Declaration on the occasion of the 25th anniversary of the episcopal consecratio
#31
(06-28-2013, 03:23 PM)Parmandur Wrote: Suspended clergy commit a mortal sin every time they publicly celebrate the Sacraments.
Being in mortal sin doesn't imply they're excommunicated.
Reply
#32
(06-28-2013, 03:58 PM)Parmandur Wrote: "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.
Has Rome specified if it's a "partial" or "total suspension"?

UPDATE:
(06-28-2013, 05:08 PM)Whitey Wrote: When it has been stated that the SSPX clergy can administer the sacraments in emergency situations, then the suspensions are hardly total.
Oh, yes, I forgot about that. So it answers my question; it's only partial suspension
Reply
#33
(06-28-2013, 05:54 PM)Parmandur Wrote: Hit a nerve?  Good.  That would be the conscience.
How did you read his soul?
(06-28-2013, 05:54 PM)Parmandur Wrote: 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.
The neo-Modernist errors of Vatican II and the bastard Novus Ordo and all Paul VI's new, fabricated sacraments is what's disgusting.
Reply
#34
(06-28-2013, 05:37 PM)Whitey Wrote: SSPX-SO
With respect to "regularization," aren't the SSPX and SSPX-SO in the same boat?
Reply
#35
(06-28-2013, 08:43 PM)Geremia Wrote:
(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?

By no longer actively trying to remedy their situation, the SSPX leadership take a step away from unity in the Church.  The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.
Reply
#36
(06-28-2013, 08:45 PM)Geremia Wrote:
(06-28-2013, 03:23 PM)Parmandur Wrote: Suspended clergy commit a mortal sin every time they publicly celebrate the Sacraments.
Being in mortal sin doesn't imply they're excommunicated.

Who said it did?  But flaunting their canonical state, repeatedly, with no apparent contrition is not conducive to their good.
Reply
#37
(06-28-2013, 08:46 PM)Geremia Wrote:
(06-28-2013, 03:58 PM)Parmandur Wrote: "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.
Has Rome specified if it's a "partial" or "total suspension"?

UPDATE:
(06-28-2013, 05:08 PM)Whitey Wrote: When it has been stated that the SSPX clergy can administer the sacraments in emergency situations, then the suspensions are hardly total.
Oh, yes, I forgot about that. So it answers my question; it's only partial suspension

It's suspension from all sacramental activity.  Any priestly act they undertake is a direct sin until they are freed from suspension.  And now they aren't even trying to remove the canonical suspension.
Reply
#38
(06-28-2013, 08:53 PM)Geremia Wrote:
(06-28-2013, 05:54 PM)Parmandur Wrote: Hit a nerve?  Good.  That would be the conscience.
How did you read his soul?

I read his words, which were defensive and avoiding the issue at hand.


(06-28-2013, 05:54 PM)Parmandur Wrote: 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.
The neo-Modernist errors of Vatican II and the bastard Novus Ordo and all Paul VI's new, fabricated sacraments is what's disgusting.
[/quote]

Just because Modernist errors are wrong, doesn't mean ignoring a canonical state of suspension is right.
Reply
#39
(06-28-2013, 09:05 PM)Parmandur Wrote: It's suspension from all sacramental activity.  Any priestly act they undertake is a direct sin until they are freed from suspension.
Unless it really is a state of necessity
There are many SSPX-only Catholics. Must the SSPX just neglect them?
(06-28-2013, 09:05 PM)Parmandur Wrote: And now they aren't even trying to remove the canonical suspension.
Perhaps it's Rome who's not trying to give them canonical status.
Reply
#40
(06-28-2013, 09:07 PM)Parmandur Wrote: Just because Modernist errors are wrong, doesn't mean ignoring a canonical state of suspension is right.
But Rome's condition to achieve "regularization" is to uphold Modernist errors, so the SSPX is not doing evil to achieve good.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)