FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: CDF rejects SSPX second response
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
The only access we have, most Sundays of the month, to go to the TLM is at an FSSPX chapel.
I have told by my FSSP spiritual director this fine [because of personal circumstances] and we go with a clear conscience also.
(02-06-2012, 03:12 PM)Old Salt Wrote: [ -> ]The only access we have, most Sundays of the month, to go to the TLM is at an FSSPX xhapel.
I have told by my FSSP spiritual director this fine [because of personal circumstances] and we go with a clear conscience also.

I have three diocesan TLMs I could go to in the morning on Sunday.  But if we get out of the house late, there is an afternoon SSPX TLM in the city as well, and I would go to that with a clear conscience.

I don't think we need to be limited to only going if there's no other TLM.  I think you can go to the SSPX even if you live next to the FSSP seminary, if you like it.

Going simply because you find any association with the diocesan to be what invalidates a TLM is more problematic, but if you go to the SSPX because you know people there, prefer that priest's preaching ... I can't see anything wrong with that.
(02-06-2012, 03:15 PM)newyorkcatholic Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-06-2012, 03:12 PM)Old Salt Wrote: [ -> ]The only access we have, most Sundays of the month, to go to the TLM is at an FSSPX xhapel.
I have told by my FSSP spiritual director this fine [because of personal circumstances] and we go with a clear conscience also.

I have three diocesan TLMs I could go to in the morning on Sunday.  But if we get out of the house late, there is an afternoon SSPX TLM in the city as well, and I would go to that with a clear conscience.

I don't think we need to be limited to only going if there's no other TLM.  I think you can go to the SSPX even if you live next to the FSSP seminary, if you like it.

Going simply because you find any association with the diocesan to be what invalidates a TLM is more problematic, but if you go to the SSPX because you know people there, prefer that priest's preaching ... I can't see anything wrong with that.
It is fine to fulfill the obligation at an FSSPX Mass if there is a Ecclesia Dei Mass closer or within reasonable distance.
However, some of the best sermons I have heard are from FSSP priests and some of the people at FSSP Masses are great.

Aside from that one can be sure that FSSP confessions are valid, and it is ideal in many cases to go to confession right before Mass.
I believe this is the main reason to go to canonically aproved Masses.
(02-06-2012, 02:40 PM)TrentCath Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-06-2012, 12:49 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-06-2012, 05:14 AM)TrentCath Wrote: [ -> ]Are you suggesting that merely because bishops or priests may or may not hold the faith we should disobey them even if they give lawful commands? That is rather than saying we disobey because the command is unlawful we disobey them because they no longer possess legitimate authority due to their heresy?

If a given bishop or priest is shown to be a manifest heretic, that is, if it's externally visible that he is a heretic by his words and deeds, then he has ipso facto excommunicated himself from the Church and therefore lost all jurisdiction. He cannot possess jurisdiction nor hold office in a body he no longer belongs to.

Of course, we're speaking of manifest heretics, not secret heretics. Those are presumed to be orthodox and thus owed obedience because we can't read people's hearts.

Thanks for the clarification.

By manifest are you using the term as the article defines it or as it is normally used I.e not the special meaning given to it by Canon law?

The article makes the point that something might be obvious and open and still not meet the requirements of canon law and theology.

Regardless of which term you are using it, your repeated statements that 'a heretic can no longer possess jurisdiction in a body he no longer belongs to' ignores the opinion of theologians of weight who do not believe this is the case and others who further believe Christ himself or a higher power can supply jurisdiction. In this case therefore until deposed a heretic very much would have jurisdiction.

Hasn't the quoted canon 188.4 already settled the matter?

Heretics are cut off from the Church by divine not ecclesiastical law. By definition, a manifest heretic has publicly forsaken the Catholic faith and is ipso facto excommunicated.
(02-06-2012, 03:21 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-06-2012, 02:40 PM)TrentCath Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-06-2012, 12:49 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-06-2012, 05:14 AM)TrentCath Wrote: [ -> ]Are you suggesting that merely because bishops or priests may or may not hold the faith we should disobey them even if they give lawful commands? That is rather than saying we disobey because the command is unlawful we disobey them because they no longer possess legitimate authority due to their heresy?

If a given bishop or priest is shown to be a manifest heretic, that is, if it's externally visible that he is a heretic by his words and deeds, then he has ipso facto excommunicated himself from the Church and therefore lost all jurisdiction. He cannot possess jurisdiction nor hold office in a body he no longer belongs to.

Of course, we're speaking of manifest heretics, not secret heretics. Those are presumed to be orthodox and thus owed obedience because we can't read people's hearts.

Thanks for the clarification.

By manifest are you using the term as the article defines it or as it is normally used I.e not the special meaning given to it by Canon law?

The article makes the point that something might be obvious and open and still not meet the requirements of canon law and theology.

Regardless of which term you are using it, your repeated statements that 'a heretic can no longer possess jurisdiction in a body he no longer belongs to' ignores the opinion of theologians of weight who do not believe this is the case and others who further believe Christ himself or a higher power can supply jurisdiction. In this case therefore until deposed a heretic very much would have jurisdiction.

Hasn't the quoted canon 188.4 already settled the matter?

Heretics are cut off from the Church by divine not ecclesiastical law. By definition, a manifest heretic has publicly forsaken the Catholic faith and is ipso facto excommunicated.

We should interpret the law in context, Canon 18 of the code states “Ecclesiastical laws are to be understood according to the meaning of their own words considered in their text and context; as for those things that remain unclear or in doubt, reference should be made to parallel provisions in the Code, if there are any, to the purposes and circumstances of the law and to the mind of the legislator.”

Relevant canons to look at then include 2314, 2379 and 2388 which state respectively (and I have pasted commentary from 'A commentary on Canon law' by Dom Charles Augustine, O.S.B, D.D)

'§r. All apostates from the Christian faith and all
heretics and schismatics:
1°. Incur excommunication ipso facto, and
2°. Unless they repent, shall be deprived of any benefice,
dignity, pension or other charge which they may
hold in the Church, and be declared infamous; clerics,
after repeated warning, shall be deposed
;
3 . If apostates, heretics or schismatics have joined a
non-Catholic sect, or publicly professed themselves
members thereof, they are by this very fact (ipso facto)
infamous; clerics, after having been warned without resuit,
must be degraded and their offices thereby become
vacant.
'

You will notice this requires warning and obstinancy.

'The clerical dress spoken of in can. 136 is the one
usually worn by clergymen. It differs in different
countries. Everyone knows the habit and usage of our
country, except perhaps foreigners.1
The present canon may be said to contain three clauses :
one applying to clerics in general, the second to clerics
in minor orders, the third to clerics in major orders.
1. Clerics who do not wear the clerical dress and
tonsure, as prescribed by can. 136, are to be seriously
warned; which means that a formal admonition must
be addressed to them according to can. 2143 and 2307,
and put on record,
2. As to clerics in minor orders, can. 136, § 3 says
that they are ipso facto reduced to the lay state if the
canonical warning just mentioned is unheeded for one month (30 days). Therefore such clerics lose the
clerical rank and its privileges without a formal sentence.
However, we believe that, since the public
welfare 8
is here concerned, a declaratory sentence, according
to can. 2223, § 4, should be issued.
3. Clerics in higher orders should be dealt with as
follows
:
a) If they do not put on clerical dress within a month
from the date of the canonical warning, their office becomes
vacant without any further declaration, just as if
they had resigned,—provided, of course, they hold an
office—and they must, besides, be suspended from the
orders which they have already received.
b) If, besides refusing to wear the clerical dress and
letting the canonical warning go unheeded, they notoriously
take up a mode of life not compatible with the
clerical state, they must again be warned. If this second
canonical warning also goes unheeded, they must be deposed
after the third month (or 90 days), to be reckoned
from the day of the last warning.
A state or vocation erf life not becoming the clerical
character would be one of those mentioned under can. 139,
141, 142 (store or saloon-keeper, etc.). However, the
fact of the cleric's having embraced this state must be
notorious, •". e., notorietate facti, which supposes a knowledge
of the higher clerical state.'


Again notice the need for warning and obstinancy.

'1. Clerics in higher orders, and regulars or nuns with
solemn vows of chastity, who presume to contract a
marriage, even though it be only a cwil one, and
2. All those who presume to contract such a marriage
with one of the aforesaid persons,
3. Incur excommumcation laiae sentcntiae, simply reserved
to the Apostolic Sec.
4. Clerics who, after a canonical warning, do not
retrace the step within the rime set by the Ordinary,
(a) forfeit all the offices they may hold, just as if they
had formally resigned, for which no further declaration
is required; and (b) shall be degraded, which requires
a condemnatory, or at least a declaratory, sentence, after
the term set in the canonical warning has expired.
'

Again the need for obstinancy and warning.

I see.

But you concede that heretics are cut off from the Church by divine and not ecclesiastical law, right?
(02-06-2012, 05:27 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: [ -> ]I see.

But you concede that heretics are cut off from the Church by divine and not ecclesiastical law, right?

Firstly it should be pointed out that apostasy and heresy are two different things and the canon you referred to was regarding the former not the later.

And secondly yes, heretics are cut off from the church by divine law (at least this is the common opinion), however it does follow that they lose jurisdiction what would happen in the case of secretly heretical priests and bishops if their secret heresy made them lose jurisdiction? It would be total chaos and no one could be certain of anything, the church then can supply jurisdiction eclessia supplet and higher authorities i.e the Pope or the bishop in the case of priests can supply jursidiction notwithstanding the persons heresy.
(02-06-2012, 12:13 PM)cgraye Wrote: [ -> ]It was sinful because it's against the law to consecrate bishops without papal approval, and it's made worse when the pope specifically commands you not to do it.  There are no extenuating circumstances; this isn't a one-shot deal where following the letter of the law was contrary to its spirit.  Here their actions have continuing divisive consequences throughout the Church, and that situation itself creates doubt and confusion - which is what they were trying to fix in the first place.  And have they solved anything anyway?  They may have bishops and priests, but they have no jurisdiction, no faculties.  OK, so you say those legal points can be forgotten in this case because it's a crisis.  Even if that's true (which is another discussion entirely), the result is that the rule of law breaks down further.  So anyone can break the law if it's justified?  Maybe, but who decides if it's justified?  It always comes down to personal judgment.  And the result of that is going to be everything splintering and breaking down, because everyone has different opinions.  That judgment must be reserved to those with the ecclesiastical authority to make it.  It's the only way to preserve unity.  And you might argue that that puts us all at the mercy of the judgment of people who can err.  And thing is...yes it does.  But there are limits as to how far they can err and how much damage they can do - limits that God guarantees for us.  They can give us something less good, but they cannot give us something evil.  That is why the Church is not in the same danger as a civil body of having a leader that dooms it through bad decisions - because God is with the Church and will make sure of it.  He promised.  There is only so much we can do - sometimes we just have to be patient and leave it in God's hands.  And that is why I say, even if God has used the SSPX as his instrument to keep his promise in this case, he didn't need them.  Because he promised, and no matter what anyone does, he can and will keep his promises.

Thank you for a well reasoned response.  I now see where we disagree.  Saying this, I also think it important to note that in the course of our discussion, I have learned there is more about which we do agree, which is lifts the spirit!
Turning to the disagreements, because you do not think the SSPX faced extenuating circumstances, it seems to me we have taken the debate as far as we can.  We disagree there, and I don't think I could state the case better than the SSPX itself has, or than the commentators that Trent Cath found and posted here did.  If they don't persuade, my arguments, being far more basic, surely will not persuade.  Let's just say that I think the question is subject to a reasoned analysis that is more than mere personal judgment.  While I agree with your identification of the SSPX as the mediate cause of the dilemmas we have discussed, I believe either Vatican 2 or its implementers are the proximate cause of the confusion, and that this exhonorates the SSPX under these facts -  and we are only discussing the prior consecrations, not future ones.  As to the effect and extent of Church error, we disagree there, but mre in application than in principle, I think.    Thanks for an informative discussion.  Cheers! 


(02-06-2012, 07:06 PM)TrentCath Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-06-2012, 05:27 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: [ -> ]I see.

But you concede that heretics are cut off from the Church by divine and not ecclesiastical law, right?

Firstly it should be pointed out that apostasy and heresy are two different things and the canon you referred to was regarding the former not the later.

And secondly yes, heretics are cut off from the church by divine law (at least this is the common opinion), however it does follow that they lose jurisdiction what would happen in the case of secretly heretical priests and bishops if their secret heresy made them lose jurisdiction? It would be total chaos and no one could be certain of anything, the church then can supply jurisdiction eclessia supplet and higher authorities i.e the Pope or the bishop in the case of priests can supply jursidiction notwithstanding the persons heresy.

Publicly forsaking the catholic faith is not a mere description of apostasy.

But in any case, I never said that secret heretics lose juridisction but that manifest heretics do.
(02-06-2012, 12:06 AM)City Smurf Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-05-2012, 09:39 PM)matthew_talbot Wrote: [ -> ]Are you suggesting that only the magistrium is (or could be) authoritative in this matter?

Yes.  I'm not bound by the private theological opinions of Bellarmine any more so than I am bound by the theological opinions of Aquinas.  I'd like proper magisterial documentation to this doctrine.  Otherwise it's not set in stone and should not be treated as Gospel Truth to justify the gross mentality demonstrated by so many people on this forum.  However if this is the teaching of the Magisterium of the Church then I will bow to it.

All I'm asking for is magisterial documentation to that effect.

Bellarmine is what lawyers would call persuasive authority.  Cases are often decided not only on statutes, but on precedent and persuasive authority applied to the statutes.  This is especially true when the nature of the defense is not justiciable by under the statute alone:  no statute, for instance, can cover all the possible permutations of when defense of self or defense of others justifies an action otherwise illegal.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25