CDF rejects SSPX second response
(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.

Reply


Messages In This Thread
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by Dmorgan - 02-01-2012, 09:21 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by Aragon - 02-02-2012, 05:48 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by Josué - 02-03-2012, 01:24 AM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by cgraye - 02-03-2012, 01:11 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by cgraye - 02-03-2012, 01:32 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by cgraye - 02-03-2012, 03:46 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by cgraye - 02-03-2012, 04:40 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by Dmorgan - 02-03-2012, 05:12 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by FHM310 - 02-03-2012, 05:12 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by Nic - 02-03-2012, 05:18 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by cgraye - 02-03-2012, 05:32 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by cgraye - 02-03-2012, 06:38 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by JayneK - 02-03-2012, 07:45 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by cgraye - 02-03-2012, 07:53 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by cgraye - 02-03-2012, 07:57 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by cgraye - 02-03-2012, 08:12 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by cgraye - 02-03-2012, 08:16 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by Dmorgan - 02-03-2012, 09:48 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by Justin - 02-03-2012, 09:58 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by cgraye - 02-03-2012, 10:13 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by cgraye - 02-03-2012, 10:47 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by JayneK - 02-03-2012, 11:31 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by JayneK - 02-04-2012, 12:16 AM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by cgraye - 02-04-2012, 12:34 AM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by JayneK - 02-04-2012, 12:39 AM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by Aragon - 02-04-2012, 12:40 AM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by Tapatio - 02-04-2012, 12:50 AM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by cgraye - 02-04-2012, 12:51 AM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by cgraye - 02-04-2012, 01:02 AM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by Aragon - 02-04-2012, 01:14 AM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by Dmorgan - 02-04-2012, 09:33 AM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by JayneK - 02-04-2012, 09:40 AM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by cgraye - 02-04-2012, 12:32 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by Meg - 02-04-2012, 01:00 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by Meg - 02-04-2012, 01:30 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by JayneK - 02-04-2012, 01:41 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by JayneK - 02-04-2012, 01:53 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by Graham - 02-04-2012, 02:22 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by Justin - 02-04-2012, 02:33 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by JayneK - 02-04-2012, 03:23 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by JayneK - 02-04-2012, 04:56 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by JayneK - 02-04-2012, 05:40 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by JayneK - 02-04-2012, 06:46 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by JayneK - 02-04-2012, 07:37 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by JayneK - 02-04-2012, 08:54 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by JayneK - 02-05-2012, 10:08 AM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by cgraye - 02-05-2012, 03:14 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by Silouan - 02-05-2012, 05:41 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by JayneK - 02-05-2012, 05:57 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by JayneK - 02-05-2012, 06:19 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by Silouan - 02-05-2012, 11:11 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by cgraye - 02-06-2012, 12:13 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by Tapatio - 02-06-2012, 02:53 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by JayneK - 02-06-2012, 03:07 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by TrentCath - 02-06-2012, 05:19 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by Tapatio - 02-06-2012, 09:47 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by Doce Me - 02-06-2012, 11:55 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by Tapatio - 02-07-2012, 12:49 AM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by cgraye - 02-07-2012, 11:20 AM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by Tapatio - 02-09-2012, 03:41 AM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by Tapatio - 02-12-2012, 02:58 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by JayneK - 02-12-2012, 07:39 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by Tapatio - 02-12-2012, 11:06 PM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by JayneK - 02-13-2012, 08:30 AM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by Tapatio - 02-16-2012, 03:24 AM
Re: CDF rejects SSPX second response - by Tapatio - 02-16-2012, 04:18 AM



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)