Inquiry regarding Tridentine Mass
#21
(05-26-2018, 06:21 PM)vpanno Wrote:
(05-25-2018, 04:59 PM)jovan66102 Wrote: My point is proven by the letter you quote. Here is the syllogism:

1) The Pope cannot grant faculties to individuals or bodies that are not in communion with him.

2) Francis granted faculties to the SSPX.

3) The SSPX is in communion with Francis.

QED!

Yet Francis says: 'strive with God’s help for the recovery of full communion in the Catholic Church'. Clearly implying they are not in full communion. What you have said coupled with excerpts from Latae sententiae and Misericordia et Misera so far made me understand that their is no canonical basis for 'partial communion' or 'partial liceity' but the post-Vatican II magisterium still uses the concept to define the Society of Saint Pius X.

Because Pope Francis and Vatican II are known for their orthodoxy and precision of speech.
Surréxit Dóminus vere, Alleluia!
Reply
#22
(05-26-2018, 06:21 PM)vpanno Wrote: Yet Francis says: 'strive with God’s help for the recovery of full communion in the Catholic Church'. Clearly implying they are not in full communion.

Who are we to judge?
Reply
#23
(05-26-2018, 06:21 PM)vpanno Wrote:  the post-Vatican II magisterium still uses the concept to define the Society of Saint Pius X.

The fact that the post-Vatican II Magisterium uses the term means absolutely nothing. If the post-Vatican II Magisterium announced that the sun rises in the west (and it wouldn't surprise me a bit if they did!), it doesn't change the fact that it rises in the east. Just as their use of the term 'partial communion' doesn't change the fact that no such thing exists, based on logic (see the syllogism), Canon Law, and The Magisterium of the Church (not the post-Vatican II 'magisterium').
Jovan-Marya of the Immaculate Conception Weismiller, T.O.Carm.

Vive le Christ-roi! Vive le roi, Louis XX!
Deum timete, regem honorificate.
Kansan by birth! Albertan by choice! Jayhawk by the Grace of God!
  “Qui me amat, amet et canem meum. (Who loves me will love my dog also.)” 
St Bernard of Clairvaux

My Blog 'Musings of an Old Curmudgeon'


Reply
#24
(05-26-2018, 06:33 PM)vpanno Wrote: Isn't their structure similar to what it was before the illicit consecrations?

The structure granted in 1970 was a Society of Common Life (now called a Society of Apostolic Life) (Canons 731-746).

The 1988 consecration of bishops had no canonical effect on the Society, only, arguably on the six men involved (Abp. Lefebvre, Bps. de Castro Mayer, Williamson, de Galerreta Tissier de Mallerais, and Fellay).

The problem is that when the new bishop in Fribourg wanted to shut down the SSPX, he arranged for a canonical visitation of the seminary, at which the visitors spoke about highly scandalous things like married priests being just around the corner. As a result Archbishop Lefebvre gave a conference to the seminarians often called is 1974 "Declaration". It was a private statement assuring them of his fidelity and replying to the scandalous words. Jean Madiran got a copy of it and printed it in his journal Itinéraires. As a result Archbishop Lefebvre was called to the Vatican, questioned by a three-cardinal commission, and this commission then told the local bishop that he could supress the SSPX which he presumed to do. The problem is that Canon Law does not allow this. Once established only the Pope can suppress a group.

Archbishop Lefebvre appealed. This appeal is suspensive, meaning the decision is stopped until the appeal decided. The relevant tribunals were prevented from hearing the appeal by Cardinal Villot, claiming the decision was specifically approved by the Pope, making appeal impossible.

The Congregation for Religious, however, even after this "supression" gave permission for a Dominican to leave his religious institute and join the SSPX.

Since then the attitude of most of the curia has been to pretend that the SSPX is supressed. The Society holds that this supression was illicit and invalid, and that the original structure still remains. They have had to use supplied jurisdiction and the state of necessity to deal with situations where they need the authority, but where the authority refuses to treat them as the Catholic society that they are.

So, that's the situation.

(05-26-2018, 06:33 PM)vpanno Wrote: From what I have read on the subject, what they lack is simply full recognition from the Vatican.

This is probably the best way to say it. The Vatican does not fully recognize them, because it has not yet juridically answered the appeal from 1976.

If the Holy See provided the documentation of specific approval of the invalid supression, then the SSPX would have been legally (but perhaps not justly suppressed) and the solution would be to grant them an official structure.

If they decided the suppression was illicit and thus invalid, the SSPX would immediately and automatically be recognized as a Society of Apostolic Life of Diocesan Right in Fribourg.

If they received the Personal Prelature discussed in the last few years, then it would close supression question, since it would establish them in a new structure. But either way what is lacking is for the Holy See to decide how it will consider the SSPX. De iure, however, the SSPX still exists until the appeal is answered.

(05-26-2018, 06:33 PM)vpanno Wrote: Meaning the liceity of the administration of the sacraments by SSPX priests is in question (except for confessions and I believe marriages).

Confessions and Marriages are the only Sacraments which involve the use of some power from the bishop for validity.

The reason that they were given Confessional faculties was to end the line of argumentation that said that those who confessed to an SSPX priest were not being forgiven their sins. The marriage situation was rectified to prevent SSPX couples going to the diocese for an annulment for lack of canonical form when the marriage got tough (which is a rubber-stamp process, not a full investigation).

One, orders, requires permission of the bishop or religious superior of the candidates (called Dismissorial Letters), but Bishop Fellay publicly announced he had been given permission to ordain SSPX priests without the permission of the local bishops. No one with any authority has claimed this is false.

Communion/Mass and Extreme Unction are licit without any other questions of an "official ministry". A priest has a right to say Mass, except if he has been penalized by suspension. The faithful have a right to receive Communion unless they are in the state of sin or otherwise unprepared. Any priest can administer licitly Extreme Unction.

The only Sacrament which is done illicitly is Confirmation, since an external bishop is coming into a diocese to do this without the permission of the local bishop. This is not required for validity, but for liceity it is.

There is a good reason for this in most places. Firstly, many bishops refuse to offer the traditional rite. Secondly, even if they do, there is question of the validity of the new rite of Confirmation because invalid matter is used and the rite's form is highly questionable. It was the universal opinion of theologians before the 1970s that only olive oil mixed with fragrant essential oils/balsam and blessed by the bishop on Holy Thursday was valid matter for Chrism. This was always held to be specifically instituted by Christ since it was the universal practice even in schismatic sects, while the form was not so specifically determined. Other vegetable oils were thus universally held to be certainly invalid, yet Paul VI allowed these invalid oils to be used. The form too, also has some serious problems since it went from "I sign you with the sign of the Cross, and confirm you with the Chrism of Salvation ..." to "receive the seal of the Gift of the Holy Spirit." It is questionable, since every Sacrament gives the Holy Ghost, and even the diaconate ordination form "Send forth upon him the Holy Spirit, that he may be strengthened by the gift of your sevenfold grace", suggests that the new form for Confirmation may not be specific enough, or at least so heavily depend on the intention of the minister as to admit doubts.

(05-26-2018, 06:33 PM)vpanno Wrote: Based on your understanding of the situation, would you have any objections to receiving sacraments from SSPX priests?

No. I would not.
Reply
#25
vpanno, do a Google search for the 'Hawaii Six' or 'Hawaii Excommunications'. Here is a summary, my emphasis added:

Quote:Twenty years ago in January 1991, a canonical decree of excommunication was issued in Honolulu, Hawaii against six lay persons by the local bishop of that diocese. Their supposed crime was attending the SSPX’s Our Lady of Fatima Chapel in that city and utilizing one of the Society’s bishops for conferring the sacrament of confirmation. Two years later in 1993, this decree was overturned by none other Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, one of the first actions he would take in favor of Tradition.
Jovan-Marya of the Immaculate Conception Weismiller, T.O.Carm.

Vive le Christ-roi! Vive le roi, Louis XX!
Deum timete, regem honorificate.
Kansan by birth! Albertan by choice! Jayhawk by the Grace of God!
  “Qui me amat, amet et canem meum. (Who loves me will love my dog also.)” 
St Bernard of Clairvaux

My Blog 'Musings of an Old Curmudgeon'


Reply
#26
@MagisterMusicae

Thanks for the great info. I'll try to look up the 1974 declaration. Also, do we know if cardinal Villot lied regarding the supposed approval of the Pope? He was close to Paul VI I believe... But even assuming the suppression was not legitimate and thus invalid, and assuming there was indeed a lack of owed response from the Vatican following the appeal, doesn't the excommunications in Ecclesia Dei years later render all the previous sanctions irrelevant anyways? This is from the motu proprio (1988):

Everyone should be aware that formal adherence to the schism is a grave offence against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church's law.

So far this is how I understand it. The Society was treated unlawfully up until 1988. From 1988 until Latae Sententiae, the Society was indeed in schism and knowingly associating with them was not permissible by the Church (per the Pope's authority). However, since 2009, the lifting of the excommunications coupled with the recognition of administering sacraments means the Society is indeed in Communion, despite the (fallacious, I guess) statements coming from the Popes saying their canonical status or liceity is still in question. Does that sound about right?

Anyway, I think we should just pray for the SSPX matter to be clearly resolved and for the Vatican to explicitly state the Society's rightful status. For that, of course, SSPX would have to accept Vatican II and all the teachings that come with it... Personally, I just want a strong body in the Church that would be a beacon against the heresy and modernism propagating at unprecedented rates. If SSPX and FSSP were to merge one day and keep growing (assuming they aren't shut down by the Vatican), I am confident the number of faithfuls returning to the SPV rite and traditional teachings is going to grow. In my opinion, officially accepting the teachings of VII would be a small price to pay... with the Tridentine Mass widely available for all Catholics, Satan would have a harder time spreading his filth in our Church. God Bless.


@jovan66102
I remember reading about that. I believe SSPX claims this proves sacraments and attendance at their churches is not worthy of excommunication. I guess this is true if the concept of partial Communion doesn't exist and one either is or is not in the Church - something that seems to be the common consensus here so far. Pope Benedict XVI certainly was of great help to the Society, especially in his years as Pope. I wish he would have done more, but his help in improving SSPX's status remains something to be happy about. God Bless.
Reply
#27
(05-27-2018, 05:12 AM)vpanno Wrote: Thanks for the great info. I'll try to look up the 1974 declaration. Also, do we know if cardinal Villot lied regarding the supposed approval of the Pope? He was close to Paul VI I believe... But even assuming the suppression was not legitimate and thus invalid, and assuming there was indeed a lack of owed response from the Vatican following the appeal, doesn't the excommunications in Ecclesia Dei years later render all the previous sanctions irrelevant anyways? This is from the motu proprio (1988):

Everyone should be aware that formal adherence to the schism is a grave offence against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church's law.

So far this is how I understand it. The Society was treated unlawfully up until 1988. From 1988 until Latae Sententiae, the Society was indeed in schism and knowingly associating with them was not permissible by the Church (per the Pope's authority). However, since 2009, the lifting of the excommunications coupled with the recognition of administering sacraments means the Society is indeed in Communion, despite the (fallacious, I guess) statements coming from the Popes saying their canonical status or liceity is still in question. Does that sound about right?

No.

Firstly the 1988 Consecration only canonically affected 6 people (unless the SSPX argument is correct and Canon 1323 or 1324 applied).

This was an action of six men who could possibly fall under an automatic penalty as a result of the consecrations. The rest of the SSPX or associated people were not subject to automatic penalties, nor could the action of five members of a group and one outsider (none of who was the Superior General) have a canonical effect on the Society any more than the private words of a member of a Society could be the reason for its suppression.

You will note that in the 1988 Letter, Pope John Paul II never canonically declares any penality, but is merely recognizing the facts. That is not a juridical declaration. He never says anything to the effect of "the SSPX is thereby in schism".

"Formal adherence" was never defined in this case and is something that must be declared, like all penalties. Precisely because of the ambiguity in what could constitute such adherence, it is not a matter for private judgement by for the authorities to declare and impose penalties. That never happened with the SSPX.

(05-27-2018, 05:12 AM)vpanno Wrote: Anyway, I think we should just pray for the SSPX matter to be clearly resolved and for the Vatican to explicitly state the Society's rightful status.

That would be good.

(05-27-2018, 05:12 AM)vpanno Wrote: For that, of course, SSPX would have to accept Vatican II and all the teachings that come with it.

But Vatican II never taught any new doctrines, and Popes John and Paul both explained this carefully, so what precisely does the SSPX have to accept that was not taught before Vatican II?

(05-27-2018, 05:12 AM)vpanno Wrote: In my opinion, officially accepting the teachings of VII would be a small price to pay...

You make it sounds like whatever new "teachings" these are they are an evil to be tolerated, not a good thing to be accepted.
Reply
#28
(05-27-2018, 03:55 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: You will note that in the 1988 Letter, Pope John Paul II never canonically declares any penality, but is merely recognizing the facts. That is not a juridical declaration. He never says anything to the effect of "the SSPX is thereby in schism".

"Formal adherence" was never defined in this case and is something that must be declared, like all penalties. Precisely because of the ambiguity in what could constitute such adherence, it is not a matter for private judgement by for the authorities to declare and impose penalties. That never happened with the SSPX.

-----

(05-27-2018, 05:12 AM)vpanno Wrote: For that, of course, SSPX would have to accept Vatican II and all the teachings that come with it.

But Vatican II never taught any new doctrines, and Popes John and Paul both explained this carefully, so what precisely does the SSPX have to accept that was not taught before Vatican II?

-----

(05-27-2018, 05:12 AM)vpanno Wrote: In my opinion, officially accepting the teachings of VII would be a small price to pay...

You make it sounds like whatever new "teachings" these are they are an evil to be tolerated, not a good thing to be accepted.

Pope John Paul II does call it a schism, though.

3. In itself, this act was one of disobedience to the Roman Pontiff in a very grave matter and of supreme importance for the unity of the church, such as is the ordination of bishops whereby the apostolic succession is sacramentally perpetuated. Hence such disobedience - which implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy - constitutes a schismatic act.

4. The root of this schismatic act can be discerned in an incomplete and contradictory notion of Tradition.

I do agree, however, that formal adherence can mean absolutely anything and the lack of definition in Ecclesia Dei renders the entire threat void from a judicial standpoint. But as a Catholic always wishing to remain in Communion with Rome, I would have probably just avoided SSPX altogether under such threats made by the Pontiff himself.

-----

Regarding Vatican II teachings, I believe the Society would first have to officially recognize the Novus Ordo mass (if I'm not mistaken they completely reject its validity right now). Also they would have to accept little dogmatic (some will say heretic) 'updates' regarding the worship of the One True God and our faith in general (cf. Lumen gentium as an example, in which I think there are statements alleging Muslims worship the same God as us). Finally, they would have to accept all the ecumenical work that has been done since 1962 (not teachings per se, but still a major evolution in the bad direction).

-----

I do believe it accepting these would be a small price to pay in exchange for a strong fraternity such as SSPX returning to 'full Communion' status. We need traditionalists and even extremists I would dare say these days, and we need them within Church walls. Not somewhere in between.
Reply
#29
(05-27-2018, 06:29 PM)vpanno Wrote: Regarding Vatican II teachings, I believe the Society would first have to officially recognize the Novus Ordo mass (if I'm not mistaken they completely reject its validity right now). Also they would have to accept little dogmatic (some will say heretic) 'updates' regarding the worship of the One True God and our faith in general (cf. Lumen gentium as an example, in which I think there are statements alleging Muslims worship the same God as us). Finally, they would have to accept all the ecumenical work that has been done since 1962 (not teachings per se, but still a major evolution in the bad direction).

-----

I do believe it accepting these would be a small price to pay in exchange for a strong fraternity such as SSPX returning to 'full Communion' status. We need traditionalists and even extremists I would dare say these days, and we need them within Church walls. Not somewhere in between.
First of all, Paul VI made it clear that Vatican II did not introduce any new doctrines. Secondly, if as is obvious, there are heresies in the non-dogmatic documents of the Council, are you saying that it would be a small price to pay to repudiate the Catholic Faith as taught for 1900 years? 

And the 'ecumenical work' you mention is absolutely heretical according to the Magisterium of Christ's Church.
Jovan-Marya of the Immaculate Conception Weismiller, T.O.Carm.

Vive le Christ-roi! Vive le roi, Louis XX!
Deum timete, regem honorificate.
Kansan by birth! Albertan by choice! Jayhawk by the Grace of God!
  “Qui me amat, amet et canem meum. (Who loves me will love my dog also.)” 
St Bernard of Clairvaux

My Blog 'Musings of an Old Curmudgeon'


Reply
#30
(05-27-2018, 06:29 PM)vpanno Wrote: Regarding Vatican II teachings, I believe the Society would first have to officially recognize the Novus Ordo mass (if I'm not mistaken they completely reject its validity right now).

They do not. It's a valid Mass, but inferior to the traditional Mass, since it's much more man-centred rather than God-centred, and was designed that way to appeal to Protestants.

(05-27-2018, 06:29 PM)vpanno Wrote: Also they would have to accept little dogmatic (some will say heretic) 'updates' regarding the worship of the One True God and our faith in general (cf. Lumen gentium as an example, in which I think there are statements alleging Muslims worship the same God as us).

That's not heretical, since one can worship God - or at least claim to - while offering worship that's displeasing to Him. Protestants deny Jesus founded a church, but they don't worship a different Jesus. Jews deny that Jesus is the Son of God, but still worship the Father, even though their worship is no longer pleasing, and by denying what God has revealed, show that they don't truly follow God - 'he who hath not the Son, hath not the Father' - but that doesn't mean that they offer their worship to some other god. Same for the Muslims, who are gravely mistaken about God's nature, but denying that God is a Trinity doesn't make it any less true. And plenty of people from before Vatican II have called Mohammedism a heresy. It can hardly be heresy if they worship a different god.

(05-27-2018, 06:29 PM)vpanno Wrote: Finally, they would have to accept all the ecumenical work that has been done since 1962 (not teachings per se, but still a major evolution in the bad direction).

Purely disciplinary - a different approach to ecumenism, and one which clearly hasn't worked. The next pope could get rid of all that, which, if it were doctrine, he couldn't.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)