Cardinal Castrillon: SSPX Not in Schism

  • Thread starter Thread starter maryceleste
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
ByzCath said:
It does.

Most people chose to interpret Canon 1323 and “necessity” them selves while ignoring Canon Law itself.

Can. 16 §1 Laws are authentically interpreted by the legislator and by that person to whom the legislator entrusts the power of authentic interpretation.

§2 An authentic interpretation which is presented by way of a law has the same force as the law itself, and must be promulgated. If it simply declares the sense of words which are certain in themselves, it has retroactive force. If it restricts or extends the law or resolves a doubt, it is not retroactive.

§3 On the other hand, an interpretation by way of a court judgement or of an administrative act in a particular case, does not have the force of law. It binds only those persons and affects only those matters for which it was given.

And seeing that the legislator is the pope and the pope said that there was no necessity and that Canon 1323 did not apply, it is so.

Anyways how can one believe that there was a necessity for the archbishop to ordain his own bishops when he had a signed agreement with the pope in which the pope agreed to ordain a bishop for him? Guess the necessity was that the archbishop wanted three bishops instead of one and he wanted to pick them with out the holy father’s (name removed by moderator)ut or agreement.

Sounds like a protestant to me.
Click to expand...
It would seem the Church does not agree with you—otherwise the Pope has allowed Catholics to be confirmed by “protestants”.

jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/canon_law/index.html

The problem with problematic pre-confirmation programs that you are encountering is a widespread one, and the faithful have tried a variety of means in dealing with it. I have also known of cases where people took their children down to Mexico to be confirmed by a bishop there. There have also been cases where they took their children to be confirmed by an SSPX bishop, and Rome ruled that doing this was not a schismatic act. The Code of Canons for the Eastern Churches also provides for the possibility of having Latin children confirmed by an Eastern priest.
 
Walking_Home said:
Go down to the following in the link provided.

Unacceptable Confirmation Programs
Click to expand...
One other question. Does anyone know what case he is speaking of? I’m guessing the Hawaii case but I’m not sure. If so, does anyone have the Vatican ruling handy on that one. I don’t remember it saying that the confirmations were valid only that it didn’t constitute a schismatic act. Thanks.
 
bear06 said:
One other question. Does anyone know what case he is speaking of? I’m guessing the Hawaii case but I’m not sure. If so, does anyone have the Vatican ruling handy on that one. I don’t remember it saying that the confirmations were valid only that it didn’t constitute a schismatic act. Thanks.
Click to expand...
Since the info is by Jimmy Akins—maybe contact him. There was no mention of the confirmations by the SSPX being invalid–since if they were-- Mr. Akins would not have a reason to not include that information.
 
Walking_Home said:
Since the info is by Jimmy Akins—maybe contact him. There was no mention of the confirmations by the SSPX being invalid–since if they were-- Mr. Akins would not have a reason to not include that information.
Click to expand...
Well, unless there is some specific case he’s talking about, he would have reason to wonder since he’s done that before on his site regarding the SSPX confirmations. This is the first time I’ve heard him mention it so I’m just wondering.
 
bear06 said:
Well, unless there is some specific case he’s talking about, he would have reason to wonder since he’s done that before on his site regarding the SSPX confirmations. This is the first time I’ve heard him mention it so I’m just wondering.
Click to expand...
Since he says—" there have also been cases"----this means more than “some specific case”. The information from the link is there–and as I said—there is no mention of the confirmations being invalid. For further info–check with him.
 
down_under said:
I dont remember the oriental orthodox appointing a bishop in directe disregard for a papal order.
Click to expand...
Are you saying that the Orthodox have had a papal mandate for each bishop they have consecrated since 1054?
 
ByzCath said:
And seeing that the legislator is the pope and the pope said that there was no necessity and that Canon 1323 did not apply, it is so.
Click to expand...
The canons are clear; a penalty is not incurred if the offender sincerely believed that the state of necessity existed, even if, in fact, it did not.

So, unless the Roman Pontiff claims to be able to read minds and hearts now, all that we can say for certain is that if the archbishop was insincere then he incurred the excommunication, and if not, then not.
 
The Pope is the supreme legislator not us. If he says that they are excommunicated then they are. He probably wouldn’t have excommunicated them if they hadn’t warned them first.

Look at the situation in Nebraska. The bishop warned his flock, gave them ample time to hear about the warning and then excommunicated them - same type of situation.

Under your interpretation, there really couldn’t be too many people excommunicated. Most of them think they have necessity. That is why we have someone to tell them whether or not this necessity really exists.
 
bear06 said:
The Pope is the supreme legislator not us. If he says that they are excommunicated then they are. He probably wouldn’t have excommunicated them if they hadn’t warned them first.

Look at the situation in Nebraska. The bishop warned his flock, gave them ample time to hear about the warning and then excommunicated them - same type of situation.

Under your interpretation, there really couldn’t be too many people excommunicated. Most of them think they have necessity. That is why we have someone to tell them whether or not this necessity really exists.
Click to expand...
I think the Pope’s role as supreme judge comes into play here. From Vatican I:
  1. Since the Roman Pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole Church, we likewise teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful [52], and that in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment [53]. The sentence of the Apostolic See (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon [54].
I see a lot of people trying to revise or pass judgment on the Pope’s judgment.
 
Genesis315 said:
They set up chapels in competition with established Catholic churches without the permission of the local ordinary or the Roman Pontiff. In fact, they really answer to no one–they act totally independent of any ecclesiastical authority. When judging new religious orders, those are the textbook warning signs of one to be wary of. Whatever their technical canonical status is, I don’t know, but it’s not right.
Click to expand...
Where we live the local ecclesiastical authority (Bishop) has denied any and all use of the pre-Vat II Mass. Since the Pope told the Bishops to allow for a free use of these Masses then are not the Bishops in some form of schism with Rome if they continue to refuse the “OLD MASS”?

Look if I could go to the SSPX and still be in complete union with Rome I would run in a second (if it took me that long:D ). So my prayers go toward that end. A free and liberal (excuse the word LOL) use of the pre Vat II Mass. In the mean time I go to Mass faithfully and try to turn away from the abuses I see there.

God Bless
 
After reading many of the posts in this thread what I find interesting is how many of the post state something about how the cardinal is not the spokesman for the pope and what the pope says goes and the article just quotes from secular media and blogs, etc…

An the most interesting parts is… and I’d be willing to lay money on this… if the Mershon article was about how the cardinal states many times in several different articles/interviews/statements over several years that the SSPX WAS 100% in schism, you all would be quoting the article as almost ex catherdra. And you would not have said anything about how the cardinal is not the spokesman for the pope. You all would have warmly welcomed the article with open arms and had a group “I told you so”.
 
Genesis315 said:
I think the Pope’s role as supreme judge comes into play here. From Vatican I:
  1. Since the Roman Pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole Church, we likewise teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful [52], and that in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment [53]. The sentence of the Apostolic See (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon [54].
I see a lot of people trying to revise or pass judgment on the Pope’s judgment.
Click to expand...
What you and others are not taking into account is that a Pope can change his views on how he sees the situation with the SSPX. This can indeed be reflected by the statements from Ecclesia Dei.

Are you willing to say that a Pope does not have the capability to do this.
 
Walking_Home said:
What you and others are not taking into account is that a Pope can change his views on how he sees the situation with the SSPX. This can indeed be reflected by the statements from Ecclesia Dei.

Are you willing to say that a Pope does not have the capability to do this.
Click to expand...
No he does, but statements from cardinals in newspapers, etc. do not revoke a papal judgment. That is reserved to the pope alone.
 
Genesis315 said:
No he does, but statements from cardinals in newspapers, etc. do not revoke a papal judgment. That is reserved to the pope alone.
Click to expand...
So then----you are saying Card. Castrillon is going against papal judgment. Wouldn’t this mean–he has excommunicated himself.
 
pgoings said:
The canons are clear; a penalty is not incurred if the offender sincerely believed that the state of necessity existed, even if, in fact, it did not.

So, unless the Roman Pontiff claims to be able to read minds and hearts now, all that we can say for certain is that if the archbishop was insincere then he incurred the excommunication, and if not, then not.
Click to expand...
The pope did not have to do so in this case as the archbishop had signed an agreement with the Holy Father in which is was stated that he would get a bishop with the pope’s approval. So any reasonable person would not see a state of necessity existing.

But that is if you are correct because I have not seen any canons stated here that support your premise.
 
Walking_Home said:
So then----you are saying Card. Castrillon is going against papal judgment. Wouldn’t this mean–he has excommunicated himself.
Click to expand...
Cardinal Castrillon has never said that the bishops of SSPX are not excommunicated or the priests not suspended. He confirms that they are, in fact, excommunicated and suspended. And of course, as such, these bishops and priests commit grievous sins of disobedience when they administer sacraments even though they have been lawfully forbidden to do so.
 
Walking_Home said:
What you and others are not taking into account is that a Pope can change his views on how he sees the situation with the SSPX. This can indeed be reflected by the statements from Ecclesia Dei.

Are you willing to say that a Pope does not have the capability to do this.
Click to expand...
Yes, of course the Pope can change the ruling. But, I would think that he would have to order a motu propio to overrule the previous motu propio. He can’t just have a Cardinal do an interview.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top