Bishop available for Pontifical “Tridentine” Masses

I believe with the coming indult, there will be many traditionalist communities interested in having Pontifical Masses. Sometimes it is hard to find an available bishop.

Gumbleton removed from parish
Posted on Dec 19, 2006 13:16pm CST.
Print Friendly Version
Requests, no demonstrations, no ‘media circus’

By DENNIS CODAY

Bishop Thomas Gumbleton, retired auxiliary bishop of Detroit, announced at Sunday Mass Dec. 17 that he was being asked to leave St. Leo’s Parish in Detroit, where he has been stationed since 1983.

Gumbleton told NCR that he expects a new pastor to be appointed within a month. He also said he expects to continue his weekly column, The Peace Pulpit, on the NCR website.

….

FacebookEmailPinterestGoogle GmailShare/Bookmark

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in SESSIUNCULA. Bookmark the permalink.

99 Responses to Bishop available for Pontifical “Tridentine” Masses

  1. Andrew says:

    LOL. That’s funny. =)
    Perhaps the only Tridentine Mass that the good Bishop will suffer to be said in his presence is a Requiem Mass. His own.

  2. Jordan Potter says:

    Time was, a bishop like Gumbleton would have been charged and convicted of heresy. We’ll know the Church is spiritually healthy again when we can once again conceive of actually holding heresy trials. But at least that parish won’t have to suffer any more.

  3. Joe says:

    We need to be careful to avoid calumny. While many of us will not agree with much of the praxis of Bishop Gumbleton, what has he said or done to warrant the very serious charge of heresy being levelled against him?

  4. Well said, Joe. Folks like Kolbe, Pro and Romero were considered nutcases in their day, and we now see the good they’ve done. I’m not saying Bp. Gumbleton – a bishop, mind you – is a bright and shining example of current orthodoxy, but there isn’t enough there to warrant the usual mudslinging.

  5. Father Bartoloma says:

    Funny post, Father

  6. Andy says:

    I would say that his open support for women’s ‘ordination’ as well as his standpoint on homosexuality (not to mention numerous other issues) put him dangerously close to earning that designation.

  7. Oh please. Just goes to show you how many Catholics don’t do their homework. Oblivion is not an excuse. Google is your friend.

    Bp. Gumbleton is not in the same league as the others mentioned. Not at all.

  8. AlexB says:

    Three points of trivia about the good bishop:

    Prior to his retirement, he was the only one of the auxiliaries in Detroit NOT to celebrate the Tridentine Mass at nearby St. Josaphat. The others continue to return on regular rotation.

    Second, he was one of the first bishops to sign up as an Episcopal Advisor to the Latin Liturgy Association in the 1970s. Keep your friends close, your enemies closer?

    Third, his church, St. Leo’s, while devoid of an organ, is actually pretty well preserved interiorly. Not wreckovated badly, in posession of Tridentine-worthy vestments, etc.

  9. AC says:

    While no one should use a word like heresy lightly, if that word cannot be used for Bishop [sic] Gumbleton, then
    it cannot be used for anyone. For, if he spoke out on such issues 50 years ago, he would have been suspended
    immediately, for, well, pushing heresy on his congregations. It is what it is. That is why St. John Chrysostom
    said: “The floor of hell is paved with the skulls of bishops.”

    Now for some positive news from Rorate Caeli:

    Wednesday, December 20, 2006

    Fellay: “I am sure of a ‘happy ending'”

    From an interview with the Superior-General of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X (FSSPX/SSPX), Bishop Bernard Fellay, published on December 11 by the French regional daily Nice-Matin (via Le Forum Catholique). Due to copyright limitations, the following relevant excerpts are translated:

    Nice-Matin: Isn’t this division among Catholics an offense against the love of Christ?

    -Mgr Fellay: It is true, love is the authentic sign of the Church. But Saint Paul also says, “Opportet haereses esse,” there shall always be divisions and oppositions. The Church has as its aim saving souls, and for that it should remove them from a situation of war against God, related to Original Sin.

    What do you ask for?

    -For that which is the principle: that the ancient Mass be truly allowed. For a practical application [of the principle]: that all act in good faith. That we do not see, beforehand, the arrival of the ancient rite as a problem.

    It is said you are on the verge of asking, in writing, for the removal of the excommunication against the Fraternity of Saint Pius X?

    That is inaccurate. After the year 2000, we have already asked for it several times, including in writing.Cardinal Castrillón, in charge of the dossier, has publicly recognised that we were not schismatics.

    Since your audience with Benedict XVI on August 29, 2005, what has happened?

    -Last spring, the terms of an agreement were discussed at various times by the Cardinals and the officers of the Curia. The Fraternity has not returned to Rome in an official fashion, but contacts take place, we exchange letters.

    An agreement with Rome, when?

    -It is impossible to say. It had been assured to us that the text “liberalizing” the Tridentine Mass would be published in October 2005 [sic]. That has still not happened. The Pope wishes to proceed fast. We say to him: softly. It is an atomic bomb, which must not be exploded! Before landing, we make the effort of preparing the runway. We have proposed a roadmap. We do not set conditions for Rome, but the shattered confidence must be regained. The “liberalization” of the Mass and the removal of the excommunication would be a sign which would open a phase of doctrinal discussion. Efforts by Rome to remove the Church from its current situation of paralysis would also be a sign. I am sure of a “happy ending”. But when? We pray. For us, the Church is supernatural. What is essential is of the order of grace.

  10. Dennis says:

    October, November,December…..now January. Meanwhile
    the Pope wishes Shalom to B’nai B’rith International.

  11. AC says:

    I know Dennis, it’s frustrating. Our Holy Father goes to temples, a mosque, etc, but has yet to publicly say the
    traditional Mass. Hopefully it will change soon. I’m in a bad situation too, as my child is due soon, and I’ve
    been repetedly refused a traditional baptism by my bishop. Even Ecclesia Dei, who is supposed to be fighting for
    traditionals, has told me to just go to my local parish (not my indult site) and have a new baptism. It’s bad.
    If I would have gone to my bishop, told him I wanted my child baptised in a baptist church that we like, I’m
    sure he would have loved it. Probably would have showed up for it. This year, we were invited to two marriages
    held at Catholic churches on Fridays, where the Catholic married a protestant, where a “deacon” did the ceremony,
    which had no Mass just the ceremony, and at one of them a protestant minister said the “homily.” All of this is
    just fine, but a traditional baptism cannot be allowed. We’re truly in a crisis.

  12. AC says:

    And I should have added, we attended neither wedding — only the reception. I don’t care that this is allowed
    post Vatican II — when I read even a 1962 Missal, it’s still a sin against the Church to marry outside the faith,
    and it’s still a sin to condone or applaud a sin, so we stayed away.

  13. It all becomes clear. The Vatican wishes to take the SSPX at its public word and open the TLM and expect return of the SSPX–they may have been wanting to do it anyway for other reasons–and they may end up doing it just to show the SSPX the split between them is not the Vatican’s fault.

    But the SSPX leadership wants to discuss modernism re V2, and on that the Vatican will be dragging its heels. We do not know how to qualify all that yet. Perhaps not enough time is past. Perhaps all the periti must pass on.

  14. The vital part is this: No ecumenical council may flatly contradict a previous council, for they are all valid for the same reason and through the same authority. This means that each newest one must be read *in the context of all the ones coming before it in unity*. This was not done with Vatican II by most people, even so-called authorities. And you see where it got us.

    We will learn to do this with the last one, V2, however we’re largely not there yet. In the last few years, we’ve been starting to work on it, thus the changes we see in understanding and practice. We will get there.

  15. TJM says:

    Francis, shame on you. Referring to anyone, let alone,
    Father, in that manner who was just adding a little
    levity to the Gumbleton situation, is absolutely appalling. Please
    apologize. Tom

  16. AC says:

    Seriously, what’s wrong with you? I don’t agree with Father or anyone else on everything, but for you to use
    that word is appalling. Please leave the site and don’t return.

  17. Jeffrey Stuart says:

    Francis is certainly on the “naughty list” for this Christmas.

  18. Dennis says:

    AC, a crisis and a persecution. I was baptised shortly
    before the death of Pope Pius XII and according to Mgnr
    Gamber (The reform of the Roman Liturgy) anyone baptised
    in the Old Rite has a right to that liturgy and sacraments.
    God bless Pope Benedict but I think he does’nt know which
    way he’s facing. Reportedly he regrets failing to resolve
    the Lefebrve situation in 1988 but I do’nt think its a
    priority for him now. He will get this Indult through if
    its possible without damaging Vatican II. That Council
    is his priority.
    Only Our Lady of Fatima can get us out of this mess.

  19. AC says:

    You’re right. Only a truly traditional pope will come down on the bishops and do the right thing. Don’t think
    he’s the guy, but hopefully he won’t do any harm in the mean time. I pray for him, and I hope to be proven wrong,
    but until traditionals start to realize what’s really happening, and not just “prefer” the nice Latin Mass, then
    nothing is going to change anytime soon.

  20. No, I think the Motu Proprio of some type will come under this pope, if only because of things he’s said recently and the fact that Cdl Hoyos is working so hard with him on it. I believe that Benedict XVI sees the problems and will begin the turn that must take place. We must trust God for the rest–that’s how He likes it.

  21. The fact is that Benedict realizes that the loss of the Mass was responsible for many things that don’t even look liturgical and he has said as much.

    Healing the liturgical wound opened 40 years ago, which must begin with closure on the festering gap occasioned by the sudden loss of the TLM, must begin before anything else can be repaired. He knows this.

    Healing this wound will start the return to Catholic identity and purpose, culture and understanding which was lost at V2.

  22. Paul says:

    Francis: He is the Vicar of Christ!

  23. Jeff says:

    Man! Blood on the floor! :p

    Gumbleton would probably say a very nice Tridentine Mass; I wish he would. Bishop Sullivan of Richmond used to say them, may God have mercy on him.

  24. Do you really think he would? I wouldn’t attend it. Jeff, you have to understand something. Many lay Catholics have learned not to trust as much as they did in previous days. Sad but true. We’ve had our eyes opened a bit, I suppose. Perhaps that was really what V2 was about?

  25. Augustine says:

    Bishop Perry!

  26. AC says:

    Jeff, why would you want a man who openly pushes for homosexual marriage and women priests to say the traditional
    Mass? I frankly would rather only a handful of priests to say it and keep it pure than a heratic to soil it.

  27. It was only a little jest anyway, on Fr’s part. Chill, everyone. Just be glad that this has happened. I heard it was at Rome’s request. ;)

    We have waited for Rome to do something about something. Laugh. It’s all good.

  28. Kenjiro Shoda says:

    As an update…..I believe I read where the good Bishop Gumbleton’s removal was at the Vatican’s request, and that He WILL NOT be continuing with His column in the NCR.

    We all know that He will be removed (good riddance !!!!!), hopefully the report that He has been instructed to stop with His “Peace Pulpit” column for the rad liberal rag the NCR is true too. I believe it is, and that it was at the request of the Vatican also. : )

  29. AC says:

    I have read both things as well.

  30. Ken says:

    Finally, he was the worst of them! How could he get away mouthing off for years!

  31. The wonder isn’t that he got away with it. A lot of them did and still do. The wonder, and the joy, is that someone somewhere had guts enough to can him. Amen and may the Lord bless that person’s soul forever. Now, let’s see it again! ;)

  32. Francis says:

    Geez!

  33. billsykes says:

    … the Talking Mule.

  34. billsykes says:

    But I date myself.

  35. Brian Day says:

    billsykes,

    You’re not dating yourself…that much. :-)

    For you young whipper-snappers:
    Francis

  36. Over the last week or so I have watched with dismay as the comments on this blog have “jumped the shark” and become the Geraldo Rivera show.

    All that’s left is a “good Catholic” with a chair to throw.

  37. Andrew says:

    I just read in a Catholic newspaper (the Florida Catholic) that, based on a sample of US bishops asked, only 4 percent thought that “for many” was a better translation of “pro multis”. 90 percent believed that “for all” was the better choice. That’s a pretty sad statistic, isn’t it? Four percent! But now, we have a correction coming, thanks to Pope Benedict. That should tell us something.

  38. El Jefe says:

    I understand the frustration those languishing under the care of less than inspiring Bishops, and how one might get frusterate that the dictates of Rome don’t get followed in one’s diocese — because I am one of those people. But we can’t take this out on the Pope, Yes: The Pope is the Pope, but his power is limited. Episcopal ordinations leave an idelible mark on the soul — once a bishop, always a bishop. No demotions back to private. So even if you take the diocses away, and place them in a little parish somewhere, they are still bishops, and there is nothign the Pope or anyone else can do about it. Perhaps once upon a time, troublesome Bishops could be thrown in jail or sent to a remote monastery, but those practices are no longer used: there are no more ecclesial jails and it disrespects the monastic vocation to use the abbeys and hermitages as one. The only thing any Pope can do is be more careful – and this really means, get better advice — before a new bishop is named. As for the rest, you just have to wait it out or hope for a change of heart. In the meantime, papal muscle is flexed where it can be — pro multis, Vox Clara, the Tridentine MP and so forth, and that is about it. Fortunately, the Pope — more than local ordinaries — is the ‘public face’ of the Church at large, and we can see the influence of JP II and B XVI in seminarians and young priests.

  39. That’s just messed up, El Jefe.

    If one follows your line of reasoning, it’s as if Christ went off and dumped us in the hands of his apostles, as a gang of co-equals. And it’s as if he never had that conversation with Peter (not the other apostles, but PETER) which we all know so well where he asks him to feed his sheep. I frankly don’t believe God is that negligent. I think we have a pope for a very good reason and that we are being guided better than that IF we’d only learn to listen.

    Also, hate to bust your bubble, but a little Church history will tell you darned well a bishop can be told to put a sock in it, and worse. There have been long periods in history when various bishops and abbots were appointed by royalty for their own purposes, and sees were even sold like real estate to the highest bidder. So much for the divine right of bishops idea–it’s a modern idea and not a very well founded one.

    The “we’re all jolly co-successors to the apostles and the pope is only one of us and no more” is some kind of gloss that’s been foisted on us. There is the pope, there is the hierarchy that he appoints, which is entirely beholden to him or his successor, and then there are the rest of us.

    So we need to stop tiptoing around some of these bishops, especially when they behave in ways not befitting their vocation. I can think of a few examples very easily; I’m sure all of you can. They are not little “miniature popes” who can say whatever the heck kind of malarkey they want and get away with it. When they do that, it’s not genuine. Period.

  40. RBrown says:

    Yes: The Pope is the Pope, but his power is limited.

    Incorrect. Papal authority is Full, Supreme, Universal, and Immediate.

    The only thing any Pope can do is be more careful – and this really means, get better advice—before a new bishop is named. As for the rest, you just have to wait it out or hope for a change of heart. In the meantime, papal muscle is flexed where it can be—pro multis, Vox Clara, the Tridentine MP and so forth, and that is about it.

    You seem to think that the limited exercise of Papal authority under JPII defines the limits of every post-modern papacy. JPII was interested in international politics, sexual morality, and world travel. He was very active in external matters but not so much in the internal workings of the Church. He was a preacher not a reformer.

    You will see in the next few years Papal muscle being flexed to reform the seminaries and the liturgy. But it will not be done merely by decree but with the involvement of the bishops themselves.

  41. Jeff says:

    Diogenes had a post some time back praising Gumbleton. At least he had the courage of his convictions. He truly did live a simple life, sleeping on a mat on the floor and doing a great deal of simple and humble service for the poor rather than simply talking about it and “agitating.” And unlike with many bishops, there are no titters about sexual peccadilloes.

    I don’t defend his heresies; I’m glad he’s been retired. But like Diogenes, I can’t help but have a certain respect for him at the same time that I rejoice in his demise. And I join Diogenes in praying with respect to his integrity: “May it be accounted to him unto righteousness.”

  42. michigancatholic says:

    Another form of ad hominem. Don’t tell me all about what you’ve heard of him that you like while side-stepping what the real problem is. He a pro-homosexual advocate & agitator and he makes no secret of it. It’s not appropriate for a priest, let alone a retired bishop. His vocation is priest and bishop and that must come first over his personal lifestyle choices. That’s the real score.

  43. michigancatholic says:

    Re the power of the Pope, from the recent catechism of the Catholic church:

    402 “For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered.”

    The bishops may not act without the Pope, but he can act without them.

    It is the mode now to consult rather than rule, but it does not have to be that way. If needed, the Pope can simply rule. I expect we will see more of this in the future.

    And yes, PJP2 did not care about governing too much. He was a philosopher and actor. I am told he didn’t care about liturgy much either, which always strikes me oddly.

  44. Gordo says:

    “Full, supreme and universal power…unhindered”

    This, of course, does not mean that:

    a. The pope, while unconstrained juridically, can always get done the things done he wants to get done in the way he wants them done.
    b. That he can legislate injustice and that the faithful would be bound to obey him in that regard.

    Case in point: There was a pope in the 17th century (I believe – my library is not accessible right now) who attempted to impose upon Maronite Catholics the Latin disciplines of fasting. The Maronite response was justifiably “Thanks, but no thanks.” Here we have a case of the Pope of Rome unjustly imposing the disciplines of his own patriarchal rite upon the legitimate disciplines of another patriarchal rite (not to mention a sui juris Patriarchal Church). The pope’s authority being episcopal, papal power exists for the support of the ministry of his brother bishops as head of the episcopal college. Anything which undermines their legitimate authority is an abuse.

    So while some may wish to attribute “unlimited” power to the pope, that is not entirely accurate.

    God bless,

    Gordo

  45. Gordo says:

    I also think that this is where distinctions between the exercise of patriarchal authority as head of the Latin Church and the exercise of papal authority as Successor of St. Peter need to be identified and fully respected. Bishops of the Latin Church (those whose Apostolic See is Rome) are bound to their patriarch and to his authority as head of their ritual Church. If the pope decides (thankfully) to restore the Tridentine rite and reform the Latin seminary system, he does this by exercising his legitimate power as patriarch of the Latin Church – not primarily as the “vicar of St. Peter”.

    This is where the dropping of the “Patriarch of the West” title becomes so very problematic. “Patriarch of Rome and the Latins” would be a far better replacement.

    The Bishop of Rome is first and foremost Bishop of Rome, then Patriarch of the Latin Church and then Pope of the Universal Church.

    Gordo

  46. RBrown says:

    I also think that this is where distinctions between the exercise of patriarchal authority as head of the Latin Church and the exercise of papal authority as Successor of St. Peter need to be identified and fully respected. Bishops of the Latin Church (those whose Apostolic See is Rome) are bound to their patriarch and to his authority as head of their ritual Church. If the pope decides (thankfully) to restore the Tridentine rite and reform the Latin seminary system, he does this by exercising his legitimate power as patriarch of the Latin Church – not primarily as the “vicar of St. Peter”

    You seem to be forgetting the Uniate Churches, many of whose members are not in the West. It is the pope who promulgated their Code of Canon Law.

    The Bishop of Rome is first and foremost Bishop of Rome, then Patriarch of the Latin Church and then Pope of the Universal Church.

    Nope. The Bishop of Rome is first of all successor to Peter. That is the source of his authority.

  47. John says:

    Jeff, why would you want a man who openly pushes for homosexual marriage and women priests to say the traditional
    Mass? I frankly would rather only a handful of priests to say it and keep it pure than a heratic to soil it.
    I wouldn’t attend it. Jeff, you have to understand something. Many lay Catholics have learned not to trust as much as they did in previous days. Sad but true. We’ve had our eyes opened a bit, I suppose. Perhaps that was really what V2 was about?

    Before the Novus Ordo all priests said the Tridentine Rite (except those of the varsious accepted rites.) Are we to believe that prior to that only the pure and upright said the Mass? Of course not. 1000 years ago St. Bernard warned one of his Cistercian sons who became Pope about the threat to his soul. He told him that Rome was basically full of worthless men surrounding him. The Church has always taught that a Mass is valid even if said by a priest in mortal sin. The Mass is the Mass regardless as long as it is said by a priest who can lawfully say it.

  48. AC says:

    Yes, all priests said the true Mass. However, the difference is, the priests were not pushing heresy on their
    flocks during the Mass. That’s the difference with this bishop. He was openly pushing heresy and leading his
    flock to sin, which the church supposedly cannot do. So while bad priests indeed said the Mass before the missal
    of Paul VI, they were not allowed to preach heresy. That’s the difference, and that’s why this bishop should
    not be soiling the Mass, and so-called trads should never sell out and attend a Mass said by him just to have
    one more traditional Mass to assist at.

  49. Sean says:

    RBrown:
    You seem to be forgetting the Uniate Churches, many of whose members are not in the West

    The different capacities of Benedict XVI allow him to act as bishop in the particular church of Rome, as patriarch in the West, as pope of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. In the West he is patriarch and pope, in the East he is pope only. So he reigns over and rules the Western church (setting details such as fasts, etc) while ‘merely’ reigning over the Eastern church (promulgating their laws).

  50. RBrown says:

    This, of course, does not mean that:

    a. The pope, while unconstrained juridically, can always get done the things done he wants to get done in the way he wants them done.
    b. That he can legislate injustice and that the faithful would be bound to obey him in that regard.

    Juridical authority and moral authority are not the same. The pope has the juridical authority to raze St Peter’s and put a Walmart supercenter in its place (Paul VI died before this was possible)–but that doesn’t mean he has the moral authority. Likewise, the pope also has the juridical authority to promulgate a mass that is a break with Catholic liturgical tradition–but that doesn’t mean he has the moral authority. If the pope uses his juridical authority against tradition, he is asking for trouble.

    There has been much confusion about the nature of Papal primacy and moral authority. Strictly speaking, Infallibility refers precisely to teaching doctrine, but many have tried to extend it to moral authority. They do so simply by considering his juridical authority as infallible, but ithat is not so.


    Case in point: There was a pope in the 17th century (I believe – my library is not accessible right now) who attempted to impose upon Maronite Catholics the Latin disciplines of fasting. The Maronite response was justifiably “Thanks, but no thanks.” Here we have a case of the Pope of Rome unjustly imposing the disciplines of his own patriarchal rite upon the legitimate disciplines of another patriarchal rite (not to mention a sui juris Patriarchal Church).

    That doesn’t mean the pope didn’t have the juridical authority to attempt to impose such discipline, but moral authority is another matter.

    When Pius XII was pope, he made an attempt to centralize all religious orders, using the SJ’s as the model–the SJ’s elect their superior for life, who then appoints all provincial superiors). Now the Dominicans are traditionally de-centralized: They elect their Master General for a term of office, and the provincial superiors are elected by those in the province–ditto the house priors.

    When PXII told Fr Suarez (who was then MG of the OP’s) to change the OP’s so that they also would be centralized, the MG’s answer was interesting. Acknowledging the pope’s juridical authority, Suarez told PXII that the OP’s would obey to such a radical re-org, but, invoking the limits to papal moral authority, also said that it would require every OP in the world to retake vows.

    Pius XII backed down.

    The pope’s authority being episcopal, papal power exists for the support of the ministry of his brother bishops as head of the episcopal college. Anything which undermines their legitimate authority is an abuse.

    Although all are bishops have potestas ordinis, in fact, potestas iurisdictionis comes from Peter because of the keys. This was the opinion of the Eastern theologian Origen.

  51. John says:

    So while bad priests indeed said the Mass before the missal
    of Paul VI, they were not allowed to preach heresy.

    That is historically incorrect and rather than playing self appointed inquisitor I suggest that you spend that time praying for the soul of Bishop Gumbleton if you are so concerned for him. Your arguement is the same used by the SSPX not to attend an Indult. We receive graces from the Mass not by the person saying it. Therefore I welcome as many valid Tridentine Masses as possible.

  52. Martha says:

    “That is historically incorrect and rather than playing self appointed inquisitor I suggest that you spend that time praying for the soul of Bishop Gumbleton if you are so concerned for him. Your arguement is the same used by the SSPX not to attend an Indult. We receive graces from the Mass not by the person saying it. Therefore I welcome as many valid Tridentine Masses as possible.

    This comment, I believe is a little harsh. Perhaps one has learned to be discriminating
    as to which Tridentine Mass one should attend. I can give you two examples: At one indult, the priest celebrated a beautiful Mass, but when it came to the sermon, he spoke to us as if we were
    dinosaurs who should long ago have been dead. Another priest, at this same church, told us to “exercise our options”, i.e., to feel free to receive standing, and in the hand.

    One must love his/her soul first and formost. By staying away from a Mass celebrated by the likes of a Bishop Gumbleton, it cannot be ascertained that one is lacking in charity for that bishop’s soul.

  53. AC says:

    First, while I assist at an indult Mass every Sunday, i’ve been to SSPX Masses, know SSPX faithful and even a
    couple of priests. And never have any of them said I should not assist at an indult Mass while they do say, and
    rightfully so, that everyone should avoid the Novus Ordo.

    And, Martha just made my second point. Yes, we’d get graces by assisting at a Mass said from this heretical
    bishop. BUT, we’d have to suffer through heretical sermons, which would not be good for us.

  54. RBrown says:

    The different capacities of Benedict XVI allow him to act as bishop in the particular church of Rome, as patriarch in the West, as pope of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. In the West he is patriarch and pope, in the East he is pope only. So he reigns over and rules the Western church (setting details such as fasts, etc) while ‘merely’ reigning over the Eastern church (promulgating their laws).

    If he’s promulgating laws, then he’s ruling.

  55. Jeff says:

    John is right.

    As a matter of fact, the Archbishop of Strasbourg, France during the worst years of the Reformation was a notorious and open Lutheran and persecutor of Catholics. The Holy See allowed him to remain in office because it didn’t want him to take the archdiocese into permanent schism.

    Of course, the plan worked. When the Archbishop died, full of years, a Catholic was appointed. The vast majority of Catholics remained Catholic, though there is still a Lutheran minority in Alsace.

    And for a century or two up until the French Revolution changed everything, many–probably most–of the French bishops were Gallicans and Jansenists, teaching heresy and being disobedient.

  56. Jeff says:

    MichiganCatholic:

    “Another form of ad hominem. Don’t tell me all about what you’ve heard of him that you like while side-stepping what the real problem is. He a pro-homosexual advocate & agitator and he makes no secret of it. It’s not appropriate for a priest, let alone a retired bishop. His vocation is priest and bishop and that must come first over his personal lifestyle choices. That’s the real score.”

    Ad hominem? I’m pointing out that the man has integrity, that’s all. Of COURSE a point about the man is about the man! :p

    Look, there are those wholly given over to self-love and self-indulgence, like so many who indulge in homosexual revelry and those who preach “the Social Gospel” and steal money to buy themselves condos and trips to the Pacific.

    Gumbleton practices what he preaches. He lived a life of poverty and generosity and chastity. That doesn’t wipe out his scandalous failures and betrayals and it doesn’t make him a good bishop or even a Catholic in standing. But it’s not nothing either.

  57. Anonymous says:

    My point was that, church history aside, we don’t have ecclesial jails anymore. Maybe we should have a basement set aside in the Vatican for dissedent bishops — that is another question — the point is that right now, given how Papal authority has limited itself that is not what philosophers would call a ‘live option’.

    What the Pope is able to do in the fullness of his authority, and what he can do in the actual juridical structures (set up by his authority) are two different things, along the lines of, but not identical to the old medieval distinction between God’s absolute will and his ordained will. In other words, the Pope authorizes Canon law et al, and this governs (or self-limits if you will) the exercise of papal authority. It might be helpful to think of it as the Papacy’s self-restraint rather than an external restraint.

    Since my point is about the actual exercise of papal authority, not how it could be exercised in other times or places, those who disagree with me need to show me where the ecclesial jails are. Again, whether or not there should be a return to other ways of papal governence is a different question.

    Second, regarding my point that ‘once a bishop always a bishop’ I am not saying that a bishop is the same as the pope, but only that you can’t de-bishop someone. There was a case in recent history where JP II removed a very troublesome French bishop to an empty diocese (i.e. a dioscese that existed thousands of years ago, but is now defunct, although technically still a dioscese). That Bishop simply moved to Paris and gave interviews as Catholic Bishop, and — lacking ecclesial jails — there is nothing anyone could do about it.

    And in no way do I think that we are all equally succesors of the Apostles or anything like that. I don’t see how a fairminded reader could pull that out of my remarks, since they were limited entirely to a discussion of the episcopacy.

  58. El Jefe says:

    The above post is from me — I forgot to put my name on it.

  59. AC says:

    But again, you’re missing the big point, which is this pope and the last pick and choose when to use their power
    which they indeed have. When Archbishop Lefebvre did what he had to to keep the true faith (and thank God he did
    or we wouldn’t have the FSSP, CMRI or the Good Shepard Institute today) JPII had no problem enacting his power
    as Pontiff and excommunicated him. While I think he was wrong to do so since there was no sin the archbishop
    committed by his consecrating new bishops, the pope still came down on him hard. But when we ask that the pope
    come down equally as hard on bishops who preach heresy, then somehow that power is nonexistent!? It’s just silly.
    The pope has the power to stop the heresy, if he wants to. Yes, those bishops may break off ties with him, but
    so what? They are Catholic in name only and the church would be better off without them.

  60. Geoffrey says:

    I think John Paul the Great’s only fault (if it could be called that) was that he trusted bishops too much.
    He expected a lot of them, like allowing the “wide and generous use” of the 1962 Missal, etc. He expected
    them to do the right things. He himself wrote in one of his last books that perhaps he had not been stern
    enough in his discipline, and freely admited that it was due to his temperament.

    Regarding Lefebvre, he broke Canon Law. It was an act of disobedience. Consecrating bishops without the pope’s approval is a major no-no, whether it is done by Lefebvre, Milingo, or the Chinese government.

  61. AC says:

    John Paul the Great? Wow, I didn’t know the church had given him that title …

    And, if all it takes is breaking Canon Law, then why haven’t the priests and bishops in China been excommunicated
    every time they collaborate with the state and consecrate — sorry, ordinate now — their own bishops without
    Vatican approval?

    Again, the new popes only come down on those who are traditional.

  62. AC: It is time to ratchet it back a notch, I think.

  63. Amen to that, Father.

  64. AC says:

    Father, for you, anything! But I really don’t see what I said needs to be ratcheted back? I’m merely pointing
    out that the recent popes have come down hard on traditionalists and let liberals run wild. I cannot change
    history just to appease people.

  65. Geoffrey says:

    “Magnus” or “the Great” is a title given bu popular acclaim, and catches on through continous use. No official body is needed to give that title.

  66. Sean says:

    RBrown
    If he’s promulgating laws, then he’s ruling

    To promulgate is to put a law into operation by a public act. To rule is to decide what the law actually says.

  67. dcs says:

    We receive graces from the Mass not by the person saying it.

    Actually, we receive both. The intrinsic value of the Mass is always the same, but the extrinsic value depends on the devotion of the celebrant and that of the people in the consecration. So wrote Fr. Ripperger in The Latin Mass a few years back. A holy priest leads his flock into holiness and helps them to better participate in the Sacrifice.

    First, while I assist at an indult Mass every Sunday, i’ve been to SSPX Masses, know SSPX faithful and even a couple of priests. And never have any of them said I should not assist at an indult Mass while they do say, and rightfully so, that everyone should avoid the Novus Ordo.

    The SSPX says on their web site that assisting an Indult Masses “constitutes a danger for the faith of the faithful.” This is the same thing they say about the Novus Ordo. If it is not the official position of the SSPX in the U.S., then I daresay they ought not to publish it on their web site.

  68. RBrown says:

    To promulgate is to put a law into operation by a public act. To rule is to decide what the law actually says.

    The pope does both.

  69. dcs: You wrote: “The SSPX says on their web site that assisting an Indult Masses “constitutes a danger for the faith of the faithful.” This is the same thing they say about the Novus Ordo. If it is not the official position of the SSPX in the U.S., then I daresay they ought not to publish it on their web site.”

    Nor is this sort of assertion going to be tolerated for any length of time here on this blog. Anyone who wants continually to push that idea around here should find something else to focus on.

  70. Sean says:

    RBrown:
    The pope does both

    In the West in his dual capacity as primate and pope he does/should. In the East, however, in his single capacity as pope he doesn’t/shouldn’t.

  71. dcs says:

    Nor is this sort of assertion going to be tolerated for any length of time here on this blog. Anyone who wants continually to push that idea around here should find something else to focus on.

    Fr. Zuhlsdorf, I wasn’t making any such assertion. I apologize if I was not clear. I was responding to AC who said that no SSPX priest had told him that he should not assist at Indult Masses. It may be that SSPX priests don’t say this, but it seems to be the SSPX’s official position.

    For the record, of course I don’t agree with it, I assist at an Indult Mass myself.

  72. “The Bishop of Rome is first of all successor to Peter. That is the source of his authority.”

    Yes, and Peter was the first Bishop of Rome. The current incumbent is elected by the honorary clergy of the Church of Rome, otherwise known as the College of Cardinals. By virtue of that position, he is Supreme Pontiff, Vicar of Christ, and so on. The difference would appear semantic, but “Bishop of Rome” is the first title he receives.

    Not the last, mind you.

  73. dcs: I didn’t say you had. I just want people to get the idea and your comment gave me a good opening.

  74. AC says:

    And I wasn’t speaking for the SSPX as a whole, I was speaking of the SSPX faithful I know and a couple of priests.
    While I have an SSPX friendly chapel not far from me, and the priest is a good man, I continue to assist at the
    indult church. But while I do not assist regularly at an SSPX site, I’m also not going to call them “schismatic”
    or bad or anything else since even the Vatican doesn’t consider them so.

  75. Jordan Potter says:

    “But while I do not assist regularly at an SSPX site, I’m also not going to call them ‘schismatic’ or bad or anything else since even the Vatican doesn’t consider them so.”

    I don’t believe you’re accurately characterising the Vatican’s opinion of the SSPX. In any case, there may be a difference of opinion about the interpretation of the Church’s canon law, because when Archbishop Raymond Burke of St. Louis, Mo., announced the excommunication of Fr. Marek Bozek a year ago, he said, “A priest who knowingly and willingly chooses to attempt to exercise priestly ministry outside of the communion of the church and thereby encourages others in breaking communion with the church clearly also commits the ecclesiastical crime of schism.”

    What are the SSPX priests doing if not “knowingly and willingly choosing to attempt to exercise priestly ministry outside of the communion of the church and thereby encouraging others in breaking communion with the church”? Does Archbishop Burke not know what schism is in canon law? If he doesn’t, why hasn’t the Vatican told him he goofed? Could it be that the Vatican’s reluctance to use the term “schismatic” in reference to the SSPX is a pastoral decision to help smooth the healing of the schism, even though under canon law the SSPX priests are in schism all the same?

  76. AC says:

    Cardinal Hoyos, head of Ecclesia Dei for which our good Father Z once worked with, has already said the SSPX is not in schism and that the matter is a purely “internal matter” of the church. Your argument isn’t with me, it’s with the Vatican.

  77. Jeff, to commit an “ad hominem” is to commend one way or another on properties that don’t count to the discussion, and expect them to count. There’s two kinds, positive and negative ones.
    *negative = he might be a good leader of people but he kicked a dog once, so you shouldn’t vote for him regardless.
    *positive = a Bridget Bardot toothpaste commercial, because she knows nothing at all about dental health.
    People are so used to these, thanks to the wonders of modern advertising, they don’t even seem to spot them anymore.

  78. All I know is that the Pope is supreme pontiff of the Catholic church and I intend to obey him.

    And in the US, we have a good half-dozen bishops that I’d throw off my property if they showed up. And then count the silverware. Sorry but that’s how it is. They did it to themselves.

  79. AC: \”Cardinal Hoyos, head of Ecclesia Dei for which our good Father Z once worked with\”

    I NEVER worked with Card. Castrillon. I was there under Mayer, Innocenti and then, briefly, Felici. I have never claimed to have worked for him.

  80. AC says:

    Father, i was referring back to Ecclesia Dei for which you worked with, not the cardinal.

  81. Jordan Potter says:

    “Cardinal Hoyos, head of Ecclesia Dei for which our good Father Z once worked with, has already said the SSPX is not in schism and that the matter is a purely ‘internal matter’ of the church. Your argument isn’t with me, it’s with the Vatican.”

    Or rather, my argument is with Dario Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos, who is not “the Vatican.” Seems we have two bishops interpreting canon law differently. One interprets canon law to mean priests who attempt to exercise priestly ministry outside the Church’s communion are guilty of schism, the other says otherwise.

    I also note, for what it’s worth, that the news service of the USCCB always refers to the SSPX as “schismatic.”

    The logic and legal precendent are clearly on the side of seeing the SSPX as being in schism, even if Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos has said they’re not. But then, if they’re not in “impaired communion,” why is the Church trying to reconcile the SSPX with the Church?

    Is it really so awful to every now and then notice that there’s an elephant doing a tap dance on our coffee table?

  82. dcs says:

    I think “regularization” is a better word than “reconciliation.”

    One interprets canon law to mean priests who attempt to exercise priestly ministry outside the Church’s communion are guilty of schism, the other says otherwise.

    Either that, or His Eminence does not believe that the SSPX priests are exercising their ministry “outside the Church’s communion.”

    Anyway, the old Catholic Encyclopedia defined “schism” as the denial of the Pope’s divine right to command. The SSPX does not do this, at least not formally, so I do not believe they should be called “schismatic.”

    The logic and legal precendent are clearly on the side of seeing the SSPX as being in schism

    How so? The Holy See has never said that the SSPX is in schism. Therefore, to say that they are strikes me as somewhat rash. Why would one make such a judgment? And how will one who makes such a judgment react when the excommunications of the SSPX bishops are lifted?

  83. Jordan,

    It’s not just Cardinal Hoyos. Do your homework.

    BTW, it’s Cardinal Hoyos and Bishop somebody you’re comparing. Not the same.

    Also, you know as well as I do that just because a bishop says something, it isn’t necessarily true. Do I need to give you a few of the many examples and soil up Fr’s pretty blog? Again, do some homework. Please.

    The USCCB would, of course, refer to the SSPX as schismatic because they resent the fact mightily that they can’t empower the local bishop to impose the latest goofiness on them. Trust me some of those USCCB members (bishops and bureaucrats, of whom there are many) would just love to foist altar girls, clown masses and the rest on the SSPX just to spite them. They have regarded traditionalists as the “last frontier” for years.

  84. There are a lot of people in real schism nowdays. We don’t need to be slinging around talk about people who the vatican says aren’t.

    If you want to see real schism, check out the Milingo-Stallings-Moon follies in the name of the pro-married priest crowd. They’ve got websites and they’re out there prosetylizing.

    Or check out the CTA (yes, Call to Action) womanpriests mass which was taped and is currently making the rounds on Google video courtesy of the pro-priestess crowd. Now, both of these examples are schisms, by the classical definition, because both are in direct and unequivocal opposition to the express statements of the Pope.

    The difficulties with the SSPX, who recognize the Pope and only wish to be faithful after all, probably seem pretty small to the Vatican now, I expect, and they’ve said as much formally. They should seem so to you too, after all we’ve seen.

  85. Martha says:

    “‘We receive graces from the Mass not by the person saying it.'”

    “Actually, we receive both. The intrinsic value of the Mass is always the same, but the extrinsic value depends on the devotion of the celebrant and that of the people in the consecration. So wrote Fr. Ripperger in The Latin Mass a few years back. A holy priest leads his flock into holiness and helps them to better participate in the Sacrifice.”

    Thank you for mentioning this, dcs. This is something else I wanted to add to my post, but I couldn’t remember where I had read it. Instinctively, don’t we all want the priests who offer Mass for us to be sound of doctrine and holy to boot? Besides, Bishop Gumbleton would probably only preach the social gospel. We are tired off hearing so much about social justice. The faithful yearn to hear more about loving and serving God.

  86. Dennis says:

    The exercise of Papal power (however thats defined).
    Is’nt it the fact that restructuring the Roman Curia in the
    1960’s thwarted this exercise of power?
    Before Vatican II the Pope was Prefect of the Holy Office
    to which the other dicasteries were subordinate (while
    having their own authority and jurisdiction).
    After Vatican II the re-named Holy Office lost its
    supreme position in the Curia which was restructured in
    such a manner that the Secretariat of State was placed
    over all the other dicastaries. As a result the Supreme
    Pontiff was reduced from monarch to figurehead. No more
    Papal Tiara!
    I’m no fan of John Paul “the Great” (does this daft title
    make John Paul I “the Less”?) but perhaps we need to look
    at recent Secretaries of State; Villot, Casaroli, Sodano
    to see where REAL power lies.

  87. Martha says:

    I know some good people who assist at SSPX Masses. They only wish to survive the flood of
    apostasy. That’s all. I do pray for the regularization to happen soon, though, because a long-term separation could elicit a certain mind-set,diabolically inspired, which can give some such traditionalists a feeling of self-righteousness.

  88. Martha: “I know some good people who assist at SSPX Masses. They only wish to survive the flood of
    apostasy. That’s all.”

    Absolutely! I can sympathize. I was at a church in Florida this last week and what I saw there made me sit back in amazement. The music for the Mass was so awful, the sermon so banal, the attitude so lackadaisical, that it is a wonder anyone goes to church there at all. Under circumstances like that I find it very hard to blame people for seeking out reverence where they can find it.

  89. Jordan Potter says:

    Michigancatholic said: “It’s not just [Dario] Cardinal [Castrillon] Hoyos. Do your homework.”

    Of course it’s not just Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos. It’s just that he is the highest ranking prelate to opine that the SSPX is, contrary to Pope John Paul II’s 1988 declaration, not in schism. As for “doing homework,” I suppose taking note of the Holy See’s own official declarations in 1988 would be part of that homework assignment, don’t you think?

    “BTW, it’s [Dario] Cardinal [Castrillon] Hoyos and Bishop somebody you’re comparing. Not the same.”

    Archbishop Raymond Burke of St. Louis is not exactly “Bishop somebody.” In any case, here we have one bishop, a cardinal, and another bishop, a metropolitan, disagreeing on what constitutes schism. Who is right, and what are we to do about the fact that Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos’ opinion of the SSPX disagrees with the Holy Father’s own _Ecclesia Dei adflicta_ of 1988?

    “Also, you know as well as I do that just because a bishop says something, it isn’t necessarily true. Do I need to give you a few of the many examples and soil up Fr’s pretty blog? Again, do some homework. Please.”

    Of course I know that. There’s no need to get snippy now. But in this case, it’s not just “a bishop” who has said the SSPX are schismatic — it’s the Bishop of Rome who pronounced that judgment.

    “The USCCB would, of course, refer to the SSPX as schismatic because they resent the fact mightily that they can’t empower the local bishop to impose the latest goofiness on them.”

    I know the Holy See these days doesn’t seem too keen on stepping in when bishops get out of line, but still, if CNS has been wrong all these years about the SSPX, you’d think by now there might be at least some indication from Rome to that effect, right?

    Moving on to DCS . . .

    “Anyway, the old Catholic Encyclopedia defined ‘schism’ as the denial of the Pope’s divine right to command. The SSPX does not do this, at least not formally, so I do not believe they should be called ‘schismatic.'”

    Yes, in theory the SSPX accepts the authority of the Pope. In practice they never obey the Pope.

    “How so? The Holy See has never said that the SSPX is in schism.”

    The Holy See said so in 1988, and has not yet reversed that judgment. It seems evident, however, that the Holy See is not wanting to use the word “schism,” but then since Vatican II the Holy See also doesn’t like saying the Eastern Orthodox are schismatic either, and even prefers to call the Protestant sects “separated brethren” instead of “heretics.”

    “Why would one make such a judgment?”

    Because the Pope in 1988 said the SSPX had committed schismatic acts, and because they are doing the things that traditionally constitute “schism.”

    “And how will one who makes such a judgment react when the excommunications of the SSPX bishops are lifted?”

    Well, I for one will be very happy when that happens, just as I will be very happy if the Eastern schism is ever ended. In the case of the East, the excommunications were lifted back in the 1960s, but the Orthodox still are not in full communion with the Church. The same could happen with the SSPX — even after the Pope rescinds the prior judgment of excommunication for what Archbishop Lefebvre did, the SSPX could still stand aloof and refuse to return to full communion. An important obstacle to reconciliation would be gone, but the state of schism might remain until other obstacles can be removed or hurdled.

  90. Although, Martha, the self-righteousness they might experience could hardly be said to be greater than that experienced by other “exceptions to normal Catholic practice.” I’m thinking of all those who believe that somehow they are forging a new way for the church via womenpriests, married priests, gay activity, birth control, retreat services, liturgical dancing, CTA membership and so on and so on. I’m also thinking of all those Catholics who regard themselves as “special” for being all manners of lay “ministers” and thus lord it over others egregiously. It’s everywhere.

    I would tend to think that at least members of the SSPX may go to confession occasionally…..

    I’m not a follower of the SSPX but I’ve thought for a long time that the SSPX was pushed into a corner which should not have been there. It’s sad what they did, but part of what they predicted has certainly come to pass. Look around you. I’m not sure how much recourse they were given back in 1978. I hope they can be regularized soon.

  91. Jordan,

    They aren’t doing the things regularly expected of a schism–that’s just it. They still recognize the pope as the leader of the church. They still adhere to the sacraments and hope for return. They do this better than a large percentage of “regular catholics” in fact!

    A lot of things have changed since 1988, and the Vatican realizes it, as they should. The events of the last 40 years will be brought into context slowly, and this will be part of the story, as it should be.

  92. RBrown says:

    Of course it’s not just Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos. It’s just that he is the highest ranking prelate to opine that the SSPX is, contrary to Pope John Paul II’s 1988 declaration, not in schism. As for “doing homework,” I suppose taking note of the Holy See’s own official declarations in 1988 would be part of that homework assignment, don’t you think?

    Once again, JPII said that the consecration of bishops was a schismatic act, but whether the SSPX is in schism is another question.

  93. RBrown says:

    The Holy See said so in 1988, and has not yet reversed that judgment. It seems evident, however, that the Holy See is not wanting to use the word “schism,” but then since Vatican II the Holy See also doesn’t like saying the Eastern Orthodox are schismatic either, and even prefers to call the Protestant sects “separated brethren” instead of “heretics.”

    The situation is different with Eastern Orthodox because they don’t recognize papal authority in se, not only re this pope but all of them.

    The SSPX recognizes it and contends that the consecrations were done out of deference to papal authority (e.g., Pius V). Nonetheless, the SSPX committed a schismatic act.

  94. Jordan Potter says:

    “They aren’t doing the things regularly expected of a schism—that’s just it. They still recognize the pope as the leader of the church. ”

    I disagree. If offering sacraments illicitly in contravention of Church law and Vatican instructions, and rejecting teachings of a papally-approved oecumenical council, aren’t the things regularly expected of a schismatic group, then I don’t know what could be regularly expected of a schismatic group. Their lip service to papal authority is not unhelpful, but since it is nothing more than lip service, they remain in a schismatic state.

    “Once again, JPII said that the consecration of bishops was a schismatic act, but whether the SSPX is in schism is another question.”

    Wrong, John Paul II not only referred to a “schismatic act,” but also spoke of “adherence to the schism.” Of course, even if he hadn’t explicitly said the SSPX is in schism, as he did, the reference to “schismatic acts” implies a schism.

    “The situation is different with Eastern Orthodox because they don’t recognize papal authority in se, not only re this pope but all of them.”

    Yes, the situation is different, but my point is that the Church’s attitude toward the schism is analogous to the Church’s attitude to the SSPX’s schism.

  95. Jordan, the SSPX itself ought to know better than you what they say they believe. Check out their website and their documents about the Pope.

    Cardinal Darios Castrillon Hoyos is the head of Ecclesia Dei, under whose jurisdiction this dispute falls. Cardinal Hoyos says they are not in schism, which makes it the official curial pronouncement, ergo they’re not in schism.

    The previous poster is correct about the Eastern Orthodox. They don’t recognize even the concept of the Bishop of Rome being the head of the Church. That’s far and away farther from Rome than the SSPX. [The only thing that approaches that extreme stance is the same opinion held by some of the current progressive heretics inside the Church.]

  96. michigan: “Cardinal Darios Castrillon Hoyos is the head of Ecclesia Dei, under whose jurisdiction this dispute falls.”

    Remember: The Code of Canon Law provides latae sententiae excommunication for the bishops involved and that was confirmed by the Congregation for Bishops.

    Also, the SSPX is a “priestly” society. It is techincally only the clerics, or those whom they think are clerics, who belong, as far as I understand. There is a “second” group or “family” of sisters, a “third” of brothers, a “fourth” of oblates and a “fifth” of a “third order”, made up of lay people. On their application form for their Third Order, to which they ask you to put a signature, it says,

    “I understand that the New Mass of Paul VI is a danger for my Catholic Faith and I will attend exclusively the Mass celebrated in the traditional rite.”

    NB: It does not say you have to attend it celebrated in an SSPX chapel.

  97. RBrown says:

    The pope’s authority being episcopal, papal power exists for the support of the ministry of his brother bishops as head of the episcopal college. Anything which undermines their legitimate authority is an abuse.

    In almost every diocese there are concrete examples of pepal authority trumping the authority of the local ordinary–they are monasteries, religious orders (which are under Roman authority rather than that of the local bishop), and Personal Prelatures of the Pope (Opus Dei and the Lithuanian Prelature). All are directly subject to tkhe pope–not to the local ordinary.

  98. RBrown says:

    “Once again, JPII said that the consecration of bishops was a schismatic act, but whether the SSPX is in schism is another question.”

    Wrong, John Paul II not only referred to a “schismatic act,” but also spoke of “adherence to the schism.” Of course, even if he hadn’t explicitly said the SSPX is in schism, as he did, the reference to “schismatic acts” implies a schism.

    I don’t deny that, but my point is that identifying a schismatic act and identifying formal adherence to a schism are not the same thing.

  99. RBrown says:


    The pope does both

    In the West in his dual capacity as primate and pope he does/should. In the East, however, in his single capacity as pope he doesn’t/shouldn’t.

    I already showed that in the East the pope in fact does do both by promulgating the Eastern Code of Canon Law.

    Now just as there are Uniate churches in the East that are under the pope, so also are there Greek Orthodox churches in America that are not under the pope. But, as you no doubt know, the Greek Orthodox churches in America are tending toward more independence and away from the authority of the Orthodox Church in Greece.