Posted on 07/25/2002 5:31:43 AM PDT by Notwithstanding
Archbishop Lefebvre's and Bishop de Castro Mayer believed that if they didn't consecrate the bishops there was no way of assuring the continued ordination of truly Catholic priests. Clearly Archbishop Lefebvre was concerned about the future of the Church and truly believed that the consecrations were necessary, thus he was not liable to a penalty.Every schismatic in history believed he was acting in a state of necessity. Luther did, etc. Again, the Pope wrote Canon law, it is issued by his authority. He determines what is a valid state of necessity, not you or Lefebvre. Further, you should note the Canon law states that provision is null if the act is harmful to souls, and schism is certainly harmful to souls.
Finally,Vatican I did not infallibly define that Canon law is the ultimate authority, the highest court, whose judgments cannot be questioned by anyone. Vatican I said this of the Pope.
If you believe you can dispute the Popes verdict you are a heretic:
8. Since the Roman Pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole Church, we likewise teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful [52], and that in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment [53]. The sentence of the Apostolic See (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon [54]. And so they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman Pontiff. (Vatican I, Session 4 , Ch. 3, 8.)
That, of course, does not support your claim above that Ratzinger said that the SSPX is not in schism. Nor does it support your claim that Cardinal Strickler says I can attend the SSPX Mass.The SSPX Bishops were excommunicated, and JPII called it a schism. Whether you are personally schismatic or not Ill leave to the Church to work out, but the Church has spoken about your Bishops and the Society. >On May 1, 1991, Bishop Ferrario of Hawaii tried to excommunicate certain Catholics of his diocese for attending Masses celebrated by priests of the Society of Saint Pius X, and receiving a bishop of the Society of Saint Pius X to confer the sacrament of Confirmation. Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, overturned this decision:From the examination of the case... it did not result that the facts referred to in the above-mentioned decree, are formal schismatic acts in the strict sense, as they do not constitute the offense of schism; and therefore the Congregation holds that the Decree of May 1, 1991, lacks foundation and hence validity (June 28, 1993).
What it does state is that the Bishop of Hawaii did not have sufficient grounds to excommunicate the Hawaii four. In specific the PONTIFICIA COMMISSIO ECCLESIA DEI, on 29 September 1995, stated:
1. There is no doubt about the validity of the ordination of the priests of the Society of St. Pius X. They are, however, suspended a divinis, that is prohibited by the Church from exercising their orders because of their illicit ordination.
2. The Masses they celebrate are also valid, but it is considered morally illicit for the faithful to participate in these Masses unless they are physically or morally impeded from participating in a Mass celebrated by a Catholic priest in good standing (cf. Code of Canon Law, canon 844.2). The fact of not being able to assist at the celebration of the so-called "Tridentine" Mass is not considered a sufficient motive for attending such Masses.
3. While it is true that the participation in the Mass and sacraments at the chapels of the Society of St. Pius X does not of itself constitute "formal adherence to the schism", such adherence can come about over a period of time as one slowly imbibes a mentality which separates itself from the magisterium of the Supreme Pontiff. Father Peter R. Scott, District Superior of the Society in the United States, has publicaly stated that he deplores the "liberalism" of "those who refuse to condemn the New Mass as absolutely offensive to God, or the religious liberty and ecumenism of the postconcilliar church." With such an attitude the society of St. Pius X is effectively tending to establish its own canons of orthodoxy and hence to separate itself from the magisterium of the Supreme Pontiff. According to canon 751 such "refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or the communion of the members of the Church subject to him" constitute schism. Hence we cannot encourage your participation in the Masses, the sacraments or other services conducted under the aegis of the Society of St. Pius X.
4. The situation of at least one of the "independent" priests . . . to whom you allude is somewhat different. He and the community which he serves have declared their desire to regularize their situation and have taken some initial steps to do so. Let us pray that this may soon be accomplished.
5. Finally, we may say that "the Hawaiian case" resulted in a judgment that the former Bishop of Honolulu did not have grounds to excommunicate the persons involved, but this judgment does not confer the Church's approbation upon the Society of St. Pius X or those who frequent their chapels.
From Catechesi Tradendae: From Ut Unum Sint: From Crossing The Threshold of Hope:Not a single quote states there are many paths to heaven. They state that God or the Holy Spirit uses the other Churches as he sees fit. Your twisting his words a bit to get your meaning out of them.
Dominus Vobiscum
patent +AMDG
I believe that when the Campos fathers were granted their apostolic administration, any 'excommunication which may have been imposed' on Bp Rangel was lifted.
and to my knowledge there have been no conditional consecrations or ordinationsOf course not, the ordinations and consecrations are valid, but illicit. When you welcome people back into the Church it is standard practice to lift the excommunication, otherwise they arent back in the Church. The same offer is being held out to the Society, but they wont come back.
patent +AMDG
I guess St. Athanasius is not really a Saint because he was excommunicated?Please produce proof he was excommunicated. History is far from clear on this matter.
Second, even if he had been, he was clearly received back into the Church before his death, and he clearly submitted over and over again to the Roman Pontiff. In fact, he sought out the Pontiffs judgment time after time, he didnt even wait for the Holy See to get to him, he went to them.
Dominus Vobiscum
patent +AMDG
Can a pope trump another pope? Who wins when a living pope directly contradicts a dead pope who is also a saint? Who wins when a living pope directly contradicts an infallible statement by a previous pope?Please produce a statement by a living Pope contradicting an infallible statement by a previous Pope. I dont believe that a Pope can teach heresy.
patent +AMDG
Card. Kasper has ruled that the Words of Consecration are not necessary in one, particular, heretical rite. I will try and find the citation for you. Fr. McBrien celebrated the end of the "magic words" nonsense as I recall.Ive heard something about this. If you have or can find the actual language of his ruling, and the actual words of this rite, I would love a link.
Dominus Vobiscum
patent +AMDG
He was received back into the Church which means.....THE POPE WHO EXCOMMUNICATED HIM WAS WRONG? What??? A pope was wrong??? That can't be can it?You are hyperventilating. Please calm down. First, you have not proven he was excommunicated. Please do so or this entire conversation is based on no more solid ground than your whimsy.
Second, an excommunication is a jurisdictional matter of discipline. It is not an infallible pronouncement of faith or morals. That is, an excommunication can be handed down, and be entirely correct. When the individual repents of his sin or his error, and reconciles with the Church, the excommunication is always lifted. That does not mean it was wrong in the first place.
Similarly, if you steal from your grocery store, get arrested, are tried in court, found guilty (because you are) and sentenced to two months in prison, one does not say that the original verdict finding you guilty was wrong when two months later they release you and let you rejoin society. You were still guilty and still properly punished. Same with an excommunication. A valid excommunication does not damn someone to hell or an eternity outside the Church, as some folks like to accuse us of. It is primarily a wake up call to the sinner, asking him to repent and return to the Church, upon which the excommunication is lifted.
Third, as the excommunication is not an infallible pronouncement, it most certainly can be made imprudently or wrongfully. The person is still excommunicated if it is validly issued.
Fourth, if you think you are qualified to cast judgment upon the verdict of the Holy See, you are a heretic. See Vatican I, quoted above.
patent +AMDG
I deeply hope that their attitude is not 'they won't come back'.I would dearly love to see them come back and take the Apostolic Administration. How can you not take it? Complete freedom from liberal Bishops, and guys like me can no longer call you schismatic.
Id think theyd do it just to shut me up. ;-)
Re the mariages, they have begun asserting various jurisdictions they have no right to assert. Its just more proof of the schism.
Dominus Vobiscum
patent +AMDG
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.