Archbishop Lefebrve on Luther's Mass

[bear06]

but I don’t think that you’re aware of the whole situation.

Oh how I wish that were true!!!

I can understand your reluctance to take Cardinal Hoyos’ words as the final statement on the matter, but his statement, taken together with Summorum Pontificam and the meetings between Pope Benedict and the SSPX leadership are much more indicative that the SSPX is not a schismatic group than that they are.

SP nor any other Church document has ever contradicted Ecclesia Dei. In fact, they have only supported it.

Even if you place reliance in the MP Ecclesia Dei as a document that declares the SSPX as absolutely schismatic (which I wouldn’t concede), I think you’ll admit that much of what JPII promulgated has already been discarded by Pope Benedict (e.g., the Sainthood process will no longer be accelerated, the Good Friday prayer wasn’t substantively changed despite JPII’s insistence on good relations with the Jews, the increased promulgation of the TLM, etc.). I believe the irregular state of the SSPX will be one of the next legacies of JPII to go.

Again, the canonization practice has little to do with this and, like I said, if he were to be able to reign as long (and he probably won’t given his advanced age) I think Benedict would actually be on pace to beat JPII’s canonizations. As far as the “irregular situation” of the SSPX, let’s home they’re not irregular for long. Like I said, I’m quite confident that most will return.

I also think you’ve missed some things about Bishop Bruskewitz’s threatened excomunications.

Yeah, I don’t think so.

First of all, there was an appeal and it applied only to Call to Action. On this appeal, Bishop Bruskewitz’s decision was upheld, but the document upholding it applied only to Call to Action.

And nobody has appealed the rest of them. They all stand. Like I said, Bishop Bruskewitz dotted his "i"s and crossed his"t"s. The canonical procedure was seriously lacking in Hawaii. There were no warning shots. The was a “you did it wrong you’re gone” action which is never valid without a warning.

As to the SSPX, from what I understand, although I could be wrong, soon after he threatened excommunications, Bishop Burkewitz’s diocese set up a TLM and SSPX stopped having their masses there.

No, I’m pretty sure his was incorrect. The FSSP was in the diocese in 1994 (I’m pretty sure that’s it. I lived there in '95-'96). Also, Bishop Bruskewitz, because of the relationship he had with the SSPX in his diocese, was invited to do the FSSP ordinations in Germany in 1995. There simply was no need to attend a chapel to fufill one’s attachment to the EF.

This made the threatened excommunications moot. Consequently, I have a hard time understanding how this proves the SSPX is schismatic because there was no appeal on behalf of the SSPX and as far as I know, no one was actually excommunicated for being associated with the SSPX. If authority conflicts, as it seems to do here, I think that the Prefect of the CDF is a better authority than the Bishop of a Diocese in Nebraska. If I missed something here, please let me know.

Yes, you did miss something. See above. And, as far as the association angle goes…Bishop Bruskewitz addresses that in this article ewtn.com/library/CANONLAW/BOTHWAYS.HTM

As to the Hawaii six, I think that you’re totally off base. The excommunications were overturned because the decree that issued them “lacks foundation and hence validity.”

Yes, it did lack foundation. Foundation is the key word. When excommunications occur, even if they are done latae sentiae, the faithful firstmust be educated to their error. This did not happen in Hawaii and this is why Bishop Bruskewitz put out his warning. Besides that, simply participating in the Sacraments at an SSPX chapel are not automatically basis for excommunication. Even Bruskewitz doesn’t say that.

continued…

 

[bear06]

…continued

This doesn’t sound like a flaw in cannonical procedure was the reason.

I’d somewhat agree with you here. It was not only canonical flaws that caused these excommunications to be overturned but it was the biggest part of it. One can’t simply say “Off with their heads”. Education, warnings, intent, etc. are all part of it. Now if the Hawaii bishop had provided for those attached to the Latin Mass and followed proper canonical procedure, he probably would have had a leg to stand on. That said, his actions were never meant to protect the faithful. His actions were meant to protect his backside.

I think you may be thinking of the original letter overturning the excommunications, in which a Cardinal (I believe) stated that there would nevertheless be consequences for the six and cited Cannon Law as to that proposition. That part of the letter was later abrogated by direction of Cardinal Ratzinger because Cannon Law did not really support such sanctions so that there were no reprecussions (at least as far as I know) from the Church. Also, the Hawaii six had a leader of the SSPX preside over confirmations at their church. This seems to be a much bigger deal than “associating” with the SSPX, which is the basis for Bishop Bruskewitz’s decree.

I’m not sure if it’s a bigger deal or not. What I am sure of is that proper canonical procedure and canon law itself was completely ignored in Hawaii. BTW, Cardinal Ratzinger said the Hawaii six were blameworthy on several accounts just not on ones that qualify for latae sentiae schism. In short, the Bishop of Honolulu was using excommunication to shut people up. Not really grounds for excommunication.

Accordingly, unless you can find something that distinguishes these circumstances in a way that indicates the SSPX is heretical, I think you’ve missed the bigger picture. In other words, “I rely on what the Church officially puts out. . . .”

If I declared the SSPX heretical the first thing out of everyone’s mouth would be “You’re not the lawful authority!” and they would be right! I say what the Church says in her official documents. Sue me. I think you’ve missed the bigger picture in an effort to see what you want to see. Our personal opinions (and even that of Cardinal Castrillon-Hoyos) don’t hold any weight.

Attending a wedding ceremony one time is different in many degrees from helping to fund an SSPX chapel and then asking an SSPX priest to preside over a confirmation ceremony (or attending mass at an SSPX chapel on a regular basis).

I’d agree with you on that. That said, you’re taking my quote out of context. I was answering this:

Catholics like me who attend SSPX masses from on occassion are not excommunicated because we are not adhering to schism. Wouldn’t that mean that the SSPX isn’t actually in schism.

There was no mention of funding a chapel, asking a priest to do a confirmation ceremony, etc.

I highly doubt that anyone who helped to fund a Lutheran church and then asked a Lutheran minister administer sacraments would fall into the same category as a person who merely attended a Lutheran wedding.

Again, since the argument wasn’t made by me or anyone else, it’s irrelevant to this thread.

Because the Hawaii six were cleared of any wrongdoing by the Prefect of the CDF for these actions and (presumably and hopefully) would not have been had it been a Lutheran church and pastor instead of an SSPX chapel and priest, it clearly does not follow that the SSPX is heretical because you can attend the wedding ceremony of a heretical group without sanction.

Read the relevant posts again. The exact opposite argument was being made. The argument that the SSPX wasn’t in schism because we aren’t necessarily in schism for attending. That wouldn’t be correct. Schism is not based on our ability to attend without incurring schism. Heresy is not based on our abitity to attend without being a heretic. Wouldn’t you agree?

I agree with you that most of the leaders in the Church are trying to get the SSPX out of their irregular state within Church, but I doubt that there will be many splinterings of those who attend SSPX masses.

Sorry. Campos comes to mind and it looks as if there are some others leaning that way too.

Most of them truly and devoutly believe they are working for the betterment of the RCC by sticking to their guns when it comes to the TLM. I think that most of the current evidence indicates that some time within the next decade or so the excommunications of the SSPX bishops will be lifted (not overturned) and the SSPX will be given a non-territorial prelature, much like the one enjoyed by Opus Dei. I’d be interested to see what your reaction would be if this did happen.

My reaction would be of utter joy. BTW, the SSPX aren’t hoping for lifting or overturning. They are looking for a declaration of nullity. If that happens I would also be profoundly overjoyed. That said, I don’t think that option will occur. I think that the Campos situation will repeatedly occur.

 

[bear06]

Cardinal Ratzinger: “After the Second Vatican Council, the impression arose that the pope really could do anything in liturgical matters, especially if he were acting on the mandate of an ecumenical council. Eventually, the idea of the givenness of the liturgy, the fact that one cannot do with it what one will, faded from the public consciousness of the West. In fact, the First Vatican Council had in no way defined the pope as an absolute monarch. On the contrary, it presented him as the guarantor of obedience to the revealed Word. The pope’s authority is bound to the Tradition of faith, and that also applies to the liturgy. It is not “manufactured” by the authorities. Even the pope can only be a humble servant of its lawful development and abiding integrity and identity. . . . The authority of the pope is not unlimited; it is at the service of Sacred Tradition. . . .” (The Spirit of the Liturgy,

And also:

“It is a necessary task to defend the Second Vatican Council against Msgr. Lefebvre, as valid, and as binding upon the Church. Certainly there is a mentality of narrow views that isolate Vatican II and which has provoked this opposition.”

unavoce.org/cardinal_ratzinger_chile.htm
He goes on to explain that people from both ends of the spectrums are wrong. So we’ve got those who see VII as something we can toss out the window and we’ve got those who think that VII pronounced a completely new Church. Both are wrong.

 

[GodIsSalvation]

SP nor any other Church document has ever contradicted Ecclesia Dei. In fact, they have only supported it.

Should Cardinal Hoyos be censured or otherwise disciplined for his remarks. I hope I’ve made the point that the Church’s position does evolve in some respects over time. Just like with the NO mass, change does happen. I don’t think this is a bad thing, but to turn a blind eye to everything else that is happening seems to me to be a negative reaction to coginitive dissonance.

Again, the canonization practice has little to do with this. . . .

Agreed. But my point, again, was that some policies of the Church evolve. I don’t think anything you’ve said has disputed this directly.

And nobody has appealed the rest of them. They all stand.

I haven’t found anyone, at least in my limited research that was excommunicated based on their affillitation with the SSPX. I would appreciate it if you could cite someone.

The canonical procedure was seriously lacking in Hawaii.

I cited the letter that overturned the excommunications and didn’t find anything to suggest that this was the reason for them being overturned. On the contrary, the letter indicated that the reason for the excommunications, and not the procedure, was deficient. If you would like to cite something and to explain why the bishop didn’t just excommunicate the six again, this time properly, I would be happy to see it.

No, I’m pretty sure his was incorrect. The FSSP was in the diocese in 1994

I will admit that I’m not privy to the details, but once again, if you could cite anyone who was actually excommunicated for associations with the SSPX and where any appeal was made (or not made) from those excommuncations, it would go a long way in convincing me that you’re right.

Besides that, simply participating in the Sacraments at an SSPX chapel are not automatically basis for excommunication. Even Bruskewitz doesn’t say that.

Then I must be missing something because I’m not sure why these people were threatened with excommunication. The link you provided was not written by Bishop Bruskewitz, references things that aren’t attached to the document, and, while coming to the conclusion that the SSPX is “perilous to or incompatible with the Catholic faith,” qualifies this opinion as a private one and, again, is based on documents that it doesn’t provide. In sum, it really wasn’t that helpful in identifiying the crux of the problem. If you could explain the basis for Bishop Bruskewitz’s decree or provide something else that does, I would appreciate it.

 

[bear06]

bear 06, I may be misunderstanding your point, but are trying to say that all disciplinary actions by the Pope are infallible? This site itself has a page stating:

I am saying this (although obviously not quite as eloquently)

V. DISCIPLINARY INFALLIBILITY
What connexion is there between the discipline of the Church and her infallibility? Is there a certain disciplinary infallibility? It does not appear that the question was ever discussed in the past by theologians unless apropos of the canonization of saints and the approbation of religious orders. It has, however, found a place in all recent treatises on the Church (De Ecclesiâ}. The authors of these treatises decide unanimously in favour of a negative and indirect rather than a positive and direct infallibility, inasmuch as in her general discipline, i.e. the common laws imposed on all the faithful, the Church can prescribe nothing that would be contrary to the natural or the Divine law, nor prohibit anything that the natural or the Divine law would exact. If well understood this thesis is undeniable; it amounts to saying that the Church does not and cannot impose practical directions contradictory of her own teaching

 

[bear06]

…continued

The Vatican I Council and the article I cited seem to think that a teaching must be ex cathedera before it becomes infallible.

I’m sure you’re thinking of Pastor Aeternus. Remember, there’s a difference between something with positive infallibility and negative infallibility. Disciplines have negative infallibilty attached to them because they are mutable.

Do you have anything that authoritively disputes this?

Uh, I’m not sure what you mean or if I’m even disputing this.

Also, I do not doubt any cannonizations and I don’t appreciate anyone insinuating that I do.

Mea culpa! I wasn’t insinuating you do. It’s a theory that has appeared here as of late by some who say that the only infallible is that which has been spoken ex cathedra.

You seem to be saying that anything said by a Pope is infallible, even if its not ex cathedera, which seems impossible, especially because previous popes have been wrong on a number of their non-ex cathedera teachings.

Well, I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. This is not what I am saying. I am saying that the scope of infallibility is narrow. That said, it’s not as narrow as some people think.

This, along with other quotes has been interpreted by the USCCB as meaning that the Old Covenant has never been revoked and that Jews shouldn’t be converted to Catholicism. See here. This runs totally contrary to what was stated by the Council of Florence through Pope Eugene IV, speaking infallibly, when he said the Old Covenant had been revoked and the RCC and the sacraments of the New Covenant were the only path to God.

I think that most of us recognize that the USCCB is hardly the Holy See.

Also, at Assisi, Pope JPII gathered leaders of many religions from throughout the world and asked them all to pray to “their own gods” for peace. At one point, a Buddhist shrine was set up on an alter (at the Church of St. Peter, I believe).

Sigh! This story has been rehashed so many times. I know you weren’t around but here it is again. All of the Churches in Assisi were open for prayer. The Buddhists entered one such Church and as there custom, placed a Buddha on the most prominent place (that would have been the tabernacle) when the rectore was in that back. Once the rector saw it he immediately removed it and explained to the Buddhists about the Real Presence and why we don’t put Buddhas on the tabernacle. The heartily apologized for the mistake. Of all the things to pick on two Buddhists being educated about the Real Presence is not one of them. It was unfortunate that the mistake occurred but it is yet another happy accident that God used to educate people who probably would never know of the Real Presence. At least people stopped telling this one as the Pope said Mass with a Buddha on the altar as it used to be reported.

Additionally, he was even annointed by a Hindu priestess in India, much to the chagrin of local Hindu bishops. See here.

Again, not a Hindu priestess or the Mark of Shiva. It was a Catholic women who put the mark of Ataari on his head which, today, is akin to a lei in Hawaii.

As I said before, I really do like JPII, but after finding out about this, my respect for him as a pope was somewhat shaken. I don’t believe that Jesus would ever have even implicitly denied the supremacy of the Church or been annoited by the priest of a false religion.

Then the people who perpetrated these lives and half truths have achieved their goal. I’d search these forums. There are many enlightening things to be found.

If someone could explain how these actions of JPII (e.g., Assisi, being annointed by the priestess of another religion) logically squares with Dogma, I would be happy to hear it.

Again, it didn’t happen so there’s nothing to defend.

However, I would actually like an explanation instead of name calling, lumping me in with a certain group, or referring back to a point that was never adequately proven or referenced.

I’m not sure who did the name calling and lumping but it wasn’t me. Also, what point, again, wasn’t adequately proven?

 

[GodIsSalvation]

BTW, Cardinal Ratzinger said the Hawaii six were blameworthy on several accounts just not on ones that qualify for latae sentiae schism.

I apologize for being such a stickler (law school has ruined me) but some sort of citation would be helpful here. I know that there were two letters from the CDF on the matter, but I though the first one, written only by direction of Cardinal Ratzinger, said the six were blameworthy, but I was under the impression that the second letter withdrew this statement.

If I declared the SSPX heretical the first thing out of everyone’s mouth would be “You’re not the lawful authority!”

I apologize, for my poor word choice.

I think you’ve missed the bigger picture in an effort to see what you want to see. Our personal opinions (and even that of Cardinal Castrillon-Hoyos) don’t hold any weight.

I see your point, but in my defense, I think that you’re missing mine. I appreciate your reliance on Church documents, but am I crazy for thinking that the recent talks between the Vatican and the leaders of the SSPX, the promulgation of the MP Summorum Pontificam, and the words of the Cardinal actually point to a change in Church policy? I’m afraid to cite examples because that hasn’t had the effect I was looking for, but Pope Benedict is definitely not the same as Pope JPII and I think that if it wasn’t for all of the criticism he received over Summorum Pontificam, he would have already attempted to lift the excommunications on the SSPX bishops.

There was no mention of funding a chapel, asking a priest to do a confirmation ceremony, etc.

Right, but those were the actions of the Hawaii six and I was arguing by analogy.

Read the relevant posts again. The exact opposite argument was being made. The argument that the SSPX wasn’t in schism because we aren’t necessarily in schism for attending. That wouldn’t be correct. Schism is not based on our ability to attend without incurring schism. Heresy is not based on our abitity to attend without being a heretic. Wouldn’t you agree?

I’m not totally understanding your argument here. My point was that if you supported and sought sacraments from a Lutheran pastor you would be separated from the Church and guilty of heresy. This is what the Hawaii six did in relation to the SSPX, but were not excommunicated. My point was that if you attend a wedding, that doesn’t make you a heretic, but doing what the Hawaii six did, except doing it in relation to a Lutheran church and pastor instead of the SSPX, would have resulted in heresy.

Sorry. Campos comes to mind and it looks as if there are some others leaning that way too.

Is Campos still in anyway associated with the SSPX? I would appreciate any examples of the others who are leaning that way.

My reaction would be of utter joy. BTW, the SSPX aren’t hoping for lifting or overturning. They are looking for a declaration of nullity.

Nullity is what I meant by overturning, as opposed to the excommunications being lifted and implying they bishops were wrong, but have rectified that wrong.

 

[bear06]

Should Cardinal Hoyos be censured or otherwise disciplined for his remarks. I hope I’ve made the point that the Church’s position does evolve in some respects over time. Just like with the NO mass, change does happen. I don’t think this is a bad thing, but to turn a blind eye to everything else that is happening seems to me to be a negative reaction to coginitive dissonance.

As long as we’re not turning a blind eye, did you also know that Msgr. Perl (the guy who used to be the head of the Ecclesia Dei Commission) in an official letter said:

The priests of the Society of St. Pius X are validly ordained, but suspended, that is prohibited from exercising their priestly functions because they are not properly incardinated in a diocese or religious institute in full communion with the Holy See and also because those ordained after the episcopal ordinations were ordained by an excommunicated bishop. They are also excommunicated if they adhere to the schism. While up to now the Holy See has not defined what this adherence consists in, one could point to a wholesale condemnation of the Church since the Second Vatican Council and a refusal to be in communion with it. Further, it is likely that these priests, after eleven years in a society whose head is now an excommunicated bishop, effectively adhere to the schism.

 

[Alexios]

Servus,

The Liturgy of St. James wasn’t the starting point for the Roman Rite; the liturgical patrimonies begun by Sts. Peter and Paul were. The Traditional Mass is just as ancient as the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, too, although it would depend how much change makes something new. Anyway, none of the ancient liturgies are stagnant.

And one of the major problems with the Novus Ordo is that it is totally inorganic, written up by a committee with Protestant consulation, a weird hodge-podge of antiquarian practices and completely new innovations. EVEN if the Novus Ordo far better represented the Catholic Faith than did the Traditional Mass (which is far, far, far from the reality of the situation), it would still be unacceptable due to its inorganic creation. As it so happens, I think one would be hard pressed to find a liturgy that better presents the Catholic Faith than does the Traditional Mass, and even the most reverent Novus Ordos are lacking in this regard.

I pray earnestly for the day when the Novus Ordo is completely scrapped, and we can employ some of the benefits of the Novus Ordo (like dialogue, etc.) which are associated with it but are not exclusive to it. We must START from the Traditional Mass, since it is organic, and work our way foreword; we cannot work backwards from an inorganic liturgy.

 

[GerardP]

And also:

unavoce.org/cardinal_ratzinger_chile.htm
He goes on to explain that people from both ends of the spectrums are wrong. So we’ve got those who see VII as something we can toss out the window and we’ve got those who think that VII pronounced a completely new Church. Both are wrong.

Cardinal Ratzinger was also an advocate for Vatican II. His “task” is to try and implement what he envisioned or what he thinks the Fathers of the Council envisioned. That’s his agenda. Perfectly valid.

But, in Principals of Catholic Theology he also rightly states that history has shown that some councils proved ineffective in the end and were of little value. He said that the historical value of Vatican II has yet to be determined.

So, it could be that the Hegelian attitude is just as wrong as the liberal attitude.

 

[stmaria]

Originally Posted by stmaria
Cardinal Ratzinger: “After the Second Vatican Council, the impression arose that the pope really could do anything in liturgical matters, especially if he were acting on the mandate of an ecumenical council. Eventually, the idea of the givenness of the liturgy, the fact that one cannot do with it what one will, faded from the public consciousness of the West. In fact, the First Vatican Council had in no way defined the pope as an absolute monarch. On the contrary, it presented him as the guarantor of obedience to the revealed Word. The pope’s authority is bound to the Tradition of faith, and that also applies to the liturgy. It is not “manufactured” by the authorities.** Even the pope can only be a humble servant of its lawful development and abiding integrity and identity. . . . **The authority of the pope is not unlimited; it is at the service of Sacred Tradition. . . .” (The Spirit of the Liturgy

=

Your Abbott;3416322]"Even the pope can only be a humble servant of its lawful development and abiding integrity and identity. . " ** Hogwash**. I see here people marking the great power of Cardinal Hogos - that man’s power is nil - it is dependent on the Holy Father. When the Pontiff speaks, we all listen, because he speaks with the authority of Jesus Christ. Trot out what books you want from conservative authors - they don’t matter a hill of beans.
Your Abbott

Cardinal Hogos??? That conservative author, quoted above, is Cardinal Ratzinger who is now Pope Benedict XVI in case you didn’t know}

 

[Your_Abbott]

Your Abbott,

What if the Pope came out tomorrow and decided that Mary was just another woman and not really the Mother of God or that Jesus wasn’t physically present in the host? Would still say “It doesn’t matter, he’s the Pope and his authority is from Jesus.”? And before you answer, realize that popes in the past have done some pretty egregious things. Do you ever stop to think that by comparing the Pope to Jesus you’re really idolizing him as next to God?

Hey, I’m not idolizing him, but he is 'next to God". He is the Vicar of Christ on earth! What does that mean to you? To me, it means he is 'next to God". Don’t like the terminology, well come up with something comparable to define his position.

Your Abbott

 

[Your_Abbott]

=

Cardinal Hogos??? That conservative author, quoted above, is Cardinal Ratzinger who is now Pope Benedict XVI in case you didn’t know}

Yes, I knew, Maria. Is that the defining statement of Benedict XVI?

I don’t think. You can snip out of the writings of anyone to back up your position, e.g. 'quoting Scripture to suit one’s purposes".

Your Abbott

 

[GerardP]

.

Originally Posted by stmaria
Cardinal Ratzinger: “After the Second Vatican Council, the impression arose that the pope really could do anything in liturgical matters, especially if he were acting on the mandate of an ecumenical council. Eventually, the idea of the givenness of the liturgy, the fact that one cannot do with it what one will, faded from the public consciousness of the West. In fact, the First Vatican Council had in no way defined the pope as an absolute monarch. On the contrary, it presented him as the guarantor of obedience to the revealed Word. The pope’s authority is bound to the Tradition of faith, and that also applies to the liturgy. It is not “manufactured” by the authorities. Even the pope can only be a humble servant of its lawful development and abiding integrity and identity. . . . The authority of the pope is not unlimited; it is at the service of Sacred Tradition. . . .” (The Spirit of the Liturgy,

Are you serious? Cardinal Ratzinger is stating a plain as day teaching of the Church and pointing out a common error and you are calling it nonsense?

The difference between criticism and ridicule is being able to explain what makes something “nonsense.”

You are simply ridiculing the then Cardinal, now Pope.

 

[SemperFidelis]

Tradition is not clear and concise.

So you’re telling me we can’t know anything of Tradition? That we can’t understand or know the Church’s Traditional teachings regarding such things as ecumenism, religious liberty, Original Sin, Purgatory, the Immaculate Conception, etc.? That we can’t know when a pope teaches or acts, in a fallible capacity, contrary to the Traditional teachings regarding such things? That in such cases, it is not our right or our duty according to the direction of the Fathers, to licitly and respectfully resist such pontiffs? If you answer no to any of the above questions, then you are in a way advocating a form of papalolatry, pure and simple. These are the errors of the so called “neo-cons,” and I will not follow, as neither would the theologians I cited earlier.

Oh, you’re blind too? I forgot. Sorry.

What would you say to this Saint:
St. Vincent of Lerins:

What shall a Catholic do if some portion of the Church detaches itself from communion of the universal Faith? What other choice can he make if some new contagion attempts to poison, no longer a small part of the Church, but the whole Church at once, then his great concern will be to attach himself to antiquity which can no longer be led astray by any lying.

or this saintly individual:
Dom Prosper Gueranger:

When the shepherd turns into a wolf, it behooves the flock to defend itself in the first place. Doctrine normally flows from the bishops down to the faithful people, and subjects should not judge their chiefs. But, in the treasure of Revelation, there are certain points that every Christian necessarily knows and must obligatorily defend.

According to them, there are Traditions that are clear and concise and that we can understand. When St. Vincent speaks of antiquity, what do you think he is referring to? How can we attach ourselves to it, if it’s not clear and concise? If you can’t grasp it, it may be that you’re the blind one.

 

[GodIsSalvation]

I am saying this (although obviously not quite as eloquently)
continued…

 

[GodIsSalvation]

QUOTE]OK, here’s what those who represented the Hawaii Six said about the case and why it was tossed.

This article actually doesn’t address my question or prove your point. I have never argued that the four bishops of the SSPX weren’t excommunicated. My point, if it wasn’t clear, was that those who attend SSPX masses aren’t excommunicated or even in danger of being excommunicated (provided they adhere to the Catholic Dogma). The article actually states that attending an SSPX mass isn’t a schismatic act, but concludes that anyone who attends an SSPX chapel risks automatic excommunication. (Really sound reasoning to live by.) As I understand it, even though the Church was not an SSPX chapel and the six were not members of the SSPX (which as laypersons they can’t be even if they wanted to be) the Hawaii six still had a leader of the SSPX preside over confirmations. The article doesn’t address this (if it is true) very important fact and, again, concludes that anyone who participates in an SSPX mass can be automatically excommunicated. This seems to me to be an erroneous conclusion, unless you can cite some people who have actually been excommunicated for attending an SSPX mass, which I still haven’t seen, even in relation to the Nebraska case. (BTW, just because someone represented a party doesn’t mean that they agree with the party or that they have the party’s best interest in mind. Also, after reading this article, I would question whether that group understood the reasoning behind the decision, because they don’t seem to do a very good job of even describing what was happening, let alone the basis for the conslusion.)

The bishop of Hawaii got many things wrong. Canon law was not his specialty. That all said, even the canon lawyer said that doesn’t not change the status of the SSPX.

If this was the case, why didn’t the bishop go back and do it again right? In American law, often a court of appeal will receive a request for a writ of mandamus (which amounts to suing the trial judge to get him to do what you want). The courts of appeal almost never issue these, in order to keep the trial judge from losing face, but do issue opinions stating that although they won’t issue the writ, the trial judge had better give the suing party what they want or else the trial judge’s decision will be overturned on appeal. Even if the basis for the decision regarding the Hawaii six was based on a defect in procedure, I would read the letter from the CDF as this type of response (i.e. we’ll allow you to save face by not saying you’re wrong, but you’re still wrong) to the bishop, which is why he didn’t further press the issue. Am I wrong?

I think that’s already been done. Nebraska would be the case to look at.

Unless I’ve missed something, I still haven’t seen one single example of someone who was actually excommunicated for associating with the SSPX. The article you linked to doesn’t really discuss the facts of the situation or any reasoning to the point that if I didn’t know what it was referencing, I wouldn’t be able to make heads or tails of anything it’s saying

Actually, you are right. The guy who wrote that piece is the canon lawyer who defended the Hawaii six, Chuck Wilson. Here’s a better view of it:

I realize that Mr. Wilson represented the Hawaii six, but I still find his reasoning lacking. He states three charges must be met, but makes a conclusory statement about two of them and then after some “analysis” makes broad statements without support and then comes to a conclusion. There isn’t even a brief summary of the facts as to the Hawaii six and their situation; once again, only unsupported conclusions. Cannon lawyers may have different standards, but if as a law student I wrote a memo that was that lacking in factual support and actual substance (especially when writing to non-lawyers) and handed it in to my professor, a lawyer, or a judge, they would laugh at me and throw it in the trash. Instead of conclusions based on “private opinion,” even of a cannon lawyer, I would like to see some citation and supporting facts of Mr. Wilson’s conclusions.

To end though, I really appreciate you taking the time respond to my questions. It’s refreshing to find someone who can discuss these issues without becoming unexplainably angry or making totally unsupported statements of opinion. Thanks again for your patience and I’ll be looking forward to responses.

 

[SemperFidelis]

Tradition is a very complicated subject. That is why we have had heresy after heresy over the centuries.

Church Councils or ex cathedra statements exist to clarify such discrepencies in Tradition, and to fight such heresies. Their clarifications are clear and concise. Let me ask you a simple question: how did the Church Councils know that it was not the heretics that were the holders of Tradition? There had to have been some objective standard that they used to understand what was right and what was wrong. What was this objective standard? The Anathemas of the Church Councils are usually worded in such a way that it is clear to everybody what the teaching (and Tradition) of the Church actually is. You don’t think it is possible to understand such things? If such things cannot be understood, then what’s the point of issuing such anathemas, and how on earth will the heretics know how to correct themselves or in what points of doctrine they need to correct themselves in?

Such are the things we can understand. We know that the Virgin Mary was conceived Immaculately. If a pope, or cardinal came out tomorrow and said “Mary was not conceived Immaculately,” how would you know that what he said was wrong? What is the objective standard you would use to say he was wrong?

Where is the clear exposition of that in the Fourth Century?

scripturecatholic.com/blessed_virgin_mary.html#tradition-II

Tell me what is so clear about the definition of the Assumption that a definition was required since it is not in the Bible?

The definition of the Assumption is a part of Tradition itself. It is a clarification on what that Tradition is. I didn’t state we can understand all Tradition, as some of it has not been clarified and is under contention, but once it has been clarified by the extraordinary or ordinary Magisterium, we can know what Tradition is in that regard, and hence we can know when someone contradicts it. We know the Church teachings on ecumenism by reading various Papal Encyclicals, and hence we can know that Pope John Paul II contradicted those teachings. Clear and simple, no?

 

[SemperFidelis]

The Holy Father is the servant of Tradition? Please…At this point in time, the Holy Father is Tradition, and fully represents it.

Papal Cornation Oath:

I vow to change nothing of the received Tradition, and nothing thereof I have found before guarded by my God-pleasing predecessors, to encroach, to alter, or to permit any innovation therein.

To the contrary, with glowing affection as Her truly faithful steward and successor, I vow to reverently safeguard the passed-on good, with my whole strength and utmost effort.

To cleanse all that is in contradiction with canonical order that may surface.

To guard the holy canons and decrees of our Popes likewise as Divine Ordinance of Heaven, because I am conscious of Thee, Whose place I take through the grace of God, Whose Vicarship I possess with Thy support, being subject to severest accounting before Thy Divine tribunal over all that I confess.

If I should undertake to act in anything of contrary sense, or should permit that it will be executed, Thou willst not be merciful to me on the dreadful day of Divine Justice.

Accordingly, without exclusion, we subject to the severest excommunication anyone----be it our self or be it another----who would dare to undertake anything new in contradiction to this constituted evangelic tradition and the purity of the orthodox Faith and the Christian Religion, or who would seek to change anything by his opposing efforts, or who would concur with those who undertake such blasphemous venture."

by Vatican I:

For the Holy Ghost was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles.

Apparently you never accepted Vatican I either.

That doesn’t seem so in this case now does it? Maybe you better get on board.

 

[Your_Abbott]

That doesn’t seem so in this case now does it? Maybe you better get on board.

Doesn’t change a thing. “At this point in time, the Holy Father is Tradition, and fully represents it.” Still.

Gee, what made me think that you were going to quote what Vatican 2 taught? You remember Vatican 2? What the Church convoke during the '60s.

“Vatican 2, toot, toot, All-aboard!”

Your Abbott