Can one be traditional and not support the SSPX?

[Meg]

Petrollton,

I'm glad to see that you don't believe that the Pope can disregard the Canon. So, where did Pope John Paul ll obtain the authority to excommunicate Archbishop Lefebvre?

I'm sure you know that I wasn't referring to Protestants. So, I take it, then, that you don't know of any other time in history where a ROMAN CATHOLIC Pope has excommunicated an Archbishop for consecrating bishops without express permission of the pope?

[Baskerville]

Why are people still fighting with pissinontrads he hates the SSPX and he wont change he's a schmuck. I took months before I felt the SSPX was safe to attend and Cardianl Ratzinger himself has said they are back in 04 if that wonst sway pissinontrads mind nothing well its like arguing with a pile of dog doo.

[Meg]

Why are people still fighting with pissinontrads he hates the SSPX and he wont change he's a schmuck. I took months before I felt the SSPX was safe to attend and Cardianl Ratzinger himself has said they are back in 04 if that wonst sway pissinontrads mind nothing well its like arguing with a pile of dog doo.

+1 fishie for that...excellent! 

[devotedknuckles]

Just so happens dog doo rhymes with Vpooo
LOL

[Meg]

Just so happens dog doo rhymes with Vpooo
LOL

and petrolltoo...!

I don't know why anyone could have such extreme animosity toward the SSPX...so much that they become a self-appointed 'rebel-police.' Probably has something to do, as scipio says, with money. Trads know that they are getting the real deal with the TLM, and will reciprocate with good donations.

I gotta run off to work now.

[nsper7]

Personally, I would probably not go to an SSPX Mass since, if I want a TLM experience, there is an FSSP Mass that is closer to my home and I can catch a ride to it with some friends who go every Sunday (I am thinking I may keep a schedule of going to my NO home parish 3x per month and the FSSP parish 1x per month so that I do keep a connection to the TLM).

It is amazing how Petrelton ends up causing me to defend the SSPX and I am certainly no huge fan of some of their actions (i.e. disobedience), but I can certainly respect what motivated +Lefebvre. Petrelton, have you ever read +Lefebvre's "Open Letter to Confused Catholics" (you can actually get that book and some other writings from the SSPX for free that they'll mail to you: http://www.sspx.org/apologetic_materials.htm; I don't want to make it sound like I am promoting their disobedience or some of their Anti-NO and Anti-V2 views, but I think it is important to listen to their side and to better understand their concerns and what drives them...they are not some evil organization bent on the destruction of the Church). I actually contacted the SSPX at one point to discuss vocations. I think if you read +Lefebvre's book you might have a little more respect and understanding for why he did what he did.

I can't quite bring myself to say that what +Lefebvre did in ordaining those four Bishops in disobedience to the Pope was a good thing, but if you read his writings, one can certainly perhaps understand why he felt he had to what he did. Like +Lefebvre, I think most of us can agree there are serious problems in the Church and that these issues have seeped into elements of the hierarchy. After reading "Open Letter", one should come away realizing that +Lefebvre had a great love for the Church and great concerns at some of the ridiculousness that goes on today.

I hope the SSPX is reconciled to Rome and becomes Canonically recognizes. I think they could give a powerful voice to the concerns many Catholics have, whether they are 'Traditional', 'Neo-Conservative' or whatever.

[petrelton]

Petrollton,

I'm glad to see that you don't believe that the Pope can disregard the Canon. So, where did Pope John Paul ll obtain the authority to excommunicate Archbishop Lefebvre?

How is this relevant? The legitimacy of the Popes excommunications of the Archbishop is beside the point. The point I am making is that the consecrations at Econe were disobedient and constitute a schismatic act.
However seeing you seem to think you are on a winner with your ridiculous assertion that JP 2 exceeded his authority then you should consider the following canons.

Can. 1364 ß1 An apostate from the faith, a heretic or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication, without prejudice to the provision of Can. 194 ß1, n. 2; a cleric, moreover, may be punished with the penalties mentioned in Can. 1336 ß1, nn. 1, 2 and 3.

Can. 1382 Both the Bishop who, without a pontifical mandate, consecrates a person a Bishop, and the one who receives the consecration from him, incur a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See.

Can. 1013 No Bishop is permitted to consecrate anyone as Bishop, unless it is first established that a pontifical mandate has been issued.

Can. 1014 Unless a dispensation has been granted by the Apostolic See, the principal consecrating Bishop at an episcopal consecration is to have at least two other consecrating Bishops with him. It is, however, entirely appropriate that all the Bishops present should join with these in consecrating the Bishop‚elect. (this condition was not met in 1988)

Can. 751 schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.

St. Thomas Aquinas "The essence of schism consists in rebelliously disobeying the commandments: and I say rebelliously, since a schismatic both obstinately scorns the commandments of the Church, and refuses to subject to her judgment" (Summa Theologica, IIa IIae Q.39 Art. 1. Dominican Fathers translation).

 (Rom. 13:1-2). "Let every soul be subject to higher powers: for there is no power but from God: and those that are, are ordained of God. Therefore he that resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinances of God. And they that resist, purchase to themselves damnation"

Can. 16 ? The legislator authentically interprets laws as does the one to whom the same legislator has entrusted the power of authentically interpreting. (In this context the legislator was Pope John Paul 2 who interpreted the above canon laws in issuing a latae sententiae excommunication. In disputes to the application of Canon Law there remains no higher authority than the Pope. As it was the Pope who was exercising the provisions of Canon Law there remains no appeal except to God on the last day of judgement.


CHAPTER II : THE APPEAL

Can. 1628 Without prejudice to the provisions of can. 1629, a party who considers him or herself to be injured by a judgement has a right to appeal from the judgement to a higher judge; in cases in which their presence is required, the promotor of justice and the defender of the bond have likewise the right to appeal.

Can. 1629 No appeal is possible against: 1° a judgement of the Supreme Pontiff himself, or a judgement of the Apostolic Signatura;
 
Can. 1404 The First See is judged by no one

Can. 333 A73 There is neither appeal not recourse against a judgment or a decree of the Roman Pontiff.

The Pope confirmed his decision later saying
"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. In performing such an act, notwithstanding the formal canonical warning sent to them by the Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops on 17 June last, Mons. Lefebvre and the priests Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alphonso de Galarreta, have incurred the grave penalty of excommunication envisaged by ecclesiastical law."

Prior to the excommunications JP2 wrote a personal letter to ABL where he said
"With a paternal heart, but with all the gravity the present circumstances require, I exhort you, venerable brother, to renounce your project which, if it is realized, could not but appear as a schismatic act of which the inevitable theological and canonical consequences are known to you. I ardently invite you to return, in humility, to full obedience towards the Vicar of Christ."

Therefore ABL was not acting in ignorance but in full and willful knowledge of the supreme legislators judgement in the matter. The schismatic nature of the act was made all the more so by the willful and direct nature of disobedience. When you add to this the fact that ABL had previous to this come to a signed agreement to restore the SSPX to full communion of the church which he then went back on and renounced, it makes the act doubly schismatic.

So now at least I can say that I have read Peter Vere. And a compelling argument it is too.
http://www.ourladyswarriors.org/articles/lefebvre.htm

[petrelton]

Personally, I would probably not go to an SSPX Mass since, if I want a TLM experience, there is an FSSP Mass that is closer to my home and I can catch a ride to it with some friends who go every Sunday (I am thinking I may keep a schedule of going to my NO home parish 3x per month and the FSSP parish 1x per month so that I do keep a connection to the TLM).

It is amazing how Petrelton ends up causing me to defend the SSPX and I am certainly no huge fan of some of their actions (i.e. disobedience), but I can certainly respect what motivated +Lefebvre. Petrelton, have you ever read +Lefebvre's "Open Letter to Confused Catholics" (you can actually get that book and some other writings from the SSPX for free that they'll mail to you: http://www.sspx.org/apologetic_materials.htm; I don't want to make it sound like I am promoting their disobedience or some of their Anti-NO and Anti-V2 views, but I think it is important to listen to their side and to better understand their concerns and what drives them...they are not some evil organization bent on the destruction of the Church). I actually contacted the SSPX at one point to discuss vocations. I think if you read +Lefebvre's book you might have a little more respect and understanding for why he did what he did.

I can't quite bring myself to say that what +Lefebvre did in ordaining those four Bishops in disobedience to the Pope was a good thing, but if you read his writings, one can certainly perhaps understand why he felt he had to what he did. Like +Lefebvre, I think most of us can agree there are serious problems in the Church and that these issues have seeped into elements of the hierarchy. After reading "Open Letter", one should come away realizing that +Lefebvre had a great love for the Church and great concerns at some of the ridiculousness that goes on today.

I hope the SSPX is reconciled to Rome and becomes Canonically recognizes. I think they could give a powerful voice to the concerns many Catholics have, whether they are 'Traditional', 'Neo-Conservative' or whatever.

nsper. you need to take a good hard look at yourself. I have never argued that the SSPX does not have legitimate concerns. I have spoken out against modernism. I attend a TLM weekly.

 What I have argued for is that the schismatic act of ABL was a defining event for the SSPX which corrupted their previously noble aims. The FSSP today continue on with the original concerns of ABL without twisting them into schismatic behaviour.

I also hope and pray for the SSPX to be regularised but I am not holding my breath. They had a reconciliation all signed sealed and delivered in 1988 and at the last minute ABL pulled the pin and rejected what he signed and then consecrated the bishops in direct disobedience. If they could not submit in 1988 what makes you think they can or will in 2009. What has changed in the meantime? For people caught up in the SSPX it is simply not worth the risk. Your confessions are invalid. Your marriages are invalid. Are you prepared to play dice with your eternal soul on a whim and a prayer that the SPPX will reconcile with the Vatican before you die? Go to the FSSP and make your peace with the Vatican. When and big IF the SSPX is normalised then you might consider going back there.

[franklinf]

...

...

Second, according to canon 2205 (2) of the 1917 Code of Canon Law and canon 1323 No. 4 of the 1983 version, a person does not incur any sort of penalty who breaks the (canon) law if that person "has acted forced by a serious fear, even if it were only relatively, or compelled by necessity, or to avoid serious a serious inconvenience, except however if the act is intrinsically evil or if it causes harm to souls..."  Therefore, according to this, if a "state of necessity" is present, then a corresponding "law of necessity" is also present. Thus, any person who materially violates canon law under these conditions does not incur a penalty (moral or legal).

In other words, if the following conditions are present, a law of necessity can be invoked:

The point of this law is to excuse extraordinary situations which are not perceived by the canon law which may necessitate a breach of the letter of the canon law in order to fulfil the spirit of the law. This cannot apply in this case because the Pope is a higher authority in judging circumstances which may or may not require a breach of the letter of the canon law. The Pope was fully aware of all the circumstances of the 1988 consecrations at Econe and specifically forbade him to concecrate. Therefore as the Pope is the supreme adjudicator of canon law there are absolutely no grounds for direct disobedience in the canon law.

1). A state of necessity must truly be present,
2). One must have attempted to remedy it through ordinary means,
3). The act taken must not be "intrinsically evil,"
4). In breaking the canon law, one must keep to the limits proper to the state of necessity,
5). One should assume that in "normal times" (orthodox times), church authority would have given its assent.

Again the Pope was aware of all of these factors and commanded the Archbishop not to consecrate. Therefore the Pope did not consider that a state of necessity existed. The deliberate disobedience of the Pope was  therefore intrinsically evil even if invalid consecrations of bishops might in other circumstances be judged not to be intrinsically evil.

...

...

...
 

...

Ptrelton,

You have it completely wrong. It doesn't matter that the Pope didn't view the current situation as a state of necessity. In fact, that very position is why ABL felt there was a state of necessity. In addition to what Amusing Myself to Death wrote, ABL is still excused under Canon Law.

Can 1324, 8: "by a person who thought in culpable error that one of the circumstances mentioned"

Yes, Pope JP II is a higher authority than ABL. BUT he doesn't speak for ABL's conscience. ABL truely felt and believed that there was a state of necessity. JP II opinion on the matter has no bearing in regards to whether or not ABL thought he was acting out of a state of necessity.  Plus, JP II clearly wasn't neutral - he was at V II and a proponent of the NO.

[petrelton]

...

...

Second, according to canon 2205 (2) of the 1917 Code of Canon Law and canon 1323 No. 4 of the 1983 version, a person does not incur any sort of penalty who breaks the (canon) law if that person "has acted forced by a serious fear, even if it were only relatively, or compelled by necessity, or to avoid serious a serious inconvenience, except however if the act is intrinsically evil or if it causes harm to souls..."  Therefore, according to this, if a "state of necessity" is present, then a corresponding "law of necessity" is also present. Thus, any person who materially violates canon law under these conditions does not incur a penalty (moral or legal).

In other words, if the following conditions are present, a law of necessity can be invoked:

The point of this law is to excuse extraordinary situations which are not perceived by the canon law which may necessitate a breach of the letter of the canon law in order to fulfil the spirit of the law. This cannot apply in this case because the Pope is a higher authority in judging circumstances which may or may not require a breach of the letter of the canon law. The Pope was fully aware of all the circumstances of the 1988 consecrations at Econe and specifically forbade him to concecrate. Therefore as the Pope is the supreme adjudicator of canon law there are absolutely no grounds for direct disobedience in the canon law.

1). A state of necessity must truly be present,
2). One must have attempted to remedy it through ordinary means,
3). The act taken must not be "intrinsically evil,"
4). In breaking the canon law, one must keep to the limits proper to the state of necessity,
5). One should assume that in "normal times" (orthodox times), church authority would have given its assent.

Again the Pope was aware of all of these factors and commanded the Archbishop not to consecrate. Therefore the Pope did not consider that a state of necessity existed. The deliberate disobedience of the Pope was  therefore intrinsically evil even if invalid consecrations of bishops might in other circumstances be judged not to be intrinsically evil.

...

...

...
 

...

Ptrelton,

You have it completely wrong. It doesn't matter that the Pope didn't view the current situation as a state of necessity. In fact, that very position is why ABL felt there was a state of necessity. In addition to what Amusing Myself to Death wrote, ABL is still excused under Canon Law.

Can 1324, 8: "by a person who thought in culpable error that one of the circumstances mentioned"

Yes, Pope JP II is a higher authority than ABL. BUT he doesn't speak for ABL's conscience. ABL truely felt and believed that there was a state of necessity. JP II opinion on the matter has no bearing in regards to whether or not ABL thought he was acting out of a state of necessity.  Plus, JP II clearly wasn't neutral - he was at V II and a proponent of the NO.

This only applies when the act taken is not intrinsically evil and does not harm souls. Clearly the supreme legislator of Canon law considered the act to be intrinsically evil and harmful to souls because he enforced and bound the Archbishop to his excommunication and to this day the SSPX has no canonical status.

As you said yourself JP II is a higher authority than ABL. He has a responsibility to judge all acts in the church particularly those which deal with such important issues as the consecration of bishops. Maybe Korah thought that in his heart he was justified in disobeying Moses, but that was no help to him when the ground opened up and swallowed him and his family entire. Disobedience is intrinsically evil, there is no excuse for it in Catholic tradition and certainly not in Canon Law.

[Meg]

Petrollton,

I'm glad to see that you don't believe that the Pope can disregard the Canon. So, where did Pope John Paul ll obtain the authority to excommunicate Archbishop Lefebvre?

How is this relevant? The legitimacy of the Popes excommunications of the Archbishop is beside the point. The point I am making is that the consecrations at Econe were disobedient and constitute a schismatic act.
However seeing you seem to think you are on a winner with your ridiculous assertion that JP 2 exceeded his authority then you should consider the following canons.

Can. 1364 ß1 An apostate from the faith, a heretic or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication, without prejudice to the provision of Can. 194 ß1, n. 2; a cleric, moreover, may be punished with the penalties mentioned in Can. 1336 ß1, nn. 1, 2 and 3.

Can. 1382 Both the Bishop who, without a pontifical mandate, consecrates a person a Bishop, and the one who receives the consecration from him, incur a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See.

Can. 1013 No Bishop is permitted to consecrate anyone as Bishop, unless it is first established that a pontifical mandate has been issued.

Can. 1014 Unless a dispensation has been granted by the Apostolic See, the principal consecrating Bishop at an episcopal consecration is to have at least two other consecrating Bishops with him. It is, however, entirely appropriate that all the Bishops present should join with these in consecrating the Bishop‚elect. (this condition was not met in 1988)

Can. 751 schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.

St. Thomas Aquinas "The essence of schism consists in rebelliously disobeying the commandments: and I say rebelliously, since a schismatic both obstinately scorns the commandments of the Church, and refuses to subject to her judgment" (Summa Theologica, IIa IIae Q.39 Art. 1. Dominican Fathers translation).

 (Rom. 13:1-2). "Let every soul be subject to higher powers: for there is no power but from God: and those that are, are ordained of God. Therefore he that resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinances of God. And they that resist, purchase to themselves damnation"

Can. 16 ? The legislator authentically interprets laws as does the one to whom the same legislator has entrusted the power of authentically interpreting. (In this context the legislator was Pope John Paul 2 who interpreted the above canon laws in issuing a latae sententiae excommunication. In disputes to the application of Canon Law there remains no higher authority than the Pope. As it was the Pope who was exercising the provisions of Canon Law there remains no appeal except to God on the last day of judgement.


CHAPTER II : THE APPEAL

Can. 1628 Without prejudice to the provisions of can. 1629, a party who considers him or herself to be injured by a judgement has a right to appeal from the judgement to a higher judge; in cases in which their presence is required, the promotor of justice and the defender of the bond have likewise the right to appeal.

Can. 1629 No appeal is possible against: 1° a judgement of the Supreme Pontiff himself, or a judgement of the Apostolic Signatura;
 
Can. 1404 The First See is judged by no one

Can. 333 A73 There is neither appeal not recourse against a judgment or a decree of the Roman Pontiff.

The Pope confirmed his decision later saying
"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. In performing such an act, notwithstanding the formal canonical warning sent to them by the Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops on 17 June last, Mons. Lefebvre and the priests Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alphonso de Galarreta, have incurred the grave penalty of excommunication envisaged by ecclesiastical law."

Prior to the excommunications JP2 wrote a personal letter to ABL where he said
"With a paternal heart, but with all the gravity the present circumstances require, I exhort you, venerable brother, to renounce your project which, if it is realized, could not but appear as a schismatic act of which the inevitable theological and canonical consequences are known to you. I ardently invite you to return, in humility, to full obedience towards the Vicar of Christ."

Therefore ABL was not acting in ignorance but in full and willful knowledge of the supreme legislators judgement in the matter. The schismatic nature of the act was made all the more so by the willful and direct nature of disobedience. When you add to this the fact that ABL had previous to this come to a signed agreement to restore the SSPX to full communion of the church which he then went back on and renounced, it makes the act doubly schismatic.

So now at least I can say that I have read Peter Vere. And a compelling argument it is too.
http://www.ourladyswarriors.org/articles/lefebvre.htm

There are only two items that you posted that are truly relevant to what I asked, so I'll comment on those. Canon 1382, when I looked it up, applies to a diocesan bishop. Archbishop Lefebvre was not a diocesan bishop. Canon 1013 includes a variety of grave reasons for consecrating a bishop without a papal mandate, but I'll have to go through it tomarrow more thoroughly. Here it is:


http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/41.HTM

[Benno]

Peteltron, don't worry so much about the sspx.

[LRThunder]

Petrelton, some advice: quit while you're behind.      

Else your fishie points are going to be so low that you will have to look up to see bottom.

Obedience is not the end all, be all.  Were the Apostles supposed to obey the Sanhedrin when they were ordered not to spread the Gospel?  Of course not.

[devotedknuckles]

pissontrads has such a grudge against the sspx one wonders what made it so so so very personal for him.
Sip

[Baskerville]

Were the Apostles supposed to obey the Sanhedrin when they were ordered not to spread the Gospel?  Of course not.

Was St Paul supposed to "obey" St Peter (POPE) and not baptize the gentiles? Or did he resist him to his face?