FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Proper behavior
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3
Quote:Today, Sunday, August 22, Canon Jayr, provincial of the ICRSP in France, visited the faithful of the extraordinary form in Agen to announce the Institute’s withdrawal from the diocese following the deplorable welcome and climate of suspicion which followed the implementation of the Motu Proprio.

Indeed the Bishop of Agen, Msgr. Herbreteau, has strictly forbidden Canon Téqui, who serves the parish of Agen to celebrate the extraordinary form of the one Roman Rite, from continuing to teach catechism classes which he had been doing successfully with some thirty children. He also places an outrageous restriction on the ministry of the sacraments. On the website of the diocese the ICRSP doesn’t even exist.

The Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest has therefore made the decision to withdraw in order to do some good where it is more welcome.

This news will sully the report that the bishops are required to make for the 3rd anniversary of the implementation (or non-implementation) of the motu proprio. It shows that France needs bishops prepared to apply Summorum Pontificum without restrictive measures (such as one monthly Sunday Mass in Le Brionnais – Diocese of Autun!)
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/

From the comments on the Rorate-Caeli someone claims that the diocese has only one seminarian. I feel sorry for the faithful in the diocese, but still the decision of  Institute of Christ superior is the only correct response: leave, if you are rejected, you can make more good somewhere else.
we shall, we shall not be moved...

Nah, you're right, glgas. Let them move out from those areas to concentrate on areas where they can operate freely, and allow the SSPX to move into the areas that the ICRSP vacate, as SSPX will provide the Traditional Faith to the Faithful regardless of what the local ordinaries say.
(08-23-2010, 07:31 AM)Arun Wrote: [ -> ]we shall, we shall not be moved...

Nah, you're right, glgas. Let them move out from those areas to concentrate on areas where they can operate freely, and allow the SSPX to move into the areas that the ICRSP vacate, as SSPX will provide the Traditional Faith to the Faithful regardless of what the local ordinaries say.

And work hard for the disunity of the mystical body of Jesus Christ.

The bishop is wrong, but still living member of that mystical body, and those who adhere to the SSPX in contempt of him commit the sin of schism. This is so simple
(08-23-2010, 08:39 AM)glgas Wrote: [ -> ]
(08-23-2010, 07:31 AM)Arun Wrote: [ -> ]we shall, we shall not be moved...

Nah, you're right, glgas. Let them move out from those areas to concentrate on areas where they can operate freely, and allow the SSPX to move into the areas that the ICRSP vacate, as SSPX will provide the Traditional Faith to the Faithful regardless of what the local ordinaries say.

And work hard for the disunity of the mystical body of Jesus Christ.

The bishop is wrong, but still living member of that mystical body, and those who adhere to the SSPX in contempt of him commit the sin of schism. This is so simple


If the bishop is wrong and in defiance of the Pope, how is aiding him in his defiance of the Pope, "working hard for the disunity of the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ?" 

What is your definition of unity?  It seems you want unity with the bishop in schism against the Pope. 

At what point do you believe a state of emergency would have to exist for Catholics to legitimately preserve their faith against the wishes and policies of the local ordinary? 


Gerard, your response is more of tact than what I was going to say. We'll leave it at that.
(08-23-2010, 09:28 AM)Gerard Wrote: [ -> ]1./ If the bishop is wrong and in defiance of the Pope, how is aiding him in his defiance of the Pope, "working hard for the disunity of the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ?" 

What is your definition of unity?   It seems you want unity with the bishop in schism against the Pope. 

2./ At what point do you believe a state of emergency would have to exist for Catholics to legitimately preserve their faith against the wishes and policies of the local ordinary? 

1./  The Pope did not excommunicated the bishop, neither declared schism. No one else had to right to make judgment.People has the right to complain against him, and that is it. As an explanation: In Hungary the bishops prohibit public TLM, except for 4 churches. The reason is that many nationalistic neo-pagan groups, abuse the TLM to promote their paganism, and this had to be controlled, so the bishop has right to control in essence.

2./ The faith is God's grace, and only the full faith, accepting both presence of our Lord (through the jurisdictional Church and through the Eucharist). Matt 18:18 gave the Church, the bishop binding and loosing authority, and God (the heaven) stands with his decision. The loosing power is the proof, that the decision may be wrong, God still stand with that decision. Any lay person has the right to move to another diocese, even more, they has to right to attend SSPX mass, if they believe that that mass serves better their spiritual growth, but no layman has the right for decry the bishop for his decision, other the appeal for the legal authorities. 

It is not sin to participate in a new Mass, only heretics (denying Jesus Christ's real presence through his jurisdictional hierarchical Church) say so.   
(08-23-2010, 09:46 AM)glgas Wrote: [ -> ]
(08-23-2010, 09:28 AM)Gerard Wrote: [ -> ]1./ If the bishop is wrong and in defiance of the Pope, how is aiding him in his defiance of the Pope, "working hard for the disunity of the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ?" 

What is your definition of unity?   It seems you want unity with the bishop in schism against the Pope. 

2./ At what point do you believe a state of emergency would have to exist for Catholics to legitimately preserve their faith against the wishes and policies of the local ordinary? 

1./  The Pope did not excommunicated the bishop, neither declared schism. No one else had to right to make judgment.People has the right to complain against him, and that is it. As an explanation: In Hungary the bishops prohibit public TLM, except for 4 churches. The reason is that many nationalistic neo-pagan groups, abuse the TLM to promote their paganism, and this had to be controlled, so the bishop has right to control in essence.

2./ The faith is God's grace, and only the full faith, accepting both presence of our Lord (through the jurisdictional Church and through the Eucharist). Matt 18:18 gave the Church, the bishop binding and loosing authority, and God (the heaven) stands with his decision. The loosing power is the proof, that the decision may be wrong, God still stand with that decision. Any lay person has the right to move to another diocese, even more, they has to right to attend SSPX mass, if they believe that that mass serves better their spiritual growth, but no layman has the right for decry the bishop for his decision, other the appeal for the legal authorities. 

It is not sin to participate in a new Mass, only heretics (denying Jesus Christ's real presence through his jurisdictional hierarchical Church) say so.   

Public disagreement with the Pope, as in this case, voids his authority.  Such a Bishop is owed no obedience.
(08-23-2010, 08:39 AM)glgas Wrote: [ -> ]And work hard for the disunity of the mystical body of Jesus Christ.

The bishop is wrong, but still living member of that mystical body, and those who adhere to the SSPX in contempt of him commit the sin of schism. This is so simple

Then don't be in contempt. Pray for him and pity him.
(08-23-2010, 12:00 PM)Augstine Baker Wrote: [ -> ]Public disagreement with the Pope, as in this case, voids his authority.  Such a Bishop is owed no obedience.

Could you provide a source backing up this stance?  I don't know enough to really make a determination on this issue and would like to be informed enough to have a clue as to what the morality of the situation is.
(08-23-2010, 12:09 PM)3Sanctus Wrote: [ -> ]
(08-23-2010, 12:00 PM)Augstine Baker Wrote: [ -> ]Public disagreement with the Pope, as in this case, voids his authority.  Such a Bishop is owed no obedience.

Could you provide a source backing up this stance?  I don't know enough to really make a determination on this issue and would like to be informed enough to have a clue as to what the morality of the situation is.

It's in the canon law and I will TRY with all my might to get it to you, ASAP, however, in the meantime, it seems ridiculous that someone who refuses to obey his lawful superiors should expect obedience in his own inferiors.  You have to lead by example.
Pages: 1 2 3