Pope signals end to schism with Lefebvrists (priests, morals, reject)

[Scott1]

POPE BENEDICT XVI this week met the leader of the only religious group to go formally into schism since the Second Vatican Council, apparently to explore ways to heal the 17-year-old rupture and bring him and his followers back into full communion with Rome.



The Pope received Bishop Bernard Fellay, superior of the Society of St Pius X (also known as Lefebvrists), at his Castel Gandolfo residence on Monday. Dr Joaquín Navarro-Valls, the Pope’s spokesman, said the meeting took place at Bishop Fellay’s request and was conducted “in a climate of love for the Church and a desire to arrive at perfect communion”. The statement downplayed the significance of the 35-minute meeting but hinted that it was the start of more regular contacts. “While knowing the difficulties,” the spokesman said, “the desire was shown to proceed by degrees and in reasonable time.”

Afterwards, Bishop Fellay said the meeting took place in an “atmosphere of calm” and was “an opportunity for the Society to manifest that it has always been attached – and will always be – to the Holy See, Eternal Rome”. The bishop said his group, which boasts some 450 priests and nearly 180 seminarians in 26 countries, prayed that “the Holy Father might find the strength to put an end to the crisis in the Church and ‘restore all things in Christ’”.

But on Tuesday, Cardinal Francesco Pompedda, the former prefect of the Apostolic Signatura, told the Italian daily La Stampa that the Society of St Pius X could only be reconciled to the Holy See if it recognised Vatican authority. Full communion with the Lefebvrists can only be achieved “if the society submits itself to the legitimate authority of the Pope” and recognises the validity of Vatican II decrees, the Italian cardinal said. He added that the traditionalists should explicitly recognise “the validity of papal elections from the death of Pius XII up until today”. Cardinal Pompedda observed that some traditionalists have questioned the validity of papal elections during that period.

The ultra-conservative Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre founded the Society of St Pius X in 1970 as a means of preserving the use of the Tridentine Mass, which the bishops of the Second Vatican Council – almost unanimously – voted to reform. But the group soon displayed that its attachment to the so-called Old Rite was only one feature of its more serious rejection of some of the major elements of the Council, especially ecumenism and interreligious dialogue.

After Archbishop Lefebvre refused to close his seminaries, Pope Paul VI in 1976 suspended him “a divinis” from celebrating the sacraments. Two years later the newly elected Pope John Paul II began efforts to accommodate the traditionalist group, going so far as granting a still controversial indult for the limited use of the Old Rite, which most liturgists at the time believed had been replaced by the post-Vatican II Mass. Pope John Paul’s efforts, aided principally by the then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, were eventually rebuffed by Archbishop Lefebvre, who incurred automatic excommunication in 1988 when he defied the Pope and ordained four bishops.

“The Society of St Pius X … has always disapproved of the indefatigable efforts of Pope John Paul II towards ecumenism, efforts which have led to a weakening of the Faith and of the defence of Truth,” Bishop Fellay wrote in a message upon the Pope’s death last April. The Tridentine Mass, in essence, was codified at the Council of Trent as part of the Catholic Church’s answer to the Protestant Reformation. When Benedict XVI was elected Pope, Bishop Fellay said it was “a gleam of hope that we may find a way out of the profound crisis which is shaking the Catholic Church”. The superior of the Society of St Pius X said he hoped that “the two-thousand-year-old Tradition of the Church, forgotten and mistreated during the last 40 years, may regain its place during this Pontificate, and that the Traditional Holy Mass may be re-established in all its rights, without restrictions”.
Robert Mickens, Rome

www.thetablet.co.uk

[Te Deum]

Actually I argue that the SSPX is not in schism using Canon Law.

Was Archbishop Lefebvre (along with his co-consecrator and the four bishops whom he consecrated) excommunicated also for having done a “schismatic act” (as well as for consecrating without a pontifical mandate)?

No. A first argument to that is already given.

What, moreover, constitutes a schismatic act? Not the mere deed of consecrating bishops without pontifical mandate. The 1983 Code of Canon Law itself lists this offense under Title 3 (abuse of ecclesiastical powers) and not under Title 1 (offenses against religion and the unity of the Church) of its penal section (Book 6).
Nor would it be a “schismatic act” to consecrate against the express wish of the Holy Father. That could amount to disobedience at most.* But disobedience does not amount to schism; schism requires that one not recognize the authority of the pope to command; disobedience consists in not obeying a command, whilst still acknowledging the authority of the one commanding. “The child who says ‘I won’t!’ to his mother does not deny that she is his mother” (Fr. Glover, in Is Tradition Excommunicated? p. 99).

*(But there is no disobedience, cf. An Open Letter to Confused Catholics, pp. 129-136, Cf. "The act of consecrating a bishop (without the pope's permission) is not itself a schismatic act," Cardinal Lara, President of the Pontifical Commission for the Authentic Interpretation of Canon Law, in La Repubblica, Oct. 7, 1988)

Now, Archbishop Lefebvre always recognized the pope’s authority (proved by his consultations with Rome for a solution to the current problems) and so does the SSPX. (See, for example, its support for Pope John Paul II’s Ordinatio Sacerdotalis against women priests.) Consecrating a bishop without pontifical mandate would be a schismatic act if one pretended to confer not just the fullness of the priesthood but also jurisdiction, a governing power over a particular flock. Only the pope, who has universal jurisdiction over the whole Church, can appoint a pastor to a flock and empower him to govern it. But Archbishop Lefebvre never presumed to confer anything but the full priestly powers of Orders, and in no way did he grant any jurisdiction (which he himself did not have personally to give).

As for the faithful, threatened by Pope John Paul II himself with excommunication if they adhere formally to the schism (Ecclesia Dei Afflicta, July 2, 1988), do they indeed incur any excommunication for going to SSPX priests for the sacraments?
Not at all. The priests of the Society are neither excommunicated nor schismatics (Is Tradition Excommunicated? pp. 1-39). This being so, how could any of the faithful who approach them incur these penalties? Besides:

Excommunication is a penalty for those who commit certain crimes with full moral guilt, not a contagious disease! (Fr. Glover ibid., p. 100)

On May 1, 1991, Bishop Ferrario of Hawaii “excommunicated” certain Catholics of his diocese for attending Masses celebrated by priests of the SSPX, and receiving a bishop of the Society 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)

Source: SSPX Website's FAQs

[Francine]

Originally Posted by Te Deum

Actually I argue that the SSPX is not in schism using Canon Law.

Surely you do not question the authority of the Holy See to excommunicate those four bishops. This would be a question of faith and morals, and would fall under the ex cathedra charism of infallibility.

[Te Deum]

Originally Posted by Francine

Surely you do not question the authority of the Holy See to excommunicate those four bishops. This would be a question of faith and morals, and would fall under the ex cathedra charism of infallibility.

But the Catholic Church did not officially excommunicate them. The claimed excommunicated as an "automatic excommunication" but if the necessary criteria for such an excommunication are absent and an exception is present than the excommunication never happened.

So, yes the Holy See has the authority but they never did declare them officially excommunicated with the necessary ceremony/statesments. And, as my previous post illustrates, the conditions for an automatic excommunication did not occur. Tehrefore, the SSPX is not in schism and the bishops are not excommunicated.

[Francine]

Originally Posted by Te Deum

But the Catholic Church did not officially excommunicate them. The claimed excommunicated as an "automatic excommunication" but if the necessary criteria for such an excommunication are absent and an exception is present than the excommunication never happened.

Gosh, that's a neat trick. Maybe I can get around the automatic excommunication incurred by Catholics who commit grave offenses against chastity.

[athanasius]

Originally Posted by Francine

Gosh, that's a neat trick. Maybe I can get around the automatic excommunication incurred by Catholics who commit grave offenses against chastity.

I'm with you! I want to get around the no adultery and no abortion law. I'm sure theres a loophole some heretic can come up with. Maybe if I am slick enough at arguing.

[Francine]

Originally Posted by athanasius

I'm with you! I want to get around the no adultery and no abortion law. I'm sure theres a loophole some heretic can come up with. Maybe if I am slick enough at arguing.

Athanasius, you have a very priestly je ne sais qua about you.

[Te Deum]

Originally Posted by Francine

Gosh, that's a neat trick. Maybe I can get around the automatic excommunication incurred by Catholics who commit grave offenses against chastity.

Keeping with seriousness, please do read the FAQs on the SSPX website. I love the Tridentine Mass and slowly I came to understand that they are not in schism because of Canon Law issues. This is a highly debatable issue and not one side is clearly right. Again, I recommend the FAQs on the SSPX website.

Here is an excerpt:

Consecrating a bishop without pontifical mandate would be a schismatic act if one pretended to confer not just the fullness of the priesthood but also jurisdiction, a governing power over a particular flock. Only the pope, who has universal jurisdiction over the whole Church, can appoint a pastor to a flock and empower him to govern it. But Archbishop Lefebvre never presumed to confer anything but the full priestly powers of Orders, and in no way did he grant any jurisdiction (which he himself did not have personally to give).

As for the faithful, threatened by Pope John Paul II himself with excommunication if they adhere formally to the schism (Ecclesia Dei Afflicta, July 2, 1988), do they indeed incur any excommunication for going to SSPX priests for the sacraments?

Let's not call me a heretic for having pro-SSPX views. I am a Roman Catholic seminarian dedicated to upholding the teachings of the Faith.

[Francine]

Originally Posted by Te Deum

Let's not call me a heretic for having pro-SSPX views.

I plead not guilty. I do, however, admire the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter, who instead of seeking various legalisms to contest the excommunications, broke with Archbishop Lefebvre and obtained papal recognition, putting the unity of the Church ahead of spiritual pride.

I am a Roman Catholic seminarian dedicated to upholding the teachings of the Faith.

Awesome. Would that many more young men and women felt the calling to a sacred vocation.

[kai]

how many schisms are there by the way?