“Is the SSPX in schism? YES. Find out why” -I've made a video, grateful for feedback
#41
(05-25-2020, 09:41 PM)jovan66102 Wrote:
(05-25-2020, 06:27 PM)humilityandpatience Wrote: If the argument is that the Society is not in schism due to temporary faculties granted in Mercy of Holy Mother Church (primarily for the benefit of the laity in question), which have been extended, then I'm not sure that is a strong one.

Peace be with you!


Again, What part of 'even the Pope cannot grant faculties to those outside the Church, i.e. schismatics', don't you understand? If they are schismatic, if they are outside the Church (which is what 'schism' means, viz. the Orthodox), Francis CANNOT grant them faculties, mercy or no mercy.

Whether the faculties were temporary or not, they PROVE that the Society is not in schism.You simply keep ignoring that fact because it proves your whole premise is false.

Thanks Jovan, I do appreciate the discussion. I have responded to you on this in my previous post and IMO have addressed this, pasted again below in blue for ease.

In summary, we are talking about a "material" schism and not a formal one (to be resolved legalistically). It is the overarching spirit of the Society which ought to be looked at in this regard. Having said this, the churches stance is also clear on the matter in my opinion. I.e.  Summorum Pontificum and Ecclesiae Unitatem have not yet been resolved. In addition, the 2012 conditions rejected by Fellay reveal the heart of the matter.

Continuing to reject VII and the NO mean that the schism is intrinsic until those matters are resolved. A temporary indult granting faculties does not nullify the heart of the matter. 

Regarding schism- I am using the definition in Canon Law- "“the refusal- of submission to the Supreme Pontiff- or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him”.

God bless and peace be with you, brother.

"Thanks Jovan. In response I this it is worth remembering that after Pope Francis extended the indults offered at the Jubilee of Mercy, his very next line was "For the pastoral benefit of these faithful, and trusting in the good will of their priests to strive with God’s help for the recovery of full communion in the Catholic Church I have personally decided to extend this faculty beyond the Jubilee Year..." etc.

If the argument is that the Society is not in schism due to temporary faculties granted in Mercy of Holy Mother Church (primarily for the benefit of the laity in question), which have been extended, then I'm not sure that is a strong one. Because we still have 50 years of history which this indult does not supersede. What happens if the extended indults are halted? etc.

Essentially I think this anomaly of the extended indults is clouding the fundamental issue here which is the professed rejection of the terms last offered by Rome for a return to communion- V2 and NO as an equal rite.

Peace be with you!"
Reply
#42
(05-26-2020, 04:34 PM)humilityandpatience Wrote: Thanks Jovan, I do appreciate the discussion. I have responded to you on this in my previous post and IMO have addressed this, pasted again below in blue for ease.
In summary, we are talking about a "material" schism and not a formal one (to be resolved legalistically). It is the overarching spirit of the Society which ought to be looked at in this regard. Having said this, the churches stance is also clear on the matter in my opinion. I.e.  Summorum Pontificum and Ecclesiae Unitatem have not yet been resolved. In addition, the 2012 conditions rejected by Fellay reveal the heart of the matter.

Continuing to reject VII and the NO mean that the schism is intrinsic until those matters are resolved. A temporary indult granting faculties does not nullify the heart of the matter. 

Regarding schism- I am using the definition in Canon Law- "“the refusal- of submission to the Supreme Pontiff- or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him”.

God bless and peace be with you, brother.

"Thanks Jovan. In response I this it is worth remembering that after Pope Francis extended the indults offered at the Jubilee of Mercy, his very next line was "For the pastoral benefit of these faithful, and trusting in the good will ofb their priests to strive with God’s help for the recovery of full communion in the Catholic Church I have personally decided to extend this faculty beyond the Jubilee Year..." etc.

If the argument is that the Society is not in schism due to temporary faculties granted in Mercy of Holy Mother Church (primarily for the benefit of the laity in question), which have been extended, then I'm not sure that is a strong one. Because we still have 50 years of history which this indult does not supersede. What happens if the extended indults are halted? etc.

Essentially I think this anomaly of the extended indults is clouding the fundamental issue here which is the professed rejection of the terms last offered by Rome for a return to communion- V2 and NO as an equal rite.

Peace be with you!"

No, you did not answer my question. You said 'it is worth remembering that after Pope Francis extended the indults',  by which you admit he granted faculties to the Priests of the Society. Since (excuse the caps, but I want to be sure you don't misunderstand) NOT EVEN THE POPE CAN GRANT FACULTIES TO THOSE OUTSIDE THE CHURCH, AND IF THE SSPX IS IN SCHISM, THEY ARE OUTSIDE THE CHURCH JUST LIKE THE ORTHODOX, HOW COULD HE GRANT THEM FACULTIES?

It's a simple question, which you have been dancing around in an attempt to avoid answering through this whole thread. If he granted them faculties, they cannot be schismatics. If they are schismatic, he can't grant them faculties. Since you are obviously a brilliant theologian and canonist, who has studied this question in great depth (obviously in much greater depth than men who have spent their lives in specialising in only one or the other of the disciplines and disagree with your position) it should be easy for you to explain the logical contradiction involved in your thesis.
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'


[-] The following 2 users Like jovan66102's post:
  • HailGilbert, Quickbeam
Reply
#43
(05-26-2020, 04:01 PM)humilityandpatience Wrote: Dear MagisterMusicae, Archbishop Lefebvre had much stronger views on NO and VII, I think it is worth pointing out. The words "intrinsically evil", "heretical" and "schismatic" were used by Lefebvre in regards to the what he called the "Conciliar" church and its teachings etc. This is what he, as founder of the Society, said.

Then I am sure you will be happy to provide those citations and quotes from Archbishop Lefebvre himself with date, title of the writing/sermon and the actual quote in context.

(05-25-2020, 08:23 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: Mudslinging has no place in this discussion. However- this is about fellow Catholics arriving at Truth together, which I do think is worthy.

But that "truth" is not true independent of what the Church, Herself, has said, and as pointed out the Holy See has consistently stated and acted as if the SSPX was not an external matter (a matter of ecumenism, like with the schismatic Easterns and heretical/schismatic Protestants), but an internal one (and so a matter of canonical status, not schism).
[-] The following 2 users Like MagisterMusicae's post:
  • jovan66102, MiserereMeiDeus
Reply
#44
(05-25-2020, 10:13 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote:
(05-25-2020, 04:58 PM)humilityandpatience Wrote: I do however think that the Mercy of the Church during the past 50 years, towards the Society, has been immense. The door has been open for a while.

So, given you've done enough expert-level research on the SSPX and the situation, I'm sure you would be happy then to share the documents you have from the 2012 and now present Theological discussions ongoing to show how the Society leaders have rejected some proposed "reconciliation, or are contumacious at present and unreasonable in their rejection.

Contumacy is one of the necessary condition for schism.

I am sure you will be happy to show also through documentation that the SSPX rejects the principle of the Pope's authority to govern in itself, which is the real definition of schism.

Every traditional moral theologian would agree that schism requires not mere disobedience to a command, but a rejection of the authority of the Pope to govern, in se and a contumacy in this. Hence one of the more accessible of these, Heribert Jone, O.F.M., one classical moral theologian could write :

Quote:A schismatic is one who refuses to be subject to the Supreme Pontiff or who declines to have communication with the members of the Church subject to the Holy Father ... but not every one is a schismatic who simply refuses to obey the Holy Father, even for a long time.

The SSPX, as far as I am aware, does not reject the authority of the Pope, in se, but rejects certain specific commands from the Pope which they justify by saying that these commands are harmful to the Faith.

Let us assume that they are wrong in this assessment. If so, they would at least have a reason for disobedience, even if a false reason, so while disobedient to the Pope, would not be rejecting the principle of the Pope's authority, which from what I know they seem to assert, seeing as they constantly cite the Church's Magisterium.

So, care to provide those documents?

Dear MagisterMusicae, many thanks for your message. In response to your main points:

1. Regarding the conditions last proposed by Rome, Fellay said in 2012 re Papa: "the conditions that he sets are impossible for us. The conditions that are found in his letter are for us quite simply impossible." That is verbatim from source.
2. Yes, contumacy is something which I have covered in Part 2 of the video where I present quotes which portray Society views towards the Church Hierarchy.
3. One can propose they accept a principle without actually putting this into practice. With the actions of the society, proposing adherence/belief of this principle is not a given. This links to my point re the implicit material schism.
4. This is essentially the state of necessity argument which flows forth from Archbishop Lefebvre's original defence. However the burden of proof on said state lies on the Society to prove. And the Vatican has unequivocally rejected the appeal to grave necessity in defence of subordinance/rejection of VII and NO etc.

God bless and peace be with you, Brother/Sister in Christ!
Reply
#45
I find it ironic that one is accusing the SSPX of being schism because of their rigorous and legalist views regarding Vatican II and the NO, by engaging in some of the most absurd form of rigorous legalism I have seen.

What are your thoughts regarding Recognize and Resist Catholics?
[-] The following 4 users Like austenbosten's post:
  • HailGilbert, humilityandpatience, jovan66102, MagisterMusicae
Reply
#46
(05-26-2020, 06:13 PM)humilityandpatience Wrote: Regarding the conditions last proposed by Rome, Fellay said in 2012 re Papa: "the conditions that he sets are impossible for us. The conditions that are found in his letter are for us quite simply impossible." That is verbatim from source.

What were those conditions?

"I'll give you canonical status if you deny the Holy Trinity" would be impossible conditions. I'm not saying that's what was asked, but it's a useless statement unless we know what conditions were asked. Was the SSPX asked something reasonable or unreasonable?

So what conditions is Bishop Fellay referring to?

Please cite documents and identify your sources not just quotes that we cannot check.

(05-26-2020, 06:13 PM)humilityandpatience Wrote: Yes, contumacy is something which I have covered in Part 2 of the video where I present quotes which portray Society views towards the Church Hierarchy.

I'm not arguing with your video, so pointing me to your video as a response is useless as well. Make the argument here, please.

(05-26-2020, 06:13 PM)humilityandpatience Wrote: One can propose they accept a principle without actually putting this into practice. With the actions of the society, proposing adherence/belief of this principle is not a given. This links to my point re the implicit material schism.

Please cite a canonist or theological author that defines "material schism". I spent more than 6 years in the seminary doing theology and canon law and never once heard this term used in moral theology or canon law.

(05-26-2020, 06:13 PM)humilityandpatience Wrote: This is essentially the state of necessity argument which flows forth from Archbishop Lefebvre's original defence. However the burden of proof on said state lies on the Society to prove. And the Vatican has unequivocally rejected the appeal to grave necessity in defence of subordinance/rejection of VII and NO etc.

What is "essentially the state of necessity argument"?

When you engage with an interlocutor, you cannot simply dismiss their argument as "essentially the same" as some other argument which is supposedly rejected, without showing how it is.

So, how is what I have said "essential the state of necessity argument" and why is that argument incorrect and how does that apply to what I've written?

You've said you wanted critique and challenges. Then you ought to engage with what has been presented instead of dismissing it with short statements that do not actually address the point.
[-] The following 3 users Like MagisterMusicae's post:
  • HailGilbert, jovan66102, MiserereMeiDeus
Reply
#47
(05-25-2020, 10:43 PM)piscis Wrote: And back to the OP's topic, seriously in 2020, it's practically impossible to argue with any sort of rigor that the SSPX is in schism. Dr. Ed Peters (to cite another canon lawyer) used to argue that the excommunications were valid, and therefore the SSPX leadership were in schism, but that is to be distinguished from the membership. But with Benedict's 2009 lifting of the excommunications, he followed the obvious, logical conclusion: the SSPX was no longer in schism even if they were in an irregular position (of some mysterious, undefinable nature) because, as Benedict had acknowledged, the SSPX had withdrawn from contumacy as required before the censure could be lifted.

You should also consider that a significant percentage of FSSP priests don't even agree with Fr. Bisig about the SSPX's schismatic status. Why? Because they realized the arguments weren't that strong to begin with. By the way, at least in the US district, they all learned the arguments from Fr. Bisig himself at the Denton seminary.

So you're basically arguing against both Popes Benedict and Francis as well as multiple trained canon lawyers as well as the bishops who headed Ecclesia Dei over the past 20 years who insisted that the SSPX is not in schism. Do you still really think you're right? I know if I found myself on the opposite camp as all those people, who were specifically trained in these matters where I am not, I would have serious hesitations in holding my contrary opinion.

Dear piscis thanks for your message Brother in Christ. I completely get your point of view on this. But if I were to use the appeal to authority argument I could also point to Cardinal Burke's, whose views and credentials are clear on this. And I would also argue that Pope Benedict in Ecclesiae Unitatem 2009 and Pope Francis in his 2015 Jubilee of Mercy letter make it clear that the Societies' position remains unchanged, despite the outpouring of Mercy in both instances. In other words, the continued rejection of VII and NO make the schism implicit.

I have quoted from both below:

Ecclesiae Unitatem 2009:
“the doctrinal questions obviously remain and until they are clarified the Society has no canonical status in the Church and its ministers cannot legitimately exercise any ministry”

Jubilee of Mercy 2015:
"I trust that in the near future solutions may be found to recover full communion with the priests and superiors of the Fraternity. In the meantime, motivated by the need to respond to the good of these faithful, through my own disposition, I establish that those who during the Holy Year of Mercy approach these priests of the Fraternity of St Pius X to celebrate the Sacrament of Reconciliation shall validly and licitly receive the absolution of their sins."
Reply
#48
Quote:In other words, the continued rejection of VII and NO make the schism implicit.
 

What does "rejection of Vatican II and the NO" even mean? They believe Vatican II happened, was a validly convened Council, etc., and that the NO Mass is a true Mass. So what are you talking about here? What does "not rejecting Vatican II" look like to you?
T h e   D u d e t t e   A b i d e s
[-] The following 4 users Like VoxClamantis's post:
  • HailGilbert, jovan66102, MagisterMusicae, MiserereMeiDeus
Reply
#49
(05-27-2020, 10:13 AM)humilityandpatience Wrote: In other words, the continued rejection of VII and NO make the schism implicit.

Could you please cite any approved Catholic author of a moral theology or canon law manual who can define what "implicit schism" is or even who speaks about "implicit schism"?

Like "material schism" which you used above, in 6 years of seminary I never once heard this term.

Are "material schism" and "implicit schism" the same thing? Are they distinct? If so what is the distinction between them? What is the distinction between the "schism" which is described and defined in Canon Law and this "material" or "implicit" schism?

Since you seem to understand this situation so well, I imagine you should be able to produce definitions and citations which reference solid Catholic theologians on this matter, since you're claiming theological conclusions.
[-] The following 2 users Like MagisterMusicae's post:
  • HailGilbert, MiserereMeiDeus
Reply
#50
(05-26-2020, 05:21 PM)jovan66102 Wrote: No, you did not answer my question. You said 'it is worth remembering that after Pope Francis extended the indults',  by which you admit he granted faculties to the Priests of the Society. Since (excuse the caps, but I want to be sure you don't misunderstand) NOT EVEN THE POPE CAN GRANT FACULTIES TO THOSE OUTSIDE THE CHURCH, AND IF THE SSPX IS IN SCHISM, THEY ARE OUTSIDE THE CHURCH JUST LIKE THE ORTHODOX, HOW COULD HE GRANT THEM FACULTIES?

It's a simple question, which you have been dancing around in an attempt to avoid answering through this whole thread. If he granted them faculties, they cannot be schismatics. If they are schismatic, he can't grant them faculties. Since you are obviously a brilliant theologian and canonist, who has studied this question in great depth (obviously in much greater depth than men who have spent their lives in specialising in only one or the other of the disciplines and disagree with your position) it should be easy for you to explain the logical contradiction involved in your thesis.

Dear Jovan many thanks for your reply. The Papa as the Supreme Pontiff and Legislator, by nature of an indult, can suspend Canon Law. Therefore, placing emphasis on the benefit of the faithful (giving them the sacraments of Reconciliation and Marriage), Papa Francesco dispensed of the Church's Mercy on the SSPX by granting the temporary faculties. This however did not resolve the enduring schism (as defined in Canon Law) and the call for communion was made by Papa in both his 2015 and 2016 letters regarding these very indults.

I do not claim to be those things and I do respect others views, I just hope to share mine charitably with fellow Catholics and am grateful for the opportunity to do so, Brother in Christ

Pax Christi!

(05-26-2020, 05:36 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: Then I am sure you will be happy to provide those citations and quotes from Archbishop Lefebvre himself with date, title of the writing/sermon and the actual quote in context.



But that "truth" is not true independent of what the Church, Herself, has said, and as pointed out the Holy See has consistently stated and acted as if the SSPX was not an external matter (a matter of ecumenism, like with the schismatic Easterns and heretical/schismatic Protestants), but an internal one (and so a matter of canonical status, not schism).

Dear Magister Musicaie, many thanks for your reply. The Society say on their website : "the New Mass is evil in and of itself regardless of the circumstances”. This follows forth from Archbishop Lefebvre himself declaring the mass as intrinsically evil in a book published by Angelus Press in 1981.


On your second point, my proposition is that the body of evidence on the contrary i.e. that SSPX is in schism is more definitive (Ecclesia Dei 1988, Summorum Pontificum 2007, Ecclesiae Unitatem 2009, the 2012 conditions rejected by Fellay, and the 2015/16 Jubilee of Mercy letter by Pope Francis) All of the above share the consistent message i.e until the SSPX accept VII and acknowledge NO as an equal rite there is still a schism (as defined by Canon Law)

Pax Christi!
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)