“Is the SSPX in schism? YES. Find out why” -I've made a video, grateful for feedback
#11
(05-25-2020, 05:28 PM)jovan66102 Wrote:
(05-25-2020, 05:16 PM)humilityandpatience Wrote:
(05-25-2020, 05:03 PM)jovan66102 Wrote: But it is a fact of theology and Canon law that that even the Pope cannot grant faculties to those outside the Church, i.e. schismatics. Ergo, Francis does not consider the SSPX schismatic, but you do, so you've put yourself above the Pope.

Dear Jovan, thanks for the reply. The definition of schism, also per Canon Law (pasted below for ease of ref.) supersedes the indult Pope Francis granted.

In other words, whilst the Society continue to reject VII and not recognise the NO as of equal rite, the schism is implicit. "Communion with the members of the Church subject to him" cannot be attained until the Society address their professed positions on VII and the NO. The indult is driven by the Mercy of the Church, and recognises the Society as Brothers in Christ- this is never in dispute.

God bless!

Code of Canon Law is: quote, “the refusal- of submission to the Supreme Pontiff- or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him”

As the Supreme Legislator, Francis is not bound by Canon Law, so Canon Law cannot, under Canon Law, 'supersede() the indult Pope Francis granted'.

Dear Jovan- completely agree with you. I should clarify. What I meant is that the matter of schism ought to be considered aside from the indult. In other words, the Indult which suspends the Law and grants faculties is an anomaly and the schism remains implicit. The indult ought to be instead considered a temporary act (although extended indefinitely) driven by Mercy, rather than eradicating an enduring schism. 

The schism remains, by virtue of the actions of the Society in rejecting VII and not recognising the NO- i.e. the terms of the conditions offered by Rome in aid of returning to communion.
Reply
#12
What part of 'even the Pope cannot grant faculties to those outside the Church, i.e. schismatics', don't you understand? If they are schismatic, if they are outside the Church (which is what 'schism' means, viz. the Orthodox), Francis CANNOT grant them faculties, mercy or no mercy.
Jovan-Marya of the Immaculate Conception Weismiller, T.O.Carm.

Vive le Christ-roi! Vive le roi, Louis XX!
Deum timete, regem honorificate.
Kansan by birth! Albertan by choice! Jayhawk by the Grace of God!
“Qui me amat, amet et canem meum. (Who loves me will love my dog.)” 
St Bernard of Clairvaux

My Blog 'Musings of an Old Curmudgeon'
FishEaters Group on MeWe
Reply
#13
You are making a video about the SSPX being schism because you claim that souls are at stake and that people should avoid them and cling to the Pope...in the age of Francis.

You videos are analogous to chastising your roomates (who live in the backyard) about not living under the same house, while ignoring that the house is infested with vermin and is on fire.
[-] The following 1 user Likes austenbosten's post:
  • antiquarian
Reply
#14
(05-25-2020, 06:00 PM)jovan66102 Wrote: What part of 'even the Pope cannot grant faculties to those outside the Church, i.e. schismatics', don't you understand? If they are schismatic, if they are outside the Church (which is what 'schism' means, viz. the Orthodox), Francis CANNOT grant them faculties, mercy or no mercy.

Thanks Jovan. In response I this it is worth remembering that after Pope Francis extended the indults offered at the Jubilee of Mercy, his very next line was "For the pastoral benefit of these faithful, and trusting in the good will of their priests to strive with God’s help for the recovery of full communion in the Catholic Church I have personally decided to extend this faculty beyond the Jubilee Year..." etc. 

If the argument is that the Society is not in schism due to temporary faculties granted in Mercy of Holy Mother Church (primarily for the benefit of the laity in question), which have been extended, then I'm not sure that is a strong one. Because we still have 50 years of history which this indult does not supersede. What happens if the extended indults are halted? etc. 

Essentially I think this anomaly of the extended indults is clouding the fundamental issue here which is the professed rejection of the terms last offered by Rome for a return to communion- V2 and NO as an equal rite.

Peace be with you!
Reply
#15
(05-25-2020, 06:10 PM)austenbosten Wrote: You are making a video about the SSPX being schism because you claim that souls are at stake and that people should avoid them and cling to the Pope...in the age of Francis.

You videos are analogous to chastising your roomates (who live in the backyard) about not living under the same house, while ignoring that the house is infested with vermin and is on fire.
And it's even worse than this because the Novus Ordo heretics are outside in the rain in rotting tents and swarming flies while the SSPX is still inside the House. The former is yelling at people like us to leave the House and join their party in the mud outside.

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk
Reply
#16
(05-25-2020, 07:15 PM)Atanamir Wrote: And it's even worse than this because the Novus Ordo heretics are outside in the rain in rotting tents and swarming flies while the SSPX is still inside the House.  The former is yelling at people like us to leave the House and join their party in the mud outside.

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk

If you are going to post, then read the rules. FE does not condone NO as heretics.
[-] The following 4 users Like austenbosten's post:
  • Augustinian, jovan66102, LionHippo, MagisterMusicae
Reply
#17
(05-25-2020, 07:34 PM)austenbosten Wrote:
(05-25-2020, 07:15 PM)Atanamir Wrote: And it's even worse than this because the Novus Ordo heretics are outside in the rain in rotting tents and swarming flies while the SSPX is still inside the House.  The former is yelling at people like us to leave the House and join their party in the mud outside.

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk

If you are going to post, then read the rules. FE does not condone NO as heretics.
Wow this place has changed. It used to be an open forum as long as disrespect did not get out of hand.

I didn't realize that FE had abandoned even the positions of Archbishop LeFrebvre himself.

How ironic since you all were instrumental in introducing me to these subjects in the first place.

If you would please confirm or deny the following statement about this forum's position:

"FE now agrees with and holds the position of the now vacated encyclical letter Ecclesia Dei Adflicta."

If that's true, then for sure I'm never coming back because this forum has abandoned the traditionalist position entirely.

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk
Reply
#18
(05-25-2020, 07:15 PM)Atanamir Wrote:
(05-25-2020, 06:10 PM)austenbosten Wrote: You are making a video about the SSPX being schism because you claim that souls are at stake and that people should avoid them and cling to the Pope...in the age of Francis.

You videos are analogous to chastising your roomates (who live in the backyard) about not living under the same house, while ignoring that the house is infested with vermin and is on fire.
And it's even worse than this because the Novus Ordo heretics are outside in the rain in rotting tents and swarming flies while the SSPX is still inside the House.  The former is yelling at people like us to leave the House and join their party in the mud outside.

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk

I don't believe anyone else here thinks the NO is heretical. Flawed? absolutely. Riddled with error and ambiguity? certainly. Heretical? No.
"The Heart of Jesus is closer to you when you suffer, than when you are full of joy." - St. Margaret Mary Alacoque

Put not your trust in princes: In the children of men, in whom there is no salvation. - Ps. 145:2-3

"For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears: And will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables." - 2 Timothy 4:3-4
Reply
#19
(05-25-2020, 07:45 PM)Augustinian Wrote:
(05-25-2020, 07:15 PM)Atanamir Wrote:
(05-25-2020, 06:10 PM)austenbosten Wrote: You are making a video about the SSPX being schism because you claim that souls are at stake and that people should avoid them and cling to the Pope...in the age of Francis.

You videos are analogous to chastising your roomates (who live in the backyard) about not living under the same house, while ignoring that the house is infested with vermin and is on fire.
And it's even worse than this because the Novus Ordo heretics are outside in the rain in rotting tents and swarming flies while the SSPX is still inside the House.  The former is yelling at people like us to leave the House and join their party in the mud outside.

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk

I don't believe anyone else here thinks the NO is heretical. Flawed? absolutely. Riddled with error and ambiguity? certainly. Heretical? No.
Then you need to read more about it, read Ratzinger more (and closely), and listen to Canon Hesse.

I guess Hesse is not common fare around here? Again, I say, what the heck happened to this place?

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk
Reply
#20
(05-25-2020, 07:44 PM)Atanamir Wrote: Wow this place has changed.  It used to be an open forum as long as disrespect did not get out of hand.

Uh, no.  It is an open forum as long as you are respectful.  Making your first post condemning all NO as heretics outside the Church and claiming SSPX is the only one inside (I know sedes would take objection to that) is not a wise post.

(05-25-2020, 07:44 PM)Atanamir Wrote: I didn't realize that FE had abandoned even the positions of Archbishop LeFrebvre himself.

I don't think it has.  But FE is not a purely Lefebvrist/SSPX forum.  There are FSSP, ICKSP, and NO like me.

(05-25-2020, 07:44 PM)Atanamir Wrote: How ironic since you all were instrumental in introducing me to these subjects in the first place.

Then why did you leave in the first place?  As far as we know you are a first-time poster.

(05-25-2020, 07:44 PM)Atanamir Wrote: If you would please confirm or deny the following statement about this forum's position:

"FE now agrees with and holds the position of the now vacated encyclical letter Ecclesia Dei Adflicta."

If that's true, then for sure I'm never coming back because this forum has abandoned the traditionalist position entirely.

I will neither confirm nor deny as I don't speak on behalf of FE.  However they are not a purely SSPX forum to the exclusion of other conciliar traditionalists such as FSSP or ICKSP.

Perhaps you should just accept that FE doesn't approve of a first-time posters condemning all NO as heretics or making other bombastic statements, without thinking that somehow FE has become some modernist-sect hellbent on pushing all sorts of liberalism and hates SSPX.
[-] The following 1 user Likes austenbosten's post:
  • jovan66102
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)