Replies

May I suggest you misread Msrg. Perl?

You certainly may, but I will disagree and suggest you are misreading him.

If your primary reason for attending were to manifest your desire to separate yourself from communion with the Roman Pontiff and those in communion with him, it would be a sin.
Very few of the good people I have met at SSPX services desire to seperate themselves from BOTH His Holiness and all in communion with him. [patent’s note: You add the word “all”, I do not adopt it as it was not in the original quotation.]

You read it as requiring a separation from both individuals, I disagree. Clearly, if you were to desire to separate yourself from the Roman Pontiff, it would not matter if you were to desire separation from those in communion with him. You would still be schismatic. But to read it your way would be to imply that desiring separation from the Roman Pontiff would not be sinful because you do not also desire separation from those in communion with him. This would be a theological absurdity. Desiring separation from the Pope is by itself sufficiently sinful.

I think we can assume that the commission did not intend a theological absurdity. Thus, and I think you would have to admit this, insofar as the “and” does not require a desire to separate from both Pope and those in communion with him, at most a desire to separate from the Pope is sufficient.

What I expect you may dispute, however, is whether that “and”’s meaning is applied consistently, and if separation from those in communion with the Pope is in itself also sinful.

However, the only way to impart consistency to the passages, not to mention agree with basic Catholic theology, is to apply that “and” consistently. Both canon law and the catechism give nearly the same passage, but use the term “or” instead of “and.”

From Canon law:

Can. 751 . . . . Schism is the withdrawal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or from communion with the members of the Church subject to him.

From the Catechism:

2089 Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. "Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him."

Obviously your reading of that passage contradicts the official teachings that use the very same phrases. As we both agree, schism is a sin, the Church law teaches it is committed by refusing communion with the members of the Church subject to the Pope, and therefore your contention that one needs to “desire to separate themselves from BOTH His Holiness and all in communion with him” is false. Either or is sufficient.

This only makes sense, as the Church is the Body of Christ. Its members are members of that heavenly Body. To desire to be separate from other members of that body is unthinkable. Basic theology, it is sinful.

The reading of those like ultima, that one merely claims one does not desire to be schismatic, and by that claim is somehow not schismatic, is absurd. It sucks all meaning from the word.

I smell a softening of Rome's attitude.

Rome is not the problem. It offered to remove the excommunications and grant the Society an Apostolic Administration, something the Society admitted met all its needs. Rome will declare the schism over in a heartbeat if the Society will return. It is the Society that refuse to do so.

Dominus Vobiscum

patent +AMDG

Can. 751 . . . . Schism is the withdrawal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or from communion with the members of the Church subject to him.

But "withdrawal of submission" is not the same as disobedience. One can disobey in a particular instance, but not withdraw submission to the papacy. If a faithful Catholic is ordered by the Pope to kill someone innocent, he should disobey--but he is not withdrawing submission to the Pontiff by so doing. The command would have been improper, since it would require disobedience to the law of God which obviously supercedes papal authority.

So also in the case of Archbishop Lefebvre. No pope may command what would have destroyed Catholic Tradition. The office of the papacy exists, in fact, to do the very opposite! So Archbishop Lefebvre was right to disobey and never incurred the offense of schism. He intended no opposition to the papacy itself by his disobedience.

Notice how the charge of schism has never been applied to the Chinese bishops who have likewise disobeyed the Pope and consecrated priests illicitly. Yet the Chinese, unlike Archbishop Lefebvre, actually intend to set up a parallel church and rob legitimate bishops of their jurisdictions. They not only intend this, they broadcast it publicly while Rome pretends to look the other way. In other words, the Chinese have openly declared their schism by their very actions.

The SSPX never did anything remotely comparable. The Archbishop simply disobeyed a papal command he considered in violation of the faith. Even if he was wrong, he acted in good conscience and in a way provided for in Canon Law itself under the provision of the State of Necessity. No parallel church was set up and no one was robbed of any jurisdiction.

If people were honest, they would recognize that history has proven the Archbishop right and the Pope wrong. The Church was, in fact, in crisis--just as Lefebre said. He was right to feel alarm at the destruction of Catholic Tradition--something this Pope seems unworried about. But people are not honest. They would rather deny the obvious than surrender a cherished grudge.

You misread me, no doubt because I was insufficiently clear. The problem is those who APPEAR to be in communnion with Rome but who act in a fashion that is either heretical or schismatic. Hierarchs who engage in criminal behavior, sometimes public scandal, for example. Priests who abuse the Sacraments so badly that they are either invalid or likely so (and if in doubt, you have a moral obligation to seek out valid, even if "illicit" sacraments). They abound in some places and there can be no quarrel with that. Nor can there be any doubt that my friends in the SSPX have always accepted the normative Mass as valid when the form, matter and intent exist. The problem is that even the basic matter is sometimes abused (the honeyed "host" discussed here on this site) not to speak of the intent (when Fr. McBrien calls the Words of Consecration "hocus pocus", can one reasonably NOT question his intent?) or the form ("pro multis")? The ICEL has clearly failed, the hierarchy of the Church in America is substantially made of men who act against church and criminal law (look to the issue of confession or the "generous" application of the Indult or the two of three whose conduct vis-a-vis the pederasty issue is documented as against either canon or secular law) and heterodoxy is the general rule. Divorced and remarried women at the altar distributing the Host, reading the Word and acting as "pastoral ministers" while homosexual activists reign over "The Pink Palace" and "Notre Flame" seminaries are common.

There is a crisis my friend and the issues the SSPX raises are real. Do they themselves have problems? Oh my yes. Are they the whole Church? No. Are they part of the Church? According to Msgr. Perl they are, since I can satisfy my Sunday obligation by taking the Sacraments at their Mass. We live in dangerous and interesting times. Rather than attack as schismatic those who attend the Tridentine Mass, perhaps we ought to concentrate on our own sanctification and applaud those priests who help us, regardless of the intramural issues they have with the hierarchs.