www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Excommunication of SSPX Bishops are lifted

It's going to be rather hard to find out if he does change his views - he has been silenced

Hi,



No. That is not what I said and that is not what infallible means.

Vatican I has declared that it is a dogma of the Catholic faith that the Roman Pontiff has universal and supreme authority on issues of faith, morals, discipline and government of the Catholic Communion, each Particular Church within it and every one of the Catholic faithful.

The particular rite to celebrate the Divine Liturgy and other sacraments certainly falls within this authority.

Provided that a liturgical reform doesn't introduce anything into the liturgy that is contrary to the Deposit of Faith, the Roman Pontiff has the authority to approve such a reform.

By virtue of being "reformable", the rites themselves cannot ever be considered to be divinely revealed. Therefore, the rites themselves are not infallible.

The problem is not with the specific rite itself, but with the Pope's authority to reform the rite.

People who have "issues" with the ordinary form of the Roman Rite have been given permission to use the extraordinary form as long as they recognize the validity and legality of the ordinary form.

In her compassion (which goes way beyond my own), the Church has deemed this issue something not worthy to fight over, as long as both "sides" of the issue acknowledge that the other side is not automatically wrong just be being on the other side of the issue.

However, if the adherents to the extraordinary form challenge the validity of the ordinary form, they are, by extension, also challenging the authority of the Pope, who approved the ordinary form.

And the Church DOES have an issue with THAT.

If the SSPX denies that the Pope has this authority, then they are anathematized according to the canons of the First Vatican Council.

If they want to come back into full communion, they will have to revise their position regarding the authority of the Pope in matters of liturgical reforms.

Shalom,
Memo

Then Fr. Serge was wrong, because it is then completely within the judgment of the Pope and not the church if the liturgical change is contrary to the deposit of faith. That is effectively tantamount to infallibility, if indeed you believe the SSPX are in material heresy in their stance that the pauline mass is not legitimate (i.e. something deemed valid and licit).

I think they're also right in their belief that what is contained in VII is utterly inconsistent with Immortale Dei, Quanta Cura, and the Syllabus of Errors..

This brings me to a point that I think is misunderstood here. SSPX, at least officially, does not consider the Pauline Mass "not legitimate." As far as I know, they in general do not deny its objective validity. What they do deny is its subjective value - its ability to properly re-present Christ's death at Calvary and all that flows from that.

Personally, I think these are valid criticisms, and don't touch on Papal authority in any way. The Pope can promulgate a valid Mass that is an aesthetical atrocity. In fact, I would think that most Eastern Christians would agree with the underlying concern SSPX has about the Pauline Mass.

For too long in the Latin church these concerns have been suppressed and I for one am appreciative that Pope Benedict is bringing them to the table.

This is not to excuse the means they have used to promote their beliefs over the past decades. There is no excuse, IMHO, for their break from the Church or for their tolerance for clearly sinful attitudes such as antisemitism.

Right, Francis. It appears that the SSPX does not dispute the validity of the Pauline Mass, but merely its appropriateness as a Catholic rite. I, for one, am in complete agreement with that. I do not doubt its licity (not a word, apprently!) and validity. I very much doubt its ability!

Alexis

They seem to consider it's validity in doubt.

http://www.sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/q5_novusordo.htm

Speaking of speaking:

1 ...... Mr. Williamson should not be accorded the title of Bishop, because his title is neither licit nor valid.

2 ...... There are some people who speak their mind, or lack thereof, without considering the effects of their speech. And without respect for those who seek to calm the waters. We shall find out if Mr. Williamson will respect the request of Mr. Fellay.

We live in interesting times

And they may well get more interesting

Dear Anhelyna:

And surely it will as the road to full communion lies far on the horizon!

Amado

I'm not even sure where that horizon is - certainly it's not in view

Two Lungs writes:

Excuse me?

The consecrations of Bishop Fellay and Bishop Williamson were done according to the Roman Pontifical as it was before Vatican II; no Catholic authority has ever suggested that this form is or was invalid. Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and Bishop Castro Mayer, who were the consecrators, were unquestionably Catholic bishops and thus were themselves validly consecrated. The "matter, form, and intention" were quite in order.

At various times priests and perhaps one Bishop of the Lefebvrists have been reconciled to the full unity of the Catholic Church; there has been no hint of any re-ordination of such clergy.

There is no basis at all for a Catholic to speak or write as though these clergy were, at best, laymen, and to speak or write in such a way serves no good purpose.

Fr. Serge

Dear Anhelyna:

Well, the lifting of the excommunication provides an initial opening, an opportunity, for serious and sincere dialogue between the Church and the SSPX.

A critical first step has been taken in the right direction, I think.

Amado

From a Roman perspective, how could his consecration be considered invalid?

But as I mentioned they do not question its objective validity as a Mass, only that some (perhaps most in their minds) celebrations of it are invalid. If a properly ordained priest celebrates the Pauline Mass with the proper form and correct intention, they accept that it is valid. There are some traditionalists who reject the objective validity of the Pauline Mass, no matter how it is celebrated. There is really no hope for reconciliation with those people without them simply changing their minds.