Skip to main content

O Schism Where Is Thy Sting? - Mr. Louie Verrecchio

Archbishop Muller has made a statement in a newspaper that in spite of the lifting of the excommunication that the sacramental one remains de facto for the schism:

“The canonical excommunication due to the illicit [episcopal] ordination was lifted from the bishops, but the sacramental one remains, de facto, for the schism; because they have removed themselves away from communion with the Church.”
Personally, I find this very puzzling, where was the formal declaration of a schism (I know a number will point to Ecclesia Adflicta, however that is a problem for a number of reasons).

Frankly, Pope Benedict XVI (emeritus) stated that the SSPX is an internal matter and there are numerous other statements to demonstrate that the SSPX is not in schism - but a state of canonical irregularity.

Perhaps His Grace is simply not being exact in his wording.

Mr Verrecchio provides a good assessment of the situation.

P^3




Courtesy of Mr. Louie Verrecchio
Archbishop Gerhard Muller
Archbishop Gerhard Muller stirred the ecclessial pot last week when he said of the Society of St. Pius X in an interview with the Italian newspaper, Corriere della Sera:
“The canonical excommunication due to the illicit [episcopal] ordination was lifted from the bishops, but the sacramental one remains, de facto, for the schism; because they have removed themselves away from communion with the Church.”
For those unaware, please allow me to state for the record that I’m not a member of the Society of St. Pius X; I’m just a Catholic guy who refuses to accept stones in the place of bread, regardless of who may be doing the serving.
With that in mind, I feel compelled to begin my commentary on this topic with a few reminders:
1. We’re talking about an interview in a secular newspaper.
2. Neo-con Catholics were quick to dismiss any number of Pope Francis scandalous remarks simply because they were only reportedly made in an interview with the mainstream media.
3. Archbishop Muller is the same reliable source who told us just a few weeks ago that the liturgical reform after Vatican II was a smashing success that “has proved an effective remedy against a godless culture.”
As for points 1 and 2, I have no doubt that Archbishop Muller believes the SSPX to be in schism; I mainly just wished to point out, as if anyone reading this is as yet unaware, that the neo-con Catholic ethos is inherently hypocritical.
Regarding point number 3, it should be rather obvious by now that when it comes to Archbishop Muller’s insights on matters Catholic, caveat emptor is the order of the day for the wise. As if to make that very point himself, Archbishop Muller stated in the very same interview with Corriere della Sera that Fr. Gustavo Gutiérrez, the founder of liberation theology, “has always been orthodox.”
Now let’s consider the allegation of schism. According to Canon Law, schism is defined as follows:
“Schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.” (cf Canon 751)
This definition presupposes that one has the Catholic wherewithal to consider that said “submission” is limited to those things that are consonant with the sacred deposit of Christian doctrine; i.e., it is not an absolute submission such that one is bound to submit to those things that are contrary to the Faith.
Yes, this would seem to be common sense of the most elementary kind, but in this age of diabolical disorientation, one cannot assume that all possess it.
Now, let’s consider more specifically that to which the SSPX has refused submission, summed up rather concisely in a statement made by the Superior General of the SSPX, Bishop Bernard Fellay:
“Pope Benedict requested that we accept that the Second Vatican Council is an integral part of Tradition, we say, ‘Sorry, that’s not the reality, so we’re not going to sign it. We’re not going to recognize that.’”
To be perfectly blunt, if Pope Francis were to knock on my door right now to personally request that very same act of submission on my part, I’d offer him the utmost respect, a good cup of coffee and the opportunity to have his photograph taken with me in front of the fireplace, but I can assure you I would not submit apart from the very same kinds of clarifications the SSPX has insisted upon.
Nor should any Catholic, for the simple reason that what the pope is asking (and let us assume in charity that he somehow fails to realize as much) is that we deny the Lord. It really is that simple.
Anyone interested in exploring multiple examples of how the content of the Council is unworthy of being accepted carte blanche is welcome to scour the archives of this blog, but here’s just one example that is so patently obvious that it simply cannot be denied apart from denying revealed truth itself.
In the Declaration on the Church’s Relationship with Non-Christian Religions, Nostra Aetate, the Council states, “Indeed, the Church believes that by His cross Christ, Our Peace, reconciled Jews and Gentiles, making both one in Himself.” (NA 4)
Bearing in mind that Nostra Aetate intends to address the Church’s relationship with Non-Christian religions, “in our time,” it is clear that one can either submit to the notion that this utter nonsense is “an integral part of Tradition,” or one can believe in the words of Our Blessed Lord who said, “He who rejects me rejects Him who sent me.” (cf Luke 10:16)
(A detailed examination of this unacceptable statement in Nostra Aetate can be read here.)
This much should be abundantly clear, one who is well-formed in the Catholic faith simply cannot submit to both Our Lord Jesus Christ and to a pope who demands submission to NA 4; it’s either one or the other.
As for me, I will serve the Lord and thereby reject any such illicit request for submission. Furthermore, I will by God’s grace gladly suffer the consequences no matter how bitter.
Archbishop Muller can cry “schism” all he wants, and the pope can chime in if he so chooses, but for those who understand what is truly at stake, there is no sting, just the blessedness that comes from being reviled and persecuted on account of Our Lord.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

What the heck is a congregation of "Pontifical Right"

+ JMJ In a discussion with a friend the question occurred to me that I didn't actually know was is involved in being a religious order of 'pontifical right'. I had a vague notion that this meant they reported to Rome as opposed to the local diocese. I'm also aware that, according to the accounts I have heard, the Archbishop received 'praise' and the written direction to incardinate priests directly into the SSPX.  This is interesting because it implies that the SSPX priests were no longer required to incardinate in the local diocese but in the SSPX. This is something that belongs to an order of 'pontifical right'. Anyway here's some definitions: Di diritto pontificio is the Italian term for “of pontifical right” . It is given to the ecclesiastical institutions (the religious and secular institutes, societies of apostolic life) either created by the Holy See or approved by it with the formal decree, known by its Latin name, Decretu

The Curious Case of Steve Skojec and the Dangers of Deep Diving into the Crisis Sub-Titled: The Failings of Others

 + JMJ It's been a while now since Steve Skojec sold 1P5 and abandoned the Catholic Faith. I've been a 'Trad' since 1982 and in those 40+ years I seen this death-spiral before with a similar end point. It seems that anyone who jumps into the fray unprepared for the enormous task of righting wrongs will, eventually, become discouraged by not the task but the people who surround them.   I remember when Skojec complained of the treatment his family received from a traditional priest.  This seems to have been the start of the end for him. So what can we learn from the likes of Steve Skojec, Michael Voris (maybe?), Louie Verrecchio, Gerry Matatix and other celebrity Catholics? Probably quite a lot about what not to do. First, don't burn out on the crisis?  When you burn out, on work or anything else, little things assume a more greater importance than they are due.   This is one of my 'canary in the coal mine' signals that I've been stretching myself too thin

De Veritate - St. Thomas Aquinas - What is necessary to believe explicitly?

I was recently introduced to a work of St. Thomas De Veritate ( Source ) in the course of an argument concerning the minimum content of explicit faith.  When I submitted the following quote as proof: Theological faith, that is, a supernatural faith in Revelation, is necessary, and this is an effect of grace (D 1789); nemini unquam sine ilIa contigit iustificatio (D 1793). As far as the content of this faith is concerned, according to Hebr. 11, 6, at least the existence of God and retribution in the other world must be firmly held, necessitate medii (by the necessity of means) with explicit faith. In regard to the Trinity and the Incarnation, implicit faith suffices. The supernatural faith necessary for justification is attained when God grants to the unbeliever by internal inspiration or external teaching a knowledge of the truths of Revelation, and actual grace to make the supernatural act of faith. Cf. De verite 14, I I.Ott - Fundamentals of Dogma p241 In response my opponent wrot

Morning and Evening and other sundry Prayers

+ JMJ Along the theme of P^3 (Prayer, Penance, Patience), and for my own reference ... here is a collection of Morning and Evening prayers from the Ideal Daily Missal along with some additional prayers. In this crisis of the Church, I do not think it is possible to do too much prayer, penance and have patience. P^3

Gary Campbell - Former SSPX Priest

 + JMJ I've come across Gary Campbell's articles on Where Peter Is and noticed that he seems to have very strong biases, assumptions and reactions to anything that runs against these. Driven by curiosity I have found a copy of his letter to Bishop Fellay explaining his reasons for leaving the SSPX only five years after his ordination in Winona. I was surprised to learn that I was present for his ordination. Given this, I was interested in reviewing his letter to Bishop Fellay. There will be two versions in this post. The unblocked and blocked letter. The unblocked is, obviously the full letter. The block, meaning unnecessary text will be blocked out, is a technique I use to remove ancillary text while focusing on key phrases. After completing my read, I believe that the root of much of what caused the issues with Fr. Campbell could be the seeds of the 'resistance' that, when the same perceptions were challenged by continued negotiations with Rome resulted in the necessa