Steps Being Taken By Vatican to Overcome an Ancient Schism

Fourth Ecumenical Council -- Chalcedon


	LOCATION:		Chalcedon, (north of Constatinople)

	YEAR:		A.D. 451

	POPE:		St. Leo I, the Great, 440 - 461

	EMPEROR:		Marcian, 450 - 457

ACTION: Called by Emperor Marcian, spouse of the chaste and noble St. Pulcheria,
and ratified by Pope St. Leo the Great, the council condemned the heresy of the Abbot
Eutyches, MONOPHYSITISM, which claimed that there existed only "one nature" (the
divine) in Christ from the Incarnation onward. Though the council had approved the
assertion that Constantinople should be ranked first after Rome ecclesiastically, Pope St.
Leo did not. The primacy of the See of Rome was due to it's possession of the Chair of
Peter, not to any political power. In his "Dogmatic Epistle," read by his
legates at the end of the second session of the council (Oct. 10, 451), Pope St. Leo I
also declared invalid all that had been done at the "Robber Synod of Ephesus" (a
false Ephesus II): " ....we see no Council, but a den of thieves (Latrocinium)."
In the greatest testimony of the Eastern Council to the primacy of the Pope, the bishops
cried out: "Behold the faith of the fathers, the faith of the Apostles; thus
through Leo has Peter spoken!" Eutyches was excommunicated.

NOTE: Pope St. Leo I, Doctor of the Church (d. 461), was called the
"Soul" of Chalcedon.

HERESY / HERETICS: EUTYCHES - MONOPHYLOCATIONS.

In his "Dogmatic Epistle," read by his legates at the end of the second session of the council (Oct. 10, 451), Pope St. Leo I also declared invalid all that had been done at the "Robber Synod of Ephesus" (a false Ephesus II): " ....we see no Council, but a den of thieves (Latrocinium)."

LOL!!! Has a council ever been convened without dissenters on soapboxes condemning the actions of the others. This should give us pause to hope that someday a reconciliation will be made with the SSPXers.

You are confused. You seem to think the SSPX is in schism. It is not. It proclaims no new doctrines and pledges allegiance to the papacy WHEN HE AFFIRMS THE FAITH. It will not obey unlawful commands to destroy Catholic Tradition, however. This is tough for some of you to deal with since you routinely place the Pope above the faith itself.

The clarification is demonstrated, for example, in the joint declaration signed by John Paul II and the Armenian Catholicos Karekin I in 1996 in which both professed that "Christ is the Word of God made flesh, perfect God in his divinity, perfect man in his humanity."
For those interested, the text of the Common Declaration can be found here:

Common Declaration Signed by Pope John Paul II and Armenian Catholicos Karekin I, 13 December 1996

You seem to think the SSPX is in schism. It is not.

"It is true that our sentences... replace the sentences of the Roman Rota." Bishop Tissier de Mallerais, Econe, August 24, 1998

With this statement, given at a secret conference for SSPX superiors on the subject of SSPX marriage annulments, Bishop Tissier de Mallerais announced quite clearly that:

The SSPX does have a marriage tribunal.
The decisions of the SSPX marriage tribunal replace those of the Roman Rota.

The result is clear: With its marriage tribunal, the SSPX deliberately intends to replace the decisions made by Rome. This is a deliberate act of setting up a parallel governing authority in opposition to the governing authority of Rome. This is an act of schism.

Of course SSPX has a marriage tribunal. Have you looked at the annulment situation lately? It has produced moral and theological chaos. All this must, of necessity, be sorted out according to traditional Catholic precepts.

Of course SSPX has a marriage tribunal.

The SSPX has taken upon themselves the jurisdiction to grant marriage annulments, and since this jurisdiction normally belongs to the Pope, usurping this jurisdiction is an act of schism.

Furthermore, the very act of setting up a tribunal to judge marriage cases, with the intent of granting marriage annulments, is also an act of schism, since this too is an authority that belongs only to the Pope.

Even if the SSPX has received the jurisdiction to grant marriage annulments through Common Error, then either:

the people are in schism for believing that the SSPX is a parallel church, OR
the SSPX bishops are is schism for acting like diocesan bishops, OR
Bishop Fellay is is schism for acting like the Pope

Have you looked at the annulment situation lately? It has produced moral and theological chaos.

Annulments per year
per 20,000 Catholics

USA total 1968	338	47,468,333	0.14
USA total 1995	54, 013	60,190,605	17.9 (128 times as many per capita as was in the Church before Vatican II)
SSPX USA per year (12 for 2 years, 1996-1997)	6 (this number should be zero)	20,000	6.0 (43 times as many per capita as was in the Church before Vatican II)

Jurisdiction is supplied due to the State of Necessity. Here is an excerpt from the pertinent argument from the SSPX point of view:
____________________________________________________________
LEGITIMACY AND SCOPE OF SSPX MARRIAGE TRIBUNALS
a Conference given by Bishop Tissier de Mallerais, SSPX
at Ecône Switzerland on August 24, 1998
[The original conference was given in French; the translation to English was done by Fr Jean Violette, SSPX].

Status quaestionis [state of the question]
Annulments granted by Novus ordo tribunals are often doubtful. Do we have the right to “supply” them with tribunals of the SSPX?...

We will see that the main reason like that of the episcopal consecrations is the case of necessity of the traditional faithful.

I - THE NEW MATRIMONIAL LEGISLATION.
I. New definition of marriage:

a) Object of the matrimonial consent: it is no longer strictly defined as "jus in corpus, perpetuum et exclusivum in ordine ad actus per se aptos ad prolis generationem" [a right to the body, a right both perpetual and exclusive, for the purpose of performing the actions apt by their nature to procreate children] (can 1081 §2, 1917 Code of Canon Law), but vaguely described as "mutua traditio et acceptatio viri et mulieris ad constituendum matrimonium" [mutually giving and accepting one another for the purpose of establishing a marriage] (can. 1057 §2, 1983 Code of Canon Law). The object of the consent is thus unduly extended to the secondary elements which are non the less integral parts of marriage that is the "totius vitae consortium" [a partnership of their whole life] (can. 1055, 1983 Code of Canon Law)

b) Reversal of the two ends of marriage: Code of 1917: "finis primarius, procreatio et educatio prolis; finis secundarius: mutuum adjutorium et remedium concupiscentiae" [the primary object of marriage is the procreation and education of offspring; the secondary purpose is mutual assistance and the remedy of concupiscence] (can. 1013 §1). The new code: ... "ad bonum conjugum atque ad prolis generationem et educationem" [to the well-being of the spouses and the procreation and education of children] (1055 §1, 1983 Code of Canon Law).

Consequently the community of life enters, according to the new legislation, as a part and a principal part, of the matrimonial consent, and with it the inter-personal relationship between the spouses, i.e. their cohabitation, good understanding and mutual development.

But, according to the traditional concept, this is not part of the matrimonial pact as Pius XII reaffirmed against the innovators in 1944 by having inserted in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis a sentence of the Roman Rota [ASS 36 (1944), 172-200], which restates the hierarchy of the two ends of marriage and reaffirms that the "assiduous cohabitation, common bed and board, belongs to the integrity of individual life, not to the essence of conjugal life." (Papal Teaching Series, Matrimony, Solesmes, Appendix #24 - 29 p.550 - 556)

2. New defects of consent render marriage invalid.

It is obvious that if the "bonum conjugum" [the well-being of the spouses] and the "totius vitae consortium" [a partnership of their whole life] enter the object of the matrimonial contract, the defects, which from the beginning render the common life of the spouses impossible — and no longer solely the rendering of the "jus in corpus" [right to the body] - will render the marriage contract invalid. Therefore the new legislation introduces new impediments to contract marriage.

Of course the Church can always add, by positive dispositions, new impediments to marriage, but these are 1) positive laws not a change in the nature of things and consequently of the substance of marriage, 2) dispositions which determine clearly the inabilities in such a way that a judgement on the presence of such impediments is easily pronounced without fear of abuse. But precisely, such is not the case here; we have a change to the substance of the marriage and the door is open to every abuse as we will see.

can. 1095 n.2 (1983 Code): "Sunt incapaces matrimonii contrahendi:... 2° qui laborant gravi defectu discretionis judicii circa jura et officia matrimonialia essentialia mutuo tradenda et acceptanda" [The following are incapable of contracting marriage.... 2° those who suffer from a grave lack of discretionary judgement concerning the essential matrimonial rights and obligations to be mutually given and accepted]
Traditionally on the side of the intelligence only the following render the marriage invalid: 1) Ignorance of what marriage is: "a permanent society between a man and a woman for the procreation of children." (can. 1082 §1, 1917 Code); and this ignorance is not presumed after puberty. 2) Error concerning "unity or indissolubility or the sacramental dignity of marriage" if it determines the will (can. 1099, 1983 Code, codifying the traditional jurisprudence).

That is all. It is clear. But this "defectu discretionis judicii" [grave lack of discretionary judgement] that is to say lack of maturity in judgement concerns necessarily personal fulfillment, nay inter personal fulfillment as an essential obligations of marriage, which is traditionally outside the object of the matrimonial contract and concern the subjective aspect of the matrimonial bond. Certainly the growing lack of maturity in young people often render marriage less viable and imprudent, but to establish an incapacity on the grounds of lack of maturity is to put forward a personalist and subjective conception of the marriage contract and open the door to abuses. Only a stricter impediment of age would be an objective remedy.

can. 1095 n.3, (1983 Code): "sunt incapaces... qui ob causas naturae psychiae obligationes matrimonii essentiales assumere non valent". [The following are incapable....those who, because of causes of a psychological nature, are unable to assume the essential obligations of marriage]
Traditionally the Church only recognizes physical inability: impotentia [impotence] (can. 1068 §1, 1917 Code) which makes it impossible to render the "jus in corpus in ordine ad actus aptos..." [right to the body for the purpose of performing the actions apt...] (can. 1081 §2, 1917 Code). The only mental inability is "amentia vel dementia" [insanity], which render the subject radically incapable of contracting. (cf. can. 1081 § 1, 1917 Code "inter personas jure habiles" [between parties qualified thereto by law]).

Certainly cases of imbalance due to the destruction of the family are frequent, which render the permanent union risky. But who will determine what degree of imbalance makes contracting radically impossible? John Paul II himself had to remind canonists that such psychic disorders must be “a serious form of anomaly which (...) must substantially undermine the capacity of understanding and/or willing of the contracting party” (Address to the Roman Rota, Feb. 5 1987, AAS 78, 1987, p1457).
In its formulation can. 1095 n.3 remains an open door to abuses.

can. 1098, (1983 Code) "Qui matrimomum mit deceptus dolo, ad obtinendum consensum patrato, circa aliquam alterius partis qualitatem, quae suapte natura consortium vitae conjugalis graviter perturbare potest, invalide contrahit" [A person invalidly contracts marriage who enters marriage inveigled by deceit, perpetrated in order to secure consent, concerning some quality of the other party, which of its very nature can seriously disrupt the partnership of conjugal life].
Until the new code, fraud was never admitted as matter for annulment; and this was to protect the permanence of the marriage bond. But authors such as Hanstein (in Kanonisches Eherecht, F. Schöningh, Paderborn, 1958, §33, p. 153) say the Church could by a positive law admit it: which would be legitimate when the fraud can jeopardize the primary end of marriage eg. fraud concerning sterility of one of the spouses; and this is what the new code has done: sterilitas, non dirimit, sed dolus circa sterilitatem [sterility doesn't invalidate, but fraud concerning sterility does] (cf. 1084 §3, 1983 Code).

But can. 1098 (1983 Code) is much too broad: fraud concerning drunkenness, drug addiction, - even an irascible character could be causes for annulment! We see here the conciliar personalist inspiration of this new canon. To reformulate it in a Catholic sense does not belong to us:

3. Practical consequences

a) 80% of annulments granted by Novus ordo tribunals are granted in virtue of canon 1095! and therefore are invalid judgements since they rest on a rule incapable of ruling. Certain commentators even speak of "Catholic divorce" because it is so easy to obtain such judgements.

b) In cases where the grounds for annulments are serious but difficult to prove a tribunal invokes canon 1095 as an easy solution. But one could object: Since in this case the marriage is truly null why are we not able to take advantage of the easy sentence even if it is incorrect? Answer: in order to confirm the freedom to marry of a person a valid judgement is necessary, not a private appreciation plus an invalid judgement.

II CONDITION OF THE FAITHFUL
1. The faithful do not have the right to go to the Novus ordo tribunal, because they run the great risk of obtaining an invalid annulment, of remarrying and thus of taking the easy way out and living in sin, in "canonical concubinage"!

2. They cannot judge their own cause declaring their marriage invalid nor can they be content with the private appreciation of a priest friend (even traditional). This would be opening the door to subjectivism and disorder, exposing the marriage to contempt and only serve to increase the evil.

3. In justice they have the right to be sure the sacrament they receive a second time is valid. They therefore have a right to know that the declaration of nullity of their first marriage is valid, and be protected against personalist errors which invalidate these declarations. Who will do them justice?

4. Faithful priests and bishops have the duty of defending and protecting the marriage bond imperilled by the new legislation. How will they fulfil this duty?

To summarize: on the one hand the faithful not finding whom they can go to are in the state of necessity and on the other hand faithful priests and bishops have the duty to come to their help.
In this situation, the faithful bishops (Dom Licinio in Campos) and our canonical commission founded according to the general principles of law which govern the life of the Church, have supplied jurisdiction to judge matrimonial cases.

III DOCTRINAL FOUNDATION OF THIS SUPPLIED JURISDICTION
1. can. 20 (1917 Code; also can. 19 in 1983 Code) says that if the law does not 'foresee a certain case, the case must be solved according to the norms "a legibus latis in similibus; generalibus juris principiis cum aequitate canonica servatis; jurisprudentia et praxi Curiae Romanae; communi constantique doctorum sententia" ' [taken from laws given in similar cases, from the general principles of law applied with the mildness proper to Canon Law, from the manner and the custom of handling similar cases in the Roman Curia, and from the common and accepted teaching of doctors]. (As Wernz and Vidal say : "jus ergo suppletorium est jus applicandum in particularibus casibus, cum circa illud non habeatur in codice prescriptum quod peculiari illi casui sit applicandum" n. 180). [therefore to supplement the law the law is to be applied in particular cases, when the rule to be applied in an extraordinary case is not found in the law]

2. Application — three things occur:

a) parallel place ie. the "analogia legalis" [analogy of law] (Wernz-Vidal n. 181): "per quam juris dispositio pro aliis casibus applicatur simili de quo lex non disponit" [through which the disposition of the law for other cases is applied in a similar way concerning what the law does not dispose]. Here the parallel place is the case when it is impossible to have recourse to the local bishop for the dispensation of a diriment impediment of ecclesiastical law: "in danger of death" or "quando omnia sunt parata ad nuptias" [when all is prepared for the wedding] the parish priest or confessor can dispense (can. 1044 -1045). This means the Church gives them supplied jurisdiction ad casum [for particular cases].

b) Practice (jurisprudence) of the Roman Curia: an answer from the Commission for the interpretation of the Code of July 29 1942 (AAS 34, 241) allows the extension of the dispositions of can. 1045 to the case of urgent necessity where there is "periculum in mora" [danger to morals] (cf. Can. 81)

c) Epikeia and the opinion of doctors concerning canon 1043 sq., but which also applies elsewhere: (Cappello, Tractatus de Sacramentis III ii. 199: "Si finis legis cesset contrarie pro communitate, ie si damnum commune inde sequatur, lex non urget, quia merito censetur suspendi ex benigna mentis legislatoris interpretatione" [If the object of the law remains in a way contrary to the community, that is if a damage would commonly follow from it, the law does not oblige, because it is thought to have ceased out of the kindly interpretation of the mind of the legislator].) This is the case of being obliged to have recourse to modernist tribunals. But if the obligation of recurring to modernist tribunals ceases, the obligation of recurring to some tribunal remains.

3. By joining all these elements we can infer that our canonical commission in the actual case of impossibility of having recourse to the official tribunals, has the power to judge matrimonial cases (we can say that the Holy See, if it were not as modernist as the tribunals, would give us this jurisdiction).
It is graver to dispense from a diriment impediment (which change the condition of the person who from incapable becomes capable of contracting marriage) than it is to declare a marriage invalid (which does not change the condition of the person, but merely states a fact existing from the beginning). It is only a declarative power of jurisdiction. So if supplied jurisdiction is given to us to dispense, a fortiori it is given to us to judge.

4. The institution of marriage tribunals in the orb of Tradition is especially justified by the fact that:
a) their authority will be more easily accepted than a private opinion,
b) thus it will not be necessary to reject doubtful or contrary private opinions,
c) many judges and instances are necessary in order to proceed prudently and according to the spirit and letter of the law,
d) in the present case of necessity, a priest receives supplied jurisdiction for what a priest can normally do by himself and not for what he cannot normally do. But judging matrimonial cases is not normally done by a priest but by the bishop or the authorities he has delegated.

In all this the rule "in as much as and no more than" applies: The Church supplies jurisdiction in favour of the faithful in as much as it is necessary and no more than is necessary.

IV EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT OF JUDGING MATRIMONIAL CASES by the canonical commission and the priests designated by it
As we have said our jurisdiction is supplied. Here are its properties:

a) It is not habitual, but only ad casum per modum actus [for individual cases and means of action]. Consequently we do not have standing tribunals, nor are their members named ad universas causas [for every reason], but on the contrary each time ad hoc, appointed by the canonical commission, even if for practical reasons and because experienced and competent persons are needed, the judges and defender of the bond are always the same.

b) The jurisdiction is not territorial but personal.

c) It depends on the necessity of the faithful ie., it lasts as long as the state of common necessity lasts, even if, per impossibile [through impossible circumstances], an official tribunal judging according to traditional norms could be found.

d) It is a true jurisdiction and not an exemption from the law and the obligation the faithful have of receiving a judgement. Therefore we have the power and the duty of handing down true sentences having potestatem ligandi vet solvendi [the power of binding and loosing]. Our sentences are therefore binding. The proximate reason is that we must be able to tell the faithful what they must follow, quod debent servare. [what they must obey]
Our sentences are not mere private opinions because such an opinion do not suffice when the common good is at stake; and the common good is at stake in every case where the matrimonial bond is discussed. To resolve the doubt authority in the external forum is necessary.

e) This jurisdiction does not usurp any of the powers the Pope has of divine right. It is true that our sentences in the third instance replace the sentences of the Roman Rota which acts in the Pope’s name as third instance tribunals. But this is not an usurpation of divine right of the Pope because the fact that this third instance is reserved to the Pope is of ecclesiastical law.

f) Finally our sentences like all our acts of supplied jurisdiction and the episcopal consecrations of 1988 and 1991 etc., will ultimately need to be confirmed by the Holy See:

PRACTICAL RULES CONCERNING MARRIAGE ANNULMENTS
Pastoral charity aims at the sanctification of souls: prima lex salus animarum [the salvation of souls is the highest law]; but pastoral prudence does not impose unbearable burdens on souls. (Matt 23:4).
Consequently the pastor seeks to place souls in the truth regarding God’s laws and the validity of marriage, but he will sometimes prefer leaving souls in their good faith if they err in good faith concerning their matrimonial situation, when he fears they will not accept to regularize it and so would live in bad faith.
On the other hand marriage annulments given by official tribunals (we can call them Novus ordo sentences) cannot be considered invalid Ipso facto or valid without examination.

From this follows the following rules:

1. A Novus ordo sentence can neither be accepted nor rejected a priori. Its validity depends on the criteria used. It must be examined in jure [according to the law].

2. The priest must never advise the faithful to go to a Novus ordo tribunal for fear of an invalid declaration because it would be founded in jure [according to the law]. on erroneous or doubtful criteria of the new code.

3. If the person is not remarried, but has a doubt or denounces the validity of the first marriage or announces that the annulment case has been introduced in the Novus ordo tribunal, or that the said tribunal had given an annulment: the priest must warn that Novus ordo annulments are not sufficient proof of nullity of marriage and that he or she cannot remarry until we have studied the case.

4. If the person after a Novus ordo annulment has remarried the priest will leave him or her in good faith if he or she is in good faith. With this in view: a) he will never publicly speak of Novus ordo annulments, b) he will not interrogate the faithful on this matter, c) if asked by a person who has only a negative doubt the priest will reassure him.

5. If a remarried person has a positive doubt concerning a Novus ordo annulment the priest must help him resolve the doubt. For this he will:
a) warn her about the possibility of an invalid annulment granted by Novus ordo tribunal,
b) explain that for this reason and according to our practice, the case has to be presented to the canonical commission.

6. To present any case before the commission the priest will:
a) have the case explained to him,
b) ask for the Novus ordo sentence or at least the tribunal document indicating the "caput nullitatis" [the foundation for nullity],
c) transmit the information and the sentence to the commission who will send a questionnaire destined to introduce the cause,
d) he does not give an opinion regarding the validity or invalidity of the judgement or the marriage.

7. The cause can only be introduced if the person accepts to be morally bound by the decision. This is why the priest will ask him/her to make the following promise:

The promise to be sworn by those who want their marriages annulled by the SSPX:

I the undersigned ________________________________________________
at the time of submitting my marriage case with __________________________
to the canonical commission of the SSPX promise:
A) (if such is the case) I will not attempt marriage either religious or civil before the final sentence.
B) I will conform myself to the decision of the canonical commission and consequently if it is negative I will not remarry, or (if such is the case) I will no longer consider my second spouse as my spouse.
C) I will not approach a Novus ordo official tribunal for the purpose of having my case examined or judged.
This I promise and swear having my hand on the Holy Gospels.
Date __________________________
Place __________________________

Signed _________________________

8. As long as the tribunal designated by the canonical commission has not handed an executory sentence "constat de nullitate matrimonii" [declaration of nullity of marriage], the second marriage contracted after a Novus ordo annulment (if it has taken place) is presumed valid and consequently the spouses of the second marriage can ask for and render the marital right and receive the sacraments.

9. But if the annulment proceedings have been introduced with the canonical commission and, having been warned not to remarry before our final sentence allows it, the person remarries or contracts a civil union, the sacraments must be denied and according to the judgement of the superior who has convened the tribunal the procedure may be stopped.

read later

Jurisdiction is supplied due to the State of Necessity.

Marriage annulments are not necessary

But in the case of marriage annulments, the SSPX cannot claim a case of necessity to require the Church to have to supply jurisdiction.

There are no reasons for the necessity of marriage annulments:

Marriage annulments are not necessary for salvation. People with "bad" or "dysfunctional" marriages can always live separately, just as people in such situations did before Vatican II.
People do not have the right to receive a marriage annulment.
There is not a problem of annulments being available, certainly not in the USA. If anything, we have to say that today, compared with the situation before Vatican II, the local bishops are granting too many annulments, too easily. This is certainly the conclusion of Robert Vasoli in his 1998 book "What God Has Joined Together" (p. 147):

If the people who approach SSPX priests don't trust the annulments granted by US tribunals today, because these tribunals give out annulments too easily, then why doesn't the SSPX refer these people to the Roman Rota? It cannot be claimed that the Roman Rota is liberal, at least when we look at the numbers given by Robert Vasoli (What God Has Joined Together, pp. 62-63, 190-192). The Roman Rota overturns a full 92% of all defective consent annulment cases appealed to it from the USA, which means that the Rota considers that 92% of the annulments given out by the US tribunals are null and void.

First of all, Rome's conservatism on annulments is a recent phenomenon. It took decades before it even acknowledged there was even a problem and did so only after some really bad publicity--in particular, Joe Kennedy's scandalous divorce and annulment--forced them to take a look at what bishops were doing in defiance of all Church Tradition. Even now Rome is only dealing with appeals, not with the flawed annulment machinery itself which is based on a new theology of marriage hitherto unrecognized in the Church. Reread the SSPX argument. It is based on Rome's novel reinterpretation of what constitutes a valid marriage--an interpretation in clear contradiction to past Church teachings on the sacrament of matrimony. As with its position on the Mass, the Society again is merely upholding Tradition and opposing scandalous Modernist innovations.

Thank you for the link, eastsider. Was this not also followed up by a reaffirmation by Karekin II and the Holy Father? Or was that simply stated in the Holy Father's recent visit to Armenia?

I might be referring to the Joint Communiqué of Pope John Paul II and Catholicos Karekin II, dated 10 November 2000.

Oops ... "I might" should be "You might" : )

Thank you.