why, on the practical or existential level, not even certain Vatican officials who have had care of the SSPX affair have treated it as a case of true and proper schism. Despite the strict letter of the motu proprio, these officials have tended to view the SSPX as inhabiting a kind of canonical gray area involving Catholics in an irregular situation"


[quote name='Skinzo' post='1950657' date='Aug 16 2009, 03:55 PM']By no means does the SSPX have a "supporter" in Benedict XVI. Only someone who is willing to talk. And as he made clear in his letter to the bishops the problems now are primary [b]doctrinal[/b] . In this area the pope cannot give any ground, the concessions now must come from the SSPX. He spells out his terms:

"The remission of the excommunication was a measure taken in the field of ecclesiastical discipline: the individuals were freed from the burden of conscience constituted by the most serious of ecclesiastical penalties. This disciplinary level needs to be distinguished from the doctrinal level. The fact that the Society of Saint Pius X does not possess a canonical status in the Church is not, in the end, based on disciplinary but on 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 Second Vatican Council and the post-conciliar magisterium of the Popes. The collegial bodies with which the Congregation studies questions which arise (especially the ordinary Wednesday meeting of Cardinals and the annual or biennial Plenary Session) ensure the involvement of the Prefects of the different Roman Congregations and representatives from the world’s Bishops in the process of decision-making. The Church’s teaching authority cannot be frozen in the year 1962 – this must be quite clear to the Society."

See:http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=8813[/quote]

I know full well there are problems within the SSPX, however the question is if the Church really teaches that they are in "Formal Schism", that would seem unlikely since the Pope lifted the excommunications of the four Bishops and were "[b]freed [/b]from the burden of conscience constituted by the most serious of ecclesiastical penalties."

Until the talks have finished and the Holy See has spoken it would be wrong to claim that the SSPX is in formal schism.

[Skinzo]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1950859' date='Aug 16 2009, 11:15 PM']They do matter, and what they say does matter. What doesn't matter in comparison is your opinion. They know far more than us both about matters not revealed in public. What you call inconsistent may also be seen as the very difficult process of explaining the SSPX's [i]canonical gray area involving Catholics in an irregular situation. [/i]


It does not omit the part of Ecclesia Dei you are refering

"Moreover, there has never been any clear determination of the status of the priests and lay adherents of the SSPX who are not the subject of the penalties declared in the motu proprio. While the motu proprio speaks of “formal adherence to the schism” as grounds for incurring the same penalties as the five, the term “formal adherence” has never been defined in any universally binding pronouncement by a competent Vatican dicastery, which would appear to be either the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith or the Ecclesia Dei Commission.

None of these observations is meant to suggest that the 1988 motu proprio may be disregarded. Rather, they are offered to suggest why, on the practical or existential level, not even certain Vatican officials who have had care of the SSPX affair have treated it as a case of true and proper schism. Despite the strict letter of the motu proprio, these officials have tended to view the SSPX as inhabiting a kind of canonical gray area involving Catholics in an irregular situation"




I know full well there are problems within the SSPX, however the question is if the Church really teaches that they are in "Formal Schism", that would seem unlikely since the Pope lifted the excommunications of the four Bishops and were "[b]freed [/b]from the burden of conscience constituted by the most serious of ecclesiastical penalties."

Until the talks have finished and the Holy See has spoken it would be wrong to claim that the SSPX is in formal schism.[/quote]
They don't matter because as I've shown in one link you obviously did not read is that Perl indicated the opinions of PCED are NOT an official declaration of the Holy See. I've also shown and you still fail to acknowledge that Hoyos and Perl are not consistent; they have in fact used that nasty word schism many times and I have provided links that prove that. A final reason they don't matter is that THEY ARE BOTH OUT OF THE PICTURE NOW! Hoyos is retired and Perl has been dismissed, it is now the business of the CDF.

OK,what you have quoted discusses it and tries to make it into a gray area which it isn't for anyone with a good set of eyes. I don't see why there is any "gray" area involved here. Formal adherence to the schism (there's that word again) isn't that hard to figure out. If you reject the authority of the pope and a Vatican Council what else are you??

My opinion only? No.

I don't think so. Because canon law is quite clear on the subject as Perl pointed out, in one of my earlier posts which you also ignored. One can certainly hold they are in schism, as Hoyos pointed out in his most recent remarks on the subject. No one is avoiding the use of "schism" anymore. As Hoyos told Fellay last Fall, “Up to now, I stated that you were not schismatics, but henceforth I will no longer be able to say so." And by the way, it was Fellay himself who provided that quote. Benedict XVI says the problems now are primarily doctrinal. That implies something more than schism. Let's also remember that when Bishop Bruskewitz excommunicated those who are members of the SSPX in his diocese Rome happily accepted the decision.

S.

Edited August 17, 2009 by Skinzo

[KnightofChrist]

I'm done. The SSPX is not in formal schism in the eyes of the Church, in your eyes sure, but in her eyes no. That's all that matters to me. Schismatic acts to which Cardinal Hoyos and Monsignor Perl refer to, which the SSPX is guilty of is not the same as formal schism which Cardinal Hoyos, Monsignor Perl, and others say the SSPX is not guilty of at least yet.

[KnightofChrist]

[url="http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFHAWAI.HTM"]CONGREGATION PRO DOCTRINA FIDEI DECREE[/url]
Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
The following is the entire declaration of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in the case of the so-called "Hawaii five"—as expressed in the case of one of the five, Patricia Morley. I note that this document has received wide publication already and is therefore not in the least confidential:

On July 3, 1991, Mrs. Patricia Morley had recourse to this Congregation against the Decree of the Bishop of Honolulu issued May 1, 1991.

His Excellency, the Most Reverend Joseph Anthony Ferrario, with aforesaid Decree, declared Mrs. Morley excommunicated on the grounds that she had committed the crime of schism and thus had incurred the "latae sententiae" penalty as provided for in Canon 1364 §1 of the Code of Canon Law.

This Congregation has examined carefully all the available documentation and has ascertained that the activities engaged in by the Petitioner, though blameworthy on various accounts, are not sufficient to constitute the crime of schism.

Since Mrs. Morley did not, in fact, commit the crime of schism and thus did not incur the "latae sententiae" penalty, it is clear that the Decree of the Bishop lacks the precondition on which is founded.

This Congregation, noting all of the above, is obliged to declare null and void the aforesaid Decree of the Ordinary of Honolulu.

Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger

Prefect


LETTER OF THE PONTIFICAL COUNCIL FOR CHRISTIAN UNITY
Under signature of Edward I. Cardinal Cassidy, President (May 3,1994)

"The situation of the members of this Society [SSPX] is an [u][b]internal matter[/b][/u] of the Catholic Church. [u]The Society is [b]not[/b] another Church or Ecclesial Community[/u] in the meaning used in the Directory. Of course, the Mass and Sacraments administered by the priests of the Society are valid. "


------

Formal Schism would place the Society outside and cut if off from the Church. If that is so, then it can not be called a "internal matter", and would be another church or community.

[Skinzo]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' date='17 August 2009 - 12:42 AM' timestamp='1250480566' post='1950952']
I'm done. The SSPX is not in formal schism in the eyes of the Church, in your eyes sure, but in her eyes no. That's all that matters to me. Schismatic acts to which Cardinal Hoyos and Monsignor Perl refer to, which the SSPX is guilty of is not the same as formal schism which Cardinal Hoyos, Monsignor Perl, and others say the SSPX is not guilty of at least yet.
[/quote]

I think what you said earlier is more correct, that the Church has not really ruled one way or the other. It remains a matter of opinion. As to Hoyos I have pointed out many times he warned the SSPX last Fall that he could no longer avoid referring to them as schismatics.

S.

Edited August 21, 2009 by Skinzo

[Skinzo]

The Morley case applies only to Morley. Members of the SSPX remain excommunicated by Bishop Bruskewitz. Their appeal was unsuccesful. You fail to note that Morley is still liable to other penalties as in the warning sent her by the Apostolic Delegate:

USA APOSTOLIC NUNCIATURE to Mrs. PATRICIA MORLEY

Apostolic Nunciature 3339 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.
United States of America Washington, D.C. 20008-3687.
June 28, 1993

No. 10311

Ms. Patricia Morley
1206 Ulipii Street
Kailua, Oahu, HI 96863

Dear Ms Morley:

Upon instructions of His Eminence, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Prefect, Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, I perform the duty to communicate the following reply which I just received from him regarding the recourse submitted first by you and then by four other persons against the Decree of declaration of schism given on May 1, 1991 by His Excellency, the Most Reverend Joseph A. Ferrario, Bishop of Honolulu.

1. From the examination of the case, conducted on the basis of the Law of the Church, it did not result that the facts referred to in the above-mentioned Decree are formal schismatic acts in the strict sense, as they do not constitute the offense of schism; and therefore the Congregation holds that the Decree of may 1, 1991 lacks foundation and hence validity.

[b]2. At the same time the Congregation for the Doctrine of the faith holds that

- those same facts referred to in the Decree [of Excommunication] on the whole do not conform to the liturgical and canonical norms;

- the five petitioners with their behavior cause grave nuisance, putting in danger the common good of the local Church;

- and therefore the local Bishop can avail himself of Canon 1373 of the Code of Canon Law, imposing upon them the foreseen punishment of interdict or other penalties, either medicinal or expiatory. [/b]

With kind regards and very best wishes, I am
Sincerely in Christ,

[Signature illegible]

Apostolic Pro-Nuncio

Source: "The ANGELUS," August 1993.