Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: X on July 19, 2019, 03:52:25 PM
-
In the thread linked immediately below (see p.3), Sean Johnson commented upon a statement from Fr. Asher regarding the "admission" that Ascension Thursday was no longer a holy day of obligation.
https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-the-obligation-to-attend-mass-on-ascension-thursday-binding-according-to-sspx/30/ (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-the-obligation-to-attend-mass-on-ascension-thursday-binding-according-to-sspx/30/)
Fr. Asher found it necessary to affirm the non-binding nature of "former" obligation because he and the SSPX did not want the faithful believing an obligation existed which did not exist, then voluntarily violating the "imaginary" obligation, thereby committing a real sin; so too in the case of the new laws of fast and abstinence in another SSPX.org article).
[NB: To be logical, the same concern ought to be manifested, then, with regard to communion in the hand, anticipated Mass on Saturday, etc.]
Sean Johnson raised the question as to whether "laws" (it would be better to say "legislation") which work manifestly against the common good of the Church and souls are in any real sense properly "laws" at all.
The questions and conclusions which naturally follow are:
1) If they are not laws in the proper sense, how can they be binding?
2) If they are not laws in the proper sense, and therefore never abrogated the 1917 CIC, are not the old laws still in effect?
It would seem that Archbishop Lefebvre and the old SSPX shared the same questions and doubts as Sean Johnson:
Below, see the Cor Unum #41 (March 1992), in which Fr. Schmidberger acknowledged these very doubts, and the non-binding nature of the 1983 CIC.
Then, see if you can spot the Trojan Horse he introduces which modifies Archbishop Lefebvre's position only one year after his death.
Finally, within the context of the SSPX ralliement, consider why a Fr. Asher or SSPX.org is publishing articles and making statements which completely ignore the original SSPX position on the new code of canon law, and how the truth is exactly the opposite of the pastoral necessity mentioned by Fr. Asher (or the SSPX.org article on fast/abstinence):
In reality, the concern is not that we must inform our faithful that the old law no longer binds, in order to save them from believing an obligation exists where it no longer does, which they willfully violate, and thereby commit a real sin.
No.
The real concern is that the old laws persist, and the SSPX, by making statements promoting the new harmful laws as real and true laws, induce the faithful to violate the 1917 CIC still in force!
Granted, the subjective ignorance of the faithful saves them from gravity, but since when is it acceptable to induce venial sin?
And at a higher level, is this not but one more very serious compromise of a rallying SSPX which claims to not have made any compromises?
Here follows Cor Unum #41 (March - 1992), only one year after Archbishop Lefebvre's death:
Cor Unum No41 - March 1992
II. DECISION CONCERNING PROPER DISCIPLINE OF THE SOCIETY OF ST PIUS X IN RELATION TO THE NEW CODE OF CANON LAW
1. The law is the object of justice. The purpose of ecclesiastical laws is to make the faithful practice justice by placing them in favourable situations, where Christian life is easy and by removing situations dangerous to faith and morals.
2. The reception of the new code of canon law poses a real problem of conscience for Catholics in this regard. On the one hand, it is impressively far from the protection of faith and morals, both in general and in detail. And on the other hand, we do not want to jeopardize the respect due to legitimate authority.
3. Archbishop Lefebvre, despite all his wisdom, did not believe that he could settle the question of the validity of the promulgation of this code, but its content and the principles set out in the apostolic letter of promulgation (25 January 1983) made it doubtful. In this case, according to canon 15 (nc. 14) this "new legislation is not urgent. In this situation, according to canon 23 (nc. 21), the 1917 code is not presumed revoked, but the new legislation must be brought back to the previous one and if possible reconciled with it. The guiding principles of this delicate conciliation follow.
4. The 1917 code remains the reference, in the sense that it contains the spirit of the Church in its pure state and that we follow it in principle and to a large extent.
5. This does not mean that we should not retain anything from the new code. Indeed, on the one hand, the Church's legislation, even codified, does not form an inseparable whole, in such a way that everything must be accepted or refused, and on the other hand, certain norms of the new code are justified, either because they bring about a useful simplification, or because they correspond to a homogeneous development of the Church's practice or to a better adaptation to circuмstances. There is therefore nothing to prevent, but on the contrary, it seems appropriate to retain what is good in the new legislation and harmonize it with the legislation of the 1917 Code.
6. New norms that oppose the Catholic faith or the divine constitution of the Church or that deviate from the protection due to faith and morals, we are obliged to refuse them (for example, the new rules on mixed marriages, nc. 1124- 1129). On the other hand, the new norms which, according to what has been established in (5), appear justified, we will retain them in place of the old ones, so as not to deprive ourselves or the faithful of the advantage they bring (This is the case of the removal of certain impediments to marriage: the exemption of "minor" impediments was systematically granted, it was therefore justifiable to remove them). But rather than new standards which, without being bad, would not bring any definite advantage, we must prefer the law codified in 1917 and we stand by it.
7. Another principle must be applied: When the validity (of acts or sacraments) is at stake, it is difficult for us to dare to declare invalid what is considered valid in the rest of the Church, and vice versa, and there is also in this case a practical necessity, for the good of the faithful, not to place them in conflict with the legislation received in the official Church. In these cases, we opt for the 1983 standards, but then strengthen our discipline with legal requirements that bring it closer to the 1917 code (for example, age and affinity impediments to marriage).
8. Finally, with regard to the matter and form of the sacraments, we must be tutiorists and, for example, consider as doubtful the confirmation conferred with an oil other than olive oil, until proven otherwise.
Decision approved in broad terms by the General Council in Rickenbach on 3 January 1992, finalized by the Canonical Commission and enacted by the Superior General in Rickenbach on 8 February 1992.
-
Interesting. When I saw that this subject came up again -- without reading it -- I asked a few people if they had been taught the differences back in the 90's when they came to the SSPX or if this was a new thing in view of a purely practical agreement. They had always been taught the differences. Now I see this is a Cor Unum from '92. The question has been around along time.
-
Fr. Asher, without a doubt....
(https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fsarh.ca.sspx.org%2Fsites%2Fsspx%2Ffiles%2Fstyles%2Fcolorbox-big%2Fpublic%2FUSA-R-LosGatos%2FADS-Sidebar%2520media%2F1frasher_1.jpg%3Fitok%3D6vA8G-He&f=1)
Has the fastest Mass and Rosary in the West.
He epitomizes the efficient, business-side of the new SSPX.
-
Interesting. When I saw that this subject came up again -- without reading it -- I asked a few people if they had been taught the differences back in the 90's when they came to the SSPX or if this was a new thing in view of a purely practical agreement. They had always been taught the differences. Now I see this is a Cor Unum from '92. The question has been around along time.
Yep: The sellout started as soon as ABL was dead.
-
Fr. Asher, without a doubt....
(https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fsarh.ca.sspx.org%2Fsites%2Fsspx%2Ffiles%2Fstyles%2Fcolorbox-big%2Fpublic%2FUSA-R-LosGatos%2FADS-Sidebar%2520media%2F1frasher_1.jpg%3Fitok%3D6vA8G-He&f=1)
Has the fastest Mass and Rosary in the West.
He epitomizes the efficient, business-side of the new SSPX.
I remember him. The picture above looks just like the ol' Fr. Asher I knew from 2000-2004, but his face has filled out a lot. (Mine probably has too...)
-
In addition to Fr. Schmidberger's 1992 switcharoo regarding the new CIC (which ABL considered of doubtful legitimacy and non-binding), didn't Bishop Tissier's Biography also recount how in 1992 the French District Superior also initiated overtures toward the indultarian French Benedictines?
The question is rhetorical.
The sellout began as soon as the Archbishop's corpse cooled (it just took decades to pull it off).
-
In the thread linked immediately below (see p.3), Sean Johnson commented upon a statement from Fr. Asher regarding the "admission" that Ascension Thursday was no longer a holy day of obligation.
https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-the-obligation-to-attend-mass-on-ascension-thursday-binding-according-to-sspx/30/ (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-the-obligation-to-attend-mass-on-ascension-thursday-binding-according-to-sspx/30/)
Fr. Asher found it necessary to affirm the non-binding nature of "former" obligation because he and the SSPX did not want the faithful believing an obligation existed which did not exist, then voluntarily violating the "imaginary" obligation, thereby committing a real sin; so too in the case of the new laws of fast and abstinence in another SSPX.org article).
[NB: To be logical, the same concern ought to be manifested, then, with regard to communion in the hand, anticipated Mass on Saturday, etc.]
Sean Johnson raised the question as to whether "laws" (it would be better to say "legislation") which work manifestly against the common good of the Church and souls are in any real sense properly "laws" at all.
The questions and conclusions which naturally follow are:
1) If they are not laws in the proper sense, how can they be binding?
2) If they are not laws in the proper sense, and therefore never abrogated the 1917 CIC, are not the old laws still in effect?
It would seem that Archbishop Lefebvre and the old SSPX shared the same questions and doubts as Sean Johnson:
Below, see the Cor Unum #41 (March 1992), in which Fr. Schmidberger acknowledged these very doubts, and the non-binding nature of the 1983 CIC.
Then, see if you can spot the Trojan Horse he introduces which modifies Archbishop Lefebvre's position only one year after his death.
Finally, within the context of the SSPX ralliement, consider why a Fr. Asher or SSPX.org is publishing articles and making statements which completely ignore the original SSPX position on the new code of canon law, and how the truth is exactly the opposite of the pastoral necessity mentioned by Fr. Asher (or the SSPX.org article on fast/abstinence):
In reality, the concern is not that we must inform our faithful that the old law no longer binds, in order to save them from believing an obligation exists where it no longer does, which they willfully violate, and thereby commit a real sin.
No.
The real concern is that the old laws persist, and the SSPX, by making statements promoting the new harmful laws as real and true laws, induce the faithful to violate the 1917 CIC still in force!
Granted, the subjective ignorance of the faithful saves them from gravity, but since when is it acceptable to induce venial sin?
And at a higher level, is this not but one more very serious compromise of a rallying SSPX which claims to not have made any compromises?
Here follows Cor Unum #41 (March - 1992), only one year after Archbishop Lefebvre's death:
Cor Unum No41 - March 1992
II. DECISION CONCERNING PROPER DISCIPLINE OF THE SOCIETY OF ST PIUS X IN RELATION TO THE NEW CODE OF CANON LAW
1. The law is the object of justice. The purpose of ecclesiastical laws is to make the faithful practice justice by placing them in favourable situations, where Christian life is easy and by removing situations dangerous to faith and morals.
2. The reception of the new code of canon law poses a real problem of conscience for Catholics in this regard. On the one hand, it is impressively far from the protection of faith and morals, both in general and in detail. And on the other hand, we do not want to jeopardize the respect due to legitimate authority.
3. Archbishop Lefebvre, despite all his wisdom, did not believe that he could settle the question of the validity of the promulgation of this code, but its content and the principles set out in the apostolic letter of promulgation (25 January 1983) made it doubtful. In this case, according to canon 15 (nc. 14) this "new legislation is not urgent. In this situation, according to canon 23 (nc. 21), the 1917 code is not presumed revoked, but the new legislation must be brought back to the previous one and if possible reconciled with it. The guiding principles of this delicate conciliation follow.
4. The 1917 code remains the reference, in the sense that it contains the spirit of the Church in its pure state and that we follow it in principle and to a large extent.
5. This does not mean that we should not retain anything from the new code. Indeed, on the one hand, the Church's legislation, even codified, does not form an inseparable whole, in such a way that everything must be accepted or refused, and on the other hand, certain norms of the new code are justified, either because they bring about a useful simplification, or because they correspond to a homogeneous development of the Church's practice or to a better adaptation to circuмstances. There is therefore nothing to prevent, but on the contrary, it seems appropriate to retain what is good in the new legislation and harmonize it with the legislation of the 1917 Code.
6. New norms that oppose the Catholic faith or the divine constitution of the Church or that deviate from the protection due to faith and morals, we are obliged to refuse them (for example, the new rules on mixed marriages, nc. 1124- 1129). On the other hand, the new norms which, according to what has been established in (5), appear justified, we will retain them in place of the old ones, so as not to deprive ourselves or the faithful of the advantage they bring (This is the case of the removal of certain impediments to marriage: the exemption of "minor" impediments was systematically granted, it was therefore justifiable to remove them). But rather than new standards which, without being bad, would not bring any definite advantage, we must prefer the law codified in 1917 and we stand by it.
7. Another principle must be applied: When the validity (of acts or sacraments) is at stake, it is difficult for us to dare to declare invalid what is considered valid in the rest of the Church, and vice versa, and there is also in this case a practical necessity, for the good of the faithful, not to place them in conflict with the legislation received in the official Church. In these cases, we opt for the 1983 standards, but then strengthen our discipline with legal requirements that bring it closer to the 1917 code (for example, age and affinity impediments to marriage).
8. Finally, with regard to the matter and form of the sacraments, we must be tutiorists and, for example, consider as doubtful the confirmation conferred with an oil other than olive oil, until proven otherwise.
Decision approved in broad terms by the General Council in Rickenbach on 3 January 1992, finalized by the Canonical Commission and enacted by the Superior General in Rickenbach on 8 February 1992.
Fr. Calderon (Professor of Dogmatic Theology at the SSPX seminary in La Reja) in Si Si No No #267 (November 2014) also acknowledges that laws which work against the common good of the Church are no laws at all:
"The new rite that Paul VI intended to promulgate by his apostolic constitution Pontificalis Romani is certainly illegitimate by the accuмulation of two reasons: firstly, because no pope has authority to destroy the Roman liturgical tradition and much less so to invent a rite that is in rupture with the whole of Catholic tradition; secondly, because the contamination with modernist doctrines causes harm to the faith, and a decision contrary to the common good of the Church cannot have the force of law."
-
Here is the SSPX.org article on the new fast/abstinence "laws" which it says are now binding:
https://sspx.org/en/rules-fast-and-abstinence (https://sspx.org/en/rules-fast-and-abstinence)
Yes, it encourages the old practices, and criticizes the new, but acknowledges nevertheless that the old laws are abrogated, and the new "laws" are binding.
-
Here is the SSPX.org article on the new fast/abstinence "laws" which it says are now binding:
https://sspx.org/en/rules-fast-and-abstinence (https://sspx.org/en/rules-fast-and-abstinence)
Yes, it encourages the old practices, and criticizes the new, but acknowledges nevertheless that the old laws are abrogated, and the new "laws" are binding.
(https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fsspx.org%2Fsites%2Fsspx%2Ffiles%2Fstyles%2Fnews_big%2Fpublic%2Fnews%2Ffellay-oct.jpg%3Fitok%3DDXh9Soa5&f=1)
"You trad-people are so incredibly dumb to follow me"
-
Incredulous,
I'd put Fr. McFarland up against Fr. Asher anytime as far as saying a fast Mass. Fr. McFarland also gives out the Host quicker than anyone i've ever seen. Kind of like a poker player with a gun to his head.
-
I am going to be bold.
I honestly am beginning to think that the Neo-SSPX, the betrayers in the 2019 SSPX, are in fact working with the various Intel agencies like the CIA, MI5, MI6, Mossad, German Intel, Italian Intel, etc. How else would they betray the Roman Catholic faith? How much were they paid?
Or worse, have these betrayers committed pedophilia on Epstein Island or in some other castle? Are they being blackmailed?
In fact, why did the SSPX recently acquire a castle in Europe? I smell a rat.
-
In the thread linked immediately below (see p.3), Sean Johnson commented upon a statement from Fr. Asher regarding the "admission" that Ascension Thursday was no longer a holy day of obligation.
https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-the-obligation-to-attend-mass-on-ascension-thursday-binding-according-to-sspx/30/ (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-the-obligation-to-attend-mass-on-ascension-thursday-binding-according-to-sspx/30/)
Fr. Asher found it necessary to affirm the non-binding nature of "former" obligation because he and the SSPX did not want the faithful believing an obligation existed which did not exist, then voluntarily violating the "imaginary" obligation, thereby committing a real sin; so too in the case of the new laws of fast and abstinence in another SSPX.org article).
[NB: To be logical, the same concern ought to be manifested, then, with regard to communion in the hand, anticipated Mass on Saturday, etc.]
Sean Johnson raised the question as to whether "laws" (it would be better to say "legislation") which work manifestly against the common good of the Church and souls are in any real sense properly "laws" at all.
The questions and conclusions which naturally follow are:
1) If they are not laws in the proper sense, how can they be binding?
2) If they are not laws in the proper sense, and therefore never abrogated the 1917 CIC, are not the old laws still in effect?
It would seem that Archbishop Lefebvre and the old SSPX shared the same questions and doubts as Sean Johnson:
Below, see the Cor Unum #41 (March 1992), in which Fr. Schmidberger acknowledged these very doubts, and the non-binding nature of the 1983 CIC.
Then, see if you can spot the Trojan Horse he introduces which modifies Archbishop Lefebvre's position only one year after his death.
Finally, within the context of the SSPX ralliement, consider why a Fr. Asher or SSPX.org is publishing articles and making statements which completely ignore the original SSPX position on the new code of canon law, and how the truth is exactly the opposite of the pastoral necessity mentioned by Fr. Asher (or the SSPX.org article on fast/abstinence):
In reality, the concern is not that we must inform our faithful that the old law no longer binds, in order to save them from believing an obligation exists where it no longer does, which they willfully violate, and thereby commit a real sin.
No.
The real concern is that the old laws persist, and the SSPX, by making statements promoting the new harmful laws as real and true laws, induce the faithful to violate the 1917 CIC still in force!
Granted, the subjective ignorance of the faithful saves them from gravity, but since when is it acceptable to induce venial sin?
And at a higher level, is this not but one more very serious compromise of a rallying SSPX which claims to not have made any compromises?
Here follows Cor Unum #41 (March - 1992), only one year after Archbishop Lefebvre's death:
Cor Unum No41 - March 1992
II. DECISION CONCERNING PROPER DISCIPLINE OF THE SOCIETY OF ST PIUS X IN RELATION TO THE NEW CODE OF CANON LAW
1. The law is the object of justice. The purpose of ecclesiastical laws is to make the faithful practice justice by placing them in favourable situations, where Christian life is easy and by removing situations dangerous to faith and morals.
2. The reception of the new code of canon law poses a real problem of conscience for Catholics in this regard. On the one hand, it is impressively far from the protection of faith and morals, both in general and in detail. And on the other hand, we do not want to jeopardize the respect due to legitimate authority.
3. Archbishop Lefebvre, despite all his wisdom, did not believe that he could settle the question of the validity of the promulgation of this code, but its content and the principles set out in the apostolic letter of promulgation (25 January 1983) made it doubtful. In this case, according to canon 15 (nc. 14) this "new legislation is not urgent. In this situation, according to canon 23 (nc. 21), the 1917 code is not presumed revoked, but the new legislation must be brought back to the previous one and if possible reconciled with it. The guiding principles of this delicate conciliation follow.
4. The 1917 code remains the reference, in the sense that it contains the spirit of the Church in its pure state and that we follow it in principle and to a large extent.
5. This does not mean that we should not retain anything from the new code. Indeed, on the one hand, the Church's legislation, even codified, does not form an inseparable whole, in such a way that everything must be accepted or refused, and on the other hand, certain norms of the new code are justified, either because they bring about a useful simplification, or because they correspond to a homogeneous development of the Church's practice or to a better adaptation to circuмstances. There is therefore nothing to prevent, but on the contrary, it seems appropriate to retain what is good in the new legislation and harmonize it with the legislation of the 1917 Code.
6. New norms that oppose the Catholic faith or the divine constitution of the Church or that deviate from the protection due to faith and morals, we are obliged to refuse them (for example, the new rules on mixed marriages, nc. 1124- 1129). On the other hand, the new norms which, according to what has been established in (5), appear justified, we will retain them in place of the old ones, so as not to deprive ourselves or the faithful of the advantage they bring (This is the case of the removal of certain impediments to marriage: the exemption of "minor" impediments was systematically granted, it was therefore justifiable to remove them). But rather than new standards which, without being bad, would not bring any definite advantage, we must prefer the law codified in 1917 and we stand by it.
7. Another principle must be applied: When the validity (of acts or sacraments) is at stake, it is difficult for us to dare to declare invalid what is considered valid in the rest of the Church, and vice versa, and there is also in this case a practical necessity, for the good of the faithful, not to place them in conflict with the legislation received in the official Church. In these cases, we opt for the 1983 standards, but then strengthen our discipline with legal requirements that bring it closer to the 1917 code (for example, age and affinity impediments to marriage).
8. Finally, with regard to the matter and form of the sacraments, we must be tutiorists and, for example, consider as doubtful the confirmation conferred with an oil other than olive oil, until proven otherwise.
Decision approved in broad terms by the General Council in Rickenbach on 3 January 1992, finalized by the Canonical Commission and enacted by the Superior General in Rickenbach on 8 February 1992.
In this 2015 conference by Fr. Chazal, he also states that Archbishop Lefebvre rejected the 1983 Code of Canon law wholesale, and that it was Fr. Schmidberger who, in 1992 after Archbishop Lefebvre had been dead one year, overturned his policy.
Fr. Chazal also states that it was Bishop Faure who told him about the change (as did Fr. Pivert, who was the SSPX's former canon lawyer)!
Fr. Chazal mentions that most SSPX and even Resistance priests, like him, were not aware of this!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=291&v=ZKu_rOzXbj4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=291&v=ZKu_rOzXbj4)
-
This is MAJOR news to me!
Fr. Chazal says that Archbishop Lefebvre said the new Code of Canon Law is worse than the new Mass.
No wonder Fr. Schmidberger later emerged as an accordista: He was against Lefebvre the monent he died!
Yet we all thought the SSPX's posture these last 25 eyars was the Archbishops.
No wonder they wanted to suppress his sermons/confrences!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
This is MAJOR news to me!
Fr. Chazal says that Archbishop Lefebvre said the new Code of Canon Law is worse than the new Mass.
No wonder Fr. Schmidberger later emerged as an accordista: He was against Lefebvre the monent he died!
Yet we all thought the SSPX's posture these last 25 eyars was the Archbishops.
No wonder they wanted to suppress his sermons/confrences!!!!!!!!!!!!
Have you ever read AA1025?
Could Fr. Schmidberger have been a KGB-spy seminarian or a CIA or German spy from the beginning?
Remember that these fake seminarians who served intel agencies rather than the Lord Jesus Christ started infecting seminaries back in the 1920s.
-
Der Protokoll am 5. Mai 1988
Protokoll über ein Einvernehmen zwischen Sr. Em. Kardinal Joseph Ratzinger und Sr. E. Erzbischof Marcel Lefebvre, erstellt während der am 4. Mai 1988 in Rom abgehaltenen Zusammenkunft, unterfertigt am 5. Mai 1988
I. Text der doktrinalen Deklaration:
Ich, Marcel Lefebvre, emeritierter Erzbischof-Bischof von Tulle, sowie die Mitglieder der von mir gegründeten Priesterbruderschaft St. Pius X.:
[...]
Schließlich versprechen wir, die allgemeine Disziplin der Kirche und die kirchlichen Gesetze zu achten, insbesondere jene des von Papst Johannes Paul II. promulgierten Kirchlichen Gesetzbuches, unbeschadet der der Bruderschaft durch ein besonderes Gesetz eingeräumten Sonderdisziplin.
https://fsspx.org/de/der-protokoll-am-5-mai-1988
Abp Lefebvre is ready to promise to respect "ecclesiastical laws", particularly the CIC of JPII (although L. had explained earlier that those modernists in Rome had been excommunicated ipso facto for modernism a long time ago).
Also, in his speech at the episcopal ordinations 1988, Lefebvre named Prof. Georg May from Mainz, who had justified necessity using the CIC of 1983.
Probably one can find quotes where L. rejects the modernist law, too.
P.S.: "Das Protokoll vom 5. Mai 1988" "Der Protokoll am 5. Mai 1988"
-
There is nothing anyone can say which can defeat the clear change of policy represented in the OP of Cor Unum #41 (and with Fr. Chazal, Fr. Pivert, and Bishop Faure also acknowledging the change in policy in 1992, I think any who will try will have an uphill battle).
-
There is nothing anyone can say which can defeat the clear change of policy represented in the OP of Cor Unum #41 (and with Fr. Chazal, Fr. Pivert, and Bishop Faure also acknowledging the change in policy in 1992, I think any who will try will have an uphill battle).
I didn't comment to start a battle. It looked to me as if you were collecting info and material.
-
I didn't comment to start a battle. It looked to me as if you were collecting info and material.
I am.
:cheers:
-
I didn't catch the significance of the SSPX officially moving Ascension Thursday to Sunday because to me that is what R&R means, we trust the SSPX to distinguish which new laws can be followed and which should not be. It is far from ideal and a risky way to be a Catholic, but that is the hand that God has dealt us and we trust Him to help us figure it out.
But if it is true that Archbishop Lefebvre scrapped the whole '83 and doubted its legitimacy, and the new leadership softened on that once he died, then yes I see how this is yet one more sign of the SSPX stepping away from the Archbishop while still trying to keep his name and legacy. The SSPX currently encouraging 1917 but openly accommodating '83 is a far cry from outright doubting the legitimacy of '83.
Is there something in Church Teaching that led the Archbishop to doubt the legitimacy of '83 rather than pick and choose through it? Or is this yet another question of prudence? If it is yet another question of prudence, then it really cements that while the Archbishop emphasized the R & R, most of the leadership since then has really emphasized the R & R.
God knows best but it seems like we could have used the Archbishop for another decade. He seems to have changed and matured and gained a lot of wisdom in the end from '88-'92. But that's only 4 years. That's not enough time to get through to his entire organization. It seems like many didn't get what he realized in the end and his priests and bishops were still all over the place in their beliefs and opinions. That is not the kind of thing that gets better with time.
-
I know of one who, as an Econe seminarian in 1988, refused to attend the 1988 episcopal consecrations for reasons of conscience.
That seminarian later became a priest.
That priest later became a District Superior.
That District Superior later became one of the greatest persecutors of the Resistance.
How long he must have waited and suffered for 2012!!
And he'd be damned (in his mind, literally) if any Resistance is going to ruin his chance for peace, and calm his scrupulous, suffering soul, by thwarting a legal(istic) recognition from Rome!
This is scary but it illustrates exactly how the priests were all over the place in their beliefs when the Archbishop died and that is what has brought about the discord we see now. Those who did not like the Archbishop's way are exactly those who would be motivated to rise through the ranks to effect change. But I don't understand why they didn't just go to the Fraternity. It's like the non-believing Catholics who refuse to leave the Church and try to change doctrine from within instead. There's something very willful about that.
(Quote from here https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/sspx-implies-pre-2017-marriages-invalid/msg660195/#msg660195)
(https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/sspx-implies-pre-2017-marriages-invalid/msg660195/#msg660195)
-
But if it is true that Archbishop Lefebvre scrapped the whole '83 and doubted its legitimacy, and the new leadership softened on that once he died, then yes I see how this is yet one more sign of the SSPX stepping away from the Archbishop while still trying to keep his name and legacy. The SSPX currently encouraging 1917 but openly accommodating '83 is a far cry from outright doubting the legitimacy of '83.
Is there something in Church Teaching that led the Archbishop to doubt the legitimacy of '83 rather than pick and choose through it? Or is this yet another question of prudence? If it is yet another question of prudence, then it really cements that while the Archbishop emphasized the R & R, most of the leadership since then has really emphasized the R & R.
I am still trying to absorb all this, because it is very new to me.
But it seems that today, the SSPX has gone even further away from Fr. Schmidberger’s 1992 policy of, as you put it, “encouraging 1917, but accommodating 1983,” by reversing that initial betrayal with a new one:
Encouraging 1983, while making secondary references to 1917.
In the Fr. Chazal conference (linked to p.1 of this thread), he mentions changes to the Ordinances booklet in 2004 or 2005, and then a paper written in 2007 or 2009 (writing from memory; please verify) by a Society priest called the “Official Unofficial Position of the SSPX on the New Code” (or something to that effect), where the new Code was given precedence in the Society (which is why, if you are paying close attention, so many of the SSPX’s recent canonical citations now first cite the 1983 Code, where they used to first cite the 1917 code).
You need to watch the Chazal conference (only the first half is about canon law and the SSPX).
But you can see the compromise after the Archbishop’s death: from Schmidberger’s to the current practice.
Fr. Chazal gives many other specifics.
As regards Church teachings for Lefebvre’s total rejection of the Code, despite some good things in it, in some of his unpublished conferences, he is explaining that the new Code is the codification of the new ecclesiology, etc.
I will provide some snippets later.
-
Thank you! I have not listened to Fr Chazal's conference yet but I will. I have time today.
-
But it seems that today, the SSPX has gone even further away from Fr. Schmidberger’s 1992 policy of, as you put it, “encouraging 1917, but accommodating 1983,” by reversing that initial betrayal with a new one:
Encouraging 1983, while making secondary references to 1917.
I think you might be right. The wording in this SSPX link (https://sspx.org/en/rules-fast-and-abstinence) that you posted earlier is pretty clear. 1983 comes first titled as the rules for the present while 1917 is listed second as a guideline for traditional practices. Rules VS Guidelines. I didn't pay attention to how the old SSPX website was worded so I can't compare.
It is interesting that they link a sermon of Archbishop Lefebvre. This is how they introduce the sermon:
"The archbishop exhorts the faithful for their personal sanctification to voluntarily practice the traditional rules (http://sspx.org/en/rules-fast-and-abstinence), even though they are not strictly binding."
Maybe I am missing it because I am reading the sermon with a slant, but I don't see where he says the current prescriptions are binding. He talks about them and how lacking they are and how they come from the ecuмenical and Protestant spirit and how we have need of more penance not less, but it's clearly a pastoral sermon meant to inspire the faithful. I'd like to know what he had to say when he was speaking directly to the legitimacy of the code, when he was forming priests for example. And did his ideas change over the years on this subject too?
-
+ABL from 1982-83 (PDF attached)
"We must conserve the true canon law. In the instruction in the new canon law they talk about 'Eucharistic Hospitality. What is this 'Eucharistic Hospitality'?? It means that when" a Protestant comes to receive Holy Communion and he says I have the True Catholic Faith in the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist, and if he says that, then you must give him Communion.
That is incredible! It is impossible, impossible. He has no other Catholic Faith, only in the Real Presence, and so we must give him Communion. He may have no Faith in the Sacrifice of the Mass, he has no Faith in the papacy, he has no Faith in...
Sanctifying Grace ...and we must still give him Communion? Impossible! It is in the new canon -law.
We cannot use this canon law. It is the same in all the other books that come from this reform of the Council of Vatican II.' If you have some other questions you can ask Fr. Williamson or me... I am ready to give you an answer..."
-
+ABL from 1982-83 (PDF attached)
"We must conserve the true canon law. In the instruction in the new canon law they talk about 'Eucharistic Hospitality. What is this 'Eucharistic Hospitality'?? It means that when" a Protestant comes to receive Holy Communion and he says I have the True Catholic Faith in the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist, and if he says that, then you must give him Communion.
That is incredible! It is impossible, impossible. He has no other Catholic Faith, only in the Real Presence, and so we must give him Communion. He may have no Faith in the Sacrifice of the Mass, he has no Faith in the papacy, he has no Faith in...
Sanctifying Grace ...and we must still give him Communion? Impossible! It is in the new canon -law.
We cannot use this canon law. It is the same in all the other books that come from this reform of the Council of Vatican II.' If you have some other questions you can ask Fr. Williamson or me... I am ready to give you an answer..."
And this excerpt from an Econe spiritual confrence in 1983, in which +ABL explains the need to reject this Code:
"These are the five characteristics of this new ecclesiology that is in Vatican II. And it is marked in the Pope's speech, in the Constitution which presents the new code of canon law, It is he himself who says these things. People of God, Communion, Service, Collegiality, Ecuмenism. These are the characteristics of the new ecclesiology of Vatican II. It is clear. It is clear that it is the continuation of the work that was done by Vatican II in the liturgy, in catechisms and in the Bible, the ecuмenical bible, the famous TOB, the ecuмenical translation of the Bible.
So, what do we have to think about that? Well, that's because this canon law is unacceptable. There is no new Ecclesiology in the Church. We are not going to give a new definition to the Church, if... Then we were wrong for 2000 years. The Church did not know what it was for 2000 years. Suddenly, it became ecuмenism, collegiality, communion. Communion of what, of who, with whom, with what?
Then we will have to keep the old canon law by taking the fundamental principles and compare with the new canon law to judge the new canon law, just as we keep Tradition to judge also the new liturgical books."
And on this subject, I wanted to say on the occasion of our assessment of the law. As long as a reform like that of Pope John XXIII does not affect our faith, does not diminish our faith, sincerely I do not believe, well, if it does not affect the faith, we must still recognize the authority of the Supreme Pontiff who dictates this book, this new breviary and submit ourselves to it, even if we have a greater affection for the breviary or the missal of Saint Pius X. There is still obedience to be had as long as it does not touch, as long as it does not diminish our faith.
Why precisely, I now return to the conferences, why, in my opinion, it is impossible for us to accept the canon law as it has been published, because it is precisely in the line of Vatican II and in the line of the reforms of Vatican II. The Pope himself says so. In this new ecclesiology, which does not correspond to traditional ecclesiology and therefore indirectly affects our faith and risks dragging us into at least a certain number of essential points of law, in heresies, favours heresy, as does liturgical reform which also favours heresy."
[ABL then goes on to paint an analogy between the new CIC and the new Mass, showing that just as we must reject the latter a a threat to the faith, so too we reject this CIC which implements a new ecclesiology.]
-
And this excerpt from an Econe spiritual confrence in 1983, in which +ABL explains the need to reject this Code:
"These are the five characteristics of this new ecclesiology that is in Vatican II. And it is marked in the Pope's speech, in the Constitution which presents the new code of canon law, It is he himself who says these things. People of God, Communion, Service, Collegiality, Ecuмenism. These are the characteristics of the new ecclesiology of Vatican II. It is clear. It is clear that it is the continuation of the work that was done by Vatican II in the liturgy, in catechisms and in the Bible, the ecuмenical bible, the famous TOB, the ecuмenical translation of the Bible.
So, what do we have to think about that? Well, that's because this canon law is unacceptable. There is no new Ecclesiology in the Church. We are not going to give a new definition to the Church, if... Then we were wrong for 2000 years. The Church did not know what it was for 2000 years. Suddenly, it became ecuмenism, collegiality, communion. Communion of what, of who, with whom, with what?
Then we will have to keep the old canon law by taking the fundamental principles and compare with the new canon law to judge the new canon law, just as we keep Tradition to judge also the new liturgical books."
And on this subject, I wanted to say on the occasion of our assessment of the law. As long as a reform like that of Pope John XXIII does not affect our faith, does not diminish our faith, sincerely I do not believe, well, if it does not affect the faith, we must still recognize the authority of the Supreme Pontiff who dictates this book, this new breviary and submit ourselves to it, even if we have a greater affection for the breviary or the missal of Saint Pius X. There is still obedience to be had as long as it does not touch, as long as it does not diminish our faith.
Why precisely, I now return to the conferences, why, in my opinion, it is impossible for us to accept the canon law as it has been published, because it is precisely in the line of Vatican II and in the line of the reforms of Vatican II. The Pope himself says so. In this new ecclesiology, which does not correspond to traditional ecclesiology and therefore indirectly affects our faith and risks dragging us into at least a certain number of essential points of law, in heresies, favours heresy, as does liturgical reform which also favours heresy."
[ABL then goes on to paint an analogy between the new CIC and the new Mass, showing that just as we must reject the latter a a threat to the faith, so too we reject this CIC which implements a new ecclesiology.]
A Resistance priest following this thread writes to me (excerpt):
"About the two quotes of Archbishop Lefebvre you posted on Cathinfo:
"Then we will have to keep the old canon law by taking the fundamental principles and compare with the new canon law to judge the new canon law"
This means that the old code will remain the first positive law norm for traditionalists, and that the application of the canons of the new code is something that must be judged according to the principles of the old code. This is exactly what the 1992 Cor Unum resolution says.
"in my opinion, it is impossible for us to accept the canon law as it has been published"
Meaning, as a body of laws that must be obeyed by all in its entirety, and in each of its parts.
Yet, it can be "accepted" in another way:
Specifically, in those parts that are not contrary to the good of the Church, and which must be judged according to the norm of the old code. This is what the 1992 resolution attempts to set forth."
Comment:
My only question, then, would be: In what was, exactly, was Fr. Schmidberger's 1992 Cor Unum resolution a divergence from the policy of Archbishop Lefebvre (i.e., as Fr. Chazal says was told him by Bishop Faure in the video conference linked above)?
Very confusing.
-
A Resistance priest following this thread writes to me (excerpt):
"About the two quotes of Archbishop Lefebvre you posted on Cathinfo:
"Then we will have to keep the old canon law by taking the fundamental principles and compare with the new canon law to judge the new canon law"
This means that the old code will remain the first positive law norm for traditionalists, and that the application of the canons of the new code is something that must be judged according to the principles of the old code. This is exactly what the 1992 Cor Unum resolution says.
"in my opinion, it is impossible for us to accept the canon law as it has been published"
Meaning, as a body of laws that must be obeyed by all in its entirety, and in each of its parts.
Yet, it can be "accepted" in another way:
Specifically, in those parts that are not contrary to the good of the Church, and which must be judged according to the norm of the old code. This is what the 1992 resolution attempts to set forth."
Comment:
My only question, then, would be: In what was, exactly, was Fr. Schmidberger's 1992 Cor Unum resolution a divergence from the policy of Archbishop Lefebvre (i.e., as Fr. Chazal says was told him by Bishop Faure in the video conference linked above)?
Very confusing.
And the Resistance priest adds this:
"(...) "il nous est impossible d’accepter en bloc le droit canon tel qu’il a été édité, parce qu’il est précisément dans la ligne de Vatican II et dans la ligne des réformes de Vatican II."
He says that the 1983 CIC " is impossible to accept in block", that is, in its entirety. Then, it is possible to accept it partially, and it was precisely to give norms about how to do that, that the resolution of Cor Unum 41 was taken. Therefore, the 1992 resolution did not change in the position of the FSSPX before the 1983 CIC.
The position of the Archbishop and the authorities in 1992 was this: to reject the new code in general, but not in each and every one of its canons. Very well. That is wise and prudent."
Comment:
I still do not understand how to reconcile this statement with the comments of Fr. Chazal, who says this 1992 policy represented a change to the previous policy.
Does anyone have any ideas?
-
I wondered about exactly those two lines but was waiting to see if you had any more quotes to put up that would be more definitive.
-
Hello "Hodie."
I received a notice in my email that you sent me a PM, but when I went to check my PM's, there was nothing there.
I sent you a PM back, requesting you contact me at my email address.