“Ecumenism Ad Intra?”

Over at the Rorate Caeli blog (see: http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/) they’ve translated an interview that Cardinal Castrillón, President of the Pontifical Commission "Ecclesia Dei," gave to the German newspaper Die Tagespost. (or rather they’ve posted the translation done by Chris Gillibrand, at http://www.cathcon.blogspot.com/).

The money quote from the interview is Castrillon’s assertion that:

"The Bishops, Priests, and Faithful of the [SSPX] are not schismatics."

While I have great respect for Cardinal Castrillón, it seems that one would have to exercise "Flying Wallenda’s" logic to make such an assertion. He further states:

"It is Archbishop Lefebvre who has undertaken an illicit Episcopal consecration and therefore performed a schismatic act."

From this premise, Castrillón takes issue with using the "Ecumenism Ad Intra" argument to admit SSPX back into the fold. Or as the cardinal states: "Please, accept that I reject the term "ecumenism ad intra".

_____________________________________________________________

Here’s the full text

What are the consequences of the liberation of the old Mass?

The Holy Father has an enormous sensitivity to liturgical spirituality and would like to retain a treasure of the Church – not for the museum but as a living inheritance for society so that people who have sensitivity towards tradition will be able to savour this richness.

I am constantly surprised that young people who have not known the Old Rite before discover the peace and mystery of the Old Mass. What is important is that the two Rites do not oppose each other but one should see the beauty and sanctity in both.

Many traditionalists complain that the Bishops hardly take any notice of the Motu Proprio "Ecclesia Dei" and that they in know way allow generously the Old Mass. Is this Indult a reaction to it?

The Pope, in his capacity as Universal Shepherd, would like in the first instance to accommodate the faithful who have a sensitivity to the traditional liturgy. He is not giving way to external pressure nor to lists of signatures on petitions.

It is rather a holy Rite, which the Church has been celebrating for more than a thousand years. I do not wish to be hard on my Episcopal colleagues who have reacted against the requests of Ecclesia Dei. Some do not even have priests for their Sunday Masses and they find it difficult to allow Masses for small groups. The Motu Propriu does not mention figures. Some people are afraid of a liturgical split. The Holy Father has already as a member of the Ecclesia Dei Commission made clear that the old Mass is neither bad nor divisive and stands for a multitude of good things.+

Could the Indult stimulate new experiments and forms of "liturgical creativity"?

What is decisive is how the Church directs the Faithful and Priests. Let’s think of the Ten Commandments. Although they are clearly formulated, Christians do not follow them completely in their lives. But the Ten Commandments are still the same. Each individual is responsible for keeping them.

Cardinal Ratzinger has celebrated the old Mass in public several times. Why has he not done that since the Conclave?

I know that the Holy Father loves the old Rite. I do not know anything about his decisions concerning his personal celebration of this Rite and I do not wish to speculate.

Does the Indult advance an ecumenism "ad intra"?

Please, accept that I reject the term "ecumenism ad intra". The Bishops, Priests, and Faithful of the Society of St Pius X are not schismatics. It is Archbishop Lefebvre who has undertaken an illicit Episcopal consecration and therefore performed a schismatic act. It is for this reason that the Bishops consecrated by him have been suspended and excommunicated. The priests and faithful of the Society have not been excommunicated. They are not heretics. I do, however, share St Jerome’s fear that heresy leads to schism and vice versa. The danger of a schism is big, such as a systematic disobedience vis-à-vis the Holy Father or by a denial of his authority. It is after all a service of charity, so that the Priestly Society gains full communion with the Holy Father by acknowledging the sanctity of the new Mass.

And the pastoral considerations relating to the Sacraments?

I don’t see any problems there. The Holy Father has made it clear at the consistory that the Bishops can allow baptisms, confirmation and weddings in the old Rite. After all, what applies to the Eucharist also applies to other Sacraments.

Comments

[Patrick]

This quote is from an article in the March 2006 issue of Inside the Vatican:

In any case, some ambiguity still exists as to the exact status of the Society. Canon 751 in the Code of Canon Law defines schism as “the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.” (This is also quoted in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, No. 2089.)

I guess it is up to the Roman Pontiff to decide if members of the SSPX are guilty of formal schism. This issue is similar to the heresy vs. heretic debate. If it is not appropriate to call Bishop Trautman a heretic, then it is probably equally inappropriate to call someone a schismatic for being involved with the SSPX.

[A Simple Sinner]

OF course it begs the question, if a bishop is excommunicated, what of the men who know this and still seek ordination from him?

What of the faithful who build parishes and chapels that remain outside the authority of the local ordinary?

What of the rumors that the SSPX and her affiliates have begun to rule on annulments independent or Rome? If this is true - and it may not be - how can this not be an act of seperation?

[MJ]

The Apostolic Letter Ecclesia Dei of John Paul II says:

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.

Ok. In a nutshell, this says that the Archbishop disobeyed the Pope - which implies the rejection of the Roman Primacy - which is in turn a schismatic act.

Now, I don't know about ya'll, but if I was to be excommunicated, I wouldn't want it to be one that followed the logic, "MJ did A which implies B, and the cosequences of B is excommunication, so MJ is excommunicated".

If I were to turn in a proof like that to any higher ed mathematician, they'd reject it.

Disobedience does not imply rejection of authority (which is required for one to be in schism). If a child disobeys his parents, he's not rejecting the fact that they have authority over him - he's merely disobeying them.

Does an Apostolic Letter follow the proper rubrics of the rite of Excommunication?

[joanne]

MJ,
Too bad your theory didn't work for Adam and Eve. To knowingly disobey the Pope is to place yourself above the highest authority God has given His Church. How is that not to reject such authority? I wouldn't risk my soul on an imperfect human science...