Replies

UR: SSPX is in schism. The pope says so. Its bishops are excommunicated. he pope says so. You are graciously allowed by a Monsignor Perle, one an officer of the Vatican Congregation on the Liturgy, to attend SSPX Masses. It is conceded that they are valid but not licit. You are allowed to make SMALL contributions to defray the expense of such Masses [not to fund the steady stream of anti-Catholic propaganda. Attending the Masses of SSPX is one thing. Adhering to the schism is quite another.

The misery of those who have apostasized from the Roman Catholic Church always drives a need for company. Hence the endless posting on these threads by a handful of SSPX- oriented folk seeking t tempt ohers to adhere to the schism. All this too shall pass a way and soon enough.

Karen: Note the Clintonian defenses: "How am I in SSPX? I am not a cleric." Nor does he believe the pope who has affirmed that SSPX is in schism. He willfully refuses papal authority and states he will do so no matter how many times it is asserted. Thanks for your interventions and for all the things that matter, carry on. Aren't you glad to be genuinely and submissively Catholic and not have to speculate on how many Lefebvres dance on the head of a pin? I am.

Sorry, the Pope may have said in a letter the SSPX bishops were excommunicated, but no one can be excommunicated latae sententiae--which is an automatic punishment--UNLESS he intends to disobey the Pontiff out of malice. This is the standard necessary to incur the penalty which is stated by the Pope's own Canon Law. Remember, the Pope himself was not excommunicating the bishops of SSPX, he was merely stating his belief that the penalty had been incurred latae sententiae--i.e., automatically.

But the Pope had no way of knowing this with certitude. This is because Archbishop Lefebvre and his bishops argued that they were proceeding in good conscience in order to preserve Sacred Tradition and to avoid doing irreparable harm to the Church. They claimed to sincerely believe the denial of consecrations by the Pope was primarily intended to preclude future ordinations of traditional priests with a view to destroying Catholic Tradition itself. The Pope had no way of knowing the level of sincerity involved in these assertions. In other words, ultimately he could only guess the latae sententiae penalties had been actually incurred.

Canon Law also provides a contingency canon for disobedience--the State of Necessity clause which the Archbishop duly evoked. That he sincerely believed the Church was in crisis cannot be doubted. He spoke publicly of his fears and had often railed against the revolution which was turning the Church upside down and plunging it in chaos. If he used this canon as an argument for disobedience, no one can reasonably doubt he did not truly believe that the Church was actually in crisis. And the canon states that mere belief that such a critical state existed would be sufficient to incur no penalty. The subject need not actually be right in any objective sense.

Unless the Pontiff had prescinded his own canon laws regarding acts of disobedience, therefore, the Archbishop and his associates were never actually excommunicated. Nor could the Pope have had access to the internal state of their consciences to know with certitude whether the latae sententiae penalty had ever actually taken effect by reason of malice. Had he wanted certitude on any of this, he might have had recourse to a pontifical tribunal--the usual mode of proceeding with prelates in defiance. In such a case, however, the Archbishop would have had the right to mount his own defense when questioned about his motives. This course the Pope did not pursue, but relied instead on a latae sententiae decree which itself was woefully contingent. And thus the matter stands.

"Misery"? Apostasy? On what do you base this? "A need for company?" "Seeking to tempt others?" This all sounds pretty strident. My own view is that we're in a war for the identity of the Catholic Church and I'm fighting on the side of Sacred Tradition--so sure I want people with me. But not because I'm lonely and need somebody to hold my hand and keep me company.

As for papal authority--how do I refuse it? He hasn't ordered me not to consecrate anybody lately. Nor does he order me not to attend SSPX Masses. So where's the substance to your argument? How am I an apostate? I do admit I don't cotton to liberal popes like JPII and Paul VI who are antagonistic towards Tradition; I sincerely believe they have done very great damage to the Catholic Church; and I believe the good fathers of the SSPX are absolutely right in their adherence to tradition and are neither in schism nor excommunicated. The last I checked none of this adds up to apostasy.