Declaration of War: Francis' Two-Stage Fight Against Summorum Pontificum
Francis is planning a two-stage crackdown on Benedict XVI's motu proprio Summorum Pontificum, reports Summorum-Pontificum.de (4 June, full text here). The first blow is expected in a few weeks - under …More
Francis is planning a two-stage crackdown on Benedict XVI's motu proprio Summorum Pontificum, reports Summorum-Pontificum.de (4 June, full text here).
The first blow is expected in a few weeks - under cover of the summer recess - and concerns diocesan priests. They are to be liturgically incapacitated. Anyone who wants to celebrate the Roman Mass will be at the mercy of the extremist bishops and will have to ask for permission from them again.
The second blow will come in the autumn and will affect the old-rite communities. They are to be forced to align their training and pastoral work with the "guidelines of Vatican Council II."
A letter to the respective superiors will demand full cooperation with the diocesan bishops. In autumn, there will be a meeting of the religious superiors in Rome, where further orders will be issued. At that meeting, visitations of the communities could be ordered to check their "fidelity to the Council".
Summorum-Pontificum.de writes that by treating diocesan …More
The first blow is expected in a few weeks - under cover of the summer recess - and concerns diocesan priests. They are to be liturgically incapacitated. Anyone who wants to celebrate the Roman Mass will be at the mercy of the extremist bishops and will have to ask for permission from them again.
The second blow will come in the autumn and will affect the old-rite communities. They are to be forced to align their training and pastoral work with the "guidelines of Vatican Council II."
A letter to the respective superiors will demand full cooperation with the diocesan bishops. In autumn, there will be a meeting of the religious superiors in Rome, where further orders will be issued. At that meeting, visitations of the communities could be ordered to check their "fidelity to the Council".
Summorum-Pontificum.de writes that by treating diocesan …More
Ultraviolet
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
The word "legitimate" doesn't need "fake quotes" when referring to the FSSP. @Ave Crux They are in full communion with The Church. The SSPX is not. *ehem* "Until the doctrinal questions are clarified, the Society has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers – even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty – do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church."-…More
The word "legitimate" doesn't need "fake quotes" when referring to the FSSP. @Ave Crux They are in full communion with The Church. The SSPX is not. *ehem* "Until the doctrinal questions are clarified, the Society has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers – even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty – do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church."- Pope Benedict XVI in 2009. Now that is the official word from at the time, the Pope himself. That ruling has not been abrogated by his successor Francis, either.
1. "If my statement was "too long, didn't read" then how are you able to quote from it since you claim you didn't read it?"
--
Quite a demanding test for your intelligence. Try to solve such a mystery, then... try again later.
2. :You can't speak Latin, you cant read Latin so don't quote in Latin when you're relying on a translation."
---
Another test - failed.
3. "If you want to quote Canon I and …More
1. "If my statement was "too long, didn't read" then how are you able to quote from it since you claim you didn't read it?"
--
Quite a demanding test for your intelligence. Try to solve such a mystery, then... try again later.
2. :You can't speak Latin, you cant read Latin so don't quote in Latin when you're relying on a translation."
---
Another test - failed.
3. "If you want to quote Canon I and II, just do so in a manner everybody will understand. You're just playing your stupid games again, like you always do. Further evidence that, as usual, you argue simply for amusement's sake and in bad-faith. Here's the English..."
---
Another failure. That's not Canon I & II but Canon X & XI on Sacraments.
The original text is in Latin and the matter is important, therefore I quoted it in Latin and provided the meaning of the key phrase ("each sacrament to be valid requires the intention of doing what the Catholic Church does"). If you consider the above "stupid" and "in bad-faith" - well, that's your personal problem.
4.""Unitatis Redintegratio" does not use the word "Catholic" anywhere in the passage I quoted. "
---
And another one again. I'll explain again:
1) UR uses the word "true sacraments".
2) There are no other true sacraments than the sacraments of the Catholic Church. I gave the true i.e. Catholic (not Muslim or freemasonic) meaning of the word "sacrament" quoting the Baltimore Catechism: signs established by Christ to provide the Divine grace. If you prefer an older definition - here you are, one from the 7th century Etymologies of St. Isidore (VI.XIX-40): These things are called sacraments (sacramentum) for this reason that under the covering of corporeal things the divine virtue very secretly brings about the saving power of those same sacraments.
3) I quoted the Council of Trent (Can. XI) - each and every Sacrament requires at least the intention of doing what the Church does (in Latin: intendere facere quod facit Ecclesia). If you don't agree: anathema sit i.e.: off you go.
I guess (AFAIK you and your "reasoning" above) you'll probably say: hey, that Canon uses the word "Church" (Ecclesia) not the "Catholic Church" - forgetting another dogma expressed in the Creed - the dogma on una sancta Catholica et apostolica Ecclesia (One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church).
Therefore, for example, Pope Pius XII says in Mystici Corporis Christi: "the Savior of mankind out of His infinite goodness has provided in a wonderful way for His Mystical Body, endowing it with the Sacraments, so that, as though by an uninterrupted series of graces, its members should be sustained from birth to death" and later: "If we would define and describe this true Church of Jesus Christ - which is the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church - we shall find nothing more noble, more sublime, or more divine than the expression "the Mystical Body of Christ" - an expression which springs from and is, as it were, the fair flowering of the repeated teaching of the Sacred Scriptures and the Holy Fathers" (English translation: vatican.va)
5. "When I state, "Different Muslim sects even have different sacraments." That is a factual statement describing the religious beliefs of pagans on sacraments."
---
I'm a wretched Pole, as you love to stress, but in my English/AE dictionary "to have" refers to reality not to somebody's illusions/beliefs. For example, in that (old-fashioned I guess) usage the phrase: "The Muslim has a cat" means simply that he really has it, not: "he thinks he has a cat though there is no cat in the vicinity".
"When I quote Muslim scholars, I'm showing support for what Muslims believe about sacraments. That is not what I believe"
---
You don't believe then at all - if you think that Faith and the Truth revealed is relative and subjective or if you don't believe that Sacraments belong to the objective reality.
What Muslims believe about their cult may matter for modernist heretics enthroning so-called "religious experience" (as St. Pius X said in Pascendi with a pinch of irony: And with what right will Modernists deny the truth of an experience affirmed by a follower of Islam? With what right can they claim true experiences for Catholics alone? Indeed Modernists do not deny but actually admit, some confusedly, others in the most open manner, that all religions are true): Catholics do not care.
However, the Catholics should be careful about their language - including but not limited to all those "Protestant/Muslim sacraments" or "Jewish martyrdoms" that the secularized / syncretic world would like to introduce.
--
Quite a demanding test for your intelligence. Try to solve such a mystery, then... try again later.
2. :You can't speak Latin, you cant read Latin so don't quote in Latin when you're relying on a translation."
---
Another test - failed.
3. "If you want to quote Canon I and II, just do so in a manner everybody will understand. You're just playing your stupid games again, like you always do. Further evidence that, as usual, you argue simply for amusement's sake and in bad-faith. Here's the English..."
---
Another failure. That's not Canon I & II but Canon X & XI on Sacraments.
The original text is in Latin and the matter is important, therefore I quoted it in Latin and provided the meaning of the key phrase ("each sacrament to be valid requires the intention of doing what the Catholic Church does"). If you consider the above "stupid" and "in bad-faith" - well, that's your personal problem.
4.""Unitatis Redintegratio" does not use the word "Catholic" anywhere in the passage I quoted. "
---
And another one again. I'll explain again:
1) UR uses the word "true sacraments".
2) There are no other true sacraments than the sacraments of the Catholic Church. I gave the true i.e. Catholic (not Muslim or freemasonic) meaning of the word "sacrament" quoting the Baltimore Catechism: signs established by Christ to provide the Divine grace. If you prefer an older definition - here you are, one from the 7th century Etymologies of St. Isidore (VI.XIX-40): These things are called sacraments (sacramentum) for this reason that under the covering of corporeal things the divine virtue very secretly brings about the saving power of those same sacraments.
3) I quoted the Council of Trent (Can. XI) - each and every Sacrament requires at least the intention of doing what the Church does (in Latin: intendere facere quod facit Ecclesia). If you don't agree: anathema sit i.e.: off you go.
I guess (AFAIK you and your "reasoning" above) you'll probably say: hey, that Canon uses the word "Church" (Ecclesia) not the "Catholic Church" - forgetting another dogma expressed in the Creed - the dogma on una sancta Catholica et apostolica Ecclesia (One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church).
Therefore, for example, Pope Pius XII says in Mystici Corporis Christi: "the Savior of mankind out of His infinite goodness has provided in a wonderful way for His Mystical Body, endowing it with the Sacraments, so that, as though by an uninterrupted series of graces, its members should be sustained from birth to death" and later: "If we would define and describe this true Church of Jesus Christ - which is the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church - we shall find nothing more noble, more sublime, or more divine than the expression "the Mystical Body of Christ" - an expression which springs from and is, as it were, the fair flowering of the repeated teaching of the Sacred Scriptures and the Holy Fathers" (English translation: vatican.va)
5. "When I state, "Different Muslim sects even have different sacraments." That is a factual statement describing the religious beliefs of pagans on sacraments."
---
I'm a wretched Pole, as you love to stress, but in my English/AE dictionary "to have" refers to reality not to somebody's illusions/beliefs. For example, in that (old-fashioned I guess) usage the phrase: "The Muslim has a cat" means simply that he really has it, not: "he thinks he has a cat though there is no cat in the vicinity".
"When I quote Muslim scholars, I'm showing support for what Muslims believe about sacraments. That is not what I believe"
---
You don't believe then at all - if you think that Faith and the Truth revealed is relative and subjective or if you don't believe that Sacraments belong to the objective reality.
What Muslims believe about their cult may matter for modernist heretics enthroning so-called "religious experience" (as St. Pius X said in Pascendi with a pinch of irony: And with what right will Modernists deny the truth of an experience affirmed by a follower of Islam? With what right can they claim true experiences for Catholics alone? Indeed Modernists do not deny but actually admit, some confusedly, others in the most open manner, that all religions are true): Catholics do not care.
However, the Catholics should be careful about their language - including but not limited to all those "Protestant/Muslim sacraments" or "Jewish martyrdoms" that the secularized / syncretic world would like to introduce.
philosopher
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
@Ultraviolet I agree that there was some equivocation of schism and heresy they are not the same, i.e, Orthodox are schismatic but the Protestant groups et al are heretical. Thanks for the clarification.
However, the Orthodox calls for a nuance, since you are fond of technicalities. They do believe in all of aspects of the Catholic faith and Apostolic Tradition, and their priests have a direct …More
@Ultraviolet I agree that there was some equivocation of schism and heresy they are not the same, i.e, Orthodox are schismatic but the Protestant groups et al are heretical. Thanks for the clarification.
However, the Orthodox calls for a nuance, since you are fond of technicalities. They do believe in all of aspects of the Catholic faith and Apostolic Tradition, and their priests have a direct connection with the Apostolic line of succession, so, they are not like the Protestants. However, on the one point, that makes them schismatic- the papal authority, they reject. They do accept the Western Pope as a fellow bishop, and that he has authority over his Roman jurisdiction, but not supremacy over the whole Catholic church- both East and West. Its that simple, in order to come out of schism all that is required is to acquiesce to the Popes supremacy and they would ipso facto come into full communion with Rome. In fact, some particular Greek Catholics and Eastern Orthodox groups have done just that.
This is different with the SSPX. They do not reject Papal Supremacy as the Vicar of the whole Church, nor do they reject his rightful authority. They merely, reject any abuse or unjust application of his authority. Unless one is a papal positivist or Ultramontanist who believes what ever the Pope says- a Catholic is ablidged to obey. The Catholic understanding of the limits of Papal authority, i.e, Dante Alighieri, is that the pope can be unjust, immoral, unfaithful, and that he is only infallbile when speaking ex cathedra- officially explicating Faith and Morals. A pope can no more demand that a Catholic stop going to the TLM and only attend the Novus Ordo, any more than he can require all Latin rite Catholics to only attend the Marian or Byzantian rite liturgy. Catholics have rights, and the Pontifex Maximus has authoritative limits.
You believe them the SSPX to be "technically" in Schism, but the former president of the pontifical commission Eclessia Dei, Cardinal Castrillon Hoyas 2000-2009, disagrees with you. He has said, "technically they (SSPX) never made any complete schism or heresy. For example, they did not create a separate jurisdiction, b/c to create a separate jurisdiction outside the jurisdiction of the Church, that means you want to separate." He has also added that the the views of the SSPX are reactions to the incorrect interpretation of Vatican 2 documents and not the Council itself. (Source- Romereports)
However, the Orthodox calls for a nuance, since you are fond of technicalities. They do believe in all of aspects of the Catholic faith and Apostolic Tradition, and their priests have a direct connection with the Apostolic line of succession, so, they are not like the Protestants. However, on the one point, that makes them schismatic- the papal authority, they reject. They do accept the Western Pope as a fellow bishop, and that he has authority over his Roman jurisdiction, but not supremacy over the whole Catholic church- both East and West. Its that simple, in order to come out of schism all that is required is to acquiesce to the Popes supremacy and they would ipso facto come into full communion with Rome. In fact, some particular Greek Catholics and Eastern Orthodox groups have done just that.
This is different with the SSPX. They do not reject Papal Supremacy as the Vicar of the whole Church, nor do they reject his rightful authority. They merely, reject any abuse or unjust application of his authority. Unless one is a papal positivist or Ultramontanist who believes what ever the Pope says- a Catholic is ablidged to obey. The Catholic understanding of the limits of Papal authority, i.e, Dante Alighieri, is that the pope can be unjust, immoral, unfaithful, and that he is only infallbile when speaking ex cathedra- officially explicating Faith and Morals. A pope can no more demand that a Catholic stop going to the TLM and only attend the Novus Ordo, any more than he can require all Latin rite Catholics to only attend the Marian or Byzantian rite liturgy. Catholics have rights, and the Pontifex Maximus has authoritative limits.
You believe them the SSPX to be "technically" in Schism, but the former president of the pontifical commission Eclessia Dei, Cardinal Castrillon Hoyas 2000-2009, disagrees with you. He has said, "technically they (SSPX) never made any complete schism or heresy. For example, they did not create a separate jurisdiction, b/c to create a separate jurisdiction outside the jurisdiction of the Church, that means you want to separate." He has also added that the the views of the SSPX are reactions to the incorrect interpretation of Vatican 2 documents and not the Council itself. (Source- Romereports)
@Ultraviolet is raging and foaming at the mouth once again (how unpredictable!).
Your obvious and quite glaring ERROR corrected here:
The Church does not recognize, regulate or grant faculties to non-Catholic ministers of those Rites whose Sacraments are valid albeit schismatic.
The Church simply permits Catholics to have recourse to their Sacraments in the event of genuine necessity.
Faculties …More
@Ultraviolet is raging and foaming at the mouth once again (how unpredictable!).
Your obvious and quite glaring ERROR corrected here:
The Church does not recognize, regulate or grant faculties to non-Catholic ministers of those Rites whose Sacraments are valid albeit schismatic.
The Church simply permits Catholics to have recourse to their Sacraments in the event of genuine necessity.
Faculties are a completely juridical, non-Sacramental construct of the Catholic Church whereby Her ministers (not those of schismatic Rites) are granted faculties by the authority of their local Ordinary to administer those Sacraments regulated by faculties, such as Confession and Marriages.
Only Catholic Priests must seek faculties (permission) from their Ordinaries to administer specific Sacraments which require this permission (e.g. Confession and Marriage), without which the Sacraments are rendered invalid.
The Catholic Church does not recognize or have any juridical authority over non-Catholic schismatic ministers. Necessity suspending the requirement for faculties altogether, any Catholic may seek the Sacraments from a validly ordained non-Catholic minister in the event of necessity.
PRECISELY BECAUSE THIS POSITS A SITUATION OF NECESSITY, NO FACULTIES ARE REQUIRED EVEN OF CATHOLIC PRIESTS.
Moreover, the Catholic Church does not bestow or recognize "faculties" in those schismatics over whom they have no jurisidiction.
Your obvious and quite glaring ERROR corrected here:
The Church does not recognize, regulate or grant faculties to non-Catholic ministers of those Rites whose Sacraments are valid albeit schismatic.
The Church simply permits Catholics to have recourse to their Sacraments in the event of genuine necessity.
Faculties are a completely juridical, non-Sacramental construct of the Catholic Church whereby Her ministers (not those of schismatic Rites) are granted faculties by the authority of their local Ordinary to administer those Sacraments regulated by faculties, such as Confession and Marriages.
Only Catholic Priests must seek faculties (permission) from their Ordinaries to administer specific Sacraments which require this permission (e.g. Confession and Marriage), without which the Sacraments are rendered invalid.
The Catholic Church does not recognize or have any juridical authority over non-Catholic schismatic ministers. Necessity suspending the requirement for faculties altogether, any Catholic may seek the Sacraments from a validly ordained non-Catholic minister in the event of necessity.
PRECISELY BECAUSE THIS POSITS A SITUATION OF NECESSITY, NO FACULTIES ARE REQUIRED EVEN OF CATHOLIC PRIESTS.
Moreover, the Catholic Church does not bestow or recognize "faculties" in those schismatics over whom they have no jurisidiction.
@Ultraviolet BTW I cited this quote: ""Canon the law implicitly recognizes that Baptism can always be validly administered by anyone with the right intention..." from an article that disproves your mistaken position, not from you.
No error on my part....I knew exactly what I was writing...
You obviously need to find better things to do with your time than haunt Gloria.TV with the same venom as a …More
@Ultraviolet BTW I cited this quote: ""Canon the law implicitly recognizes that Baptism can always be validly administered by anyone with the right intention..." from an article that disproves your mistaken position, not from you.
No error on my part....I knew exactly what I was writing...
You obviously need to find better things to do with your time than haunt Gloria.TV with the same venom as a troll....please go away and leave us all in peace.
I know many others feel the same way.
God bless....
No error on my part....I knew exactly what I was writing...
You obviously need to find better things to do with your time than haunt Gloria.TV with the same venom as a troll....please go away and leave us all in peace.
I know many others feel the same way.
God bless....
Ultraviolet
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
"No error on my part....I knew exactly what I was writing..." @Ave Crux Sure you did. :P Just like you knew exactly whom you were quoting when criticizing me for a quote I didn't make.
"please go away and leave us all in peace." GTV has not appointed you an official spokesman for its users. Likewise,GTV is not an echo-box for SSPX fan-boys to promote their falsehoods. Judging by all your angry …More
"No error on my part....I knew exactly what I was writing..." @Ave Crux Sure you did. :P Just like you knew exactly whom you were quoting when criticizing me for a quote I didn't make.
"please go away and leave us all in peace." GTV has not appointed you an official spokesman for its users. Likewise,GTV is not an echo-box for SSPX fan-boys to promote their falsehoods. Judging by all your angry CAPS-LOCKED Bolding, it is you who have "the same venom as a troll." I say to you, Ave Crux, quoting St. Benedict: "Ipse venena bibas." (Drink your own poison.) ;-)
"please go away and leave us all in peace." GTV has not appointed you an official spokesman for its users. Likewise,GTV is not an echo-box for SSPX fan-boys to promote their falsehoods. Judging by all your angry CAPS-LOCKED Bolding, it is you who have "the same venom as a troll." I say to you, Ave Crux, quoting St. Benedict: "Ipse venena bibas." (Drink your own poison.) ;-)
Ultraviolet
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
"The Church does not recognize, regulate or grant faculties..." @Ave Crux
It is impossible for a schismatic priest to perform true sacraments, by Catholic standards, unless they possess the faculties (i.e permission), even tacitly, to do so by the Catholic Church. You lose. :P "Oi stopped readin'" -amirite? You sure kept writing though!
"Faculties are a completely juridical, non-Sacramental …More
"The Church does not recognize, regulate or grant faculties..." @Ave Crux
It is impossible for a schismatic priest to perform true sacraments, by Catholic standards, unless they possess the faculties (i.e permission), even tacitly, to do so by the Catholic Church. You lose. :P "Oi stopped readin'" -amirite? You sure kept writing though!
"Faculties are a completely juridical, non-Sacramental construct of the Catholic Church whereby Her ministers (not those of schismatic Rites) are granted faculties..."
Anyone else see the fallacy of Circular reasoning here? :D Faculties are construct of the Catholic Church whereby her ministers are granted faculties... Yeah, no. Or this gem...
"Faculties are a completely juridical, non-Sacramental construct of the Catholic Church..." which you. contradict in the next paragraph. "specific Sacraments which require this permission (e.g. Confession and Marriage), without which the Sacraments are rendered invalid."
--because that's what a non-sacramental construct does to a sacrament. :P
"Only Catholic Priests must seek faculties (permission) from their Ordinaries to administer specific Sacraments which require this permission (e.g. Confession and Marriage), without which the Sacraments are rendered invalid."
..and as "Unitatis Redintegratio" shows, that permission is inherently granted to orthodox schismatic priests else their sacraments would be invalid, which they are not.
"The Catholic Church does not recognize or have any juridical authority over non-Catholic schismatic ministers."
Wrong. If that were the case, then they would not recognize the validity of sacraments performed by those ministers, which they do.
It is impossible for a schismatic priest to perform true sacraments, by Catholic standards, unless they possess the faculties (i.e permission), even tacitly, to do so by the Catholic Church. You lose. :P "Oi stopped readin'" -amirite? You sure kept writing though!
"Faculties are a completely juridical, non-Sacramental construct of the Catholic Church whereby Her ministers (not those of schismatic Rites) are granted faculties..."
Anyone else see the fallacy of Circular reasoning here? :D Faculties are construct of the Catholic Church whereby her ministers are granted faculties... Yeah, no. Or this gem...
"Faculties are a completely juridical, non-Sacramental construct of the Catholic Church..." which you. contradict in the next paragraph. "specific Sacraments which require this permission (e.g. Confession and Marriage), without which the Sacraments are rendered invalid."
--because that's what a non-sacramental construct does to a sacrament. :P
"Only Catholic Priests must seek faculties (permission) from their Ordinaries to administer specific Sacraments which require this permission (e.g. Confession and Marriage), without which the Sacraments are rendered invalid."
..and as "Unitatis Redintegratio" shows, that permission is inherently granted to orthodox schismatic priests else their sacraments would be invalid, which they are not.
"The Catholic Church does not recognize or have any juridical authority over non-Catholic schismatic ministers."
Wrong. If that were the case, then they would not recognize the validity of sacraments performed by those ministers, which they do.
2 more comments from Ultraviolet
Ultraviolet
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
"This is different with the SSPX. They do not reject Papal Supremacy as the Vicar of the whole Church, nor do they reject his rightful authority." @philosopher
Flatly disobeying his rightful authority is a rejection. Canon Law 1382: ":A bishop who consecrates some one a bishop without a pontifical mandate and the person who receives the consecration from him incur a latae sententiae excommunication …More
"This is different with the SSPX. They do not reject Papal Supremacy as the Vicar of the whole Church, nor do they reject his rightful authority." @philosopher
Flatly disobeying his rightful authority is a rejection. Canon Law 1382: ":A bishop who consecrates some one a bishop without a pontifical mandate and the person who receives the consecration from him incur a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See."
Abp. Lefebvre deliberately refused to get a mandate from the Pope and proceeded to consecrate "bishops" on his own authority. If that isn't a rejection the Pope's rightful authority, I shudder to think of what you consider does. Simply put, if Papa John Paul II says, "don't do this unless you get my permission first and his son Marcel goes and does it anyway, he's rejected that authority by disobeying a directive stemming from it.
"They merely, reject any abuse or unjust application of his authority."
Technically, you are entirely correct by saying this, and there lies the problem. They have no right in Canon Law to judge what constitutes "abuse" or "unjust application" of Papal authority.
By doing so, the SSPX places themselves above the Pope as self-appointed judges of how he applies his lawful Papal authority. Worse, when they judge it's "abuse" or "unjust", they grant themselves the right to break it. Simple example. "I think the posted speed limit is unreasonably too low. That gives me the legal right to go as fast as I want. Hmmph... I think this traffic light has stayed red for too long. That gives me the legal right to drive through it."
That isn't how The Church works. The Pope can (and I'm certain more than one in history did) approve the consecration of bishops for entirely political and even personally-biased reasons. That's unfortunate, it might even be a glaringly obvious example of nepotism (as it was in the case of the Medici and Borgia popes, but under Canon Law in 1983, that's lawful.
Some French arcbhishop who is denied permission for his own choices can watch all that cronyism and nepotism in helpless rage, but that doesn't give him the right to break the law of The Church.
"The Catholic understanding of the limits of Papal authority, i.e, Dante Alighieri, is that the pope can be unjust, immoral, unfaithful, and that he is only infallbile when speaking ex cathedra- officially explicating Faith and Morals."
Irrelevant to the point. This is a matter of Canon Law. The law is clear on the necessity of a pontifical mandate.
Here's a common-place entirely secular example...the company president might be wrong in deciding who gets promoted to manager, everyone might even agree he's wrong, but company law requires every regional VPt to get the president's personal permission before promoting someone to manager.
Deliberately refusing to get permission is still breaking company law, even if the president is wrong in disapproving the promotion.
Contrasting this with the ultramonatist position i.e. a Catholic is obliged to obey everything the Pope says, is a fallacy of a false dilemma, aka. "black and white fallacy".
A Catholic may not be obliged to obey everything the Pope says, but they are still obliged to obey Canon Law. Those who have sworn an oath of obedience to their clerical superiors are, thus, doubly obligated to obey them in this case.
"Catholics have rights, and the Pontifex Maximus has authoritative limits."
...and again, in the case of Abp. Lefebvre, by the laws of The Church, The Pope was acting entirely within those limits.
"He has said, "technically they (SSPX) never made any complete schism or heresy."
That's your idea of a "contradiction", feel free to contradict me some more! :D
When I say that "technically" the SSPX is in schism, and Cardinal Hoyas says, "they never made any complete schism..." he's acknowledging one does exist, he's only qualifying the extent of it.
Flatly disobeying his rightful authority is a rejection. Canon Law 1382: ":A bishop who consecrates some one a bishop without a pontifical mandate and the person who receives the consecration from him incur a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See."
Abp. Lefebvre deliberately refused to get a mandate from the Pope and proceeded to consecrate "bishops" on his own authority. If that isn't a rejection the Pope's rightful authority, I shudder to think of what you consider does. Simply put, if Papa John Paul II says, "don't do this unless you get my permission first and his son Marcel goes and does it anyway, he's rejected that authority by disobeying a directive stemming from it.
"They merely, reject any abuse or unjust application of his authority."
Technically, you are entirely correct by saying this, and there lies the problem. They have no right in Canon Law to judge what constitutes "abuse" or "unjust application" of Papal authority.
By doing so, the SSPX places themselves above the Pope as self-appointed judges of how he applies his lawful Papal authority. Worse, when they judge it's "abuse" or "unjust", they grant themselves the right to break it. Simple example. "I think the posted speed limit is unreasonably too low. That gives me the legal right to go as fast as I want. Hmmph... I think this traffic light has stayed red for too long. That gives me the legal right to drive through it."
That isn't how The Church works. The Pope can (and I'm certain more than one in history did) approve the consecration of bishops for entirely political and even personally-biased reasons. That's unfortunate, it might even be a glaringly obvious example of nepotism (as it was in the case of the Medici and Borgia popes, but under Canon Law in 1983, that's lawful.
Some French arcbhishop who is denied permission for his own choices can watch all that cronyism and nepotism in helpless rage, but that doesn't give him the right to break the law of The Church.
"The Catholic understanding of the limits of Papal authority, i.e, Dante Alighieri, is that the pope can be unjust, immoral, unfaithful, and that he is only infallbile when speaking ex cathedra- officially explicating Faith and Morals."
Irrelevant to the point. This is a matter of Canon Law. The law is clear on the necessity of a pontifical mandate.
Here's a common-place entirely secular example...the company president might be wrong in deciding who gets promoted to manager, everyone might even agree he's wrong, but company law requires every regional VPt to get the president's personal permission before promoting someone to manager.
Deliberately refusing to get permission is still breaking company law, even if the president is wrong in disapproving the promotion.
Contrasting this with the ultramonatist position i.e. a Catholic is obliged to obey everything the Pope says, is a fallacy of a false dilemma, aka. "black and white fallacy".
A Catholic may not be obliged to obey everything the Pope says, but they are still obliged to obey Canon Law. Those who have sworn an oath of obedience to their clerical superiors are, thus, doubly obligated to obey them in this case.
"Catholics have rights, and the Pontifex Maximus has authoritative limits."
...and again, in the case of Abp. Lefebvre, by the laws of The Church, The Pope was acting entirely within those limits.
"He has said, "technically they (SSPX) never made any complete schism or heresy."
That's your idea of a "contradiction", feel free to contradict me some more! :D
When I say that "technically" the SSPX is in schism, and Cardinal Hoyas says, "they never made any complete schism..." he's acknowledging one does exist, he's only qualifying the extent of it.
Ultraviolet
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
"Quite a demanding test for your intelligence. Try to solve such a mystery, then... " @V.R.S.
When you claim you didn't read a statement and then quote from it, then it's clear you did read it. Not a demanding test at all and the mystery is solved. You're a liar and you lied.
"Another test - failed."
For you, certainly. :D I even recognized the translation you were using. :P Pretensions aren't …More
"Quite a demanding test for your intelligence. Try to solve such a mystery, then... " @V.R.S.
When you claim you didn't read a statement and then quote from it, then it's clear you did read it. Not a demanding test at all and the mystery is solved. You're a liar and you lied.
"Another test - failed."
For you, certainly. :D I even recognized the translation you were using. :P Pretensions aren't going to save you. ;-)
"The original text is in Latin and the matter is important, therefore I quoted it in Latin and provided the meaning of the key phrase ("each sacrament to be valid requires the intention of doing what the Catholic Church does")."
As you've just shown by citing the translation, both the passage and its discussion can be done in English. You're using Latin to flatter yourself and to muddle the discussion.
Also, you're going to have one hell of a time factually demonstrating the intention of anyone.. :D
"If you consider the above "stupid" and "in bad-faith" - well, that's your personal problem."
I don't. I consider your motives for using Latin to be stupid and in bad faith. By resorting to English as you have throughout your reply, you've just demonstrated they are both..
"And another one again. I'll explain again."
Your explanation is based on semiotics. You assume the Catholic meaning of the word "sacrament" disbars everyone else from applying the term to describe comparative, analagous ceremonies.
For example, the sacrament of Marriage is a Catholic sacrament describing the religious bonds between man and wife. However, Muslims also have that sacrament and it serves the same function, the relgious bonds between man and wife.
Hence, the word "sacrament" can be used to correctly describe that relgious bond.
Lutherans, notably "Baptists" have a sacrament of baptism. It is not a Catholic sacrament, but it is a sacrament in that it initates a non-Baptist into their faith. In that it serves a similar function as the Catholic sacrament of Baptism, even if it is not a true (i.e. Catholic) sacrament.
The Church herself acknowledges this point by making the distinction that orthodox alone, have "true sacraments".
The qualification of "true" sacraments naturallY presupposes untrue sacraments.
"2) There are no other true sacraments than the sacraments of the Catholic Church."
Contradicted by "Unitatis Redintegratio" in its description of the schismatic Orthodox sacraments as "true."
But let's take your claim at face value. It's wrong, but let's pretend it's right.
Now revisit your orignal claim.
"There are no "Muslim sacraments" and there are no "Orthodox" or "Protestant" sacraments."
You did not say "There are no true Muslim sacraments and there are no true "Orthodox or true "Protestant" sacraments". Even if you had, "Unitatis Redintegratio" would still contradict you.
However, your original claim is still wrong. There are "Muslim sacraments" and there are "Orthodox" or "Protestant" sacraments." For the Muslims and the Protestants, they are not true sacraments, but they are still sacraments.
Your claim is false. Even your argument here supports that.
"3) I quoted the Council of Trent (Can. XI) - each and every Sacrament requires at least the intention of doing what the Church does (in Latin: intendere facere quod facit Ecclesia). If you don't agree: anathema sit i.e.: off you go."
Non-Catholics may have the intention of doing what the Church does. However, they fail in doing so. ;-)
The Protestant sacrament of penance may intend to absolve sin, but it undeniably fails.
"I guess (AFAIK you and your "reasoning" above) you'll probably say:
Strawman Fallacy on your part so your citation of Pope Pius XII in Mystici Corporis Christi becomes a Non Sequitur Fallacy since you're "defending" your position against a claim I didn't make.
"but in my English/AE dictionary "to have" refers to reality not to somebody's illusions/beliefs. "
Maybe you should cite it and link your dictionary. Feel free to scan the page if it's in print. ;-)
Having an item and having a genuine item are not the same. A muslim may have a sacrament, but that does not imply it is at true sacrament according to Catholic understanding.
Your "cat" example fails because the Catholic Church hasn't defined what a "cat" is.
"-if you think that Faith and the Truth revealed is relative and subjective or if you don't believe that Sacraments belong to the objective reality."
This has nothing to do with Faith and Truth, it has everything to do with how words are used
The fact The Church herself feels the need to qualify the existence of a true sacrament indicates The Church also recognizes not all sacraments are true -even if they are called sacraments..
"What Muslims believe about their cult may matter for modernist heretics enthroning..."
Implied No True Scotsman Fallacy. It should also matter to Catholics as well, in order to refute their errors and the errors Catholics like you make.
"Indeed Modernists do not deny but actually admit, some confusedly, others in the most open manner, that all religions are true)."
Red Herring Fallacy. No one is advancing that here, nor is the Church when it qualifies Orthodox sacraments as "true".
Even when a sacrament is not a "true sacrament" by Catholic standards does, word "sacrament" is still used to correctly and accurately describing analogous ceremonies in other faiths.
Your irrational decision to apply only a Catholic theological definition to all words used in the entire world is something The Church rightly avoids doing..
Consider "mass". We Catholics use the noun to describe the liturgy of the Eucharist.
Yet the phrase "black mass" refers to a blasphemous satanic inversion of that liturgy. In both instances, the phrase "mass" refers to a religious ceremony. One is a true mass, the other is not.
...and other types of "mass" exist, to be sure...
In physics, the noun "mass" describes "a property of the body that determines the body's acceleration under the influence of a given force.".
Yet as an adjective, "mass" describes "Relating to, done by, or affecting large numbers of people or things."
These are secular, non-Catholic usages of the word "mass" and yet they remain every bit as valid and correct within their respective contexts.
You are trying to impose only one definition for the word "sacrament", based on Catholic theology to be sure, and exclude all other equally valid uses of the word..
Simply put, that's nothing less than religiously motivated autism.
When you claim you didn't read a statement and then quote from it, then it's clear you did read it. Not a demanding test at all and the mystery is solved. You're a liar and you lied.
"Another test - failed."
For you, certainly. :D I even recognized the translation you were using. :P Pretensions aren't going to save you. ;-)
"The original text is in Latin and the matter is important, therefore I quoted it in Latin and provided the meaning of the key phrase ("each sacrament to be valid requires the intention of doing what the Catholic Church does")."
As you've just shown by citing the translation, both the passage and its discussion can be done in English. You're using Latin to flatter yourself and to muddle the discussion.
Also, you're going to have one hell of a time factually demonstrating the intention of anyone.. :D
"If you consider the above "stupid" and "in bad-faith" - well, that's your personal problem."
I don't. I consider your motives for using Latin to be stupid and in bad faith. By resorting to English as you have throughout your reply, you've just demonstrated they are both..
"And another one again. I'll explain again."
Your explanation is based on semiotics. You assume the Catholic meaning of the word "sacrament" disbars everyone else from applying the term to describe comparative, analagous ceremonies.
For example, the sacrament of Marriage is a Catholic sacrament describing the religious bonds between man and wife. However, Muslims also have that sacrament and it serves the same function, the relgious bonds between man and wife.
Hence, the word "sacrament" can be used to correctly describe that relgious bond.
Lutherans, notably "Baptists" have a sacrament of baptism. It is not a Catholic sacrament, but it is a sacrament in that it initates a non-Baptist into their faith. In that it serves a similar function as the Catholic sacrament of Baptism, even if it is not a true (i.e. Catholic) sacrament.
The Church herself acknowledges this point by making the distinction that orthodox alone, have "true sacraments".
The qualification of "true" sacraments naturallY presupposes untrue sacraments.
"2) There are no other true sacraments than the sacraments of the Catholic Church."
Contradicted by "Unitatis Redintegratio" in its description of the schismatic Orthodox sacraments as "true."
But let's take your claim at face value. It's wrong, but let's pretend it's right.
Now revisit your orignal claim.
"There are no "Muslim sacraments" and there are no "Orthodox" or "Protestant" sacraments."
You did not say "There are no true Muslim sacraments and there are no true "Orthodox or true "Protestant" sacraments". Even if you had, "Unitatis Redintegratio" would still contradict you.
However, your original claim is still wrong. There are "Muslim sacraments" and there are "Orthodox" or "Protestant" sacraments." For the Muslims and the Protestants, they are not true sacraments, but they are still sacraments.
Your claim is false. Even your argument here supports that.
"3) I quoted the Council of Trent (Can. XI) - each and every Sacrament requires at least the intention of doing what the Church does (in Latin: intendere facere quod facit Ecclesia). If you don't agree: anathema sit i.e.: off you go."
Non-Catholics may have the intention of doing what the Church does. However, they fail in doing so. ;-)
The Protestant sacrament of penance may intend to absolve sin, but it undeniably fails.
"I guess (AFAIK you and your "reasoning" above) you'll probably say:
Strawman Fallacy on your part so your citation of Pope Pius XII in Mystici Corporis Christi becomes a Non Sequitur Fallacy since you're "defending" your position against a claim I didn't make.
"but in my English/AE dictionary "to have" refers to reality not to somebody's illusions/beliefs. "
Maybe you should cite it and link your dictionary. Feel free to scan the page if it's in print. ;-)
Having an item and having a genuine item are not the same. A muslim may have a sacrament, but that does not imply it is at true sacrament according to Catholic understanding.
Your "cat" example fails because the Catholic Church hasn't defined what a "cat" is.
"-if you think that Faith and the Truth revealed is relative and subjective or if you don't believe that Sacraments belong to the objective reality."
This has nothing to do with Faith and Truth, it has everything to do with how words are used
The fact The Church herself feels the need to qualify the existence of a true sacrament indicates The Church also recognizes not all sacraments are true -even if they are called sacraments..
"What Muslims believe about their cult may matter for modernist heretics enthroning..."
Implied No True Scotsman Fallacy. It should also matter to Catholics as well, in order to refute their errors and the errors Catholics like you make.
"Indeed Modernists do not deny but actually admit, some confusedly, others in the most open manner, that all religions are true)."
Red Herring Fallacy. No one is advancing that here, nor is the Church when it qualifies Orthodox sacraments as "true".
Even when a sacrament is not a "true sacrament" by Catholic standards does, word "sacrament" is still used to correctly and accurately describing analogous ceremonies in other faiths.
Your irrational decision to apply only a Catholic theological definition to all words used in the entire world is something The Church rightly avoids doing..
Consider "mass". We Catholics use the noun to describe the liturgy of the Eucharist.
Yet the phrase "black mass" refers to a blasphemous satanic inversion of that liturgy. In both instances, the phrase "mass" refers to a religious ceremony. One is a true mass, the other is not.
...and other types of "mass" exist, to be sure...
In physics, the noun "mass" describes "a property of the body that determines the body's acceleration under the influence of a given force.".
Yet as an adjective, "mass" describes "Relating to, done by, or affecting large numbers of people or things."
These are secular, non-Catholic usages of the word "mass" and yet they remain every bit as valid and correct within their respective contexts.
You are trying to impose only one definition for the word "sacrament", based on Catholic theology to be sure, and exclude all other equally valid uses of the word..
Simply put, that's nothing less than religiously motivated autism.
@Ultraviolet still desperately trying to prove themselves right even when they're wrong (as usual)....
And yes, you're quite correct about one thing -- I don't bother reading your volcanic spewing of self-serving screeds except for the opening sentence viewable above the "More" link. Something I see other commenters have also indicated.
It's not even remotely worth the time you're putting into …More
@Ultraviolet still desperately trying to prove themselves right even when they're wrong (as usual)....
And yes, you're quite correct about one thing -- I don't bother reading your volcanic spewing of self-serving screeds except for the opening sentence viewable above the "More" link. Something I see other commenters have also indicated.
It's not even remotely worth the time you're putting into these obsessive attempts to keep smacking others down with demeaning, derisive language and posts.
Your latest error above the "More" link:
e.g. "It is impossible for a schismatic priest to perform true sacraments, by Catholic standards, unless they possess the faculties (i.e permission), even tacitly, to do so by the Catholic Church. You lose."
YOU ARE COMPLETELY WRONG AND INCORRECT.....The Catholic Church's Ordinaries and Hierarchy ABSOLUTELY DO NOT GRANT FACULTIES TO SCHISMATIC PRIESTS TO DO ANYTHING. THEY HAVE NO JURISDICTION OVER THEM AND THUS HAVE NO LEGAL LINK TO SCHISMATICS.
NORMALLY THE LOCAL ORDINARIES AND HIERARCHY DON'T EVEN KNOW WHEN THESE CASES OF NECESSITY OCCUR (otherwise there would be no true necessity); SO HOW ARE THE LOCAL ORDINARIES AND HIERARCHY TO GRANT FACULTIES -- WHICH REQUIRE SUCH THINGS AS A CELEBRET AND FORMAL PETITION?
The Sacraments of Orthodox Rites are valid and may be received in case of necessity. This is a universal provision of Canon Law in necessity. In such cases, the requirement for faculties is suspended; it is only a legal construct anyway. PERIOD.
And you are absolutely wrong -- and should know better -- that faculties are NOT required for Baptism.
Goodbye Ultraviolet...
I won't be wasting my time to read anything else you have to say on this matter. I only reply here to correct your errors for anyone who bothers to read your screeds.
And yes, you're quite correct about one thing -- I don't bother reading your volcanic spewing of self-serving screeds except for the opening sentence viewable above the "More" link. Something I see other commenters have also indicated.
It's not even remotely worth the time you're putting into these obsessive attempts to keep smacking others down with demeaning, derisive language and posts.
Your latest error above the "More" link:
e.g. "It is impossible for a schismatic priest to perform true sacraments, by Catholic standards, unless they possess the faculties (i.e permission), even tacitly, to do so by the Catholic Church. You lose."
YOU ARE COMPLETELY WRONG AND INCORRECT.....The Catholic Church's Ordinaries and Hierarchy ABSOLUTELY DO NOT GRANT FACULTIES TO SCHISMATIC PRIESTS TO DO ANYTHING. THEY HAVE NO JURISDICTION OVER THEM AND THUS HAVE NO LEGAL LINK TO SCHISMATICS.
NORMALLY THE LOCAL ORDINARIES AND HIERARCHY DON'T EVEN KNOW WHEN THESE CASES OF NECESSITY OCCUR (otherwise there would be no true necessity); SO HOW ARE THE LOCAL ORDINARIES AND HIERARCHY TO GRANT FACULTIES -- WHICH REQUIRE SUCH THINGS AS A CELEBRET AND FORMAL PETITION?
The Sacraments of Orthodox Rites are valid and may be received in case of necessity. This is a universal provision of Canon Law in necessity. In such cases, the requirement for faculties is suspended; it is only a legal construct anyway. PERIOD.
And you are absolutely wrong -- and should know better -- that faculties are NOT required for Baptism.
Goodbye Ultraviolet...
I won't be wasting my time to read anything else you have to say on this matter. I only reply here to correct your errors for anyone who bothers to read your screeds.
Ultraviolet
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
@Ave Crux "I don't bother reading your volcanic spewing of self-serving screeds except for the opening sentence viewable above the "More" link."
Then you don't know if I'm "wrong (as usual)" or right (as usual) because you haven't read the majority of what I said. Literally, then, you don't know what you're talking about. Doesn't stop you from blathering on though, does it? ;-)
"The Catholic …More
@Ave Crux "I don't bother reading your volcanic spewing of self-serving screeds except for the opening sentence viewable above the "More" link."
Then you don't know if I'm "wrong (as usual)" or right (as usual) because you haven't read the majority of what I said. Literally, then, you don't know what you're talking about. Doesn't stop you from blathering on though, does it? ;-)
"The Catholic Church's Ordinaries and Hierarchy ABSOLUTELY DO NOT GRANT FACULTIES TO SCHISMATIC PRIESTS TO DO ANYTHING."
Granting permission to do something is a positive act. Allowing something to happen is not. Yet it is still tacit permission. Both produce the same result, the act occurs and is recognized by The Church. A schismatic orthodox priest has, in fact, a fuller degree of sacramental authority than the SSPX.
Then you don't know if I'm "wrong (as usual)" or right (as usual) because you haven't read the majority of what I said. Literally, then, you don't know what you're talking about. Doesn't stop you from blathering on though, does it? ;-)
"The Catholic Church's Ordinaries and Hierarchy ABSOLUTELY DO NOT GRANT FACULTIES TO SCHISMATIC PRIESTS TO DO ANYTHING."
Granting permission to do something is a positive act. Allowing something to happen is not. Yet it is still tacit permission. Both produce the same result, the act occurs and is recognized by The Church. A schismatic orthodox priest has, in fact, a fuller degree of sacramental authority than the SSPX.
Ultraviolet
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
" I only reply here to correct your errors for anyone who bothers to read your screeds."
Since you supposedly don't bother to read them yourself, that should be quite an accomplishment even for an irrational caps-locked shrew. ;-)More
" I only reply here to correct your errors for anyone who bothers to read your screeds."
Since you supposedly don't bother to read them yourself, that should be quite an accomplishment even for an irrational caps-locked shrew. ;-)
Since you supposedly don't bother to read them yourself, that should be quite an accomplishment even for an irrational caps-locked shrew. ;-)
philosopher
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
@Ultraviolet I will leave it at these final thoughts. You did raise some highly technical and stringent points in Canon law. I support the SSPX, but I do agree, while technically not in schism, being in an irregular status is not a good position to be in, and I pray that one day the will be restored to their initial status as regularized priestly order.
There is still another distinction between …More
@Ultraviolet I will leave it at these final thoughts. You did raise some highly technical and stringent points in Canon law. I support the SSPX, but I do agree, while technically not in schism, being in an irregular status is not a good position to be in, and I pray that one day the will be restored to their initial status as regularized priestly order.
There is still another distinction between the Schism of the the Orthodox and SSPX. The break from Rome occurred in formal declaration by the Orthodox Patriarch of Constantinople- claiming that the Pope was excommunicated in 1070.
Lefevre never made any formal declaration as such. He did before his consecrations of the 4 bishops request permission several times, and was promised that there would be approval. He always saw himself as a loyal son of the Church. However, the reply never came, even after several times reiterating the requests. He was advanced in age, and believed the modernists in Rome were stalling, wating for him to pass and tradition to die with it.
Calling upon Canon law, which allows for a bishop to act in a state of crisis, Lefevre moved forward in the consecrations. The argument could be made that only the pope can judge if the Church is in crisis, but Canon at the time law didn't say that, b/c its a subjective call on the part of the bishop. I don't think it was ideal but he felt it necessary for the good of souls, and I cannot judge him for that.
There is still another distinction between the Schism of the the Orthodox and SSPX. The break from Rome occurred in formal declaration by the Orthodox Patriarch of Constantinople- claiming that the Pope was excommunicated in 1070.
Lefevre never made any formal declaration as such. He did before his consecrations of the 4 bishops request permission several times, and was promised that there would be approval. He always saw himself as a loyal son of the Church. However, the reply never came, even after several times reiterating the requests. He was advanced in age, and believed the modernists in Rome were stalling, wating for him to pass and tradition to die with it.
Calling upon Canon law, which allows for a bishop to act in a state of crisis, Lefevre moved forward in the consecrations. The argument could be made that only the pope can judge if the Church is in crisis, but Canon at the time law didn't say that, b/c its a subjective call on the part of the bishop. I don't think it was ideal but he felt it necessary for the good of souls, and I cannot judge him for that.
Ultraviolet
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
"while technically not in schism..."
Ah... philosopher Technically your own source said differently.
A whole bunch of mine (three Popes and counting) have stated in one form or another, the SSPX and its priests, have yet to return to "full communion" with The Church. Since not being in "full communion" is the same Church classification used to describe the schismatic orthodox, it seems fair to …More
"while technically not in schism..."
Ah... philosopher Technically your own source said differently.
A whole bunch of mine (three Popes and counting) have stated in one form or another, the SSPX and its priests, have yet to return to "full communion" with The Church. Since not being in "full communion" is the same Church classification used to describe the schismatic orthodox, it seems fair to say The Church applies it evenly to other schismatics as well.
"There is still another distinction between the Schism of the the Orthodox and SSPX. "
...that sentence construction... :D Differentiating between one schism and another? Please continue. ;-)
"He did before his consecrations of the 4 bishops request permission several times, and was promised that there would be approval.
...and he shoulda waited until he got it in writing.
"Calling upon Canon law, which allows for a bishop to act in a state of crisis, Lefevre moved forward in the consecrations."
Jjust because he didn't get what he wanted right away doesn't make it a "crisis", only a set-back.
"The argument could be made that only the pope can judge if the Church is in crisis, but Canon at the time law didn't say that, b/c its a subjective call on the part of the bishop."
However Canon Law at that time DID say in Can. 1382 "A bishop who consecrates some one a bishop without a pontifical mandate and the person who receives the consecration from him incur a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See."
He just went ahead and did it anyway... and Canon Law landed on him with both feet.
That's how the law works and should work. ...witness the alternative so commonly in evidence today. Pro-homosexual clergy openly defy Scripture, the Church, the Pope, and the CDF on the issue with utter impunity.
Ah... philosopher Technically your own source said differently.
A whole bunch of mine (three Popes and counting) have stated in one form or another, the SSPX and its priests, have yet to return to "full communion" with The Church. Since not being in "full communion" is the same Church classification used to describe the schismatic orthodox, it seems fair to say The Church applies it evenly to other schismatics as well.
"There is still another distinction between the Schism of the the Orthodox and SSPX. "
...that sentence construction... :D Differentiating between one schism and another? Please continue. ;-)
"He did before his consecrations of the 4 bishops request permission several times, and was promised that there would be approval.
...and he shoulda waited until he got it in writing.
"Calling upon Canon law, which allows for a bishop to act in a state of crisis, Lefevre moved forward in the consecrations."
Jjust because he didn't get what he wanted right away doesn't make it a "crisis", only a set-back.
"The argument could be made that only the pope can judge if the Church is in crisis, but Canon at the time law didn't say that, b/c its a subjective call on the part of the bishop."
However Canon Law at that time DID say in Can. 1382 "A bishop who consecrates some one a bishop without a pontifical mandate and the person who receives the consecration from him incur a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See."
He just went ahead and did it anyway... and Canon Law landed on him with both feet.
That's how the law works and should work. ...witness the alternative so commonly in evidence today. Pro-homosexual clergy openly defy Scripture, the Church, the Pope, and the CDF on the issue with utter impunity.
philosopher
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
@Ultraviolet "A whole bunch of mine (three Popes and counting) have stated in one form or another, the SSPX and its priests, have yet to return to "full communion" with The Church. Since not being in "full communion" is the same Church classification used to describe the schismatic orthodox, it seems fair to say The Church applies it evenly to other schismatics as well."
Until I see a formal …More
@Ultraviolet "A whole bunch of mine (three Popes and counting) have stated in one form or another, the SSPX and its priests, have yet to return to "full communion" with The Church. Since not being in "full communion" is the same Church classification used to describe the schismatic orthodox, it seems fair to say The Church applies it evenly to other schismatics as well."
Until I see a formal written declaration ex cathedra by the Pope that the "order" (and not comments about individual bishops) is excommunicated and any Catholic will be excommunicated by assisting their masses, I will continue to support them. The 4 bishops that received a latae sententiae excommunication, was revoked and recended by Pope Benedict. There are no SSPX priests that have been excommunicated for schism.
The following excerpt is from a noted Vatican Canon lawyer, and he is neither a SSPX priest nor has he been excommunicated for schism.
"This study by Fr. Thomas C. Glover, JCD is extracted from the book, Is Tradition Excommunicated?, though first published in the November 1988 issue of The Northern Catholic. Fr. Glover is an English Oratorian and Doctor of Canon Law who worked at the Vatican for many years. He also served as a professor of Canon Law at the SSPX’s Econe seminary.
Voices are heard saying that Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop de Castro Mayer, together with the four bishops they consecrated on June 30, 1988, have been excommunicated for schism. The same voices also say that all the priests of the Society of St. Pius X, and all the laity who support them or attend their Masses, are automatically excommunicated for schism. Generally, they ignore the fact that there are plenty of traditional priests running Mass centers who are not members of the Society of St. Pius X, and include these as schismatics and so excommunicated. The facts do not support them.
There is no dispute that the episcopal consecrations took place without a pontifical mandate─that is, without the pope's permission and indeed against his express wishes. Canon 1382 states that a bishop who consecrates another without a pontifical mandate incurs excommunication latae sententiae, and the priest who allows himself to be consecrated a bishop incurs it likewise. Excommunication is of two types: latae sententiae and ferendae sententiae. The first type is often called automatic, as the delinquent incurs it simply by committing the offense specified in the law, whereas the second type requires the intervention of a judge or superior to impose the penalty.
On July 1, 1988, the Prefect of the Sacred Congregation of Bishops (the old Consistorial Congregation) issued a decree declaring that all six bishops were excommunicated. As the penalty is latae sententiae, this is not a condemnatory sentence imposing a penalty but a declaratory sentence saying that the penalty has been incurred by the violation of the penal law in question. To many, this will seem the end of the matter: the six bishops broke a law of whose existence all were aware and which carries with it automatic excommunication. This is not so.
First, no penalty is ever incurred without grave moral imputability (Canon 1323.7). This means, in the moral theologian's terminology, subjective mortal sin. The archbishop has made it clear many times that his primary purpose in consecrating successors is to ensure a future supply of traditional priests to provide the laity with Mass and the sacraments. He acted only after years of thought, and many months of protracted negotiations with the Holy See; and a similar intention and careful consideration can be discerned in the other five bishops. Even if the final decision is judged a mistake, it cannot amount to subjective mortal sin.
Secondly, Canon1323.4 states that even where an offense carrying a penalty has been committed, the penalty is not incurred if the act was performed out of necessity─unless it be something intrinsically evil or damaging to souls. Again, it is clear that it was the necessity of providing for a future supply of traditional priests which caused the archbishop and his co-consecrator to act as they did, after all hope for a "reconciliation" with Rome had proved groundless.
There is a very old "rule of law" (Regula iuris 15) which gives the benefit of any doubt in cases of penal law: Odia restringi, et Javores convenit ampliari. In other words, if there is a doubt whether a penalty has been incurred in a particular case, it means that is has not been incurred. It is not, therefore, necessary to prove that the Consecrations were morally innocent and done under necessity; it is enough to show sufficient serious arguments to establish that there is a doubt. So the six bishops are not excommunicated under Canon 1382.
But the decree of the Sacred Congregation for Bishops goes further by declaring the six bishops to be schismatics and so also automatically excommunicated under Canon 1364.1. It further warns the faithful that if they support "the schism of Archbishop Lefebvre, they too will be ipso facto excommunicated." This charge involves a large and unjustified mental leap. It is made by the pope in his apostolic letter Ecclesia Dei of July 2, 1988. Speaking of the consecrations, he writes:
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 implied in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy─constitutes a schismatic act."
It does nothing of the sort. Schism, defined in Canon 751, means refusal of subjection to the supreme pontiff or refusal of communion with other members of the Church. A mere act of disobedience to a superior does not imply denial that the superior holds office or has authority. The child who says, "I won't!" to his mother does not deny that she is his mother; the soldier ordered to polish his buttons by his officer, who instead smokes a cigarette, is not denying the validity of the Queen's commission. Again, for the charge of "schism" to stick, it must be certain beyond all reasonable doubt. In a word, the six bishops have not incurred excommunication for schism, so those who adhere to them cannot be excommunicated either. There is indeed more muddled thinking here.
The phrases "followers of Archbishop Lefebvre," "Lefebvrist Mass centers," "Lefebvre priests" are frequently used. They imply that Archbishop Lefebvre is the head of the Society of St. Pius X. He is not. Fr. Schmidberger has been superior general for five years and has district superiors under him. Even if the six bishops had been excommunicated for illegal consecrations and schism, it would not in itself affect the others. If a retired Benedictine bishop were to be excommunicated, it would not mean that Benedictines throughout the world, and those who hear Mass in Benedictine churches, were excommunicated. Excommunication is a penalty for those who commit certain crimes with full moral guilt, not a contagious disease!
The point may seem academic: to support a schismatic against the pope and "adhere" to him is to join in his schism. But we have shown that the charge of schism will not stick. Even if it did, it would not automatically involve the laity who attend Mass centers in excommunication. Canon 844.2 allows the faithful to seek the Sacraments of Communion, Penance and Extreme Unction even from non-Catholic ministers (provided their orders are valid) if it is physically or morally impossible to go to a Catholic minister. This canon has caused great scandal among traditional Catholics but it is, of course, accepted by the pope! Even the old Code allowed access to an excommunicated priest in certain cases of necessity.
And there is no doubt that it is often physically impossible to receive traditional sacraments, except from a priest who supports the actions of Archbishop Lefebvre. This does lead to another point. Traditional Catholics have become used to defending their actions, justifying their attendance at Masses not authorized by the local bishop, and so on. This article is written in a similar strain, showing on the basis of canon law that the six bishops are not excommunicated either for illegal consecrations or schism, and in consequence, that other traditional priests and lay people are not excommunicated either. But it is a mistake to leave the question on this defensive note.
It is for the pope and bishops to justify their actions. They have abandoned the traditional rites of Mass and the sacraments─they have allowed heresy to be taught and abuse to abound throughout the Church. Traditional Catholics have merely remained faithful to what the Church has always taught and done, and this fidelity to Tradition is the sole cause of all their problems with authority. We now have the ludicrous episode of the Holy See condemning six bishops in the Church who are clearly Catholics! There may be plenty of others, but their Catholicism is no longer manifest, and their attitude over the past 20 years puts it in doubt.
It is now for the pope and those who claim to be "faithful" to him to explain their actions and to show that they are still Catholics. The six bishops involved in the events of June 30 have made their orthodoxy clear."
print
Maybe you were being faciteous but I think you knew what I meant: "there is still another distinction between the Schism of the the Orthodox and (the irregular canonical situation of the) SSPX."
However Canon Law at that time DID say in Can. 1382 "A bishop who consecrates some one a bishop without a pontifical mandate and the person who receives the consecration from him incur a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See."
Interestingly, Archbishop Vigano
"comments on the situation of the Society of St. Pius X with regard to its relationship with the Vatican. Unlike with the Franciscans of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, who had been more and more inclined to embrace the traditional liturgy and whose order has been essentially destroyed by Pope Francis, the SSPX still has a certain institutional independence from the Vatican. For Viganò, this seems to be a positive thing in light of the current papacy:
With regard to the Society of St. Pius X, we are witnessing a more subtle maneuver: Bergoglio maintains “good neighborly” relations, and while recognizing certain prerogatives of its Superiors — thus demonstrating that he considers them living members of the Church — on the other hand he may want to barter their complete canonical regularization for an acceptance of the “conciliar magisterium.” It is clear that this is an insidious trap: once an agreement is signed with the Holy See, the independence which the Society enjoys in virtue of its position of not being completely regular would be lost, and with it, its economic independence. Let us not forget that the Society has assets and resources that guarantee sustenance and security for its members. At a time when the Vatican is experiencing a serious financial crisis, those assets are certainly enticing to many, as we have seen in other cases, starting with the Franciscans of the Immaculate, and the persecution of Father Mannelli."
(interview, Abp. Viganò discusses ‘failure’ of Vatican II, Novus Ordo Mass, Life Site News)
Just my opinion, but if Vigano is correct, now is not the right time under the present pope for full regularization.
Until I see a formal written declaration ex cathedra by the Pope that the "order" (and not comments about individual bishops) is excommunicated and any Catholic will be excommunicated by assisting their masses, I will continue to support them. The 4 bishops that received a latae sententiae excommunication, was revoked and recended by Pope Benedict. There are no SSPX priests that have been excommunicated for schism.
The following excerpt is from a noted Vatican Canon lawyer, and he is neither a SSPX priest nor has he been excommunicated for schism.
"This study by Fr. Thomas C. Glover, JCD is extracted from the book, Is Tradition Excommunicated?, though first published in the November 1988 issue of The Northern Catholic. Fr. Glover is an English Oratorian and Doctor of Canon Law who worked at the Vatican for many years. He also served as a professor of Canon Law at the SSPX’s Econe seminary.
Voices are heard saying that Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop de Castro Mayer, together with the four bishops they consecrated on June 30, 1988, have been excommunicated for schism. The same voices also say that all the priests of the Society of St. Pius X, and all the laity who support them or attend their Masses, are automatically excommunicated for schism. Generally, they ignore the fact that there are plenty of traditional priests running Mass centers who are not members of the Society of St. Pius X, and include these as schismatics and so excommunicated. The facts do not support them.
There is no dispute that the episcopal consecrations took place without a pontifical mandate─that is, without the pope's permission and indeed against his express wishes. Canon 1382 states that a bishop who consecrates another without a pontifical mandate incurs excommunication latae sententiae, and the priest who allows himself to be consecrated a bishop incurs it likewise. Excommunication is of two types: latae sententiae and ferendae sententiae. The first type is often called automatic, as the delinquent incurs it simply by committing the offense specified in the law, whereas the second type requires the intervention of a judge or superior to impose the penalty.
On July 1, 1988, the Prefect of the Sacred Congregation of Bishops (the old Consistorial Congregation) issued a decree declaring that all six bishops were excommunicated. As the penalty is latae sententiae, this is not a condemnatory sentence imposing a penalty but a declaratory sentence saying that the penalty has been incurred by the violation of the penal law in question. To many, this will seem the end of the matter: the six bishops broke a law of whose existence all were aware and which carries with it automatic excommunication. This is not so.
First, no penalty is ever incurred without grave moral imputability (Canon 1323.7). This means, in the moral theologian's terminology, subjective mortal sin. The archbishop has made it clear many times that his primary purpose in consecrating successors is to ensure a future supply of traditional priests to provide the laity with Mass and the sacraments. He acted only after years of thought, and many months of protracted negotiations with the Holy See; and a similar intention and careful consideration can be discerned in the other five bishops. Even if the final decision is judged a mistake, it cannot amount to subjective mortal sin.
Secondly, Canon1323.4 states that even where an offense carrying a penalty has been committed, the penalty is not incurred if the act was performed out of necessity─unless it be something intrinsically evil or damaging to souls. Again, it is clear that it was the necessity of providing for a future supply of traditional priests which caused the archbishop and his co-consecrator to act as they did, after all hope for a "reconciliation" with Rome had proved groundless.
There is a very old "rule of law" (Regula iuris 15) which gives the benefit of any doubt in cases of penal law: Odia restringi, et Javores convenit ampliari. In other words, if there is a doubt whether a penalty has been incurred in a particular case, it means that is has not been incurred. It is not, therefore, necessary to prove that the Consecrations were morally innocent and done under necessity; it is enough to show sufficient serious arguments to establish that there is a doubt. So the six bishops are not excommunicated under Canon 1382.
But the decree of the Sacred Congregation for Bishops goes further by declaring the six bishops to be schismatics and so also automatically excommunicated under Canon 1364.1. It further warns the faithful that if they support "the schism of Archbishop Lefebvre, they too will be ipso facto excommunicated." This charge involves a large and unjustified mental leap. It is made by the pope in his apostolic letter Ecclesia Dei of July 2, 1988. Speaking of the consecrations, he writes:
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 implied in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy─constitutes a schismatic act."
It does nothing of the sort. Schism, defined in Canon 751, means refusal of subjection to the supreme pontiff or refusal of communion with other members of the Church. A mere act of disobedience to a superior does not imply denial that the superior holds office or has authority. The child who says, "I won't!" to his mother does not deny that she is his mother; the soldier ordered to polish his buttons by his officer, who instead smokes a cigarette, is not denying the validity of the Queen's commission. Again, for the charge of "schism" to stick, it must be certain beyond all reasonable doubt. In a word, the six bishops have not incurred excommunication for schism, so those who adhere to them cannot be excommunicated either. There is indeed more muddled thinking here.
The phrases "followers of Archbishop Lefebvre," "Lefebvrist Mass centers," "Lefebvre priests" are frequently used. They imply that Archbishop Lefebvre is the head of the Society of St. Pius X. He is not. Fr. Schmidberger has been superior general for five years and has district superiors under him. Even if the six bishops had been excommunicated for illegal consecrations and schism, it would not in itself affect the others. If a retired Benedictine bishop were to be excommunicated, it would not mean that Benedictines throughout the world, and those who hear Mass in Benedictine churches, were excommunicated. Excommunication is a penalty for those who commit certain crimes with full moral guilt, not a contagious disease!
The point may seem academic: to support a schismatic against the pope and "adhere" to him is to join in his schism. But we have shown that the charge of schism will not stick. Even if it did, it would not automatically involve the laity who attend Mass centers in excommunication. Canon 844.2 allows the faithful to seek the Sacraments of Communion, Penance and Extreme Unction even from non-Catholic ministers (provided their orders are valid) if it is physically or morally impossible to go to a Catholic minister. This canon has caused great scandal among traditional Catholics but it is, of course, accepted by the pope! Even the old Code allowed access to an excommunicated priest in certain cases of necessity.
And there is no doubt that it is often physically impossible to receive traditional sacraments, except from a priest who supports the actions of Archbishop Lefebvre. This does lead to another point. Traditional Catholics have become used to defending their actions, justifying their attendance at Masses not authorized by the local bishop, and so on. This article is written in a similar strain, showing on the basis of canon law that the six bishops are not excommunicated either for illegal consecrations or schism, and in consequence, that other traditional priests and lay people are not excommunicated either. But it is a mistake to leave the question on this defensive note.
It is for the pope and bishops to justify their actions. They have abandoned the traditional rites of Mass and the sacraments─they have allowed heresy to be taught and abuse to abound throughout the Church. Traditional Catholics have merely remained faithful to what the Church has always taught and done, and this fidelity to Tradition is the sole cause of all their problems with authority. We now have the ludicrous episode of the Holy See condemning six bishops in the Church who are clearly Catholics! There may be plenty of others, but their Catholicism is no longer manifest, and their attitude over the past 20 years puts it in doubt.
It is now for the pope and those who claim to be "faithful" to him to explain their actions and to show that they are still Catholics. The six bishops involved in the events of June 30 have made their orthodoxy clear."
Maybe you were being faciteous but I think you knew what I meant: "there is still another distinction between the Schism of the the Orthodox and (the irregular canonical situation of the) SSPX."
However Canon Law at that time DID say in Can. 1382 "A bishop who consecrates some one a bishop without a pontifical mandate and the person who receives the consecration from him incur a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See."
Interestingly, Archbishop Vigano
"comments on the situation of the Society of St. Pius X with regard to its relationship with the Vatican. Unlike with the Franciscans of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, who had been more and more inclined to embrace the traditional liturgy and whose order has been essentially destroyed by Pope Francis, the SSPX still has a certain institutional independence from the Vatican. For Viganò, this seems to be a positive thing in light of the current papacy:
With regard to the Society of St. Pius X, we are witnessing a more subtle maneuver: Bergoglio maintains “good neighborly” relations, and while recognizing certain prerogatives of its Superiors — thus demonstrating that he considers them living members of the Church — on the other hand he may want to barter their complete canonical regularization for an acceptance of the “conciliar magisterium.” It is clear that this is an insidious trap: once an agreement is signed with the Holy See, the independence which the Society enjoys in virtue of its position of not being completely regular would be lost, and with it, its economic independence. Let us not forget that the Society has assets and resources that guarantee sustenance and security for its members. At a time when the Vatican is experiencing a serious financial crisis, those assets are certainly enticing to many, as we have seen in other cases, starting with the Franciscans of the Immaculate, and the persecution of Father Mannelli."
(interview, Abp. Viganò discusses ‘failure’ of Vatican II, Novus Ordo Mass, Life Site News)
Just my opinion, but if Vigano is correct, now is not the right time under the present pope for full regularization.
Ultraviolet
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
"Until I see a formal written declaration ex cathedra by the Pope that the "order"... I will continue to support them." @philosopher
...and Id wager a month's worth of RedBull that support would still continue, even despite such a declaration. :D
C'mon... this is shades of Benedict XVI's resignation. No matter how many times Benedict's said it, there's always another "explanation" why he didn't …More
"Until I see a formal written declaration ex cathedra by the Pope that the "order"... I will continue to support them." @philosopher
...and Id wager a month's worth of RedBull that support would still continue, even despite such a declaration. :D
C'mon... this is shades of Benedict XVI's resignation. No matter how many times Benedict's said it, there's always another "explanation" why he didn't mean what he meant, why what he said supposedly said something different, etc.
It doesn't take much to extrapolate the tortured reasoning of "Benedict Buddies" to anything the Pope would say concerning the SSPX, ex cathedra or otherwise. The canon lawyer you quote from is a fine example...
Regardless, what the Popes (past and present) haven't said or written doesn't contradict what they have.
...and all three describe the status of the SSPX using the same terminology they use for the schismatic orthodox.
"There are no SSPX priests that have been excommunicated for schism."
The terminology used by the Popes speaks for itself.
Re: your lengthy source...
"The same voices also say that all the priests of the Society of St. Pius X, and all the laity who support them or attend their Masses, are automatically excommunicated for schism."
Strawman Argument here, since it doesn't apply to me.
I think I've made my position clear and it's based entirely on direct quotes from three Popes. I haven't said beans about them being excommunicated, though that -is- a natural result from being in schism, what your source correctly notes as "latae sententiae" as opposed to "ferendae sententiae".
Since we all agree, as your source does.
"There is no dispute that the episcopal consecrations took place without a pontifical mandate-that is, without the pope's permission and indeed against his express wishes. Canon 1382 states that a bishop who consecrates another without a pontifical mandate incurs excommunication latae sententiae, and the priest who allows himself to be consecrated a bishop incurs it likewise. "
Well, sheesh, how much MORE explicit does Canon Law need to be on the subject?
"This is not so."
Cool story, bro. Benedict XVI didn't "really" resign, either. See? This is what I'm talking about.
Three popes clearly feel differently by the way they refer to the SSPX and its priests. The views of three Popes beats the legal view of an SSPX apologist attorney any day of the week.
"The archbishop has made it clear many times that his primary purpose in consecrating successors is to ensure a future supply of traditional priests to... (blah blah blah)"
The road to hell (and schism) is paved with good intentions.
"Secondly, Canon1323.4 states that even where an offense carrying a penalty has been committed, the penalty is not incurred if the act was performed out of necessity..."
Just because Abp. Lefebvre didn't get his way, doesn't elevate his wishes to the status of a "necessity".
In short, this defense (both from the attorney and Abp. Lefebvre) is a classic fallacy of a false dilemma. It's either Lefebvre's way or supposedly the TLM would die out forever.
...and that wasn't EVER the case. Witness other non-SSPX priests who've also been celebrating the Latin Mass -with- the approval of their bishops.
"In other words, if there is a doubt whether a penalty has been incurred in a particular case, it means that is has not been incurred."
LOL... JP II settled that when he slammed the door on the SSPX's founder.
"It does nothing of the sort. Schism, defined in Canon 751, means refusal of subjection to the supreme pontiff or refusal of communion with other members of the Church. A mere act of disobedience to a superior does not imply denial that the superior holds office or has authority."
Canon lawyers like this could just as readily make the same argument while defending Satan and his rebel angels.
Because the way you acknowlege authority (either God's or the Pope/ Church's) is by explicitly defying it.. :P
That kind of nonsense is great for trying to confuse undecided jurors or give sympathetic jurors a "talking point" when they retire for deliberations, but it's self-contradictory.
"Maybe you were being faciteous but I think you knew what I meant:"
Yeah, I did. :) I just found it ironic that you couldn't describe the situation without implicating the SSPX -even inadvertantly. :D
"For Viganò, this seems to be a positive thing in light of the current papacy:"
Fallacious appeal to authority also a Non Sequitur fallacy.
Abp. Vigano's opinion on the value of the SSPX remaining "independent" is not that of The Church.
Interestingly, for all his endless criticism of the Vatican, its current (woeful) leadership, etc. etc. Abp. Vigano himself is scrupulous not to give his superiors any example of such "independence" himself. ;-) He's exceedingly skilled at insinuating what he wishes to say without explicitly saying it. I enjoy his subtlety from an intellectual standpoint, but the fact remains he's terrified of handing his superiors the rope the need to hang him.
"thus demonstrating that he considers them living members of the Church"
La-dee-da... So are the schismatic Orthodox.
"on the other hand he may want to barter their complete canonical regularization for an acceptance of the 'conciliar magisterium.' It is clear that this is an insidious trap: once an agreement is signed with the Holy See"
...except El Francesco hasn't done so, therefore the good Archbishop has no business claiming there's a "trap" when no bait has been set or such an offer even made. Typical Vigano-logic. The pope "may" want to do something (no evidence shown) therefore this is a trap (an insidious trap, no less), even if it hasn't happened or been suggested.
"Just my opinion, but if Vigano is correct, now is not the right time under the present pope for full regularization."
It wasn't the "right time" under JP II, or Benedict XVI, either. It probably won't be the "right time" in the future because "full regularization" would necessitate full submission to the Pope. The SSPX (and its followers) has already developed the same enculturated unyielding attitude seen in the Orthodox today.
It probably won't be the "right time" under Pope Tagle or his successor, either. No surprises here, since there's precedent for this with the orthodox.
What you said applies to those schismatics as well, "now is not the right time under the present pope for full regularization." --and the right time hasn't yet appeared for over a millenium. The Church shouldn't hold its collective Catholic breath for the return of the SSPX to full communion, either.
As I told Ave Crux, Abp. Lefebvre and the SSPX were on their own "synodal path" long before Cardinal Marx and the German Church ever invented the conceit. Butterball and Business Suit are clever enough to avoid openly defying the Pope, even when Butterball is ashamed of his Cardinal's pectoral cross and Business Suit feels the same way about a Bishop's vestments entirely..
....at least their followers don't need all the contrived excuses explaining how an "irregular" status is supposedly everything except that. :D
...and Id wager a month's worth of RedBull that support would still continue, even despite such a declaration. :D
C'mon... this is shades of Benedict XVI's resignation. No matter how many times Benedict's said it, there's always another "explanation" why he didn't mean what he meant, why what he said supposedly said something different, etc.
It doesn't take much to extrapolate the tortured reasoning of "Benedict Buddies" to anything the Pope would say concerning the SSPX, ex cathedra or otherwise. The canon lawyer you quote from is a fine example...
Regardless, what the Popes (past and present) haven't said or written doesn't contradict what they have.
...and all three describe the status of the SSPX using the same terminology they use for the schismatic orthodox.
"There are no SSPX priests that have been excommunicated for schism."
The terminology used by the Popes speaks for itself.
Re: your lengthy source...
"The same voices also say that all the priests of the Society of St. Pius X, and all the laity who support them or attend their Masses, are automatically excommunicated for schism."
Strawman Argument here, since it doesn't apply to me.
I think I've made my position clear and it's based entirely on direct quotes from three Popes. I haven't said beans about them being excommunicated, though that -is- a natural result from being in schism, what your source correctly notes as "latae sententiae" as opposed to "ferendae sententiae".
Since we all agree, as your source does.
"There is no dispute that the episcopal consecrations took place without a pontifical mandate-that is, without the pope's permission and indeed against his express wishes. Canon 1382 states that a bishop who consecrates another without a pontifical mandate incurs excommunication latae sententiae, and the priest who allows himself to be consecrated a bishop incurs it likewise. "
Well, sheesh, how much MORE explicit does Canon Law need to be on the subject?
"This is not so."
Cool story, bro. Benedict XVI didn't "really" resign, either. See? This is what I'm talking about.
Three popes clearly feel differently by the way they refer to the SSPX and its priests. The views of three Popes beats the legal view of an SSPX apologist attorney any day of the week.
"The archbishop has made it clear many times that his primary purpose in consecrating successors is to ensure a future supply of traditional priests to... (blah blah blah)"
The road to hell (and schism) is paved with good intentions.
"Secondly, Canon1323.4 states that even where an offense carrying a penalty has been committed, the penalty is not incurred if the act was performed out of necessity..."
Just because Abp. Lefebvre didn't get his way, doesn't elevate his wishes to the status of a "necessity".
In short, this defense (both from the attorney and Abp. Lefebvre) is a classic fallacy of a false dilemma. It's either Lefebvre's way or supposedly the TLM would die out forever.
...and that wasn't EVER the case. Witness other non-SSPX priests who've also been celebrating the Latin Mass -with- the approval of their bishops.
"In other words, if there is a doubt whether a penalty has been incurred in a particular case, it means that is has not been incurred."
LOL... JP II settled that when he slammed the door on the SSPX's founder.
"It does nothing of the sort. Schism, defined in Canon 751, means refusal of subjection to the supreme pontiff or refusal of communion with other members of the Church. A mere act of disobedience to a superior does not imply denial that the superior holds office or has authority."
Canon lawyers like this could just as readily make the same argument while defending Satan and his rebel angels.
Because the way you acknowlege authority (either God's or the Pope/ Church's) is by explicitly defying it.. :P
That kind of nonsense is great for trying to confuse undecided jurors or give sympathetic jurors a "talking point" when they retire for deliberations, but it's self-contradictory.
"Maybe you were being faciteous but I think you knew what I meant:"
Yeah, I did. :) I just found it ironic that you couldn't describe the situation without implicating the SSPX -even inadvertantly. :D
"For Viganò, this seems to be a positive thing in light of the current papacy:"
Fallacious appeal to authority also a Non Sequitur fallacy.
Abp. Vigano's opinion on the value of the SSPX remaining "independent" is not that of The Church.
Interestingly, for all his endless criticism of the Vatican, its current (woeful) leadership, etc. etc. Abp. Vigano himself is scrupulous not to give his superiors any example of such "independence" himself. ;-) He's exceedingly skilled at insinuating what he wishes to say without explicitly saying it. I enjoy his subtlety from an intellectual standpoint, but the fact remains he's terrified of handing his superiors the rope the need to hang him.
"thus demonstrating that he considers them living members of the Church"
La-dee-da... So are the schismatic Orthodox.
"on the other hand he may want to barter their complete canonical regularization for an acceptance of the 'conciliar magisterium.' It is clear that this is an insidious trap: once an agreement is signed with the Holy See"
...except El Francesco hasn't done so, therefore the good Archbishop has no business claiming there's a "trap" when no bait has been set or such an offer even made. Typical Vigano-logic. The pope "may" want to do something (no evidence shown) therefore this is a trap (an insidious trap, no less), even if it hasn't happened or been suggested.
"Just my opinion, but if Vigano is correct, now is not the right time under the present pope for full regularization."
It wasn't the "right time" under JP II, or Benedict XVI, either. It probably won't be the "right time" in the future because "full regularization" would necessitate full submission to the Pope. The SSPX (and its followers) has already developed the same enculturated unyielding attitude seen in the Orthodox today.
It probably won't be the "right time" under Pope Tagle or his successor, either. No surprises here, since there's precedent for this with the orthodox.
What you said applies to those schismatics as well, "now is not the right time under the present pope for full regularization." --and the right time hasn't yet appeared for over a millenium. The Church shouldn't hold its collective Catholic breath for the return of the SSPX to full communion, either.
As I told Ave Crux, Abp. Lefebvre and the SSPX were on their own "synodal path" long before Cardinal Marx and the German Church ever invented the conceit. Butterball and Business Suit are clever enough to avoid openly defying the Pope, even when Butterball is ashamed of his Cardinal's pectoral cross and Business Suit feels the same way about a Bishop's vestments entirely..
....at least their followers don't need all the contrived excuses explaining how an "irregular" status is supposedly everything except that. :D
philosopher
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
@Ultraviolet I think we will just have to leave it at this point and agree to disagree. You would make a good lawyer:D.
Interestingly if you have the time and inclination, there is a chapter in Archbishop Athanasius Schneider's book, "Christus Vincit" where he gives reasons why the SSPX is not in schism. He was actually chosen by Benedict XVI to visit there seminary and conduct a thorough report …More
@Ultraviolet I think we will just have to leave it at this point and agree to disagree. You would make a good lawyer:D.
Interestingly if you have the time and inclination, there is a chapter in Archbishop Athanasius Schneider's book, "Christus Vincit" where he gives reasons why the SSPX is not in schism. He was actually chosen by Benedict XVI to visit there seminary and conduct a thorough report for the Vatican...it concluded that no heresy or schism existed. Unfortunately there are some lay sedes that are in the SSPX milieu and I have had to defend pope Francis as the legitimate Pontifix Maximus. Sedevacantism is not the position of the SSPX. The chapel where I attend, has a picture of pope Francis in the admin office, and Francis is prayed for in every mass. Personally, I fully acknowledge Francis as the pope, as well as his supremacy and legitimate authority, and also attend occationally mass at a diocesan TLM.
You have to forgive me on this round of discussions as I have been dealing with some health issues and not at my best. Please say a prayer for me. Pax et bonum
Interestingly if you have the time and inclination, there is a chapter in Archbishop Athanasius Schneider's book, "Christus Vincit" where he gives reasons why the SSPX is not in schism. He was actually chosen by Benedict XVI to visit there seminary and conduct a thorough report for the Vatican...it concluded that no heresy or schism existed. Unfortunately there are some lay sedes that are in the SSPX milieu and I have had to defend pope Francis as the legitimate Pontifix Maximus. Sedevacantism is not the position of the SSPX. The chapel where I attend, has a picture of pope Francis in the admin office, and Francis is prayed for in every mass. Personally, I fully acknowledge Francis as the pope, as well as his supremacy and legitimate authority, and also attend occationally mass at a diocesan TLM.
You have to forgive me on this round of discussions as I have been dealing with some health issues and not at my best. Please say a prayer for me. Pax et bonum
Ultraviolet
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
You've uncovered one of my weaknesses, @philosopher I'm a sucker for flattery, ;-)
This is like a poker game, amigo. Three Popes beats an Archbishop. ;-)
He was actually chosen by Benedict XVI to visit there seminary and conduct a thorough report for the Vatican...it concluded that no heresy or schism existed.
...and yet Benedict, JP II and El Francesco all keep using the same terminology The …More
You've uncovered one of my weaknesses, @philosopher I'm a sucker for flattery, ;-)
This is like a poker game, amigo. Three Popes beats an Archbishop. ;-)
He was actually chosen by Benedict XVI to visit there seminary and conduct a thorough report for the Vatican...it concluded that no heresy or schism existed.
...and yet Benedict, JP II and El Francesco all keep using the same terminology The Chruch uses for other schismatics, i.e. some permutation of "not in full communion."
Based on that, it would seem that Benedict read Schneider's report and ultimately drew a different conclusion.
Since I'm not advancing the SSPX are heretics, it's a non issue if the report stated they weren't.
"Sedevacantism is not the position of the SSPX."
See my last point.
"Personally, I fully acknowledge Francis as the pope,"
What you personally do is not the issue. See my last two points.
Sorry to hear about your poor health, btw. By the time you read this, I will have offered a prayer to The Almighty for your swift recovery. :)
This is like a poker game, amigo. Three Popes beats an Archbishop. ;-)
He was actually chosen by Benedict XVI to visit there seminary and conduct a thorough report for the Vatican...it concluded that no heresy or schism existed.
...and yet Benedict, JP II and El Francesco all keep using the same terminology The Chruch uses for other schismatics, i.e. some permutation of "not in full communion."
Based on that, it would seem that Benedict read Schneider's report and ultimately drew a different conclusion.
Since I'm not advancing the SSPX are heretics, it's a non issue if the report stated they weren't.
"Sedevacantism is not the position of the SSPX."
See my last point.
"Personally, I fully acknowledge Francis as the pope,"
What you personally do is not the issue. See my last two points.
Sorry to hear about your poor health, btw. By the time you read this, I will have offered a prayer to The Almighty for your swift recovery. :)