Saying the SSPX is not in schism and yet adheres to Archbishop Lefebvre's consecration of the 4 bishops (deemed schismatic by Pope John Paul II) is quite contradictory.

Welcome to the NewChurch, eh?  :rolleyes:

Quote from: Sigismund

Quote from: Quo Vadis Petre

Quote from: Sigismund

Captain,

I disagree that he made the right choice in consecrating bishops, not only without a papal mandate, but against the expressed wishes of the Vicar of Christ.  I don't doubt his convictions, or his sincerity, and I am sure he believed he was fully justified in doing so.  Canonically, however, this was a schismatic act.  

Disobedience even in the matter of consecrating bishops doesn't constitute schism according to Canon Law, contrary to your assertion and even frankly speaking the Pope's. Learned canon lawyers like Canon Neri Capponi (?) have stated such. Schism is a pertinacious refusal to recognize the Pope's authority. Archbishop Lefebvre did not such thing; he would have if he gave his bishops an Apostolic authority.

Also, it would be well not state such accusations in the future. The position of the forum is that SSPX is Catholic and not in schism.

It most certainly does, according to the 1983 code, the only code in force in the Latin Church.  Not disobedience in itself, but the act of consecrating bishops without a papal mandate.  

I am not saying that the SSPX is in schism.  The Vatican says they are not.  I am saying that Archbishop Lefebvre committed a schismatic act when he consecrated bishops against the express will of the Vicar of Christ.  As I said, I don't doubt the archbishop's sincerity or good intentions, or that he was a good man.  

And anytime Matthew wants to ban me, he is of course free to do so.  It's his forum.

SSPX.org

Quote

Now, the excommunication warned of on June 17, for abuse of episcopal powers (canon 1382), was not incurred because:

A person who violates a law out of necessity* is not subject to a penalty (1983 Code of Canon Law, canon 1323, §4), even if there is no state of necessity:[1]
if one inculpably thought there was, he would not incur the penalty (canon 1323, 70),
and if one culpably thought there was, he would still incur no automatic penalties[2] (canon 1324, §3; §1, 80).

...Keeping in mind that it was the allegedly schismatic act which caused the 6 bishops to incur cited excommunication.

Also:

Quote

No penalty is ever incurred without committing a subjective mortal sin (canons 1321 §1, 1323 70). Now, Archbishop Lefebvre made it amply clear that he was bound in conscience to do what he could do to continue the Catholic priesthood and that he was obeying God in going ahead with the consecrations (Cf. the Sermon of June 30, 1988, and Archbishop Lefebvre and the Vatican, p. 136). Hence, even if he had been wrong, there would be no subjective sin.
Most importantly, positive law is at the service of the natural and eternal law and ecclesiastical law is at that of the divine law (principle 8).  No “authority,” [principle 9] can force a bishop to compromise in his teaching of Catholic faith or administering of Catholic sacraments. No “law,” can force him to cooperate in the destruction of the Church. With Rome giving no guarantee of preserving Catholic Tradition, Archbishop Lefebvre had to do what he could with his God-given episcopal powers to guarantee its preservation. This was his duty as a bishop.
The Church’s approving the SSPX (question 2) allow it what it needs for its own preservation. This includes the service of bishops who will guarantee to maintain Catholic Tradition.

It seems to me that this reasoning would prevent anyone who does anything sincerely from an ecclesiastical penalty.  I do not mean to equate these two cases, but I am sure there are priests who sincerely believe they have a moral obligation to marry ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ couples or to approve of contraception.  They may genuinely be sincere, and that would certainly matter in terms of their subjective guilt but surely no one would suggest that such a priest should not face canonical censure.  

Still, the case of consecration, even without a papal mandate, isn't covered under "schisms" or some such thing, but under "ecclesiastical offenses" in the 1983 Code.

Also this:

http://sspx.org/miscellaneous/canonical/canonical_study_kaschewsky.htm

It still follows from the principle that Archbishop Lefebvre committed a schismatic act that adhering to the schism extends to those who agree with him. And the whole SSPX (barring those who disagreed and left the Society) adhered to him. And that was what Pope John Paul II warned against doing. Saying the SSPX is not in schism and yet adheres to Archbishop Lefebvre's consecration of the 4 bishops (deemed schismatic by Pope John Paul II) is quite contradictory.

Perhaps, but that it seems is the current position. of the Church's governing authority. Even if  this is true, it would mean that those who adhere to the Archbishop's decision approve of a schismatic act, also no doubt sincerely.  I am not sure that this actually brings the canonical censures for schism upon them.  

No offense. I can see why you thought that because the decree Ecclesia Dei asserted it. But in Cardinal Gantin's canonical warning concerning ABL, there was no mention of schism whatsoever.

Sigismund brought up the example of the priest who thinks it's proper to marry ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs and compared that with Archbishop LeFebrvre's consecration of the four bishops and this was in light to the portion in the 1983 Code of Canon Law where it states that if somewhere errs but feels they are acting in the good of the Church than the full punishment should not be applied.  The comparison was not in kind but in degree, an example of two lawbreakers.

1) Regarding the 1983 Code of Canon Law, that may be more appropriate to apply it to laymen who often have an incomplete understanding of canon law and an inexcessive exuberance, but this wouldn't apply to someone who was as sharp intellectually as Archbishop LeFebrvre, he remained intellectually sharp until his last day alive.  More is expected from a member of clergy, particularly a senior clergy.

2) Considering the comparison between an activist who wants to marry ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs is that this priest is breaking Divine Law.  ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity, not only is not something to sanctify with a sacrament, but is one of the crimes that calls out for punishment.  On the other hand, Archbishop LeFebrvre's crime was insisting on standing fast and strong in the Catholic faith as opposed to yeilding to the concilliar faith.

Well said. Lets not forget, also, that the law of Epikeia does in fact exist. That some may abuse (and I'm sure they do) it is not a valid argument. But we should also recognize that the use of such a law places all of us in danger, priests and bishops especially. Being a Traditional Catholic is no light matter.

Quote from: Capt. McQuigg

It's not for nothing that the FSSP still doesn't have a bishop.

The FSSP getting a Bishop of its own would be very good, yes, but there are several prelates and even Cardinals who are friends of the Fraternity, which is the next best thing. They have seen its good fruits and therefore sincerely wish it to grow in the Church. For example, they see traditional seminaries bursting at their seams while others empty or closed down. The superior of the Fraternity will tell you that they more and more enjoy unqualified support from Rome who are more and more coming to recognize the inherent strength and vitality of Tradition. What is more, these men in Rome and elsewhere have a great deal of influence in the Church today and in her future.

The Pope you sedevacantists expect in future by the way will most probably not drop from heaven. With all due respect, Captain, what exactly, beside attacking other Catholics, is it that sedevacantists are concretely and successfully doing to restore the Papacy and the Church to her former glory that you happily call the FSSP "window dressing," I'd like to know?

Quote

it is a continuation of the truly Catholic work of the SSPX.

Absolutely. And what, pray tell, is wrong with that?

ABSOLUTELY.  

I THINK it's time for a party.  The FSSP and the SSPX both have something to
celebrate:  the latter, 25 years of having 4 bishops, and the former, 25 years
of having no bishop.  So what do they have in common??

25 YEARS!!!  :rahrah:

Quote from: Spork

Once again evidence to point that many rank and file of the SSPX hold to the belief that the Catholic Faith's beginning, middle, and end is solely the property of the SSPX. It boggles the mind to see rational thought thrown out the window time and again anytime the boogeyman FSSP is brought up to most SSPX faithful. I absolutely guarantee any SSPXer out there that absent a society chapel, they would be a assisting at TLMs offered by the FSSP if that were the only reasonable option to their proximities.

Do you disagree with any of the points I made?  

There really isn't any rationality being thrown out the window unless you think I am mistaken about the origin of the FSSP.

I've heard this accusation for a long time, that SSPXers like to say it is them or
nothing, but I really don't see that attitude in practice.

So I think it's kind of a fantasy.  I don't know any SSPX Faithful who are scared
of the FSSP.  So this "boogeyman" nonsense is just nuts.

Quote from: AnneCatherine

If the Eastern Orthodox have "valid" Eucharist, with all their differences, why not N.O.?

Because as Archbishop Lefebvre said, validity should not be one's only prerequisite. A valid Mass may still be sacrilegious!

Answer:  The Eastern Orthodox have not gutted their consecration formulas,
and their ordination rite remains the same from antiquity.  That's why.  

Quote from: AnneCatherine

Perhaps trust Him with words not in Latin, etc.?--If the Eastern Orthodox have "valid" Eucharist, with all their differences, why not N.O.?

Okay, two folks got upset, and that's not what I meant to do.  All I want is to resolve the logic problem in those areas, because a friend "went Orthodox."  Some of you have been to seminary--Please simply show me better information than what I've had? If my info is correct, then there is a logical issue to work out.

Please get back to me, if anyone knows more?

Hi Anne.

Well, if you want to delve into sacramental theology yourself, there is in fact an ongoing discussion on the forum about the validity of the new Mass. Click here

Most lay faithful who do not wish to study such questions in depth simply accept the position of the priests and Bishops they trust, which I think is fairly reasonable. The CMRI says it is invalid, the SSPX says it is not invalid per se but that it is unacceptable because of its omissions, the FSSP says it is valid but there are other problems with it.

I heard 3 explanations over the years.  

1)  The NovusOrdo is not valid and therefore we cannot go there to Mass.  Anyone
who goes there is committing idolatry because the host is not really God.

2)  The NovusOrdo IS VALID, and that's why the abuses are so terrible - it would
be better if it were not valid, but since it is, it's sacrilegious.

3)  It is not up to us to determine whether the NovusOrdo is or is not valid, the
very question that it MIGHT NOT be valid with good reasons to doubt is all we
need to know, and the POSSIBILITY due to its DOUBTFUL VALIDITY is sufficient
for us to say, "I will not be part of that," and if that's all there is, I'm staying home
with my Rosary.


So #3 makes the most sense to me.  

If the FSSP is accommodating toward the NovusOrdo sacraments, liturgy or
theology, that is sufficient for me to say that I will not be part of Indultery.

Quote from: Sigismund

Quote from: Quo Vadis Petre

It still follows from the principle that Archbishop Lefebvre committed a schismatic act that adhering to the schism extends to those who agree with him. And the whole SSPX (barring those who disagreed and left the Society) adhered to him. And that was what Pope John Paul II warned against doing. Saying the SSPX is not in schism and yet adheres to Archbishop Lefebvre's consecration of the 4 bishops (deemed schismatic by Pope John Paul II) is quite contradictory.

Perhaps, but that it seems is the current position. of the Church's governing authority. Even if  this is true, it would mean that those who adhere to the Archbishop's decision approve of a schismatic act, also no doubt sincerely.  I am not sure that this actually brings the canonical censures for schism upon them.

You're using the term "schism" a little loosely here.

I think it would have been sinful for the Archbishop to NOT have Consecrated the Bishops. He knew Tradition would be in real jeopardy should he die without Consecrating Bishops, because the Society would have ultimately died with him.

When the Pope tells someone to abandon Tradition, there's no obligation to obey. It wasn't a schismatic act, he had no choice.

Well, we disagree here.  I am not convinced that an illicit consecration was the only way to preserve tradition, or that Bishopric Lefebvre was correctly preserving tradition in the first place.  Once again. I mean no disrespect to the Archbishop himself, who I acknowledged was sincere and seems to have been a good man, form what I know of him.