Episcopal insignia = liturgical vestments

[Rand_Al_Thor]

Actually, Rome has said that it is possible to attend SSPX chapels and still fulfill one’s obligation, and not objectively be in schism.

Except for the BISHOPS, no one is definitively excommunicated. Only the bishops.

Pax tecum!

Rome says that if there is no church close enough to get to that is in union with Rome, but there is an SSPX chapel, THEN that can fulfil a Sunday obligation. If one chooses to go to an SSPX chapel RATHER than a Mass in communion with Rome, it does not fulfil their Sunday obligation. This same thing applies to going to an Orthodox church, which can fulfil the Sunday obligation if there is no Catholic church in the area.

In Christ,
Rand

 

[bear06]

Actually, Rome has said that it is possible to attend SSPX chapels and still fulfill one’s obligation, and not objectively be in schism.

This is only correct in the strict sense. The Vatican has said that it was OK for a specific person in a specific circumstance to fulill there obligation. I don’t believe you will find a document anywhere that says everyone may. So, if you’d like to say that specific people in specific circumstances approved by the Magisterium can fulfill their Sunday obligation at a chapel and not be in schism, I could agree with you.

Except for the BISHOPS, no one is definitively excommunicated. Only the bishops.

 

[Dr.Bombay]

Pax tecum!

Yes, Dr. Bombay, you are lying. I guess when all else fails, just tell someone their quotes are “out of context”. That seems to be a catchphrase of yours now.

Let’s look at these “out of context” quotes.

The pope said it clearly there–what Archbishop Lefebvre and the other bishops did was a SCHISMATIC ACT. If that doesn’t mean they went into schism, please explain why not and place it in its “correct” context.

What Archbishop Lefebvre did is again referred to as a SCHISM. If it is not, then please explain how the word “schism” means something other than “schism” and place this in its “correct” context.

I am not saying that everyone who goes to an SSPX Mass has placed themselves in schism. However, as JPII wrote, anyone that “formally adheres” to the schism IS excommunicated. Certainly all the priests and bishops in the SSPX who still refuse to obey the pope “formally adhere to the schism”. As well as people who go to Mass only at SSPX chapels when they have been told that to do so is a mortal sin and does not fulfil one’s Sunday obligation. Unless you are arguing that the pope can be wrong in pronouncing something a mortal sin (in which case you deny that the pope is infallible on matters of faith and morals), then you cannot say that these people are not in at least a state of mortal sin if not excommunication.

But please, explain to me how the pope can be wrong in declaring something a mortal sin. Explain to me how direct disobedience to a specific order of the pope makes one “great”. Explain to me how you are more qualified than the Magesterium to interpret Canon Law and Tradition. I would really like to know.

In Christ,
Rand

In Christ,
Rand

I see you will obstinately cling to your misstatements of fact, no matter what.

But I suppose you are more qualified than Archbishop Lefebvre the Great to interpret Tradition.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I see you will obstinately cling to your misstatements of fact, no matter what.

But I suppose you are more qualified than Archbishop Lefebvre the Great to interpret Tradition.

Given that the Arch died excommunicate and Rand gives all appearances of being a faithful son of the Church, well, um…

 

[AJV]

Given that the Arch died excommunicate and Rand gives all appearances of being a faithful son of the Church, well, um…

Handed down by the apostles? Definitely not, though I didn’t address it since I didn’t catch that point.

 

[AJV]

So you’re suggesting a certain, what, fluidity to how the Church views such things? You’re suggesting that the concepts of ring and cross, mitre and crosier, . weren’t handed down from the Apostles? Well thought out, dear friend.

Handed down by the apostles? Definitely not, though I didn’t address it since I didn’t catch that point.

 

[Caesar]

There seems to be much confusing among some people here regarding the following issues:

1. Papal Infallibility. An odd idea seems to be going around that whatever the Holy Father says/does counts as an infallible proclaimation, whether it is kissing the koran or giving the symbols of the Episcopate to heretic leaders. Whats next? Enthroning a statue of Buddha above a tabernacle? Oh, never mind…
2. The actual position towards the SSPX. Another strange idea, this time denouncing a traditional congregation of priests, who have a valid (although not licit) Mass as heretics. There is nothing that makes the SSPX heretical (although the “modern” idea of heresy seems to be warped somewhat: its ok to have priests and laity abusing the Liturgy and the Blessed Sacrament in every which way, but dont you dare even think about the Tridentine Mass). Even the nature of their “excummunication” can be called into question. In fact I might go so far as to say that sometimes the SSPX is more Catholic then some of those in good standing with Rome.
3. Episcopal Insignias. These are the very symbols of the Office of Bishop, sacred heirlooms for the Episcopate. It is indeed scandalous if someone outside of that Holy Order is presented with the symbols of that Order. Nevermind giving it to liberal, modernistic, relativistic (remember, these are the Anglicans we are talking about) clerical-pretenders (Anglicans dont have a valid clergy after all) and heretics (protestants are heretics by all traditional definitions of the word, whether we like it or not). But perhaps through this action, the Pope made an infallible proclaimation reuniting the Anglicans with Rome…

 

[AJV]

There seems to be much confusing among some people here regarding the following issues:

1. Papal Infallibility. An odd idea seems to be going around that whatever the Holy Father says/does counts as an infallible proclaimation, whether it is kissing the koran or giving the symbols of the Episcopate to heretic leaders. Whats next? Enthroning a statue of Buddha above a tabernacle? Oh, never mind…
2. The actual position towards the SSPX. Another strange idea, this time denouncing a traditional congregation of priests, who have a valid (although not licit) Mass as heretics. There is nothing that makes the SSPX heretical (although the “modern” idea of heresy seems to be warped somewhat: its ok to have priests and laity abusing the Liturgy and the Blessed Sacrament in every which way, but dont you dare even think about the Tridentine Mass). Even the nature of their “excummunication” can be called into question. In fact I might go so far as to say that sometimes the SSPX is more Catholic then some of those in good standing with Rome.
3. Episcopal Insignias. These are the very symbols of the Office of Bishop, sacred heirlooms for the Episcopate. It is indeed scandalous if someone outside of that Holy Order is presented with the symbols of that Order. Nevermind giving it to liberal, modernistic, relativistic (remember, these are the Anglicans we are talking about) clerical-pretenders (Anglicans dont have a valid clergy after all) and heretics (protestants are heretics by all traditional definitions of the word, whether we like it or not). But perhaps through this action, the Pope made an infallible proclaimation reuniting the Anglicans with Rome…

1. Sorry, precisely what exactly gave you that idea? I missed that argument
2. The SSPX is actually offtopic but no it is not OK to have have priests abusing the Blessed Sacrament.
3. That precisely is the question that is confusing me. Does the ring and pectoral cross represent Holy Orders or more precisely Episcopal Orders? If so, what about the extension of these to non-bishops of prelatial dignity including abbesses? [Here also I may add that the peactoral cross is not part of the old handing over of the insignia. The bishop to be consecrated vests in it with the aid of the acolytes, together with the chasuble, maniple, etc a little before the Litany and the words “Accipe Spiritum Sanctum”] And as Andreas Hofer pointed out, where is the current of thought interpreting this gesture as an acceptance of Anglican Orders? Has Rome accepted the Anglican Orders as valid based on this? I was not aware of that.

Secondly when regarding Anglican Orders, as I stated earlier, one may indeed run into difficulty, and dare I say, in certain cases cannot make a statement one way or the other without a proper study. The Anglicans have a new Ordinal whereas Pope Leo XIII in Apostolicae Curae was referring to the Ordinal as given in the BCP 1662. Now it wouldn’t matter in the least if they adopted the preconciliar Roman Pontifical, their orders would not have been valid for the same reason that the addition of “for the work and office of a priest” in 1662 was held to be of no account- the Edwardian Ordinal in use for the first 100 years was incapable of conferring orders hence there was no valid minister. However many years later, the intercommunion between the Anglicans and Old Catholics have led to the presence of validly ordained Old Catholic bishops at Anglican episcopal consecrations. Therefore, it is indeed a matter for study whether the new Ordinal is capable of conferring orders. One cannot fully resort to Apostolicae Curae when dealing with it because it is substantially different including sufficiently ambiguous phrases like “the sacrifices of the new covenant”. Now to my knowledge there has been no document addressing the new Ordinal(s). All responses and dissertations (at least those that I’m aware of) on the subject have been written concerning the BCP Ordinal which is now rarely used and was not used for Williams.

 

[bear06]

There seems to be much confusing among some people here regarding the following issues:

1. Papal Infallibility. An odd idea seems to be going around that whatever the Holy Father says/does counts as an infallible proclaimation,

Again with the red herrings. That was not said one in this thread and, as I recall, hasn’t been said in others. Why bring it up?

1. The actual position towards the SSPX. Another strange idea, this time denouncing a traditional congregation of priests, who have a valid (although not licit) Mass as heretics. There is nothing that makes the SSPX heretical (although the “modern” idea of heresy seems to be warped somewhat: its ok to have priests and laity abusing the Liturgy and the Blessed Sacrament in every which way, but dont you dare even think about the Tridentine Mass). Even the nature of their “excummunication” can be called into question. In fact I might go so far as to say that sometimes the SSPX is more Catholic then some of those in good standing with Rome.

Again, arguements that weren’t made. I, for one, said that it would
hard to say that they weren’t schismatic. I also said, although it wasn’t in this post, that it was hard to say whether or not they were heretics since heresy and schism most often go together. And nobody said that it was OK to abuse the liturgy or Blessed Sacrament nor did anyone say they were against the Tridentine.
You’ve got to ask yourself why you would say these things? Is this honest debate?

1. Episcopal Insignias. These are the very symbols of the Office of Bishop, sacred heirlooms for the Episcopate. It is indeed scandalous if someone outside of that Holy Order is presented with the symbols of that Order. Nevermind giving it to liberal, modernistic, relativistic (remember, these are the Anglicans we are talking about) clerical-pretenders (Anglicans dont have a valid clergy after all) and heretics (protestants are

heretics by all traditional definitions of the word, whether we like it or not). But perhaps through this action, the Pope made an infallible proclaimation reuniting the Anglicans with Rome… IF YOU THINK IT SO SCANDALOUS WHY DO YOU KEEP SPREADING IT AROUND? I thought I’d post this in caps since it’s been overlooked. It’s funny that things that wouldn’t be known by the population at large are simply because you guys keep posting it.

And yes, I will never mind about the Buddha comment since it was disprespectful. Now it’s not good enough to harp on things that have actually happened, we’re going to harp on things that aren’t true, haven’t happened, etc.

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

I see you will obstinately cling to your misstatements of fact, no matter what.

But I suppose you are more qualified than Archbishop Lefebvre the Great to interpret Tradition.

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

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

Whats next? Enthroning a statue of Buddha above a tabernacle? Oh, never mind…

Pax tecum!

The pope never did that and it was already addressed in another thread.

In Christ,
Rand

 

[Caesar]

Again with the red herrings. That was not said one in this thread and, as I recall, hasn’t been said in others. Why bring it up?

Hmmm, it hasnt? Must be my eyes but I could have sworn that a number of people seem to be under the impression that koran kissing and bestowing Episcopal Insignias on heretics is fine because the Pope did it…

Again, arguements that weren’t made. I, for one, said that it would
hard to say that they weren’t schismatic. I also said, although it wasn’t in this post, that it was hard to say whether or not they were heretics since heresy and schism most often go together.

So, just what about the SSPX is heretical?

And nobody said that it was OK to abuse the liturgy or Blessed Sacrament nor did anyone say they were against the Tridentine.
You’ve got to ask yourself why you would say these things? Is this honest debate?

No, but it seems to be more prefferable to disrespect the NO rather then celebrate the TLM.

IF YOU THINK IT SO SCANDALOUS WHY DO YOU KEEP SPREADING IT AROUND? I thought I’d post this in caps since it’s been overlooked. It’s funny that things that wouldn’t be known by the population at large are simply because you guys keep posting it.

I’m sure you would be supported by many of the Bishops who covered up the sex-abuse scandal in this belief. “Why bother spreading it around? It will just cause scandal after all…”

And yes, I will never mind about the Buddha comment since it was disprespectful. Now it’s not good enough to harp on things that have actually happened, we’re going to harp on things that aren’t true, haven’t happened, etc.

Whats that? Didnt happen? Guess I must have dreamed John Paul II allowing a buddha statue to be placed above the tabernacle at St. Peter’s church in Assisi during the 1986 “ecumenical” meetings.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

There is nothing that makes the SSPX heretical (although the “modern” idea of heresy seems to be warped somewhat: its ok to have priests and laity abusing the Liturgy and the Blessed Sacrament in every which way, but dont you dare even think about the Tridentine Mass).

Luckily, I don’t accuse the SSPX as a society of heresy. I do find it odd, though, that your concept of abuse doesn’t seem to include consecrating the Eucharist while suspended a divinis. That’s a particularly grave matter and the suspensions of all clerics of the SSPX are pretty easy to substantiate (and predate the excommunications of their bishops).

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

Pax tecum!

No, but it seems to be more prefferable to disrespect the NO rather then celebrate the TLM.

Who here has said that? I certainly never have, though many times I seem to be accused of disliking the TLM, even though I love it and attend it on occasion…

Whats that? Didnt happen? Guess I must have dreamed John Paul II allowing a buddha statue to be placed above the tabernacle at St. Peter’s church in Assisi during the 1986 “ecumenical” meetings.

See my previous post.

In Christ,
Rand

 

[johnnykins]

We’re getting away from the argument, though, AJV. No one doubts that these insignia are episcopal (as are the silly looking buskins, the pansyish gloves,esp. if they have lot’s of lace, etc.). The question is was it a scandal for Pope Paul VI to give to Lord Ramsey a ring and for Pope John Paul II to give either Lord Runcie or Lord Carey (can’t recall) a pectoral cross?

Were they given or conferred? If conferred, then sure it is misleading and potentially scandalous. If merely given, they are simply a gift of jewelry - don’t make more of it than it is.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia: Scandal - A word or action evil in itself, which occasions another’s spiritual ruin.

Based on that definition, it’s hard to get to “spiritual ruin” though I suppose it’s possible.

In any event, I was under the impression these were gifts to the Anglicans and not a conferral of symbols of office. In all, a tempest in the proverbial teacup, IMHO.

 

[AlexV]

Episcopal rings and pectoral crosses aren’t mere “jewelry”, and that’s the problem.

They carry meaning. Especially when given to someone who thinks he’s a bishop.

It’s nothing but smug sophistry to say, “Oh, yes, I gave an episcopal ring or a pectoral cross to someone who claims to be a bishop, but it would be totally inappropriate to read anything into that gesture other than I was giving them some jewelry. I ran out of cufflinks; I decide to grab some episcopal rings.”

 

[LilyM]

You really think that any Bishop not a Catholic nor recognising Papal authority (as no Anglicans would) who received a gift of a cross or ring from the Pope would think of it as anything other than a mere gift, albeit one with historical and religious (from our point of view) significance?

If I visited the Dalai Lama and received a gift of a statue of the Buddha, or indeed anything else, I’d understand that it is an artifact of his religion. I don’t accept any authority of the Dalai Lama over me in religious matters, in fact I’m very clear that he has no such authority, so would he be, so I would accept it as a gift and nothing else.

 

[AlexV]

Fine…let’s start giving out priestly vestments as presents to lay people. What about chalices? How about some Roman collars?

After all…these things don’t mean anything beyond “presents”.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Hmmm, it hasnt? Must be my eyes but I could have sworn that a number of people seem to be under the impression that koran kissing and bestowing Episcopal Insignias on heretics is fine because the Pope did it…No, that isn’t WHY it’s fine! No one said that, not in this or in the other thread! I said (and still say) that we need to be careful about sitting in judgement of the Holy Father (something that SAINTS have said), but NO ONE suggested that it was hunky-dory to give episcopal insignia away as long as it was the pope was the one doing it. It was posited that it was wrong and a scandal for him to give those things to laymen. As some have pointed out, it was never a recognition of their orders, but simply a gift. To take scandal over it is excessive and immature.

No, but it seems to be more prefferable to disrespect the NO rather then celebrate the TLM.** WHAT?!?!**

I’m sure you would be supported by many of the Bishops who covered up the sex-abuse scandal in this belief. “Why bother spreading it around? It will just cause scandal after all…” **You cannot compare the intent of these two things: on one hand, bishops covering up sex abuse, on the other the pope quite openly giving a gift. If you think you CAN acquaint the two, well, I again think that’s an immature reaction and you’re overstating your indignation. **

Whats that? Didnt happen? Guess I must have dreamed John Paul II allowing a buddha statue to be placed above the tabernacle at St. Peter’s church in Assisi during the 1986 “ecumenical” meetings.

**Guess you must have dreamed it. Go check out your radical traditionalist sites. You’ve got your occasions mixed up. There is a Buddha statue on top of a tablernacle, but that was at a different papal occasion. As has been pointed out numerous times in these threads (evidently not in words sufficiently mono-syllabic), the Pope didn’t plan (“allow”) any of the things that went on at the big masses in other countries where he celebrated on papal visitations. The local bishops’s conferences plan those and put them together. Go out to California. The ugly vestments the PJPII wore when he celebrated Masses are on display, because they were provided TO him. **

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Were they given or conferred? If conferred, then sure it is misleading and potentially scandalous. If merely given, they are simply a gift of jewelry - don’t make more of it than it is.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia: Scandal - A word or action evil in itself, which occasions another’s spiritual ruin.

Based on that definition, it’s hard to get to “spiritual ruin” though I suppose it’s possible.

In any event, I was under the impression these were gifts to the Anglicans and not a conferral of symbols of office. In all, a tempest in the proverbial teacup, IMHO.

I assume, Johnnykins, that conferral involves some kind of ceremony. No, they were simply presented. “Tempest in a teacup” is indeed an apt description. I’m partial to the term “stirring the turd,” but I was brought up on a farm.