.
Drew, thanks for all the support, but you might enjoy being informed that petwerp is under the delusion that I bother to read his stupid posts.
should not be overlooked
Neil, what should NOT be overlooked is that if you think the Bishop has a flock then you are Schismatic.
And he is furthermore under the delusion that I could possibly care less what he thinks, because I couldn't. HAHAHAHAHA
He is not a Bishop - in the true sense, i.e. attached to a See. Even the term "Auxillary Bishop" is a misnomer since auxillaries are still attached to a See.
The Society Bishops are unique in the Catholic Church and Archbishop Lefebvre admitted that if there ever was an agreement with Rome, they still might not accept them as Bishops [or words to that effect].
In addition to this, Bishop Williamson is no longer a member of the SSPX. He was expelled. He is no longer an "auxillary", so where does that leave him?
The accusation of "schism" is a serious charge. You have leveled it against anyone who would regard Bishop Williamson as a shepherd to a "flock" of faithful Catholics. This accusation is wholly without merit. We can only be grateful that your mouth is not a gun.
The problem petwerp has is shooting his mouth off when nobody's listening.
St. Pius X in says Pascendi that, “Every society needs a directing authority to guide its members toward the common end, to foster prudently the elements of cohesion, which in a religious society are doctrine and worship; hence, the triple authority in the Catholic Church, disciplinary, dogmatic and liturgical” (emphasis his). This "triple authority" is derived respectively from the three-fold attributes that God has endowed His Church: authority, infallibility, and indefectibility. It is important to remember always that these primarily are necessary properties of, and belong to, the Church by nature, and only secondarily and accidentally to individual churchmen.
The purpose of the “directing authority” (i.e. disciplinary) is to direct the Church “toward the common end” which are “doctrine” (dogmatic) and “worship” (liturgical). The exercise of "authority" outside of these ends, or in opposition to these ends, cannot be done with any legitimacy. No Catholic can morally give obedience to any law, command, directive, etc. that harms the faith or leads to the loss of salvation of souls.
The faithful have a right to the sacraments and the true doctrine of the faith because God has imposed upon them the duty to know and believe His revealed truth and to worship Him in the public forum according to the "received and approved rites of the Church." These "rights" of the faithful impose duties upon priests who hold ordinary jurisdiction but whenever these clerics prove to be unfaithful priest and fail in their duties, the faithful are free to seek from others their rights that are necessary to fulfill their obligations to God, and any priest is free to assume these responsibilities even in disobedience to any holding lawful jurisdiction. The Church then provides a supplied jurisdiction to these priest because of the needs of the faithful. If the faithful "flock" look to Bishop Williamson as a shepherd after receiving only "stones" and "serpents" from their ordinaries that cannot, in and of itself, constitute a schismatic act.
It's nice for you to bring up supplied jurisdiction, but please keep in mind that petwerp, while he's probably CAPABLE of understanding the principle at least on a natural level, is nonetheless invincibly ignorant of its application due to his pertinacious and abiding zeal for being stupid on such matters.
So, it's like you're talking to a wall of Z-Bricks.
Furthermore, schism is canonically defined as “the withdrawal of submission (subiectionis detrectatio) to the Supreme Pontiff or from communion with the members of the Church subject to him”(Canon 751). An English translation of Canon 751 which defines schism as “refusal of subjection”, or “refusal to be subject”, to the Supreme Pontiff, would be an accurate translation of the Latin.
Although every act of schism is an act of disobedience, not every act of disobedience is an act of schism.
At this point you can rest assured that petwerp is entirely lost. He would never have read this far. But I do appreciate your detail, distinction and follow-through. Thank you!
Since the canon 751 does not say that partial withdrawal of submission is enough to qualify as schism, we should presume that the withdrawal has to be complete, both materially and formally, in order to be guilty of the offense of schism. Why? Because, the more lenient interpretation of Canon 751 is in harmony with the canonical principle expressed in Canon 18 of the Code: “Laws which impose a penalty . . . are to be interpreted strictly.” Canon 18 means that whenever a penal law should require interpretation — as does Canon 1364, §1 in prescribing excommunication for “schism” — the correct interpretation will be that which employs a definition which favors charity to the accused. Only those actions which clearly and indisputably qualify as offenses are understood to violate the law in question.
Canon 17 states that when there is some obscurity in the meaning of a law, “there must be recourse [on the part of the interpreter] to parallel places, if there be any, to the purposes and circuмstances of the law, and to the mind of the legislator.” There are no “parallel places,” other than Canon 751 that explain what schism is. However, there are twenty-nine canons between Canon 1365 and Canon 1397 which implicitly explain clearly what schism is not. Specifically, these canons prescribe lesser penalties than excommunication for multiple forms of disobedience to the Supreme Pontiff, and therefore a fortiori, to a local ordinary. Since schism does incur excommunication, it logically follows that there are multiple forms of disobedience to the Supreme Pontiff, and therefore a fortiori, to the local ordinary, which do not reach the very grave level of schism.
Canon 17 also stipulates that in interpreting a given canon, recourse “to the mind of the legislator” should be done. In Canon 751 it is evident that the mind of the legislator closely follows the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas because the definition of schism in Canon 751 is it taken almost verbatim from him. In the Summa Theologiæ, IIa IIæ, Q. 39, a.1: St. Thomas says, “schismatics are those who refuse to be subject to the Roman Pontiff and who refuse communion with the members of the Church subject to him.” Consequently, the context for the definition of schism by St. Thomas is highly pertinent for an exact interpretation of Canon 751.
St. Thomas makes it clear that schism is a particular kind of disobedience, a distinct kind of sin. "Objection 2: Further, a man is apparently a schismatic if he disobeys the Church. But every sin makes a man disobey the commandments of the Church, because sin, according to Ambrose (De Parad. viii) 'is disobedience against the heavenly commandments.' Therefore every sin is a schism." St. Thomas replies (Q. 39, a.1, ad 2) that the "essence of schism is in rebelliously disobeying [the Church’s] commandments. I say ‘rebelliously’ because the schismatic shows obstinate scorn for the Church’s commandments and refuses to submit to her judgment. Not every sinner does that; and so not every sin is schism.” The specific examples given by St. Thomas in Q. 39, a 2.1, taken from the book of Numbers 16:30 and II Kings 17, make it clear that "rebelliously" is to be understood in the strict meaning of the term, as when subjects reject completely the authority of the lawful leader. In the passage from the Book of Numbers, Core, Dathan, and Abiron, their followers, families and all their possessions were swallowed up by the earth in punishment for their total rejection of the authority of Moses. These men "stood up against Moses and Aaron, (and) they said: 'Let it be enough for you, that all the multitude consisteth of holy ones, and the Lord is among them: Why lift you up yourselves above the people of the Lord?'" The rebellion of Core repudiated the entire authority of Moses to rule. In the second example, St. Thomas mentions the ten tribes of Israel under Jeroboam, who completely separated themselves rejecting the legitimate authority of Reboam, the King of Judah who was the son of Solomon in the line of King David (I Kings 12: 26-33).
Every authoritative theologian after St. Thomas follows his criterion for the definition of schism. The 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia says that: “not every disobedience is 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” (vol. 13, p. 529a, s.v. “Schism”). Likewise, the magisterial Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique (DTC), possibly the greatest compendium of orthodox Catholic theology, explains the difference between heresy and schism:
"Schism and disobedience: The two things are so evidently similar, so closely related, that many confuse the two, or find difficulty in distinguishing them. . . . Cajetan (commenting on St. Thomas' definition of schism) makes some very neat and satisfying precisions. He distinguishes three points of application, or three possible motives for disobedience. First, disobedience might concern simply the matter of the thing commanded, without calling in question the authority or even the personal calibre of the superior: thus, if I eat meat on Friday because I don’t like fish, that is not schism, but simple disobedience. Secondly, the disobedience might focus on the person who holds authority, denying for one reason or another his competence in some particular case, or judging him to be mistaken, . . . while still respecting his office. This still is not schism. . . . Schism does occur when someone . . . ‘rejects a command or judgment of the Pope by reason of his very office, not recognising him as a superior, even while believing that he is’ (cuм quis papæ præceptum vel judicium ex parte officii sui recusat, non recognoscens eum ut superiorem, quamvis hoc credat)."
Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique
The last clause in the above citation from DTC — “even while believing that he is [a lawful superior]”— makes it clear that he is referring to "formal schism." "Material schism" is committed by all those — and only those — who completely reject the authority per se of a lawful superior. But the offense becomes formal only in the case of those who do so with malice, that is, when knowing that the superior in question is in fact lawful, but nonetheless refusing absolutely to submit to his authority in any way.
In fine, the consensus of every authoritative theologian is that the only kind of disobedience to the Roman Pontiff, a fortiori to the local ordinary, which constitutes material schism is the total repudiation of the Pope’s authority wherein one denies his duty to obey anything at all which he commands. It is the denial of papal jurisdiction per se. Then, in order for the schism to be formal as well as material, and thus, culpable before God, it is necessary for the offender to be acting in bad conscience, out of pride or passion, which leads him to suppress and deny the Pope’s jurisdiction over himself, while knowing deep down that he is committing a sin in doing so. That is, he must be acting with malice and/or culpable negligence.
Your accusation of schism is both morally and legally repugnant. It is calumny and a grave sin against charity and justice. If any faithful member of Jesus Christ's Catholic "flock," wants to regard Bishop Williamson as their "shepherd," he is free to do so, until such time as those exercising ordinary jurisdiction do so in a manner directed to the proper ends of the Church that Pope St. Pius X said are "doctrine and worship."
Well said! I wholeheartedly agree.
And then regarding the SGBF, the coveting of ordinary jurisdiction, arguably sinful:
[SG] Bishop Fellay has put the SSPX on the express train to Rome. For the sake of obtaining some limited form of ordinary jurisdiction that he covets, he has made accommodations of doctrine and worship to fit the "hermeneutic of continuity." He will soon learn that obedience in and of itself is not a virtue at all unless it is regulated by the virtue of Religion.
Drew
P.S. The canonical and moral definition of schism is largely taken from the work of Fr. Brian hαɾɾιson which was used by Fr. Samuel Waters in his defense sent to Rome against the charge made by Archbishop Charles Chaput of Philadelphia against Fr. Waters and Ss. Peter & Paul Roman Catholic Mission. The exchanges between Fr. Waters and Philadelphia and Rome are published on the Mission web page.
For those who are not quite up to speed (not including petwerp because he doesn't WANT to get up to speed), making accommodations of doctrine and worship to fit the "hermeneutic of continuity" (of Benedict XVI) amounts to ecclesiastical insanity, moral insanity, and all-around insanity. In the Psalms and in the
Te Deum, we pray,
"Non confudar in aeternum." Well, making accommodations to the hermeneutic of continuity is tantamount to saying,
"Please, I want to be confounded in eternity, so dear God, let me be so confounded." IOW, it is the total inversion of the Prayers of the Church, turning them on their head.
But petwerp won't understand that,
nor does he want to. He'll no doubt prove the veracity of that, soon enough.
.
Topic: ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLXVI (366) July 19,2014 A.D. (Read 41459 times)