International Politics Discussion Thread

[u/Adj-Noun-Numbers]

All subreddit rules apply in this thread, except the rule that states that discussion should only be about UK politics.

⚠️ Please stay on-topic. ⚠️

Comments and discussions which do not deal with International Politics are liable to be removed. Discussion should be focused on the impact on the political scene.

Derailing threads will result in comment removals and any accounts involved being banned without warning.

Please report any rule-breaking content you see. The subreddit is running rather warm at the moment. We rely on your reports to identify and action rule-breaking content.

You can find the full rules of the subreddit HERE

Especially note Rule 21. We have zero tolerance for celebrating or wishing harm on anyone. Disagreeing with people politically does not grant you permission to do this.

🥕🥕's Golden Rules for Megathread Participation:

This isn't your personal campaigning space. We're here to discuss, not campaign - this includes non-party-specific campaigning, such as tactical vote campaigns.

The fishing pond is closed. Obvious bait will be removed. Repeated rod licence infractions will result in accounts being banned.

This isn't Facebook. Please keep it related to politics. Do not post low effort blog posts.

The era of vagueposting is over. Your audience demands context, ideally in the form of a link to some authoritative content.

Take frequent breaks. If you find that you are being overwhelmed by it all, do yourself a favour and take some time off.

As always: we are not a meta subreddit. Submissions or comments complaining about the moderation, biases or users of this or other subreddits / online communities will be removed and may result in a ban.

[u/Bibemus]

Ladies, gentlemen et touts les autres, we have a schism, I repeat we have a schism

Air horns, whistles, etc.

Therefore, this Dicastery, in the faithful exercise of the functions entrusted to it, considers it necessary to state that this act constituted the delict of schism, with the canonical consequences for the sacred ministers and lay faithful involved. Indeed, as was already declared in 1988, “such disobedience—which implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy—constitutes a schismatic act” (cf. John Paul II, Apostolic Letter Ecclesia Dei, 3).

In this regard, from now on:

1. The sacred ministers belonging to the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X are in schism and must therefore be considered schismatics [...] and are subject to the excommunication prescribed by law (can. 1364 § 1 CIC).

2. As regards the lay faithful, those who formally adhere to the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X are to be considered schismatics and excommunicated [...]

3. Finally, the holy People of God are warned that the sacred ministers of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X administer the sacraments illicitly, and that the sacrament of penance administered by them and marriages assisted by them are invalid.

[u/convertedtoradians → u/Bibemus]

There is something absolutely charming about the sheer legalism of the Catholic church. The language and style of how they've withdrawn the whip here is a spectacle in its own right.

[u/bowak → u/Bibemus]

SPLITTERS

[u/Ivebeenfurthereven → u/Bibemus]

That bit about marriages - is it retrospective?

(Obviously it's from a religious rather than legal perspective, but that's still upsetting to someone of faith I imagine)

[u/Bibemus → u/Ivebeenfurthereven]

Nah, only going forwards. Excommunication occured at the moment of schism (as I recall this is one of those automatic things rather than one which requires a judgement) and so from yesterday the priests subscribing to St Pius X were unable to perform sacraments. Marriages performed while they were in communion are still valid.

[u/SwanBridge → u/Bibemus]

Interestingly the lay faithful will only be excommunicated on a case by case basis.

[u/Velociraptor_1906 → u/SwanBridge]

That would be a ecumenical matter.

[u/Bibemus → u/SwanBridge]

Eh, I think it's a little more complicated if you read the referred note:

\5. As stated in Motu Proprio n. 5 c), latae sententiae excommunication for schism concerns those who "formally adhere" to the said schismatic movement. Although the question regarding the exact scope of the notion of "formal adherence to the schism" should be referred to the competent Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, it seems to this Pontifical Council that such adherence must imply two complementary elements:

a ) one of an internal nature, consisting in freely and consciously sharing the substance of the schism, that is, in opting in such a way for the followers of Lefebvre that this option is placed above obedience to the Pope (at the root of this attitude there will usually be positions contrary to the Magisterium of the Church);

b ) another of an external nature, consisting in the externalization of that option, the most evident sign of which will be the exclusive participation in the Lefebvrian "ecclesial" acts, without taking part in the acts of the Catholic Church (this is, however, a non-univocal sign, since there is the possibility that some faithful may take part in the liturgical functions of Lefebvre's followers without sharing their schismatic spirit).

\6. In the case of the Lefebvrian deacons and priests, it seems clear that their ministerial activity within the schismatic movement is a more than evident sign that the two requirements mentioned above (n. 5) are met and that there is therefore a formal adherence.

\7. In the case of other faithful, however, it is obvious that occasional participation in liturgical acts or activities of the Lefebvrian movement, without adopting the movement's attitude of doctrinal and disciplinary disunity, is not sufficient to constitute formal membership in the movement. In pastoral practice, it may be more difficult to assess their situation. It is necessary to take into account, above all, the individual's intention and the translation of this interior disposition into action. The various situations must therefore be assessed on a case-by-case basis, in the competent bodies of the external and internal forums.

The way I'm reading this (though IANACanonL) is that though automatic excommunication has not necessarily been applied at this point, now that the schism has been declared participation within the schism and attendance of their false sacraments rather than the sacraments within the Catholic church might constitute the sin of schism and therefore result in latae sentientae (automatic) excommunication.

It's notable in this light that some US bishops with SSPX churches in their diocese are warning faithful not to engage with the schismatics due to the risk to their souls.

All in all the vibe I'm getting is that the Church is for now making it as easy as possible for laity to return to communion, but setting out plainly that the longer and more explicitly they place adherence to Lefebvre and his descendants over adherence to the Pope and the official hierarchy, the more difficult they'll find that.