The Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops has recently claimed the Society of St. Pius the Tenth "schismatic". This is absolutely false. The CCCB has no canonical authority over the lay faithful, nor of the Church, in Canada or elsewhere. They are, a consultative body at best. I am, for example, as a resident of Toronto, answerable to my local Ordinary and the Holy Father. Period. As a non-Gallican or Henrician, I do not recognize their authority over me. Shall they now accuse me of schism?
The authority to decide on the status of the SSPX is Rome, under the direction of the Holy Father. The CCCB may be eager to create a schism, the Holy Father is not. At such times of crisis in the Church, it would be best for the CCCB to refrain from inflammatory language, and to correct the terrible abuses that exist within the various dioceses across Canada; rather then fling unhelpful accusations at the SSPX. Shame on the CCCB. Shame on their scandalous behaviour over the years, including the disgusting Winnipeg Statement that they have not yet openly repudiated.
This is the same organization that kept up photos, writings of the convicted pervert bishop Raymond Lahey; which took yours truly nearly two months to convince the CCCB to remove (all emails, screen shots etc. retained as evidence). Simply put, the CCCB is quick to tear into Bishop Fellay, but at best, they were remise in removing the writings of an unrepentant pervert.
Question: will they declare Fr. Thomas Rosica a schismatic and/or heretic after his - objectively evil - interview with the excommunicant arch-heretic Gregory Baum, whom he lauded as a "model of hope"? Or, when the Basilian addressed the heretic with these words: "you help to keep alive - not only the spirit of the Second Vatican Council - but the authentic teaching of the Council" Who is the greater danger to the Church in Canada, Bishop Fellay or Fr. Rosica?
10 comments:
Bravo, Barona! Brilliant, bulls-eye.
The Holy Father has not declared them schismatic. A "schismatic act" was referenced by Pope John Paul II but that is clearly, nuanced. If Benedict XVI has never declared them schismatic than nobody else should either.
That being said, they need to humbly return to Rome fully for their benefit--their souls and the Church. The day may come when the Pope might need to take the sad task of making such a formal declaration but until he does, we have no right to do so.
Your point about the Baum interview by Father Thomas Rosica is salient.
Someone should email the Nuncio to Canada requesting clarification from the proper authority. Otherwise, this comment will stand unopposed.
Give me a break. The SSPX cherishes its somewhat dubious status and depends on the goodwill of Pope Benedict to keep walking the tightrope. It is entirely understandable that some ill informed communications flunky at the CCCB might make this mistake. After all, they probably don't have the sheer level of expertise and resources necessary to devote to this sort of thing. I imagine whoever wrote this little article spent all of ten minutes researching and writing it before returning to whatever it is a CCCB functionary does for a living. Of course the whole thing could be a plot to start a flame war... yeah... that's it! You guys get right on that... I'm going back to my coffee and my favorite online game to kill bad guys. See ya.
You make a good point about the fact that Rome is the final arbiter of the status of the SSPX and not the CCCB. A distinction needs to made between the Priestly Society of St. Pius X and the followers or supporters who regularly attend the Masses at their chapels. While Bishop Fellay and his associates must take final responsibility for their actions and may be judged in the future by competent authority as schismatics their lay supporters would not be.
Speaking for my self, I have no problem attending occasional Masses or events at the local SSPX chapel whatever their status might be. I'm anything but a "Lefebrist", but I'm not willing to abandon a group of fellow Catholics. Especially given the sorry state of the Church in our day.
Let me summarize...
Some bunch of people with no canonical authority say something stupid about Jews.
Some other bunch of people with no canonical authority pronounce upon the status of the first group with no canonical authority. Yet another bunch of folks with no canonical authority argue the relative merits of the second bunch of people with no canonical authority. Am I missing anything?
Freyer, it seems you're missing quite a bit - I suspect that's by choice.
Yes, well I am often confused. As someone once said "I pretty much try to stay in a constant state of confusion just because of the expression it leaves on my face." (Johnny Depp) it's a scandal that someone like me is even permitted to post here. Perhaps an email to Barona might be in order.
Catholics need no canonical permission or authority to comment on matters in the Catholic Church and the world.
With respect, Freyr; I don't understand why you are always mocking people with an opinion. It seems that if our parents and grandparents had the knowledge that we have, in part because of blogs such as this; they might have reacted differently and fought off those who tore down the liturgy and the faith.
The bottom line is that those in the SSPX and their followers are our Catholic brethren; some are extreme, but we have many extremists modernists and heretics in "communio" so let's cut them some slack; aside from the obvious anti-Semetic pronouncements.
Actually, we do have canonical rights (not authority) - no one ever claimed that. 212.3. outlines these rights (amongst a whole set of laws that apply to the layman). It should be mentioned, that there are a multitude of laws that also apply to clerics etc. Clerics do have authority - but it is balanced with duties and obligations towards the Holy Father, the Church and the laity.
Post a Comment