Declaration on the occasion of the 25th anniversary of the episcopal consecratio
#21
(06-28-2013, 03:32 PM)Whitey Wrote: Mortal sin ? I've only seen forum members say that. Got quotes from anyone in the Curia ?

Let's hope the "Curia of the VII Sodomite Religion" is dealt with before pointing fingers at a society of priests who simply want the Church to remain orthodox.

What orthodox group would want to succumb to such perversion ?

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

"When a suspension is total, a cleric is deprived of the exercise of every function and of every ecclesiastical right. When it is partial, it may be only from the exercise of one's sacred orders, or from his office which includes deprivation of the use of orders and jurisdiction, or from his benefice which deprives him of both administration and income. When a suspension is decreed absolutely and without limitation, it is understood to be a total suspension. A partial suspension deprives a cleric of the use of that power only which is expressed in the sentence. A cleric does not incur an irregularity when he violates a suspension imposed for a former transgression, because then there is no violation of a censure. The same holds good if he has been suspended for some defect of mind or body not blameworthy. Irregularity is contracted when a cleric performs a solemn act of sacred orders, from the use of which he had been suspended. Thus, if a bishop forbidden to celebrate Mass pontifically were to perform such a function, he would not incur irregularity because he does not thereby exercise any substantial act of episcopal orders. As the Church can not deprive a suspended cleric of the power of sacred orders, but only forbids their use, it follows that acts of sacred orders remain valid after suspension. On the other hand, acts of jurisdiction become null and void after a suspended cleric has been denounced by name, because the Church has power to deprive one totally of jurisdiction. Suspension ex informata conscientia has the same effect as a formal suspension, but it is not inflicted by judicial sentence, but as an extraordinary remedy, without the canonical monitions being necessary, and it is imposed for occult but grave crimes."

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14345b.htm

The "irregularity" here mentioned is, in fact, a mortal sin.
Reply
#22
Someone named GMMF gave some good comments. By the way, not me. This person's smarter than me. I content at this point to let the SSPX float downstream.

The ignorance and exaggerations are saddening, as at least Fellay seemed to have bene moving away from such things in more recent times. For example, the Magsiterium teaching in a pastoral way is not new, but has existed as long as the Church has existed and as long as bishops have been pastors (this was formalized as the episcopal pastoral letter). The Church has never only defined truths in the abstract, but has always applied them to concrete circumstances in attempts to achieve the greatest good for the flock and all men. The supreme authority of the Chuch has done this frequently especially since the time of Leo XIII. The times when the supreme authority would only interveren to definitively judge doctrinal questions ended centuries and centuries ago.

From this ignorance, the SSPX err by severing the Magisterium, the teaching authority, from the subject-Church. They claim that by inventing a new form of magisterium (a false claim), the real, authoritative Magisterium has been severed from the subject-Church. This is why the make the false distinction between "eternal Rome" and the Church of Rome existing in history this very moment and deny more recent Magisterial acts even obsequium religiosum.

Unfotunately, this error is a favorite of Fr. Gleize, SSPX, who as ecclesiology professor at Econe is no doubt imbuing it in all his students.

The traditional doctrine, on the other hand, is the teaching authority is not severable from the subject Church and the continuity of that one subject itself is the primary guarantee the continuity of doctrine.

Cardinal Manning articulated this in his work on the Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost:

"The enunciation of the faith by the living Church of this hour, is the maximum of evidence, both natural and supernatural, as to the fact and the contents of the original revelation."

The SSPX, on the other hand, oppose the consistent and repeated teaching of the Magistium since Vatican II, and pit it against certain acts of the same Magisterium prior to the Council.

Again, Manning counters this in the same work cited above. After first admitting apparent contradictions in past teaching he states that the continuity of the subject-Church ensures these are not true contradictions, since the same Magisterium that taught something in the past alone has the ability to properly interpret what it meant back then, and that what it says laters is consonant:

"No critic except the living and lineal judge and discerner of truth, the only Church of God, can solve these inequalities and anomalies in the history of doctrine. To the Church the facts of antiquity are transparent in the light of its perpetual consciousness of the original revelation."

The SSPX have erred by severing the Magisterium from the subject-Church and de facto filling the resulting void themselves, arrogating to themselves the role of that one and only critic and providing definitive pronouncements against the supreme teaching authority of the Church.

* * *

Just to follow up on my previous post and provide a simple example to show the SSPX have proven themselves a poor critic in comparison to the the Magisterium, they claim here the doctrine on the supreme authority of the college of bishops contradicts the teaching of Vatican I. The same Magisterium that promulgated Pastor Aeternus, has also explicitly and consistently taught the supreme authority of the college of bishops as something consonant.

    As I mentioned in my previous post, Manning would say that should be enough for any Catholic, but just to show the SSPX to be an unreliable critic, all we have to do is look to the Church's own official interpretive guide to Pastor Aeternus, the relatio provided to the bishops of Vatican I.

    The official relatio for Pastor Aeternus states: "The bishops gathered with their head in an ecumenical council—and in that case they represent the whole Church—or dispersed but in union with their head—in which case they are the Church itself—truly have full power (vere plenam potestatem habent). There would be confusion if we were to admit two full and supreme powers separate and distinct from each other. But we admit that the truly full and supreme power is in the sovereign pontiff as in the head (veluti capite) and that the same power, truly both full and supreme, is also in the head united to the members, that is to say, in the pontiff united to the bishops."

* * *

The whole no FSSP without the SSPX is not really a point in the SSPX favor, quite the opposite really. While the situations are not completely the same, it is analogous to saying there would be no Byzantine Catholic Churches with the separated Orthodox Churches.

    The FSSP exists because the SSPX leadership committed a "schismatic act" otherwise there would simply be the SSPX. Same with the sui juris Byzantine Catholic Churches which were reestablished after the the schism of the particular Churches who should never have left.
Reply
#23
(06-28-2013, 03:58 PM)Parmandur Wrote:
(06-28-2013, 03:32 PM)Whitey Wrote: Mortal sin ? I've only seen forum members say that. Got quotes from anyone in the Curia ?

Let's hope the "Curia of the VII Sodomite Religion" is dealt with before pointing fingers at a society of priests who simply want the Church to remain orthodox.

What orthodox group would want to succumb to such perversion ?

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

"When a suspension is total, a cleric is deprived of the exercise of every function and of every ecclesiastical right. When it is partial, it may be only from the exercise of one's sacred orders, or from his office which includes deprivation of the use of orders and jurisdiction, or from his benefice which deprives him of both administration and income. When a suspension is decreed absolutely and without limitation, it is understood to be a total suspension. A partial suspension deprives a cleric of the use of that power only which is expressed in the sentence. A cleric does not incur an irregularity when he violates a suspension imposed for a former transgression, because then there is no violation of a censure. The same holds good if he has been suspended for some defect of mind or body not blameworthy. Irregularity is contracted when a cleric performs a solemn act of sacred orders, from the use of which he had been suspended. Thus, if a bishop forbidden to celebrate Mass pontifically were to perform such a function, he would not incur irregularity because he does not thereby exercise any substantial act of episcopal orders. As the Church can not deprive a suspended cleric of the power of sacred orders, but only forbids their use, it follows that acts of sacred orders remain valid after suspension. On the other hand, acts of jurisdiction become null and void after a suspended cleric has been denounced by name, because the Church has power to deprive one totally of jurisdiction. Suspension ex informata conscientia has the same effect as a formal suspension, but it is not inflicted by judicial sentence, but as an extraordinary remedy, without the canonical monitions being necessary, and it is imposed for occult but grave crimes."

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14345b.htm

The "irregularity" here mentioned is, in fact, a mortal sin.

Useless citation. Note is says "when a suspension is total". I read no further. Your interpretation of terms used there doesn't cut it. It only states your opinion of what it means.

When it has been stated that the SSPX clergy can administer the sacraments in emergency situations, then the suspensions are hardly total.

You made the claim that the SSPX priest commits mortal sin by praying the Mass. Prove it. Quote one Churchman that has stated that.
Reply
#24
(06-28-2013, 02:45 PM)Basilios Wrote:
(06-28-2013, 02:37 PM)Geremia Wrote:
(06-28-2013, 02:13 PM)Basilios Wrote: Yeah but no. I'm not getting into an argument about it, but as far as I am concerned, the SSPX are outside the Church. Not arguing about it so don't ask why etc (I've made my points elsewhere).
I'd trust the Church in such a matter. Has the Church proclaimed the SSPX schismatic or heretical? Quite to the contrary, e.g., when Pope Benedict XVI lifted its bishops' excommunications

Like when the Pope and the Orthodox Patriarch (forget which one) lifted the mutual excommunications some 40 years ago? Oops must've missed the part where the Orthodox are now in full communion. The Church has not said that they are in full communion. Rather the opposite save for one or two prelates (which does not equal the Church). I am in fact being very traditional by acknowledging that the SSPX are not in Communion with Rome. From a traditional perspective they are not. It's plain to see in my opinion. If you think otherwise then that is okay, and I won't force you to think otherwise.

That's all I am gonna say on it.


That's the problem, that's the problem. It's not traditional, not at all. There never was this "full communion" distinction before; actually it still don't exist ('cause nobody can define it). The question is then "are they in communion or not?": it seems they are --- but then again they seem a bit confused in Rome these days and they don't know that there is no such thing as "partial" communion, which brings us back to the SSPX's claim that we have problems, big problems, "a state of necessity". It's funny how the very way that Rome treats the SSPX gives proof of a crisis and the so called "state of necessity". For my part, I keep away from the SSPX, and I just don't know what to think: I know  some great (in "full" communion) priests, some with faculties, who recommend SSPX. What bugs me most about the SSPX is all their dizzying about facing (as now too in this instance) over the years. At this point in time, however, I realize that I don't know canon law and won't ever.

What matters most is that Rome has unexcommunicated the leaders of the resistance and that Rome has not definitively settled their state (in truth, because of the very cause of the crisis that the SSPX is resisting).

That said, and to the OP, it's good to see that the SSPX is back to denouncing VII.
Reply
#25
(06-28-2013, 05:13 PM)pervago Wrote: That said, and to the OP, it's good to see that the SSPX is back to denouncing VII.

And if we could only see the +Fellay detractors peeling the egg off their faces.  :LOL:

He didn't sell out now did he ?
Reply
#26
(06-28-2013, 05:18 PM)Whitey Wrote:
(06-28-2013, 05:13 PM)pervago Wrote: That said, and to the OP, it's good to see that the SSPX is back to denouncing VII.

And if we could only see the +Fellay detractors peeling the egg off their faces.  :LOL:

He didn't sell out now did he ?

Actually, he did.  Totally. This document is a total about face.  Makes your head spin. (Also, it's so ironic that the -SO crowd were "kicked out" for the same reason that the SSPX were suspended way back when.) Anyways, I parsed pretty much every doc that's been out there the last year. It's dizzifying, I tell, positively dizzifying. But I cannot conclude but that Fellay was up to shinanigans and therefore can't be trusted. Right now he seems back on the good ole crusade, but who knows tomorrow.

The SSPX-SO were right (but they seem to have even stronger schismatic "tendencies" than the regular SSPX). I wonder whether they will reconcile.

Like I said above, I don't know what to think about the SSPX (because of a number of about faces among other things) but I'm sure there's good priests there too. confusing times, confusing indeed.
Reply
#27
This news of the underground male prostitute circus and the selling of Hosts that never should have been accessible to this freak who's selling them is just about as much evidence as needed I'd say.

The darkest day in the history of the Church is when Paul VI discarded the Tiara. It enabled a free for all. What passes for the Catholic Church today is a joke. A clown act. It  paints the Church as a hypocritical organization.

It makes the Church look like it's clergy is made up of / dominated by gay cowards. A Church that preaches against gay sex, but one that accepts it within it's own ranks. approval of sodomy for the ordained only. The rest of us ? Just keep making babies and raise them to know that they are to pitch money our way every Sunday. Sodomites have to eat you know.

God bless the SSPX and all groups of clergy that reject the true Church of Satan that occupies Rome. The SSPX  and most independent chapels are indeed the Remnant. It is only there at those chapels the denial won't be found.

Change my mind Pope Francis. Deal with the mess or accept / enable it as 2 of the last 4 popes did.

:realmad:
Reply
#28
(06-28-2013, 05:26 PM)pervago Wrote:
(06-28-2013, 05:18 PM)Whitey Wrote:
(06-28-2013, 05:13 PM)pervago Wrote: That said, and to the OP, it's good to see that the SSPX is back to denouncing VII.

And if we could only see the +Fellay detractors peeling the egg off their faces.  :LOL:

He didn't sell out now did he ?

Actually, he did.   Totally. This document is a total about face.  Makes your head spin. (Also, it's so ironic that the -SO crowd were "kicked out" for the same reason that the SSPX were suspended way back when.) Anyways, I parsed pretty much every doc that's been out there the last year. It's dizzifying, I tell, positively dizzifying. But I cannot conclude but that Fellay was up to shinanigans and therefore can't be trusted. Right now he seems back on the good ole crusade, but who knows tomorrow.

The SSPX-SO were right (but they seem to have even stronger schismatic "tendencies" than the regular SSPX). I wonder whether they will reconcile.

Like I said above, I don't know what to think about the SSPX (because of a number of about faces among other things) but I'm sure there's good priests there too. confusing times, confusing indeed.

Screw the SSPX-SO. They don't have the right to call the shots. The Superior General does. +Fellay is doing the best he can considering the arrogance of "the resistance".

SSPX laity need to practice Catholicism and trust their clergy.

I'm logging off... perhaps I should not be posting while angry.


God Bless
Reply
#29
(06-28-2013, 05:08 PM)Whitey Wrote: Useless citation. Note is says "when a suspension is total". I read no further. Your interpretation of terms used there doesn't cut it. It only states your opinion of what it means.

When it has been stated that the SSPX clergy can administer the sacraments in emergency situations, then the suspensions are hardly total.

You made the claim that the SSPX priest commits mortal sin by praying the Mass. Prove it. Quote one Churchman that has stated that.

Hit a nerve?  Good.  That would be the conscience.  Irregularity is evil.  It is not as evil as schism, but it is about as evil as the (besides the point) gay mafia clergy.  It is not to be celebrated, it is to be mourned.  That the SSPX leadership are no longer working to end their sad state is disgusting, just as the homosexual rings within the Church are disgusting.
Reply
#30
(06-28-2013, 02:51 PM)Parmandur Wrote: Look, I'm not saying the SSPX is in schism.  But this certainly isn't a move away from schism, but rather inching closer to the cliff.
How are they inching closer?
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)