Declaration on the occasion of the 25th anniversary of the episcopal consecratio
(06-30-2013, 07:26 PM)lumine Wrote: Is it disobedient for the SSPX to administer Sacraments on a regular basis when the Pope has said that they exercise no legitimate ministry?  I'm not talking about emergency situations, because scheduled Masses are not covered by emergency situations.
Does canon law put such constraints on "states of necessity"? So, if in the middle of nowhere there were no priests within a 200 mi. radius except an SSPXer, the SSPXer cannot have "scheduled Masses"?
(06-30-2013, 07:18 PM)lumine Wrote: Do you recognize that the SSPX has no authority to minister to the faithful, according to the public declaration of the Pope and by the fact that they were suspended from doing so.....?
They were suspended? I've seen that idea tossed around here, but this isn't what Pope Benedict XVI said in, e.g., his letter to the bishops regarding the SSPX's bishops lifted excommunications. So who declared they're suspended?
Reply
(06-30-2013, 07:30 PM)lumine Wrote: We don't have to predict bad outcomes.  They exist as we write.  Bishop Williamson is a loose cannon waiting to be fired off.  The SSPX has splits among them.  People believe that a true Mass, the NO, is a machination of Satan.  The outcomes are bad and have been bad.....
Yes, the Novus Ordo is Protestant and against the Council of Trent, and that is bad.
Reply
(06-30-2013, 11:23 PM)Geremia Wrote:
(06-30-2013, 07:30 PM)lumine Wrote: We don't have to predict bad outcomes.  They exist as we write.  Bishop Williamson is a loose cannon waiting to be fired off.  The SSPX has splits among them.  People believe that a true Mass, the NO, is a machination of Satan.  The outcomes are bad and have been bad.....
Yes, the Novus Ordo is Protestant and against the Council of Trent, and that is bad.

Fr. Hesse's position as a Canon Lawyer was that the promulgation of the NO was a schismatic act. It's a pretty convincing presentation of facts. Watch this:

Reply
(06-30-2013, 11:37 PM)St. Pius of Trent Wrote: Fr. Hesse's position as a Canon Lawyer was that the promulgation of the NO was a schismatic act. It's a pretty convincing presentation of facts. Watch this:

Yes, he clarifies things very well.
Thanks for linking
Reply
(06-30-2013, 11:15 PM)Geremia Wrote:
(06-30-2013, 07:18 PM)lumine Wrote: and the Pope's declaration.  And, the NO is the Holy Mass, nothing less......
Yes, it's valid, but illicit, because popes like Pope Pius VI and St. Pius V have already condemned it.

From His Holiness, Pope Pius XII, Encyclical Mediator Dei, 20 November 1947, emphasis supplied:
Quote:58. It follows from this that the Sovereign Pontiff alone enjoys the right to recognize and establish any practice touching the worship of God, to introduce and approve new rites, as also to modify those he judges to require modification.[50] Bishops, for their part, have the right and duty carefully to watch over the exact observance of the prescriptions of the sacred canons respecting divine worship.[51] Private individuals, therefore, even though they be clerics, may not be left to decide for themselves in these holy and venerable matters, involving as they do the religious life of Christian society along with the exercise of the priesthood of Jesus Christ and worship of God; concerned as they are with the honor due to the Blessed Trinity, the Word Incarnate and His august mother and the other saints, and with the salvation of souls as well. For the same reason no private person has any authority to regulate external practices of this kind, which are intimately bound up with Church discipline and with the order, unity and concord of the Mystical Body and frequently even with the integrity of Catholic faith itself.

'Nuff said, eh?

***ETA***And for the record, Annibale Bugnini was still a simple priest, tho' already interested in 'liturgical reform' a/k/a destruction of the liturgy, at the point in time when the Encyclical was issued. It wasn't until the next year that he was appointed Secretary to the Commission for Liturgical Reform.
Reply
(06-30-2013, 10:13 PM)Geremia Wrote:
(06-30-2013, 04:54 PM)lumine Wrote: the situation of the SSPX is irregular.
Yes, I know. So does the SSPX.
(06-30-2013, 04:54 PM)lumine Wrote: Why the need to overlook important information about their dangerous situation?
I'm not overlooking that the Church is undergoing the worst crisis in Her history.

It is your perspective that the Church is undergoing her worst crisis in history.  I don't agree.  I know that you are saying that this "crisis" makes a perpetual state of emergency, but that is just not so.  The Pope is the ultimate authority, not the SSPX.  It is the SSPX that needs to reconcile, not Rome.
Reply
(06-30-2013, 10:24 PM)Geremia Wrote:
(06-28-2013, 03:23 PM)Parmandur Wrote: Suspended clergy commit a mortal sin every time they publicly celebrate the Sacraments.  This is grave matter, and that they are no longer in talks to end the sad situation is grim news.
(06-30-2013, 03:43 PM)Whitey Wrote: "As long as the doctrinal issues are not resolved, the Fraternity has no canonical status in the Church and its ministers, even if they are free from ecclesiastical censure, do not exercise in a legitimate way any ministry in the Church.
http://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/200...dCJpqzRHn4
Wouldn't he have said they are suspended if they really are? If they're free from censure, yet "do not exercise in a legitimate [What does he mean by this? Licit, canonical, regular?] way any ministry in the Church," do they still mortally sin by offering the sacraments to those in need?
(06-30-2013, 04:57 PM)lumine Wrote: Amen!!  I knew there would be people here who understand the full picture, the total situation.
Have you read Archbishop Lefebvre & the Vatican? If you have, you certainly do have "the full picture."
(06-30-2013, 04:57 PM)lumine Wrote: The SSPX needs to pick up their feet and get to Rome and reconcile.....
If only it were that simple!

Pope Paul VI suspended Archbishop LeFebvre from ordaining priests.  These priests have no permission or jurisdiction to administer Sacraments. They never have had authority to begin with.
Reply
(06-30-2013, 11:23 PM)Geremia Wrote:
(06-30-2013, 07:30 PM)lumine Wrote: We don't have to predict bad outcomes.  They exist as we write.  Bishop Williamson is a loose cannon waiting to be fired off.  The SSPX has splits among them.  People believe that a true Mass, the NO, is a machination of Satan.  The outcomes are bad and have been bad.....
Yes, the Novus Ordo is Protestant and against the Council of Trent, and that is bad.

What you have stated is not Catholic, it is heretical to call the Holy Mass Protestant, to deny that it is truly the Holy Mass.
Reply
(06-30-2013, 11:22 PM)Geremia Wrote:
(06-30-2013, 07:26 PM)lumine Wrote: Is it disobedient for the SSPX to administer Sacraments on a regular basis when the Pope has said that they exercise no legitimate ministry?  I'm not talking about emergency situations, because scheduled Masses are not covered by emergency situations.
Does canon law put such constraints on "states of necessity"? So, if in the middle of nowhere there were no priests within a 200 mi. radius except an SSPXer, the SSPXer cannot have "scheduled Masses"?
(06-30-2013, 07:18 PM)lumine Wrote: Do you recognize that the SSPX has no authority to minister to the faithful, according to the public declaration of the Pope and by the fact that they were suspended from doing so.....?
They were suspended? I've seen that idea tossed around here, but this isn't what Pope Benedict XVI said in, e.g., his letter to the bishops regarding the SSPX's bishops lifted excommunications. So who declared they're suspended?

Pope Paul VI suspended Archbishop LeFebvre from ordaining priests.  Any priests ordained by the SSPX have never been incardinated to serve as priests.  They are not members of a religious order so they don't have faculties in that way.  This is why they don't have authority to execise ministry in the Church. 

As for doctrinal differences, it is not within the authority of the SSPX to define doctrine.  That authority belongs to the Pope, and Pope Benedict XVI stated their were doctrinal differences.  The SSPX has put themselves in a dangerous position spiritually.  They need to reconcile with the Pope and should have done so years ago.  The Pope lifted the excommunications with the hope that the SSPX would reconcile with him.
Reply
(07-01-2013, 09:11 AM)lumine Wrote:
(06-30-2013, 10:13 PM)Geremia Wrote:
(06-30-2013, 04:54 PM)lumine Wrote: the situation of the SSPX is irregular.
Yes, I know. So does the SSPX.
(06-30-2013, 04:54 PM)lumine Wrote: Why the need to overlook important information about their dangerous situation?
I'm not overlooking that the Church is undergoing the worst crisis in Her history.

It is your perspective that the Church is undergoing her worst crisis in history.  I don't agree.
Compared to just before Vatican II, there are, per Catholic, now
  • half as many priests
  • quarter as many nuns
  • half as many infant baptisms
(source)
If that's not the Church's worst crisis, what is?
See also ch. 1 "The Crisis" of Romano Amerio's Iota Unum in which he compares the 20th century Church to all the other crises in her history.

Was St. Athanasius wrong for writing in his short but impressive letter from year 340 to all bishops about how his 339 deposition by Gregory, an Arian, which included rapes and murders, was far worse than the murder of the Levite's wife in Judges 19, in which he cut up his wife's body and sent the parts to all the tribes of Juda? Would you say he didn't have the right, because he wasn't pope, to call the Arian crisis far worse than the murder of the Levite's wife, even the worst crisis in the Church up until his time?

St. Athanasius upheld that the Father and the Son are consubstantial, against the Arians; for this, he was "repudiated, calumniated, persecuted, and even excommunicated by almost the entire episcopate, the Pope included" (source)!
(07-01-2013, 09:11 AM)lumine Wrote: I know that you are saying that this "crisis" makes a perpetual state of emergency, but that is just not so.
What would it take, then, to make a "state of emergency"? Did the popes in Arius's time say: "We're in a state of emergency?"
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)