Posted on 09/20/2005 10:26:43 AM PDT by NYer
regarding consecrating bishops without papal permission:
"Hence such disobedience - which implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy - constitutes a schismatic act"
"Implies rejection of the Roman primacy"
Certainly such an act can mean that. "I am consecrating bishops without permission because the Bishop of Rome in fact has no authority over me." I don't think the Archbishop ever expressed those sentiments, which would accurately describe the "bona fide" schismatics, if you will, the Orthodox.
the word "implies" suggests a crack in the door if anyone cares to have hope.
you wrote: What reasons do you have for believing the SSPX is a "strong orthodox order", and what do you think that they do differently that causes them to be strong and orthodox as compared to other orders that you think are not "strong and orthodox"?
Their formation is very traditional from spiritual and philosophical perspective. That does not guarantee orthodoxy in the priest (as you know )of course but it goes a long way. In this time of such change and upheaval in the Church when there is so much clerical heresy and corruption in those schooled in the modern seminary, a traditional-trained priest is much more likely to speak in his homilies and act in his own life according to the Catechism. For a high percentage of NO priests, their sermons are "much ado about nothing" at best; it's pitiful: these priests actually believe they are saying anything worthwhile.
Certainly there are good NO priests just far too few of them. I heard one give a fantastic sermon on Matthew 20, the workers in the vineyard, one of my favorite parables
I do think that when the occasional SSPX priest goes off on his generic "you shouldn't NO mass at all" tangent, that is damaging to them. That is overstated just like those who easily label all SSPX attendees and clerics "schismatics"---I regard both as overreaching. When I went to an independent chapel years ago, I was not mad at the pope or rejecting him. I was simply going to mass where I could hear a good homily and have my soul lifted up by the mass.
A good NO can certainly do that as well.
Until I started on FR, I never knew there was so much animosity between the different parts of the body of Catholics. It continues to shock me that two groups of people (with many exceptions )who do have some differences but who in general agree with 99% of issues can treat each other so poorly. What a witness for Protestant lurkers. It strikes me as being much more political than spiritual.
Bingo. Plus, it is completely disciplined. Check out:
What makes STAS different from the other seminaries in America?
St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary draws from the greatest riches of the 2,000 year history of the Church in the formation of her priests. The formation that the seminarians receive is traditional in every aspect: doctrine, liturgy, retreats, daily schedule, etc. The core of the seminarians' study is the philosophy and theology of St. Thomas Aquinas, while moderate proficiency in Latin is required before ordination. A typical day in the life of the seminarian contains three hours of prayer, four hours of study, three hours of classes, and a hour and a half of recreation. Seminarians are expected to attain the holiness required of a priest, through the means provided at the Seminary: daily Mass, meditation, Rosary, and hours of the Divine Office, as well as Benediction, Ignatian retreats, monthly recollections, and weekly confession and spiritual direction.
How long is the formation that the seminarian receives?
It lasts six or seven years, depending on the previous education of the entering seminarian. The first year, the year of Humanities, gives the seminarian a natural foundation for the supernatural formation ahead, through courses in Catholic Doctrine, Latin, Literature, English Composition, and Music. The year of Spirituality follows, wherein seminarians learn about the spiritual life in Ascetical and Mystical Theology, and take introductory courses of Scripture, Liturgy, and Acts of the Magisterium. Next come two years of philosophy, which cover the History of Philosophy, Logic, Cosmology, Psychology, Ethics, and Metaphysics. The seminarian completes his formation with three years of theology, following St. Thomas' Summa Theologica in Dogmatic and Moral Theology. Each of the last five years also contains courses in Scripture and Church History.
Check out their daily schedule:
How many other seminaries in the US have formation like this? I invite anyone to check out the other seminary's websites. The one in my diocese is pathetic compared to this.
*The best that could be said for Fellay is that he is nuts
Card Hoyos: "No heretic or schismatic, throughout history, has said he is wrong. They always thought that is was the Church that was wrong."
*Tradition has always opposed schism in a forceful way
"Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize AND OBEY the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors.”
Lefebvre received a similar formation yet that didn't prevent him from totally opposing Tradition by creating a schism and calling the Pope an antiChrist. That being the case, those being formed i a schism afre likely to become just as insane, ill-informed, and protestant as Marcel the malignant
On June 9, 1988, Pope John Paul II replied to Lefebvre's letter of June 2, exhorting him not to proceed with the illicit consecration of bishops, and reiterating the position of the Holy See as follows:
In the letter you sent me you appear to reject all that was agreed on in the previous conversations, since you clearly manifest your intention to "provide the means yourself to continue your work," particularly by proceeding shortly and without apostolic mandate to one or several episcopal ordinations, and this in flagrant contradiction not only with the norms of Canon Law, but also with the Protocol signed on May 5th and the directions relevant to this problem contained in the letter which Cardinal Ratzinger wrote to you on my instructions on May 30th.(82)
From the above letter Archbishop Lefebvre was clearly forewarned by the Holy Father that he lacked the necessary pontifical mandate to proceed with his episcopal consecrations, and in so doing he would violate both the norms of canon law as well as the Protocol agreement. Furthermore, the Holy Father confirmed that his mind in this matter had been clearly stated by Cardinal Ratzinger in his letter of May 30th.
This would not deter Lefebvre from proceeding with his press conference on June 15, 1988, in order to publicly announce the names of the four candidates he intended to consecrate to episcopacy on June 30, 1988. Having been forewarned by both Cardinal Ratzinger and the Holy Father that the mandate necessary to proceed with the episcopal consecrations was lacking, and in light of this press conference announcing the four candidates, on behalf of the Congregation for Bishops Cardinal Gantin issued the following monition on June 17, 1988:
Since on June 15th, 1988 you stated that you intended to ordain four priests to the episcopate without having obtained the mandate of the Supreme Pontiff as required by canon 1013 of the Code of Canon Law, I myself convey to you this public canonical warning, confirming that if you should carry out your intention as stated above, you yourself and also the bishops ordained by you shall incur ipso facto excommunication latae sententiae reserved to the Apostolic See in accordance with canon 1382.
The latter part of the monition simply reiterates what is legislated in c. 1382, in that without a pontifical mandate one who consecrates a bishop, as well as those who receive consecration, are automatically excommunicated by the law itself. Having incurred such an excommunication, it can only be lifted by the Apostolic See. However, the monition from the Congregation for Bishops did not deter Lefebvre, and on June 30, 1988, he followed through with his threat and consecrated four candidates from the SSPX to the episcopacy without papal mandate. A serious act of disobedience and violation of ecclesiastical law, Lefebvre had now consummated the growing SSPX schism from Rome, automatically incurring excommunication.
Subsequently, the automatic excommunication against Lefebvre was declared by Cardinal Gantin in a decree from the Congregation for Bishops dated July 1, 1988, the day after the illicit consecrations. Acting in his official capacity on behalf of the pope, Cardinal Gantin solemnly declares:
Monsignor Marcel Lefebvre, Archbishop-Bishop Emeritus of Tulle, notwithstanding the formal canonical warning of 17 June last and the repeated appeals to desist from his intention, has performed a schismatic act by the episcopal consecration of four priests, without pontifical mandate and contrary to the will of the Supreme Pontiff, and has therefore incurred the penalty envisaged by Canon 1364, paragraph 1, and canon 1382 of the Code of Canon Law... Having taken account of all the juridical effects, I declare that the above-mentioned Archbishop Lefebvre, and Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta have incurred ipso facto excommunication latae sententiae reserved to the Apostolic See.
As is clearly visible from the decree of the Congregation for Bishops, having consecrated bishops without a valid pontifical mandate and against express wishes of the Holy See, Lefebvre automatically incurred excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See. Yet against this decree, Lefebvre's apologists would argue "that the above decree is not the sentence of a judge, but rather a declaration that Canons 1364 and 1382 apply."(85) That the excommunication is latae sententiae rather than ferendae sententiae is completely irrelevant in establishing the validity of Lefebvre's excommunication. As c. 331 states, "by virtue of his office, [the Roman Pontiff] has supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church, and he can always freely exercise this power." With regards to c. 1382, the Roman Pontiff has utilized his supreme legislative power to establish by law a latae sententiae excommunication for those who consecrate a bishop without papal mandate. In accordance with c. 17, such an ecclesiastical law must be understood according to the mind of the legislator, and in accordance with c. 16 §1, such a law is authentically interpreted by the legislator.
In the case of Archbishop Lefebvre, both the legislator's mind and interpretation regarding c. 1382 were clearly and personally communicated to Lefebvre by the Supreme Legislator previous to Lefebvre's violation of c. 1382. Furthermore, by the very fact Lefebvre proceeded publicly in his act of disobedience means his violation of c. 1013 was external, and hence c. 1321 §3 presumes his imputability in consecrating bishops without papal mandate. Therefore, neither his actions nor his imputability need be established in a judicial process.
With regards to the penalties imposed by c. 1364 §1, this norm establishes that "a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication, without prejudice to the provision of can. 194 §1, n. 2; a cleric, moreover, may be punished with the penalties mentioned in can. 1336 §1, nn. 1, 2 and 3." As far as the penalties outlined in c. 1336, these are additional expiatory penalties that may be imposed, and thus are not directly applicable to the present controversy as neither Lefebvre nor the bishops illicitly consecrated have seriously attempted to reconcile their schism. Therefore, c. 1336 will not be addressed in the present study. On the other hand, c. 194 §1, 2o provides that "one who has publicly defected from the Catholic faith or from communion with the Church" is "removed from ecclesiastical office by virtue of the law itself." However, c. 194 §2 legislates that the "removal mentioned in [c. 194 §1] nn. 2 and 3 can be insisted upon only if it is established by declaration of the competent authority."
As the penalties mentioned in c. 1364 §1 apply to Lefebvre, he incurred an additional latae sententiae excommunication for the offense of schism. C. 751 defines schism as "the withdrawal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or from communion with the members of the Church subject to him." Lefebvre's act of consecrating bishops without papal mandate was a refusal of submission to the express will of the Supreme Pontiff. As the penalty for schism was declared by the competent authority in the form of the Holy See, by virtue of the law itself Lefebvre was automatically removed from all ecclesiastical office.(86)
Against the declaration of schism, however, Lefebvre's followers have argued that his consecration of bishops without papal mandate was not an act of withdrawal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or from the communion with the Church, but merely an act of disobedience. In citing one canonical study, Lefebvre's followers maintain that "schism, defined in Canon 751, means refusal of subjection to the Supreme Pontiff or refusal of communion with other members of the Church. A mere act of disobedience to a superior does not imply denial that the superior holds office or has authority."(87)
The above argument fails to take into account four variables relevant to Lefebvre's consecration of bishops against the express will of the Supreme Pontiff. First, c. 751 does not specify that one must deny the superior's possession of authority to incur schism, but rather that one must refuse to submit to this authority. Secondly, the superior to whom Lefebvre refused submission was the Supreme Pontiff who possesses full ordinary power and universal jurisdiction. Thirdly, the consecration of bishops against the express will of the Supreme Pontiff is no mere act of disobedience, but an act which carries by virtue of the law the penalty of latae sententiae excommunication -- penalties which, when Lefebvre made public his intention to consecrate bishops without papal mandate, were reiterated to him personally by no less than the Supreme Pontiff and two Cardinal Prefects of curial congregations. Finally, in light of Lefebvre's express intention in consecrating bishops without papal mandate, that of providing for the continuation of the SSPX until Rome adopts his position, Lefebvre was not carrying out an isolated act of disobedience, but rather he intended to perpetuate a situation of disobedience for a prolonged period of time. Hence, in light of the above variables, Lefebvre's act of consecrating bishops without papal mandate cannot reasonably be dismissed as a simple act of disobedience to a superior.
Therefore, an objective canonical analysis of Lefebvre's situation illustrates that he incurred a latae sententiae excommunication by virtue of the law both for the act of consecrating bishops without papal mandate, and for carrying out this act against the express will of the Supreme Pontiff as an act of schism. Thus the canonical arguments proposed by the Lefebvrite movement against the validity of the excommunications cannot be sustained in light of the Church's canonical jurisprudence.
*The lying sspx and its lying liars defending the sspx lies will try and lie the obvious doesn't mean what it means.
That is the traditional praxis of schismatics
Usually the schismatic, intending to destroy the Church, wil cite quo primum and say that accrd to the language of same Pope Paul VI is condemned. That just illustrates how ignorant your average lying rad-trad schismatic is. That was the language of the time and similar Papal Bulls used simlar language and if the ignorant raddie-traddie-baddie wants to insist on that being the "standard", then Pope St Pius X is also condemned because he reformed/changed the Breviary which was promulgatd with the same language with the same condemnations.
As blessed Mr. T might say, "I pity the fools in the sspx. They suffer the lethal combination of ignorance and arrogance and they are blowing themsleves into spiritual smithereens."
Jury finds church liable for slander, distress
Awards Post Falls man $800K in damages
Coeur d'Alene Press/December 17, 2004
By Dave Turner
Jurors unanimously awarded Anthony J. Ferro $200,000 in compensatory and $600,000 in punitive damages after an eight-day civil trial in 1st District Court.
Ferro, a Coeur d'Alene wine distributor filed suit against the Post Falls Immaculate Conception Chapel of the Society of St. Pius X in August 2003, claiming a former priest interfered with his marriage and slandered him in front of the congregation.
"It's enough to get me out of trouble and set the record straight," said Ferro.
"It's close to what we asked for," said Ferro's lawyer, Jed Manwaring.
He asked jurors in his closing to award $250,000 compensatory and $750,000 punitive.
Manwaring told 1st District Judge Charles Hosack he would submit a judgment form for his signature within a day.
Lawyers for the church had no comment on the verdict.
Ferro claimed the Rev. James H. Doran "abused his office as spiritual director for his parishioners" when he counseled his now-ex-wife without his consent and outside his presence. He also claimed Doran "ordered" him to undergo psychiatric evaluations, then published libelous statements about his mental condition to other church members.
The suit named Doran, the Post Falls priory, as well as the entire religious order as defendants.
The jury went into deliberations late Wednesday morning and returned with the verdict shortly after noon Thursday.
The jury found Doran inflicted intentional emotional distress upon Ferro. For that, they awarded the $200,000.
They also found that the Rev. Peter Scott, as the agent for the society, approved Doran's conduct toward Ferro.
Ferro claimed following Doran's arrival in Post Falls in 1992, the priest "began to engage in a host of inappropriate actions during his term as parish priest."
He said Doran began to take private horse riding lessons from his wife which were "hurtful and shameful" because they "unjustly provided Mrs. Ferro greater standing with the parish priest than her husband."
Ferro also claimed Doran engaged in private counseling sessions outside his presence and against his wishes, despite assurances by Doran the sessions would involve both spouses.
Those sessions, Ferro said, "were inappropriate, held in bad faith and caused great harm" to the marriage.
The couple eventually split in a reportedly messy divorce.
Ferro said Doran ordered him to undergo a psychiatric examination. The results, Ferro said, concluded he suffered from "no mental defects, imbalances, instabilities, disorders or other illnesses."
But on Christmas Eve 1993, Ferro alleged, Doran sent a letter to about a dozen people which contained "false, malicious and defamatory statements."
Ferro claimed in the letter, included in the court filing, Doran suggested the psychiatrist was not to be believed. Ferro said it caused "great division within (his) family."
Ferro also claimed Doran, in a sermon given in March 1996 to more than 450 parishioners, defamed him by questioning his adequacy as a father, alleging disobedience to Doran's orders and that he was impossible to deal with. The sermon also allegedly instructed parishioners to have no social or business dealings with Ferro.
Ferro and his wife, who was at one time married to actor David Soul, split in 1994 and underwent a two-year-long legal battle for custody of their daughter. Doran's letter was used as ammunition during that fray.
The filing also claims Doran said in his sermon he ordered the couple to divorce, resulting in Ferro being "ostracized by a large percentage of the parishioners."
Ferro also claimed Doran formed an "honor guard" to protect him and members of that guard ridiculed him and even went so far as to pantomime assaults upon him.
Doran left Post Falls in 1996.
In 1999, Ferro published "The Assault of Catholic Fatherhood in Post Falls Idaho," a lengthy recitation of his battle with Doran and church hierarchy.
Ferro said the actions of the priests became so severe it prevented him from attending Mass at the church, and he was threatened he would be arrested for trespassing if he came to the church.
There was no word if the church planned to appeal the verdict.
Catholic News/September 14, 2004
The late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre´s Society of St Pius X has been undergoing its own crisis of authority, with its leader Bishop Bernard Fellay being forced to expel two French priests who had criticised his leadership.
Bishop Felay last week announced the expulsion of Fr Philippe Laguérie, who had criticised conditions inside the Society's seminaries.
Bishop Fellay, complaining that his critics were causing a breach of solidarity within the Society, ordered them to leave France, assigned them to new posts in Mexico. Father Laguérie refused, and was expelled.
On The Excommunication of Followers of Archbishop Lefebvre The Excommunication of Followers of Archbishop Lefebvre
Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts
Annexe to Prot.N. 5233/96
NOTE: On the excommunication for schism which the adherents to the movement of Bishop Marcel Lefebvre incur. 1. From the Motu Proprio "Ecclesia dei" of 2nd July 1988 and from the Decree "Dominus Marcellus Lefebvre" of the Congregation for Bishops, of 1st July 1988, it appears above all that the schism of Monsignor Lefebvre was declared in immediate reaction to the episcopal ordinations conferred on 30th June 1988 without pontifical mandate (cf CIC, Can. 1382). All the same it also appears clear from the aforementioned documents that such a most grave act of disobedience formed the consummation of a progressive global situation of a schismatic character.
2. In effect no. 4. of the Motu Proprio explains the nature of the "doctrinal root of this schismatic act," and no. 5. c) warns that a "formal adherence to the schism" (by which one must understand "the movement of Archbishop Lefebvre") would bring with it the excommunication established by the universal law of the Church (CIC, can. 1364 para.1). Also the decree of the Congregation for Bishops makes explicit reference to the "schismatic nature" of the aforesaid episcopal ordinations and mentions the most grave penalty of excommunication which adherence "to the schism of Monsignor Lefebvre" would bring with it.
3. Unfortunately, the schismatic act which gave rise to the Motu Proprio and the Decree did no more than draw to a conclusion, in a particularly visible and unequivocal manner — with a most grave formal act of disobedience to the Roman Pontiff — a process of distancing from hierarchical communion. As long as there are no changes which may lead to the re-establishment of this necessary communion, the whole Lefebvrian movement is to be held schismatic, in view of the existence of a formal declaration by the Supreme Authority on this matter.
4. One cannot furnish any judgement on the argumentation of Murray's thesis (see below) because it is not known, and the two articles which refer to it appear confused. However, doubt cannot reasonably be cast upon the validity of the excommunication of the Bishops declared in the Motu Proprio and the Decree. In particular it does not seem that one may be able to find, as far as the imputability of the penalty is concerned, any exempting or lessening circumstances. (cf CIC, can. 1323) As far as the state of necessity in which Mons. Lefebvre thought to find himself, one must keep before one that such a state must be verified objectively, and there is never a necessity to ordain Bishops contrary to the will of the Roman Pontiff, Head of the College of Bishops. This would, in fact, imply the possibility of "serving" the church by means of an attempt against its unity in an area connected with the very foundations of this unity.
5. As the Motu Proprio declares in no. 5 c) the excommunication latae sententiae for schism regards those who "adhere formally" to the said schismatic movement. Even if the question of the exact import of the notion of "formal adherence to the schism" would be a matter for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, it seems to this pontifical Council that such formal adherence would have to imply two complementary elements:
1. a) one of internal nature, consisting in a free and informed agreement with the substance of the schism, in other words, in the choice made in such a way of the followers of Archbishop Lefebvre which puts such an option above obedience to the Pope (at the root of this attitude there will usually be positions contrary to the magisterium of the Church)
2. b) the other of an external character, consisting in the externalising of this option, the most manifest sign of which will be the exclusive participation in Lefebvrian "ecclesial" acts, without taking part in the acts of the Catholic Church (one is dealing however with a sign that is not univocal, since there is the possibility that a member of the faithful may take part in the liturgical functions of the followers of Lefebvre but without going along with their schismatic spirit).
6. in the case of the Lefebvrian deacons and priests there seems no doubt that their ministerial activity in the ambit of the schismatic movement is a more than evident sign of the fact that the two requirements mentioned above (n.5) are met, and thus that there is a formal adherence.
7. in the other hand, in the case of the rest of the faithful it is obvious that an occasional participation in liturgical acts or the activity of the Lefebvrian movement, done without making one's own the attitude of doctrinal and disciplinary disunion of such a movement, does not suffice for one to be able to speak of formal adherence to the movement. In pastoral practice the result can be that it is more difficult to judge their situation. One must take account above all of the person's intentions, and the putting into practice of this internal disposition. For this reason the various situations are going to be judged case by case, in the competent forums both internal and external.
8. All the same, it will always be necessary to distinguish between the moral question on the existence or not of the sin of schism and the juridical-penal question on the existence of the delict of schism, and its consequent sanction. In this latter case the dispositions of Book V1 of the Code of Canon Law (including Cann.1323-1324) will be applied.
9. It does not seem advisable to make more precise the requirements for the delict of schism (but one would need to ask the competent Dicastery, cf. Ap. Const. "Pastor Bonus", art 52). One might risk creating more problems by means of rigid norms of a penal kind which would not cover every case, leaving uncovered cases of substantial schism, or having regard to external behaviour which is not always subjectively schismatic.
10. Always from the pastoral point of view it would also seem opportune to recommend once again to sacred pastors all the norms of the Motu Proprio "Ecclesia Dei" with which the solicitude of the Vicar of Christ encouraged to dialogue and has provided the supernatural and human means necessary to facilitate the return of the Lefebvrians to full ecclesial communion.
Vatican City, 24th August 1996.
“With the special assistance of the Holy Spirit, the Popes and the Ecumenical Councils have acted in this common way. And it is precisely this that the Second Vatican Council did.
Nothing that was decreed in this Council, or in the reforms that We enacted in order to put the Council into effect, is opposed to what the two-thousand-year-old Tradition of the Church considers as fundamental and immutable. We are the guarantor of this, not in virtue of Our personal qualities but in virtue of the charge which the Lord has conferred upon Us as legitimate Successor of Peter, and in virtue of the special assistance that He has promised to Us as well as to Peter: "I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail" (Lk 22:32). The universal episcopate is guarantor with Us of this.”
*Lefebvre never responded.
Pope Pius IX Quartus Supra to the Armenians, January 6, 1873
: “it is as contrary to the divine constitution of the Church as it is to perpetual and constant tradition for anyone to attempt to prove the catholicity of his faith and truly call himself a Catholic when he fails in OBEDIENCE to the Apostolic See.”
*One can't decide whether Fellay is insane or ignorant or both
Catholic Ragemonkey Blog
Thursday, September 22, 2005
... I don't drink decaf unless it is absolutely necessary for social decorum. Decaf is evil. I am not exaggerating. Coffee by its nature has caffiene. To decaffienate is to remove an essential good, albeit an accidental good, from the coffee. Therefore, decaf is evil because of the lack of good that ought to be present. Now where is my grinder?
"New rite" is not in the Latin original of Pius V's bull; it was a "dynamic equivalence" translation.
Una Voce has Quo Primum on its website. It reads...
This new rite alone is to be used unless approval of the practice of saying Mass differently was given at the very time of the institution and confirmation of the church by Apostolic See at least 200 years ago, or unless there has prevailed a custom of a similar kind which has been continuously followed for a period of not less than 200 years, in which most cases We in no wise rescind their above-mentioned prerogative or custom.
You will be busy correcting a lot of folks :)
Re: post #110 I didn't bother to read it. Just a glance showed me it was more junk whether from Stephen Ho or Pete Vere.
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.