Declaration on the occasion of the 25th anniversary of the episcopal consecratio
(07-01-2013, 04:21 PM)Philosoraptor Wrote: Whitey, I agree, and it breaks my heart. I wish they would reconcile with all my soul, that they would accept the explanations clearing Vatican II of heresy charges; they could do so much good, reconciled to Rome and fighting for tradition!

...And yet it seems they're committed to maintaining that V.II is heretical. Rome is committed to the opposite teaching. Immoveable Object vs. Irresistible Force - schism fuel  :'((

Huh, why?  All those reconciled to the hierarchy are not good enough for you?  The fact is fighting for Tradition means fighting the modernist tainted hierarchy.
Reply
Peter II Wrote:The fact is fighting for Tradition means fighting the modernist tainted hierarchy.
And if it is necessary to oppose the hierarchy, we'll do it - but we'll do it from within the Church. The SSPX is, I think, the largest traditional sect that can still be called Catholic. Their witness would be immensely improved were they not in a state of canonical limbo.
Reply
(07-01-2013, 04:19 PM)Basilios Wrote:
(07-01-2013, 04:05 PM)Whitey Wrote: The difference is the SSPX is a Society of orthodox clergy.

And so is Pope Michael and his clergy? Show me where Pope Michael isn't doctrinally orthodox. Doctrinal orthodoxy only goes so far in trying to show that you are not schismatic (and that's what we're dealing with here, not heresy, so their doctrinal orthodoxy I do not question too much).

Quote:No liturgical abuse. No refusal to accept the fact that there will never be women clergy. No mixing of pagan and Eastern spiritualistic with Catholicism. No women showing their cleavage while acting as lector.

All deplorable things - but Rome still teaches that women cannot be ordained priests or did you forgot it was Bl. JPII who reiterated that teaching and set it in stone? The Catechism still teaches that pagans and Eastern religions are wrong - as, evidently, does Pope Francis with his comments, and so did Benedict XVI (Assisi was disgusting but thats his problem not the papacy or the Churches problem). All these things you bring up are horrible yet not good enough reasons not to be in communion with Rome. Far from good enough. The Church will always have liturgical abuse, it will always have liberals, it will always have weirdo's. I promise you that you can live inside the bosom of the Church and never ever have to worry about these things.

Quote:I could go on, but the point is, the reason they are disobedient is because they refuse to accept what Rome accepts.

I know that. It's a bad judgemental call IMO since in fact 'Rome' does not accept these things. It's when you start seperating the eternal Rome from the living Church that you get into trouble. The SSPX see themselves now as Eternal Rome and the living Church now as some modernist heretical anti-Christ sect that takes all the blame for 'accepting' things. From what I see, Rome does not accept a lot of the crap. I agree, they need to do a lot more, and some things are pitiful, but it's just totally poor judgement for a bishop and his society not to submit to Rome when submission will cost them nothing in the way of doctrinal orthodoxy or liturgical life or piety.

Go to an FSSP parish for a year and you'll get exactly what you get at the SSPX minus the vitriol.

Quote:To do so is to enable all of these open sores festering on the Church.

That's anti-Catholic thinking. It's what atheists say about faithful Catholics - by staying Catholic we enable pedo's. I don't buy it. If you are within the bosom of the Church you are no more responsible for whacky liberals dissent than you are for me going out and committing a sin. And if you feel any responsibility, then feel it as a member of the Church and pray for me. Don't sit outside while the house is burning.

Quote:Rome has issues and as much as I've stated I think the Society should reconcile and fight for Tradition, I know see the reasons why they won't. Doesn't matter if I support them or not. I can understand.

I understand too. But as of now, or at least as of last year with PP Benedict XVI they had no reason not to reconcile. Zippo. Guess we will just have to disagree with no hard feelings. I am good friends with avid SSPX supporters and I understand their concerns. Well, not that whatever I understand or think matters much anyway. Just God's will be done.

You are not even reading my posts. Pope Michael ? What the hell does that nut have to do with this thread ?

And what I wrote clearly indicates I'm hip to Catholic policy on women clergy. And if you think there aren't those in the Hierarchy that don't accept it as a case closed deal, you are simply unaware of the facts or in denial.

I didn't bother reading further kiddo. You are a kid living at home and think you are the only one here that knows Catholic teaching, Doctrine, and policy. Not just me either, I've seen you insult other adults here, questioning their intelligence. That's rude son.

Save your keystrokes, I'm not wasting my time with you from here on.



Reply
(07-01-2013, 01:53 PM)lumine Wrote: The currently un-excommunicated Bishops of the SSPX cannot exercise any ministry in the Church, and ordaining priests is a ministerial function....
They have no canonical status, but I've yet to see a declaration of all their suspensions…
Reply
(07-01-2013, 03:30 PM)Whitey Wrote: At least two Church documents state that. The laity on both sides have read it.
What are these documents you're referring to?
(07-01-2013, 03:30 PM)Whitey Wrote: Now, the Society has ignored the suspension and continues to administer Sacraments and pray Mass. We all know that.
What suspension? All I've seen here is that Abp. L. was suspended. I've never seen a document saying all SSPX priests today are suspended. I've just seen a document saying they lack canonical status. Is that the same as being suspended?
(07-01-2013, 03:30 PM)Whitey Wrote: The same documents that tell us the SSPX clergy are suspended and have no ministry also states they are free of ecclesiastical penalty at this time.
Suspension is an ecclesiastical penalty; therefore, the SSPX priests are not suspended.
Reply
(07-01-2013, 04:21 PM)Philosoraptor Wrote: Whitey, I agree, and it breaks my heart. I wish they would reconcile with all my soul, that they would accept the explanations clearing Vatican II of heresy charges; they could do so much good, reconciled to Rome and fighting for tradition!

...And yet it seems they're committed to maintaining that V.II is heretical. Rome is committed to the opposite teaching. Immoveable Object vs. Irresistible Force - schism fuel  :'((

Yes, but before VII, when a schism occurred it was because of a rejection of Tradition. The Church was always right.

Perhaps the Society hasn't been declared in formal schism because Tradition is precisely what they stand for. It's the opposite of the past. One of countless about faces since the close of the Council.

Nothing has changed since 1988. Pope BXVI knew what he was getting for his money so to speak. Just months before he lifted the excommunications, +Fellay call him "A perfect liberal". I was a member of my local SSPX chapel at the time and that statement by +Fellay is why I left. I was appalled.

Evidently, BXVI wasn't though, because he lifted the excommunications anyway. What I'm wanting to know is why ... and why aren't they declared in schism ?







Reply
(07-01-2013, 06:00 PM)Geremia Wrote:
(07-01-2013, 03:30 PM)Whitey Wrote: At least two Church documents state that. The laity on both sides have read it.
What are these documents you're referring to?
(07-01-2013, 03:30 PM)Whitey Wrote: Now, the Society has ignored the suspension and continues to administer Sacraments and pray Mass. We all know that.
What suspension? All I've seen here is that Abp. L. was suspended. I've never seen a document saying all SSPX priests today are suspended. I've just seen a document saying they lack canonical status. Is that the same as being suspended?
(07-01-2013, 03:30 PM)Whitey Wrote: The same documents that tell us the SSPX clergy are suspended and have no ministry also states they are free of ecclesiastical penalty at this time.
Suspension is an ecclesiastical penalty; therefore, the SSPX priests are not suspended.

You may be right.

This letter is one document of the two. The other being the actual decree lifting the excommunications

An episcopal ordination lacking a pontifical mandate raises the danger of a schism, since it jeopardizes the unity of the College of Bishops with the Pope. Consequently the Church must react by employing her most severe punishment – excommunication – with the aim of calling those thus punished to repent and to return to unity. Twenty years after the ordinations, this goal has sadly not yet been attained. The remission of the excommunication has the same aim as that of the punishment: namely, to invite the four Bishops once more to return. This gesture was possible once the interested parties had expressed their recognition in principle of the Pope and his authority as Pastor, albeit with some reservations in the area of obedience to his doctrinal authority and to the authority of the Council. Here I return to the distinction between individuals and institutions. The remission of the excommunication was a measure taken in the field of ecclesiastical discipline: the individuals were freed from the burden of conscience constituted by the most serious of ecclesiastical penalties. This disciplinary level needs to be distinguished from the doctrinal level. The fact that the Society of Saint Pius X does not possess a canonical status in the Church is not, in the end, based on disciplinary but on doctrinal reasons. As long as the Society does not have a canonical status in the Church, its ministers do not exercise legitimate ministries in the Church. There needs to be a distinction, then, between the disciplinary level, which deals with individuals as such, and the doctrinal level, at which ministry and institution are involved. In order to make this clear once again: 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..
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedi...ca_en.html
Reply
Evidently they are suspended ad divinis.
Reply
(07-01-2013, 06:25 PM)Whitey Wrote: Evidently they are suspended ad divinis.
On what are you basing this conclusion?
Reply
(07-01-2013, 06:42 PM)Geremia Wrote:
(07-01-2013, 06:25 PM)Whitey Wrote: Evidently they are suspended ad divinis.
On what are you basing this conclusion?

Here is what Fr Z says. I know he's not the last word, but anyhow...

Q: Are the priests of the SSPX in good standing now?

Not yet they aren’t.  The priests of the SSPX are still suspended a divinis.  They say Mass validly, but without the permission of the Church, either from a faculty of the Holy See or the local bishop.  They do not have the necessary faculties to hear confessions and give sacramental absolution except in danger of death.

http://wdtprs.com/blog/2009/01/misconcep...or-people/

I'll try to find an actual Church document.

At any rate, if Fr Z is correct (see the entire article), our friend Parmandur's statement that the SSPP priest commits mortal sin if he prays a Mass is an outright lie.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)