Catholics vs the SSPX

[bear06]

The requirement to obey canon law. The requirement to not celebrate the sacraments if you are a suspended priest. The requirement to not celebrate sacraments if you are excommunicated. The requirement not create parallel structures to subvert the lawful authority of Rome. The injustice when a priest pronounces absolution yet absolves no sin.

It doesn’t matter if they proclaim to uphold Church teaching when their very actions deny it. They are liars, through and through and they are not led by the Holy Spirit.

How about who is the Supreme Legislator and who actually gets to interpret the canons?

 

[GerardP]

The requirement to obey canon law.

But the Church teaches that obedience is subordinate to Justice.

The requirement to not celebrate the sacraments if you are a suspended priest.

The SSPX states that under normal circumstances obedience even to an unjust penalty would be the proper action but since times are extreme, souls would not benefit from the sacraments and the highest law of the Church is the salvation of souls.

The requirement to not celebrate sacraments if you are excommunicated.

Yet the Church teaches that invalid excommunications are to be ignored.

The requirement not create parallel structures to subvert the lawful authority of Rome.

Parallel structures were not created. There is no altar vs. altar situation. The bishops were not given nor do they claim any jurisdiction.

The injustice when a priest pronounces absolution yet absolves no sin.

The Church supplies jurisdiction and the spiritual benefit of the requesting penitent initiates that jurisdiction.

It doesn’t matter if they proclaim to uphold Church teaching when their very actions deny it. They are liars, through and through and they are not led by the Holy Spirit.

Nonsense. I can make a stronger argument against the recent Popes and the whole post conciliar apparatus and come to the same conclusion.

They aren’t liars and Card. Castrillon has even stated that the Holy Ghost has worked through them.

 

[bear06]

Ex Cathedra, irreformable dogma:

Cantate Domino

“The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.”

Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Against the Heresies, Angelus Press [SSPX], p. 216: “Evidently,certain distinctions must be made. Souls can be saved in a religion other than the Catholic religion (Protestantism, Islam, Buddhism, etc.), but not by this religion.”

---

Fr. Schmidberger, Time Bombs of the Second Vatican Council, Angelus Press [SSPX], p. 10: “Ladies and gentlemen, it is clear that the followers of other religions can be saved under certain conditions, that is to say, if they are in invincible error.”​

Bishop Bernard Fellay, Conference in Denver, Co., Feb. 18, 2006:
Consider a Hindu in Tibet who has no knowledge of the Catholic Church. He lives according to his conscience and to the laws which God has put into his heart. He can be in the state of grace, and if he dies in this state of grace, he will go to heaven.” (The Angelus, “A Talk Heard Round the World,” April, 2006, p. 5.)

 

[bear06]

The SSPX states that under normal circumstances obedience even to an unjust penalty would be the proper action but since times are extreme, souls would not benefit from the sacraments and the highest law of the Church is the salvation of souls.

And this pretty much sums up the problem. They are not the Surpreme Legislator.

 

[GerardP]

How about who is the Supreme Legislator and who actually gets to interpret the canons?

What do you mean when you say “Supreme Legislator” who else is the “inferior Legislator”? Just curious.

What makes a Popes interpretation of Canon Law infallible?

Wrong is wrong even if the Pope says it’s right.

The SSPX hasn’t proclaimed the invalid and unjust censures against them overturned. They have appealed to the Pope to right the wrong of his predecessor.

I don’t understand why so many people refuse to make the proper distinctions.

 

[bear06]

Parallel structures were not created. There is no altar vs. altar situation. The bishops were not given nor do they claim any jurisdiction.

Sure they do. This is why they think it’s fine and dandly to officiate at wedding, hear confessions and grant annullments. You can’t do that without jurisdiction so they have to claim they have it even though the Vatican has said otherwise.

The Church supplies jurisdiction and the spiritual benefit of the requesting penitent initiates that jurisdiction.

Only in danger of death and ignorance of the Church’s rulings on the matter.

 

[pnewton]

How about who is the Supreme Legislator and who actually gets to interpret the canons?

Each individual for himself? The same for deciding what excommunications are valid and which doctrines are modern heresy. Everyone interprets everything for themselves.

 

[GerardP]

Gerard, you know quite well that they condemn much of Vatican II.

Right. And they are appealing to the Pope to fix it.

Here’s is a nice little chart where they decide what Church teaching is and how Vatican II strayed from it. sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/q6_vaticanII.htm

What in “column 2” of the chart is not Catholic teaching? Most of it is filling in the gaps left out in Vatican II.

Guess what? Vatican II is the Church.

That’s an odd statement. I thought it was a Council of the Church. A Council that puposely didn’t issue any magisterial decrees nor issue any condemnations of error. Nor issue any anathemas against dissent.

While they feel free to reject at will what the Council taught as something contrary to Tradition, they are in error.

What exactly did the Council teach? I’ve read most of the documents and they expressed nothing that wasn’t clearer before the council.

The only way for you to get out of this is to start the “we don’t have to listen to Vatican II because it’s not infallible” canard.

Not really. As bishop Williamson said, the language of Vatican II can be dragged back onto the high ground to reflect traditional Catholic teaching. But it’s probably a monumental task for the Pope to plug all of the holes in the documents.

You probably should have started out with this though because your little challenge was simply based on teachings and to say the column on the left aren’t teachings would be in error.

I started by asking you what on the right column weren’t Catholic teachings and it’s the omissions and wobbly language of the conciliar documents that lend themselves to liberal interpretations.

They were teachings of Vatican II whether or not you see them as binding.

They might be “teachings” but they are executed in a lousy way. Directly against the directions of Pope John to express in today’s language all of the Catholic faith. This didn’t happen.

Hell isn’t even mentioned in Vatican II.

 

[GerardP]

Each individual for himself? The same for deciding what excommunications are valid and which doctrines are modern heresy. Everyone interprets everything for themselves.

How do you determine right from wrong? If the Pope told you to go and shoot someone would you do it?

 

[pnewton]

Wrong is wrong even if the Pope says it’s right.

And everyone decides swhich is which for himself. Welcome to the cafeteria, Gerard. Grab a tray and help yourself.

 

[pnewton]

If the Pope told you to go and shoot someone would you do it?

Is this level of hypothetical worthy of one of your intellectual prowess? He didn’t. He won’t. It is a silly question.

 

[GerardP]

Sure they do. This is why they think it’s fine and dandly to officiate at wedding, hear confessions and grant annullments. You can’t do that without jurisdiction so they have to claim they have it even though the Vatican has said otherwise.

So you’re stating that the SSPX claim to have jurisdiction when their websites say “We don’t have jurisdiction.”

Only in danger of death and ignorance of the Church’s rulings on the matter.

Obviously danger of death and I can see that you’re admitting common error as a factor. Then you basically agree with the SSPX though you don’t like it.

 

[GerardP]

Is this level of hypothetical worthy of one of your intellectual prowess? He didn’t. He won’t. It is a silly question.

Why won’t you answer it? It’s a question that is posed to draw your premise to it’s logical conclusions.

Again. How do you determine right from wrong? Do each of your actions come from the Vatican via e-mail or are you getting an old fashioned fax?

 

[GerardP]

And everyone decides swhich is which for himself. Welcome to the cafeteria, Gerard. Grab a tray and help yourself.

Come now. You aren’t making sense. I was paraphrasing St. Augustine. You aren’t making the claim that the Pope is impeccable are you?

 

[bear06]

So you’re stating that the SSPX claim to have jurisdiction when their websites say “We don’t have jurisdiction.”

Obviously danger of death and I can see that you’re admitting common error as a factor. Then you basically agree with the SSPX though you don’t like it.

Gerard! Are you admitting they don’t have jurisdiction to hear confessions, officiate at weddings and grant annullments but do anyway?

BTW, emergency jurisdiction doesn’t apply for annullments and marriages.

 

[TMC]

Which ones? I’ll leave them immediately if you show me which ones.
-snip-
Two things: Ecumenism is a policy. It has nothing to do with Church teaching. Christ didn’t teach “Ecumenism.”

As far as I know (which is a fair amount) the SSPX follow a moderate position on EENS consistent with pre-concilar catechisms. The Church hasn’t changed that position nor condemned it. Despite the strange wording of the modern catechisms and documents that are influenced by Von Balthazar, the Church still teaches there is no salvation outside Her.
-snip-

I’m afraid you are wrong. Speculations about possibilities of “mysterious” salvation by non-Catholics will not hold. Anything that doesn’t actually incorporate souls into the Church

Ex Cathedra, irreformable dogma:

Cantate Domino

“The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, …[dropped the rest to stay under 5000 characters].”

We’ve been throught his before. If you simply reduce the teachings you don’t like to “policies” then you can have any Church you want. The teachings on the extent and nature of Christ’s atonement are not “policies.”

This is from the “Dogmatic Constitution on the Church” - Lumen Gentium:

1. Finally, those who have not yet received the Gospel are related in various ways to the people of God.(18*) In the first place we must recall the people to whom the testament and the promises were given and from whom Christ was born according to the flesh.(125) On account of their fathers this people remains most dear to God, for God does not repent of the gifts He makes nor of the calls He issues.(126); But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Mohamedans, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind. Nor is God far distant from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, for it is He who gives to all men life and breath and all things,(127) and as Saviour wills that all men be saved.(128) Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.(19*) Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life. Whatever good or truth is found amongst them is looked upon by the Church as a preparation for the Gospel.(20*) She knows that it is given by Him who enlightens all men so that they may finally have life. But often men, deceived by the Evil One, have become vain in their reasonings and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, serving the creature rather than the Creator.(129) Or some there are who, living and dying in this world without God, are exposed to final despair. Wherefore to promote the glory of God and procure the salvation of all of these, and mindful of the command of the Lord, “Preach the Gospel to every creature”,(130) the Church fosters the missions with care and attention.

I know you will say that the despite being called “Dogmatic” and despite being approved by an Ecumenical Council (on a vote of 2,151 to 5 or 99.8%) you will say this is neither dogmatic or the teachings of the Church. But the Pope calls this teaching authoritative, and refers to the VII documents as the proper compass to approach the third millenium. You can continue to pretend that this is not the teaching of the Church, but that won’t make it true.

 

[pnewton]

Why won’t you answer it? It’s a question that is posed to draw your premise to it’s logical conclusions.

I didn’t answer because it is a ridiculous question with an obvious answer. It also has no bearing. If the Holy Father asked me to commit a mortal sin, I would not. This, however has nothing to do with the Holy Father saying to do something which does not violate the Ten Commandments. Being ordered to kill is not the same as being ordered not to ordain bishops unless one has reallllyyyy big ego and inflated sense of one’s place.

 

[Aramis]

How do you determine right from wrong? If the Pope told you to go and shoot someone would you do it?

I’d ask why while asking for one of the Swiss Guards issue machine pistols. But then, the Pope is my liege-lord, as well as head of the church. And I’d ask for the order in writing, signed and sealed.

Plus, there is a difference between the common translation of the commandment and a proper exigesis of the greek and hebrew… it’s a prohibition on murder.

Not all killing of humans is murder.

 

[cam100]

How do you determine right from wrong? If the Pope told you to go and shoot someone would you do it?

The question demonstrates the problem with your position. The underlying assumption behind this is that shooting someone is always a sin against the 5th Commandment. It implicitly denies the role of authoratative interpretation of the 5th Commandent. In 1095 the Pope did tell people to shoot someone. He interpretated the 5th Commandment to permit killing under the circumstances. We call this the Crusades.

 

[GerardP]

Gerard! Are you admitting they don’t have jurisdiction to hear confessions, officiate at weddings and grant annullments but do anyway?

I’m not admitting anything. I’m stating what the SSPX states. They have supplied jurisdiction.

BTW, emergency jurisdiction doesn’t apply for annullments and marriages.

Sure it does. There are multiple articles on the SSPX sites to explain this.

How can the Society’s St. Charles Borromeo Canonical Commission be considered “competent” concerning that which law reserves to the Holy See?

A first principle, which is quite clear, is that the Canonical Commission is not a canonically erected body and that, consequently, it does not possess ordinary jurisdiction over the faithful any more than do the district superiors. Consequently, there can be no question of it being “competent” in the technical, juridical sense of the word, with one having the ordinary jurisdiction to decide or handle certain questions or situations.

The comparison between the Canonical Commission and the Holy See, on the one hand, and between the District Superior and the Ordinary of the place, on the other, confirms this interpretation. There is no direct correlation between the powers of one and the other, but a pure analogy. The analogy is based upon the impossibility of recourse to the Ordinary and to the Holy See (not perhaps always, but at least in general). Clearly a priest should not be left, in such an instance, just to do what he wants, simply because he has personal supplied jurisdiction.

Does not the establishment of such a commission make us look schismatic, as our accusers maintain?

To keep the spirit of the Church means to keep to its prudence and its rules as much as possible, even in the difficult circumstances that we find ourselves. This means that we should have recourse to our superiors, just as we would if they really had jurisdiction. This will safeguard the use of personal, supplied jurisdiction and keep it within the mind of the Church. It follows from this that neither the District Superior, nor the Canonical Commission, can technically give a dispensation using the power of Ordinary Jurisdiction. They can only grant the authorization for a priest to dispense in the act of administering the sacrament. This is what is clearly explained on our M-15 form, which is based upon the application of Canon 1044 (in the 1983 Code, Canon 1079), in the case of the extraordinary form of marriage.