Ah, the mysterious papal edict that no one can seem to provide a link to. I’ve only been snipe hunting once in my life. I learned.
Two Popes, saying almost the same thing is more than enough for me.
It doesn’t because it has nothing to do witha timeless truth, but rather a judgment rendered and penalty inflicted. The Pope has this supreme authority to issue these. From Vatican I:
Nice try, Rob. But I never click on a link on an internet message board. Do you know how many hackers are out there? Spyware, adware, spam??? No thanks.
It’s a good thing a pope can’t bind his successors on disciplinary matters.
Right, but they stand until abbrogated. They don’t dissolve when a new Pontiff assumes the chair.
They don’t? Um…do you have a source for that claim?
But once again, no one there’s trying to hoodwink you or even give you a false impression. A significant number of Protestants–the vast majority in some areas–would probably ask you “what’s a ‘sacrament’ and a ‘Sabbath obligation’?” Don’t suppose that’ll really make you feel any better, but the point is, Protestants aren’t trying to pull a fast one on underinformed Catholics, or to look like something they’re not–for better or worse, if someone did mistake them for the Catholic Church, they’d be happy to set you straight and not palter with the issues. Again, big difference.
You better hope it’s true, otherwise Quo Primum expired as soon as Pope Saint Pius V died.
And this is all the ordinary Catholic can look to for objective truth. Objectively, the status of the SSPX is what Pope John Paul II said it was.
Interesting question.
It’s the common practice of the Church that has never been challenged. You think a pope has to re-excommunicate everyone who was excommunicated by his predecessor?
I’m not sure if that applies to CAF, though some people here at TC are clearly sympathetic to the SSPX and Lefebvre in particular. But people here don’t get banned for merely sympathizing with the issues the SSPX raises. They get banned for other reasons such as flagrant violation of forum rules.
Well, it’s been about 21 yrs since the SSPX excommunication edict.
Not so. Pope Benedict has said nothing (and more importantly, he has enacted NOTHING, unless YOU can produce something from the Acts of the Holy Apostolic See). Pope Benedict has been entirely silent on this and the maxim is qui tacet consentire, which means* “*silence gives consent.” So Pope Benedict must be agreeing with or consenting to the old Holy Father’s decree. It’s your burden, asserting that he has not, to prove it.
It is true, there are limitations in space with regards forums. You can always contact the moderator or forum administrator if what I’m saying is true. I attempted to post the whole text of the Ecclesia Dei letter along with the excommunication decree of Cardinal Gantin and I got a warning message that my post exceeded the prescribed posting limits. This is why I posted only a part of the Pope’s apostolic letter, but it suffices for my purpose.
Why should I even prove that Benedict XVI has not categorically contradicted John Paul II. Why should I prove what you should in fact be doing. You don’t prove a negative, Only positive assertions are subjected to proof. In a criminal proceeding, the accuser, NOT the accused must produce concrete evidence to support his claims lest the court throw out the case. What you should prove is that Benedict XVI did in fact contradict John Paul II since it would support your own assertions that there was no schism, no excommunication. The fact is, Benedict didn’t and for as long as no one here can produce such an official document (not newspaper interviews), my contention still stands.
Gee, Someone besides me finally says it.
Exactly. As long as no official Vatican-level document exists where Benedict says to the effect that John Paul II was mistaken, then there is no reason to doubt Pope John Paul II’s own words.