Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

SSPX Can't Have it Both Ways (OR deliberate misrepresentations regarding their canonical status)
Christifidelis ^ | August 22, 1996 | Joseph Wilson

Posted on 12/30/2004 11:32:39 AM PST by Mershon

TO THE SOCIETY OF ST. PIUS X: "YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS!" Bishop Bruskewitz --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Foundation has received more compliments on the lead article in the last issue than any article which has appeared in CHRISTIFIDELIS since the newsletter began publication in 1984. The Diocese of Lincoln has received thousands of letters expressing support and gratitude for Bishop Bruskewitz's action and only an insignificant number criticizing him, so I am not surprised that our readers would react as they did. Even so, there is one category of criticism received by the Diocese of Lincoln and the Foundation which deserves a response. I am referring to the members and sympathizers of the Society of St. Pius X (hereafter the Society or SSPX) who objected to the Society's being named at all and its being lumped together with such groups as Call To Action, Catholics for a Free Choice, Planned Parenthood and the Freemasons. For an organization to be included in Bishop Bruskewitz's legislation three conditions must be present: (1) It must have members in the Diocese of Lincoln; (2) membership therein is deemed by the bishop to be perilous to or incompatible with the Catholic faith; (3) it asserts falsely that membership does not contradict membership in the Catholic Church.

Let me state my position right off the bat. There is no doubt in my mind that conditions (1) and (3) apply to the Society and there is persuasive evidence that condition (2) also applies. I support Bishop Bruskewitz's action and offer the following article in support of my conclusions.

Archbishop Lefebvre

Over 90% of the people who will read this article are Americans. Yet I hope that our good readers in Canada and other countries outside the United States will appreciate the use of some analogies drawn from American history which seem singularly on target. In the first place, some incidents associated with the birth of our country might give rise to a certain special sympathy for the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. We revere Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington and many, many others who stood up to their lawful king, his ministers, his legislature and his army and navy rather than compromise their principles. The signers of our Declaration of Independence mutually pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor in a cause history would now regard as a foolhardy rebellion against a duly constituted regime which by eighteenth century standards was most benign, had it been General Washington instead of Lord Cornwallis who was forced to surrender at Yorktown in 1781. It is then understandable that we would instinctively feel some degree of admiration toward a man who in our own time stood up for what he sincerely believed was right in the face of powerful opposition.

Faithful Catholics of all nationalities who embrace the teaching of the Church and love the beauty of her traditional liturgy are as well inclined to have feelings of sympathy and gratitude toward Archbishop Lefebvre. We sympathize because we agree with much of what he said and we are grateful because the celebration of the traditional Mass would not be possible and the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter would not exist save for him. Furthermore, in our constant and frustrating struggle against the kind of atrocities we see in "Straws in the Wind," we know that Archbishop Lefebvre was equally horrified. As the old Arab maxim goes, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."

Still, the sympathy, admiration and gratitude we may have toward Archbishop Lefebvre must not blind us to our duty toward the Church. It may be all right to consider the archbishop something of a latter day Patrick Henry, but only if we keep in mind that it was not George III who our Lord Jesus Christ was addressing when He said: "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church" and "He who hears you hears me." Similarly, some have cast Archbishop Lefebvre as a modern St. Athanasius, suffering for his opposition to modernism much as the fourth century Doctor of the Church endured persecution and exile for fighting Arianism. This comparison falls short because the historical conditions are not analogous. Most of St. Athanasius' persecutors were themselves heretics, usurpers or intrusive emperors. One exception was, of course, Pope Liberius, who under duress condemned Athanasius in 357. By contrast Archbishop Lefebvre has defied legitimate holders of ecclesiastical office, including Popes Paul VI and John Paul II. It is beyond question that John Paul II is the legitimate successor of Peter and was not acting under duress when Archbishop Lefebvre manifestly violated the Holy Father's express, personal command by ordaining four bishops without the required mandate of the Holy See in 1988. Whether the act constituted schism in the strict sense of the word does not change this, nor do the differing opinions proffered by learned canonists.

The SSPX Today

Returning again to the American analogy, what that loose confederation called the United States of America would become was by no means certain when the Treaty of Paris was signed on September 3, 1783. There is not much doubt that Washington would have been crowned king had he wanted the job or that he and his generals could have easily established a military dictatorship. Conversely, the nation might just as easily have come apart, as it almost did 77 years later, and what is now the territory of the 48 contiguous states would contain a collection of smaller nations. What the United States was in 1783, what it was at various times between then and now or what it might have become is completely beside the point when one considers domestic or foreign policy matters in 1996. Likewise, what Bishop Bruskewitz had to consider was not what the Society was when Archbishop Lefebvre founded it in 1970 nor what it was when he illicitly ordained the four bishops in 1988 nor what it was at the time of his death on March 25, 1991, but what it is in the Diocese of Lincoln, Nebraska in 1996. It is from this perspective that we consider whether or not the SSPX meets the three criteria set forth in Bishop Bruskewitz's legislative act of March 22, 1996.

Membership And Activities

St. Michael the Archangel Chapel in Lincoln is not a building but an association formed for the purpose of providing for the celebration of the Traditional Mass. Ironically, the building it has used is a cemetery chapel which is also the site of Masonic and Buddhist ceremonies. The fact that the SSPX has recently conducted public worship there was acknowledged by the Society's District Superior, Father Peter R. Scott, in his letter to Bishop Bruskewitz, dated March 27 and since published by the Society.

The subject of membership is less simple. The SSPX does not have lay members in the strict sense of the word and none of its priest-members reside in the Diocese of Lincoln. If being formally enrolled as a member of the Society is what is necessary to incur the penalties legislated by Bishop Bruskewitz, then it is clear that no one in the Diocese of Lincoln has incurred interdiction or excommunication for being a member thereof. However, the obvious intent of the legislation was to deter Catholics from becoming so closely associated with any of the twelve organizations named that they would risk accepting those beliefs and practices which are in conflict with the Catholic faith. This means that what is really at issue is not formal enrollment but adherence. For example, if one were to regularly attend meetings and other public activities of Call to Action, participate in its illicit liturgies, subscribe to its publications, applaud its leaders and support it financially, then one could be considered an adherent and subject to the penalties established by law. The same could be said of the SSPX, so we must then proceed to determine if adherence to the Society is perilous to the faith and if it has claimed that such adherence by Catholics does not contradict their membership in the Church.

Perilous To Or Incompatible With The Catholic Faith?

Some 35 years ago, I worked in the purchasing department of a large corporation. One day we attended a training session where a company lawyer was to instruct us on the discriminatory pricing sections of the Robinson-Patman Act. To do this in an hour was quite a challenge, so he began by saying, with tongue in cheek, "This is a subject on which thousand-page books have been written and most of them are regarded as terse and superficial." Now that I am going to try to deal with a subject far more complex than the Robinson-Patman Act in a few paragraphs, I know just how he felt.

That which God has made known to us in order to be saved is referred to by the Church as Divine Revelation or the Word of God. This Revelation is to be found only in sacred Scripture and that teaching of the apostles which was not recorded in writing at the time. The latter is called sacred Tradition. "Sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture make up a single sacred deposit of the Word of God, which is entrusted to the Church...But the task of giving authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it." (Vatican II, , No. 10.) The Magisterium can be exercised in several ways. A solemn definition by the pope alone as well as a definition of a lawfully convened ecumenical council confirmed by the pope are protected by the Holy Spirit and, therefore, infallible. Also infallible is a teaching of the entire college of bishops, even while scattered throughout the world, in union among themselves and with the successor of Peter, when they agree that the teaching must be definitively held.

Anything which contradicts or seriously distorts this Word of God as faithfully interpreted and handed down by the Magisterium can surely be regarded as perilous to or incompatible with the Catholic faith.

The primary charge is that the SSPX contradicts or seriously distorts the Word of God as interpreted by the Magisterium appears to rest on its alleged non-acceptance of at least three of the sixteen pronouncements of the Second Vatican Council: The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, , the Decree on Ecumenism, , and the Declaration on Religious Liberty, . The secondary charge is that, by its defiance of the rightful authority of the pope and the bishops in communion with him, the Society has challenged the doctrine of papal primacy and the rightful authority of the bishops as lawful shepherds of their particular churches.

Bishop Bruskewitz has the authority to judge whether or not these charges are true insofar as they apply to what the Society and its adherents do within the Diocese of Lincoln. I have no such authority at all, either in the Diocese of Lincoln or anywhere else, so all I can do is express a private opinion.

Archbishop Lefebvre engaged in a lengthy dialog with the Holy See over the proper interpretation of Vatican II. Finally, in May, 1988, he signed an agreement with the Holy See in which he accepted Vatican II if interpreted in accord with sacred Tradition. In my view, that is the only way Vatican II or any other ecumenical council could possibly be interpreted. Unfortunately, Archbishop Lefebvre subsequently repudiated his

agreement and an examination of recent public statements of the SSPX, including the current exchange of correspondence between Fr. Scott and Bishop Bruskewitz, leads me to conclude that the Society has gone beyond castigating the distortions and spurious interpretations of the Council and has, for all practical purposes, rejected the Council itself.

As far as I am concerned, there is no argument that the SSPX has considered itself absolved from any obligation of submission to the pope or any diocesan bishop. It conducts public worship and administers the sacraments wherever it chooses without so much as a nod in the direction of the competent authority. It reserves the right to alienate itself from the teaching authority of the pope

and, in effect, has instituted its own canons of orthodoxy.

If I were serving on a jury trying to decide the Society's guilt or innocence, the evidence I have seen thus far would cause me to be inclined to vote guilty on the primary charge but I would want to see some more before casting a final vote. As to the secondary charge, I say guilty.

False Assertions Of Union With Rome

In a letter dated May 13 to Fr. Scott, also published by the SSPX, Bishop Bruskewitz states that the Society's chapel in Lincoln has claimed in advertisements in the local newspaper and telephone directory that it is "in full union with Rome." I would say that such a claim is deceptive, unless you go along with the Society's definition of what "Rome" is or, more important, what "Rome says." Whenever we hear the term "Rome says," we understand this to mean the official pronouncements of the Holy See. However, judging by a recent promotional leaflet distributed by the SSPX, portions of which appear at the end of this article, it seems that the Society would define "Rome says" as the private statements of current or retired officials of the Roman Curia, observations of canon lawyers living in Rome or elsewhere, dissertations written by individuals studying at pontifical universities or replies of a department of the Holy See to inquiries from members of the faithful.

The leaflet bothers me more than the newspaper or telephone directory advertisements because it went to a lot more people, most of whom live in dioceses where the bishop is not as vigilant as Bishop Bruskewitz. The leaflet's unmistakable message is that the SSPX and its priests are under no canonical sanction whatever and that the Catholic faithful are as free to attend Society Masses as they are to attend Masses celebrated in diocesan parishes. This is, at the very least, sheer balderdash and is obviously intended to entice the unsuspecting and the uninformed.

Some Difficulties With The Leaflet

The general difficulty I have with the leaflet is that it employs a non-sequitur which has nothing to do with the present case, i.e., whether or not the ordination of bishops by Archbishop Lefebvre without the mandate of the Holy See was intrinsically schismatic, and then leaps to the conclusion that the SSPX is perfectly O.K. Beyond that, I have very serious questions about the use of the statements of three individuals, none of whom has endorsed or is affiliated in any way with the SSPX.

Count Capponi did indeed make the statement the leaflet attributes to him. But he has also said publicly that, while he was a sympathizer of Archbishop Lefebvre, he was not a follower. Moreover, as the SSPX is well aware, in 1994 the "independent" traditionalist chapel of Our Lady of Fatima in Pequannock, NJ, received an offer from the Bishop of Paterson whereby the chapel would be regularized and served by the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter. A faction of SSPX adherents within the chapel membership wanted to reject the offer and demanded that Masses there be celebrated by Society priests, claiming that they were acting out of necessity according to c. 1323, 4 . In response and at my request, Count Capponi prepared an opinion wherein he said: 'If Bishop Rodimer's offer of reconciliation and the services of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter are refused, chose who continue to attend the Masses celebrated by priests of the Society of St. Pius X cannot any longer claim to be acting in a state of necessity as foreseen by canon 1323, 4 ."

Father Gerald Murray has written a very strong letter to the SSPX pointing out the outright errors made and quotations taken out of context in the extracts from an interview which appeared in . The citation in the leaflet would imply that Fr. Murray sees nothing at all wrong with attending SSPX Masses, when in fact he clearly said otherwise in the same article. Incidentally, Fr. Murray has since reassessed the arguments made in his licentiate thesis (not his doctoral thesis, as erroneously stated by the SSPX) and now considers his earlier interpretation of the state of necessity as too broad.

Cardinal Ratzinger's decision reversing the excommunication of six members of the faithful in Honolulu is used in an attempt to legitimatize the SSPX. As most of you know, the St. Joseph Foundation assisted in defending the "Hawaii Six" and I can say that the status of the Society was not at issue in that case. What was at issue was the conduct of the defendants which, while admittedly blameworthy in some respects, did not constitute schism. The records of the case show that the former Bishop of Honolulu, Most Rev. Joseph Ferrario, tried to use penal law to silence chose six Catholics who were calling the attention of the public to what they perceived as the bishop's follies and misdeeds. Cardinal Ratzinger has never explicitly or implicitly approved of the actions of the SSPX.

The SSPX And The Internal Crisis In The Church

I know that the Church is undergoing a terrible internal crisis. So does the SSPX, but I think our common understanding ends there. The St. Joseph Foundation now receives requests for assistance at the rate of over 2,000 per year and we know as well as anyone else just what faithful Catholics have to endure. Still, even if we cannot help them, I am confident that the vast majority will manage to bear their sufferings without refusing "submission to the Roman Pontiff or communion with the members of the Church subject to him" (c. 751).

If I may impose on our readers outside the United States just one more time, I will close with a final American example which I personally remember. During World War II, the former heavyweight boxing champion, Joe Louis, was drafted into the army. When the "Brown Bomber" arrived at the induction station, a reporter asked him if he did not think it unfair that he was forced to serve in the army of a country in which his people had suffered and were suffering so many injustices. Louis thought for a moment and said: "There's nothing wrong with this country that Hitler can fix."

I am by no means equating Archbishop Lefebvre with Adolph Hitler or the SSPX with the National Socialist Party, but the analogy remains an apt one. Terrible things are happening in the Church, but I don't see anything that the Society of St. Pius X can fix.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Taken from the August 22, 1996 issue of "Christifidelis". To subscribe to "Christifidelis", please contact: The Saint Joseph Foundation, 11107 Wurzbach, #404, San Antonio, TX 78230-2553, (210) 697-0717, Fax (210) 699-9439.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Provided Courtesy of: Eternal Word Television Network 5817 Old Leeds Road Irondale, AL 35210 www.ewtn.com


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: catholic; excommunicated; latinmass; lefebvre; schism; schismatic; sspx; tradition
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-107 next last
To: gbcdoj

There you go again, cutting and pasting. I could do the same, but won't. For instance, there's a whole piece on excommunications in the Catholic Encyclopedia--particularly on the moral nullity of an unjust excommunication. Bishops are not infallible--or is that news to you? They sometimes unjustly excommunicate--Bruskewitz, in particular, is excommunication-happy.


61 posted on 12/30/2004 5:32:36 PM PST by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: kidd

Yes, and there will be false prophets. You will have to judge by their fruits. What have been the fruits of this pontificate--and that of Paul VI? If there are any, it's news to me. Scandals and apostasies abound.


62 posted on 12/30/2004 5:34:46 PM PST by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio
there's a whole piece on excommunications in the Catholic Encyclopedia--particularly on the moral nullity of an unjust excommunication
Excommunication is said to be unjust when, though valid, it is wrongfully applied to a person really innocent but believed to be guilty. Here, of course, it is not a question of excommunication latæ sententiæ and in foro interno, but only of one imposed or declared by judicial sentence ... a person unjustly excommunicated is in the same state as the justly excommunicated sinner who has repented and recovered the grace of God; he has not forfeited internal communion with the Church, and God can bestow upon him all necessary spiritual help. However, while seeking to prove his innocence, the censured person is meanwhile bound to obey legitimate authority and to behave as one under the ban of excommunication, until he is rehabilitated or absolved.

Thomas says the same:

If, however, he were to contemn the sentence, he would "ipso facto" sin mortally. (Sup q. 21 a. 4)

63 posted on 12/30/2004 5:36:12 PM PST by gbcdoj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Land of the Irish

The discussion is whether JP II promotes that doctrine (of Jewish salvation by means of a separate covenant). It's clear he doesn't - whether Kasper does is irrelevant and Kasper is clearly twisting the meaning of Dominus Iesus.


64 posted on 12/30/2004 5:38:27 PM PST by gbcdoj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: gbcdoj
It's clear he doesn't.

Yeah, clear as mud.

65 posted on 12/30/2004 5:43:03 PM PST by Land of the Irish (Tradidi quod et accepi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: gbcdoj

Excommunicating Catholics who attend SSPX Masses is manifestly unjust--especially in his proscription against supporting the SSPX intellectually. This is a clear abuse of power. It cannot be justified by any reasonable argument whatsoever.


66 posted on 12/30/2004 5:52:25 PM PST by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: gbcdoj
The discussion is whether JP II promotes that doctrine (of Jewish salvation by means of a separate covenant). It's clear he doesn't - whether Kasper does is irrelevant and Kasper is clearly twisting the meaning of Dominus Iesus.

At risk of jumping into a discussion at this point, there are more than one ways for a Pope to - as you say - "promote that doctrine". One way is to elevate individuals who say such things to prominent positions and assign them to responsibilities to which one has made a focus and key theme of one's pontificate.

I believe that the Pope is trying to "Have it Both Ways" by on one hand, reinforcing Catholic doctrine in official statements, and on the other, hoping to benefit from the activity of personnel who have made a career twisting such statements. The difficulty lies in that the type of ecumenism promoted by Catholics even as prominent as Cardinal Kasper is not compatible with basic Catholic doctrine without some extreme theological gymnastics. The conflict between the two has been downplayed, but something is going to have to give.

The reactions to Dominus Iesus demonstrate that not everyone participating in the ecumenical efforts are on the same page. As does the CDF's oddly combined rejection/celebration of doctrinally unsound ARCIC documents.

67 posted on 12/30/2004 6:03:31 PM PST by CatherineSiena
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio
Excommunicating Catholics who attend SSPX Masses is manifestly unjust--especially in his proscription against supporting the SSPX intellectually.

You don't even know what the excommunication is for. It's for membership, not for attending their Masses.

All Catholics in and of the Diocese of Lincoln are forbidden to be members of the organizations and groups listed below. Membership in these organizations or groups is always perilous to the Catholic Faith and most often is totally incompatible with the Catholic Faith...
Society of Saint Pius X (Lefebvre Group)...
Saint Michael the Archangel Chapel...
Any Catholics in and of the Diocese of Lincoln who attain or retain membership in any of the above listed organizations or groups after April 15, 1996, are by that very fact (ipso fato latae sententiae) under interdict and are absolutely forbidden to receive Holy Communion. Contumacious persistence in such membership for one month following the interdict on part of any such Catholics will by that very fact (ipso facto latae sententiae) cause them to be excommunicated.

I think excommunication for membership in a schismatic organization which opposes the Catholic Church is quite reasonable.

68 posted on 12/30/2004 6:10:03 PM PST by gbcdoj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: gbcdoj

Thanks for the link. You seem to have the correct information.


69 posted on 12/30/2004 6:32:08 PM PST by Maximilian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: gbcdoj

If it's for membership, there's no problem. The SSPX is limited to priests and religious--and they don't reside in the Lincoln diocese. I doubt if excommunications carry much weight with them--in view of the current crisis.


70 posted on 12/30/2004 6:45:51 PM PST by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio

Doesn't the SSPX have a Third Order as well?


71 posted on 12/30/2004 6:52:09 PM PST by gbcdoj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: gbcdoj

Yes, but they are fairly few in number.


72 posted on 12/30/2004 6:56:07 PM PST by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: gbcdoj; Canticle_of_Deborah
Though a questionable movie, this problem whose origin is in Latin grammar reminds me of a scene from the Monty Python movie Life of Brian. ;-)
73 posted on 12/30/2004 7:19:58 PM PST by Pyro7480 (Sub tuum praesidium confugimus, sancta Dei Genitrix.... sed a periculis cunctis libera nos semper...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: gbcdoj
I think excommunication for membership in a schismatic organization which opposes the Catholic Church is quite reasonable.

The USCCB comes to mind. Look who they just elected president: "Bishop" Skylstad who supports giving Holy Communion to pro-abortionists, a man who, on behalf of his diocese, filed Chapter 11 saying: "I am convinced that Chapter 11 provides justice for everyone involved". They elected a man who in response to the discovery of priests in his diocese who are sexual predators, says: "We are sexual people no matter who we are. We need to look at candidates for the priesthood who have well-integrated their sexual identities into their lives".

If this is what constitutes union with Rome, then count me out.

74 posted on 12/30/2004 7:21:26 PM PST by Grey Ghost II
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio; Mershon
You will have to judge by their fruits. What have been the fruits of this pontificate--and that of Paul VI?

In relation to this particular article, the more relevant question is, "What is the fruit of this action by Bishop Bruskewitz?" Re-posting this article after 8 years reveals most dramatically the ineffectuality of all "conservative" New Mass efforts.

Look at the original article by Charles Wilson, "Finally, Someone has done Something." Bruskewitz's actions were the perfect answer to the prayers of the Wanderer types and the CUF types. They thought that it would only take the actions of a few bishops like Bruskewitz to get the ball rolling. This was supposed to be the start of a new era. Now "JPII's men" were really going to crack down. We were going to see some heads rolling and some changes made.

The only problem is that none of it happened. Eight years have gone by and what have we seen? No heads rolled. No changes were made. JPII installed new and worse heretics at the top of the Vatican hierarchy. New scandals arose. Liturgical anarchy continued to reign. The decline continued unabated, perhaps even accelerated. Just last month at the bishops' meeting we saw that the liberal stranglehold on the US Catholic Church was not lessened by one whit.

The anathema of a New Order bishop like Bruskewitz is just like what Fr. Gabriel Amorth says of the new Rite of Exorcism -- it doesn't work. It's not able to cast out any demons. They're like wizards whose wands are broken. They no longer have any spiritual power -- either for good or for ill.

In the Episcopal Church the lay people continue to go their merry way to the brink of hell completely regardless of whatever their effete, effeminate "leaders" say or don't say, do or don't do. The latest episode of ordaining a gay bishop is nothing more than a rare bout of honesty. The reality is that they've been ordaining gay bishops for decades. And no one, whether they're an Episcopalian or not, is the least bit fooled regarding whether arch-pagan Rowan Williams and his followers have any real spiritual power.

Unfortunately the New Order bishops have now reached the same status. No one cares what they say. No one cares what they do. Catholics continue along their merry way to the brink of hell completely disregarding the words and actions of their bishops whether for good or evil. No one has the least illusions about whether they possess any true spiritual power.

75 posted on 12/30/2004 7:28:34 PM PST by Maximilian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: gbcdoj
You don't even know what the excommunication is for. It's for membership, not for attending their Masses... Saint Michael the Archangel Chapel...

I understand that "St. Michael the Archangel Chapel" was the local SSPX chapel. If that is the case, then contrary to your assertion, Bruskewitz was excommunicating people simply for attending the SSPX chapel. Only a small number of priests officially belong to the Society. Even a large percentage of the priests who offer the Mass at SSPX chapels are "cooperating" with the SSPX but don't officially belong. Lay people don't belong unless they join the Third Order. So membership in the SSPX would have affected at most 1 person in the diocese of Lincoln, and most likely zero people, even if Bruskewitz's excommunication was valid and effective.

But by excommunicating everyone with "membership" in the local chapel, whatever that means, he is at least trying to create the impression that all those who attend the Mass are excommunicated. Yet this was after the Honolulu case, and later the Vatican was to say that it was permissible to attend Mass at an SSPX chapel and to contribute to the support of the parish. What else could "membership" in the St. Michael the Archangel chapel refer to, other than those things that the Vatican expressly permitted?

76 posted on 12/30/2004 7:36:34 PM PST by Maximilian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Maximilian

The great irony in all this is that the only Catholics who really care about authority are traditionalists. This is our weakness. The faith is most vulnerable at the top--which is precisely the means the subversives use to bring the rest of us along towards accepting the new religion. We're forced to hold the line against authority itself, which goes against the grain for most of us.


77 posted on 12/30/2004 8:00:07 PM PST by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Maximilian
What else could "membership" in the St. Michael the Archangel chapel refer to, other than those things that the Vatican expressly permitted?

Well, if you read the article posted here (as the thread starter) he argues that membership in this case means "formal adherence", in which case the excommunication is incurred only by those who also suffer the penalty of excommunication for schism according to "Ecclesia Dei".

I don't think someone who just attends Mass at the chapel could be considered to hold "membership" in it.

78 posted on 12/30/2004 8:05:34 PM PST by gbcdoj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio; Maximilian
We're forced to hold the line against authority itself, which goes against the grain for most of us.

This is very true. I have found there is a gut reaction (maybe denial) against criticizing even a corrupt priest. The priesthood is something sacred and to be supported, yet the mind has to balance out the gut when the same priests are dismantling the priesthood and Catholicism. The conflict has to be overcome.

At least that is the reaction for me.

79 posted on 12/30/2004 8:20:17 PM PST by Canticle_of_Deborah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Canticle_of_Deborah
The priesthood is something sacred and to be supported, yet the mind has to balance out the gut when the same priests are dismantling the priesthood and Catholicism. The conflict has to be overcome.

Yes, this is the tragedy of the situation, and I don't believe that there is any way to overcome the conflict. That's the nature of real tragedy -- you are faced only with difficult choices, all of which have undeniable dangers and pitfalls. You are torn not between duty and license, but between 2 real and valid duties.

80 posted on 12/30/2004 8:36:37 PM PST by Maximilian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-107 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson