Episcopal insignia = liturgical vestments

[bear06]

…or the Churches of the Anglican Communion did something wrong…

They did something wrong a whole lot earlier than when they ordained women and therefore broke with the Church. Rome had them primed and ready and was awaiting with open arms. When the bough finally broke, Rome was there to catch them.

 

[Walking_Home]

Is it a scandal to give out rings and pectoral crosses to non-catholics–depends on what meaning they have to the Catholic Faith.

newadvent.org/cathen/11601a.htm

(Crux Pectoralis).

The name of the cross used by the pope, cardinals, bishops, abbots, and other prelates entitled to use the pontifical insignia. It is worn on the breast attached to a chain or silken cord, the colour differing, according to the dignity of the wearer, i.e. green, violet, or black. It is made of precious metal, ornamented, more or less, with diamonds, pearls, or similar embellishment, and contains either the relics of some saint, or a particle of the Holy Cross. It is worn over the alb during liturgical functions. The prelate should kiss the cross before putting it on his neck, and while putting it on say the prayer “Munire me digneris” (the origin of which dates back to the Middle Ages), in which he petitions God for protection against his enemies, and begs to bear in mind continually the Passion of Our Lord, and the triumphs of the confessors of the Faith. The pontifical pectoral cross is distinct from the simple cross, the use of which is often permitted by the pope to members of cathedral chapters.

newadvent.org/cathen/13059a.htm
…
However, in a Decree of Pope Boniface IV (A.D. 610) we hear of monks raised to the episcopal dignity as anulo pontificali subarrhatis, while at the Fourth Council of Toledo, in 633, we are told that if a bishop has been deposed from his office, and is afterwards reinstated, he is to receive back stole, ring, and crosier (orarium, anulum et baculum). St. Isidore of Seville at about the same period couples the ring with the crosier and declares that the former is conferred as “an emblem of the pontifical dignity or of the sealing of secrets” (P.L., LXXXIII, 783). From this time forth it may be assumed that the ring was strictly speaking an episcopal ornament conferred in the rite of consecration, and that it was commonly regarded as emblematic of the betrothal of the bishop to his Church. In the eighth and ninth centuries in MSS. of the Gregorian Sacramentary and in a few early Pontificals (e.g., that attributed to Archbishop Egbert of York) we meet with various formulae for the delivery of the ring. The Gregorian form, which survives in substance to the present day, runs in these terms: “Receive the ring, that is to say the seal of faith, whereby thou, being thyself adorned with spotless faith, mayst keep unsullied the troth which thou hast pledged to the spouse of God, His holy Church.”

These two ideas–namely of the seal, indicative of discretion, and of conjugal fidelity–dominate the symbolism attaching to the ring in nearly all its liturgical uses. The latter idea was pressed so far in the case of bishops that we find ecclesiastical decrees enacting that “a bishop deserting the Church to which he was consecrated and transferring himself to another is to be held guilty of adultery and is to be visited with the same penalties as a man who, forsaking his own wife, goes to live with another woman” (Du Saussay, “Panoplia episcopalis”, 250).

 

[Dr.Bombay]

Pax tecum!

Ok, fine, if you still want to avoid my questions and avoid explaining how I am quoting out of context or how I am wrong, then I will take it as you conceeding the point.

In Christ,
Rand

I refuse to play tit for tat by answering a question that has been answered over and over and over again on this forum. The SSPX are not in schism nor has the Church declared them as such. And the documents from which you continue to cut and paste out of context quotes NEVER SAY THEY ARE. I thought I’d put that in caps since it’s been overlooked.

So, just to clarify, if you want to win this point (which you can’t) provide a link to an official Vatican document that says, “The Society of St. Pius X and all its priests and every layman who attends Mass at its chapels are in formal schism from the Holy See” and signed by the Holy Father. You people are soooooo good at digging up quotes, out of context and otherwise, it shouldn’t be too difficult to produce a document signed by the Pope that plainly states what you claim to be fact.

Sadly, I’ll be waiting a long time I fear. Maybe you can quote Pastor Aeternus, though. That always comes in handy to deflect when one contorts oneself into an untenable position. :tiphat:

 

[bear06]

"The Society of St. Pius X and all its priests and every layman who attends Mass at its chapels are in formal schism from the Holy See"

The argument appears to be changing. Why should we provide you proof of an argument not made? I notice you’ve now thrown in all and every.

Let’s take this at a time.

1)Can we agree that the 4 are excommunicated and there is one excommunication decree that says if the laity and clergy support the schism of Lefebvre they are excommunicated?

The priests and faithful are warned not to support the schism of Monsignor Lefebvre, otherwise they shall incur ipso facto the very grave penalty of excommunication.

Can one really say that the priest of SSPX do not support the schism. Like I said, the ones that didn’t left the SSPX.

Can one really say that there are not many laity that support he schism of Lebvre. At least ALL of the ones I know personally totally support his ordaining of the bishops.

1. Can we not also agree that the first paragraph of Ecclesia Dei says

1. With great affliction the Church has learned of the unlawful episcopal ordination conferred on 30 June last by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, which has **frustrated all the efforts made during the previous years to ensure the full communion **with the Church of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X founded by the same Mons. Lefebvre. These efforts, especially intense during recent months, in which the Apostolic See has shown comprehension to the limits of the possible, were all to no avail.(1)

Can we agree that the SSPX is not in full communion with Rome?

 

[Dr.Bombay]

The argument appears to be changing. Why should we provide you proof of an argument not made? I notice you’ve now thrown in all and every.

Let’s take this at a time.

You are the one changing the argument, madam, not I.

1)Can we agree that the 4 are excommunicated and there is one excommunication decree that says if the laity and clergy support the schism of Lefebvre they are excommunicated?

Don’t try to paint me into a corner.

Can one really say that the priest of SSPX do not support the schism. Like I said, the ones that didn’t left the SSPX.

Can one really say that there are not many laity that support he schism of Lebvre. At least ALL of the ones I know personally totally support his ordaining of the bishops.

One can’t really say anything unless you’ve been gifted with the charism to read someone’s heart. You don’t know who supports what.

And some of your best friends are SSPX?

1. Can we not also agree that the first paragraph of Ecclesia Dei says

Can we agree that the SSPX is not in full communion with Rome?

Quite frankly, I wouldn’t agree on anything you copy and paste, given your propensity to document trawl and selectively quote. But that’s just me.

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

I refuse to play tit for tat by answering a question that has been answered over and over and over again on this forum. The SSPX are not in schism nor has the Church declared them as such. And the documents from which you continue to cut and paste out of context quotes NEVER SAY THEY ARE. I thought I’d put that in caps since it’s been overlooked.

So, just to clarify, if you want to win this point (which you can’t) provide a link to an official Vatican document that says, “The Society of St. Pius X and all its priests and every layman who attends Mass at its chapels are in formal schism from the Holy See” and signed by the Holy Father. You people are soooooo good at digging up quotes, out of context and otherwise, it shouldn’t be too difficult to produce a document signed by the Pope that plainly states what you claim to be fact.

Sadly, I’ll be waiting a long time I fear. Maybe you can quote Pastor Aeternus, though. That always comes in handy to deflect when one contorts oneself into an untenable position. :tiphat:

Pax tecum!

Ok, let’s go through this slowly, since you seem to not be grasping what I am saying. I asked you TWICE to show me HOW my quotes are “out of context”. Rather than explain why they are, you have simply repeated the argument with no evidence to back it up. Secondly, I never used the words “all” or “every” like you just did, nor was I making the argument that every member of the SSPX is in schism.

And since my quotes are always “out of context”, I’ll quote even more surrounding text…and then you’ll say they’re still out of context but will decline to explain why that is.

1. With great affliction the Church has learned of the unlawful episcopal ordination conferred on 30 June last by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, which has frustrated all the efforts made during the previous years to ensure the full communion with the Church of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X founded by the same Mons. Lefebvre. These efforts, especially intense during recent months, in which the Apostolic See has shown comprehension to the limits of the possible, were all to no avail.

Unlawful. In violation of Canon Law. Also, not the underlined text. If “full communion” is something that is being worked for, then the SSPX is in some state of schism. If they were not in schism, then there would be no need to “make efforts…to ensure full communion”.

1. In itself, this act was one of disobedience to the Roman Pontiff in a very grave matter and of supreme importance for the unity of the church, such as is the ordination of bishops whereby the apostolic succession is sacramentally perpetuated. Hence such disobedience - which implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy - constitutes a schismatic act.(3) In performing such an act, notwithstanding the formal canonical warning sent to them by the Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops on 17 June last, Mons. Lefebvre and the priests Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta, have incurred the grave penalty of excommunication envisaged by ecclesiastical law.(4) 4. The root of this schismatic act can be discerned in an incomplete and contradictory notion of Tradition. Incomplete, because it does not take sufficiently into account the living character of Tradition, which, as the Second Vatican Council clearly taught, “comes from the apostles and progresses in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. There is a growth in insight into the realities and words that are being passed on. This comes about in various ways. It comes through the contemplation and study of believers who ponder these things in their hearts. It comes from the intimate sense of spiritual realities which they experience. And it comes from the preaching of those who have received, along with their right of succession in the episcopate, the sure charism of truth”.(5)
   But especially contradictory is a notion of Tradition which opposes the universal Magisterium of the Church possessed by the Bishop of Rome and the Body of Bishops. It is impossible to remain faithful to the Tradition while breaking the ecclesial bond with him to whom, in the person of the Apostle Peter, Christ himself entrusted the ministry of unity in his Church.(6)

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

cont’d

The term “schismatic act” is used twice to refer to what Archbishop Lefebvre did. Again I will ask you, why, if it was not a schism, why is the word schism used? Archbishop Lefebvre and the bishops he consecrated were all excommunicated because they ignored the “formal canonical warning”. If this is out of context, please show how it is. And note the last underlined part…this should be especially noteworthy for you, Dr. Bombay, since you feel you are more qualified to interpret Tradition than the last four popes.

c) In the present circumstances I wish especially to make an appeal both solemn and heartfelt, paternal and fraternal, to all those who until now have been linked in various ways to the movement of Archbishop Lefebvre, that they may fulfil the grave duty of remaining united to the Vicar of Christ in the unity of the Catholic Church, and of ceasing their support in any way for that movement. Everyone should be aware that formal adherence to the schism is a grave offence against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church’s law.(8)

This is the part that I would really like you to place in its “correct context”, which so far in all the threads this has been discussed, you have declined to ever do. All you have done is to repeat your line about how the Church has never declared the SSPX to be in schism, which I am sure you will do in your reply rather than answer any of my arguments. Note here that the word “schism” is AGAIN used, for the third time in the document, to refer to the actions of Archbishop Lefebvre. Three times it is used, and you continue to say that the Church never pronounced it a schism. Who “formally adheres” to it? Well, certainly the priests and bishops who refuse to listen to the pope formally adhere to Archbishop Lefebvre’s “schismatic act”. Note that I am not saying that everyone involved in the SSPX is in schism or is excommunicated, so I don’t need to produce a papal document making that statement.

So please, I ask you, place these quotes in their “correct context”. If you can’t, then stop saying that they are “out of context”.

In Christ,
Rand

 

[Dr.Bombay]

If you stop posting out of context quotes, I will stop calling you on it.

Imperfect communion is not schism. Two entirely different things, there, brotha.

 

[Vox_Borealis]

If you stop posting out of context quotes, I will stop calling you on it.

Imperfect communion is not schism. Two entirely different things, there, brotha.

This is so right. ‘Schismatic acts’ and ‘imperfect communion’ are entirely different from schism. Why can’t people just understand that?

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

Pax vobiscum!

Dr. Bombay, I will take it that you have conceeded the argument since you are still unable to substantiate your claims and back up your statement that my quotes are out of context. I posted the entire sections of Ecclesia Dei that had the quotes I used before, and nothing changes about their meaning.

Vox, was the break between East and West only a schismatic act, or a schism? Or could it have been both? What is the difference between a schismatic act and a schism? Is not a schismatic act something that causes a schism, which is its root word? Note that later in Ecclesia Dei, as I said when I posted it, Archbishop Lefebvre’s actions are referred to as a “schism”. Not just a “schismatic act” or an “imperfect communion”, but a SCHISM.

In Christ,
Rand

 

[Vox_Borealis]

Pax vobiscum!

Vox, was the break between East and West only a schismatic act, or a schism? Or could it have been both? What is the difference between a schismatic act and a schism? Is not a schismatic act something that causes a schism, which is its root word? Note that later in Ecclesia Dei, as I said when I posted it, Archbishop Lefebvre’s actions are referred to as a “schism”. Not just a “schismatic act” or an “imperfect communion”, but a SCHISM.

Rand

Chill out, dude–I’m with you. That was sarcasm.

 

[bear06]

Don’t try to paint me into a corner.

Heaven forbid I acutally ask you a question and expect an answer.

One can’t really say anything unless you’ve been gifted with the charism to read someone’s heart. You don’t know who supports what.

Well then, I guess Luther, Calvin and all couldn’t be declared in schism or heretics either since we must know that person’s heart.

And some of your best friends are SSPX?

Again, try and get the quotes right.

Quite frankly, I wouldn’t agree on anything you copy and paste, given your propensity to document trawl and selectively quote. But that’s just me

Wow! Is this what you were doing when you used to quote the same things?! You have failed to show anyone selectively quoting, quoting out of context, etc. No matter. People can see that you don’t have a leg to stand on when you accuse with no proof.

 

[AlexV]

I strongly distrust anyone who starts making “assumptions”, as some have on these boards, that vast numbers of people are in schism.

 

[Dr.Bombay]

Pax vobiscum!

Dr. Bombay, I will take it that you have conceeded the argument since you are still unable to substantiate your claims and back up your statement that my quotes are out of context. I posted the entire sections of Ecclesia Dei that had the quotes I used before, and nothing changes about their meaning.

Vox, was the break between East and West only a schismatic act, or a schism? Or could it have been both? What is the difference between a schismatic act and a schism? Is not a schismatic act something that causes a schism, which is its root word? Note that later in Ecclesia Dei, as I said when I posted it, Archbishop Lefebvre’s actions are referred to as a “schism”. Not just a “schismatic act” or an “imperfect communion”, but a SCHISM.

In Christ,
Rand

What changes is the meaning you assign to it, which is entirely different from what the document actually says.

The Church considers the SSPX to be an internal matter and, yes, a matter of imperfect communion, not schism. Since you have yet to produce an official papal document signed by His Holiness declaring the entire SSPX to be in schism, I take it you have conceded the argument.

You people have an amazing ability to produce voluminous documentation, except any that proves what you claim to be the mind of the Church.

 

[Dr.Bombay]

Heaven forbid I acutally ask you a question and expect an answer.

I’m not a russian dancing bear. I don’t perform at your command.

Well then, I guess Luther, Calvin and all couldn’t be declared in schism or heretics either since we must know that person’s heart.

That is the Church’s purview, not yours. Still waiting for you to provide an official Church document that declares the SSPX, one and all, to be in schism. Still waiting.

Again, try and get the quotes right.

I know. It bothers you when I quote you correctly.

Wow! Is this what you were doing when you used to quote the same things?! You have failed to show anyone selectively quoting, quoting out of context, etc. No matter. People can see that you don’t have a leg to stand on when you accuse with no proof.

You have shown yourself quoting out of context, selectively quoting, etc. People can see you get rather angry when your deception is exposed.

 

[bear06]

I strongly distrust anyone who starts making “assumptions”, as some have on these boards, that vast numbers of people are in schism.

You’re assuming that they aren’t in schism. You just won’t say it or admit it. You have not proof that they aren’t.

 

[bear06]

That is the Church’s purview, not yours. Still waiting for you to provide an official Church document that declares the SSPX, one and all, to be in schism. Still waiting.

Still waiting for you to tell me where I said they were all in schism. We’ve given you documents. You choose to believe differently.

I know. It bothers you when I quote you correctly.

Sigh! You haven’t quoted me correctly so we’ll never know.

You have shown yourself quoting out of context, selectively quoting, etc. People can see you get rather angry when your deception is exposed.

People can see me angry when charges are leveled with no back up in attempt to have people ignore me. Provide evidence. It’ll be more convincing. At least I provide the link to entire documents to read (since you know very well that we are not to copy the whole document). You provide pretty much nothing and your response usually is “You can’t make me.” Great argument.

 

[bear06]

The Church considers the SSPX to be an internal matter

and which document says this?

and, yes, a matter of imperfect communion, not schism

.
which document says not in schism?

Since you have yet to produce an official papal document signed by His Holiness declaring the entire SSPX to be in schism, I take it you have conceded the argument.

Again, how are we to provide proof of an argument we didn’t make?

You people have an amazing ability to produce voluminous documentation, except any that proves what you claim to be the mind of the Church.

It doesn’t get much clearer than:

The priests and faithful are warned not to support the schism of Monsignor Lefebvre, otherwise they shall incur ipso facto the very grave penalty of excommunication

To ignore the above is very dangerous.

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

What changes is the meaning you assign to it, which is entirely different from what the document actually says.

I have read the whole document countless times, and posted a good portion of it in this thread. I have asked you again and again to explain how I am wrong, but you are unable to do so. For the last time, I will ask you to show me what the document “really says” and what the “correct context” is.

The Church considers the SSPX to be an internal matter and, yes, a matter of imperfect communion, not schism. Since you have yet to produce an official papal document signed by His Holiness declaring the entire SSPX to be in schism, I take it you have conceded the argument.

I’ve already provided the official papal document referring to the actions of Archbishop Lefebvre as a “schism”. You know, the document that you continually tell me isn’t saying it’s a schism, even though it says that what the SSPX did was a “schism” (“formally adheres to THE SCHISM”). Now you provide me an office papal document signed by His Holiness declaring the SSPX to be simply an “internal matter”.

And, once again, I am not making the argument that the ENTIRE SSPX is in schism, so I hardly need to produce a document saying so. Strawman, anyone?

You people have an amazing ability to produce voluminous documentation, except any that proves what you claim to be the mind of the Church.

And you have an amazing ability to avoid providing any documentation or explanation whatsoever to back up anything you say.

In Christ,
Rand

 

[Marian_Carroll]

**As the thread appears to have left insignia and vestments and veered off into the topic of the SSPX in or out of schism, it is now closed. **