B
BobP123
Guest
Do you have proof of this? Or are you just forming your own conclusions?
- Status
M
MariaGorettiGrl
Guest
Ask Icarus210. He’s the one who brought it up.
B
BobP123
Guest
I’m not quite sure of what to make of this argument. We have Eastern patriarchs who overlap Western bishops’ “territories.” We’re not making a major issue out of that situation.
L
LilyM
Guest
SSPX isn’t a separate rite - I’m sure they don’t consider themselves such either, and would just call themselves Latin Rite Catholics just like the Bishops whose territory they encroach upon.
Any Latin rite priest who wants to celebrate the full range of sacraments in a Latin rite bishop’s territory needs the permission of the bishop of said diocese.
A
AJV
Guest
[tangent] Sometimes it’s surprising how liberal the modern jurisdiction is. Before 1917 * you sometimes couldn’t even confess validly to a priest who was a priest of the diocese approved by the bishop! for example, certain third order members had to confess to a priest from their own order. Neither could some monks and nuns go to confess to anyone whom they chose. /[tangent]*
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
Yes, but that’s WITH the sanction of the Holy See. Such a system could be set up, certainly.
B
bear06
Guest
Then look no further than canon law. That’s all Pete is quoting here. This SSPX bashing thing is silly. It would seem that we can only read stuff from people who are SSPX or else they must be discredited.
Also, Michael Davies would be in a similar boat (although he’s not a canonist but he certainly isn’t the Magiterium) and I’m not hearing any complaints about quoting him.
L
laudamus_te
Guest
Here’s the history AFTER that:
FEBRUARY 13 & MARCH 3, 1975
Archbishop Lefebvre meets with an improvised commission of three cardinals, nominally to discuss the Apostolic Visitation but in fact as a lone defendant before a tribunal attacking his Declaration. Having been given no warning as to the nature of these “trials,” he has no lawyer and is never allowed a copy of the recorded meetings, though that at least is promised him.
MAY 6, 1975
The irregular commission of cardinals condemns Archbishop Lefebvre, finding his Declaration “unacceptable on all points.” **They write to Bishop Mamie (successor of Bishop Charriere at Fribourg) telling him to withdraw his predecessor’s approval of the SSPX, something quite beyond his power (once a bishop has approved a religious congregation, only the pope can suppress it. **Cf., 1917 Code of Canon Law, canon 493 and the 1983 Code of Canon Law, canon 616).
JUNE 5, 1975
Archbishop Lefebvre submits an appeal to the Apostolic Signature in Rome, in substance:
Code:
...it would be for the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to determine whether my Declaration were at fault. Please provide evidence that this commission of cardinals had been expressly mandated by the pope (who by his own authority can bypass the Congregations) to decide as has been done.* And if I be at fault, of course I can be censured, but not the Society which was founded in due canonical form.
*** (This evidence was never produced. A doubt about the validity of a law excuses from observing it **(PRINCIPLE 10a). How much more does doubt about the authority of the legislator!)JUNE 29, 1975
Pope Paul VI is convinced to write to Archbishop Lefebvre that he approved of all the actions of the commission of cardinals, however, it is impossible that mere papal approbation in June could empower this commission which had met the previous February [PRINCIPLE 10b].
On this whole process, Archbishop Lefebvre observes:
** …we have been condemned, without trial, without opportunity to defend ourselves, without due warning or written process and without appeal.** (Open Letter to Confused Catholics, p. 150 [APPENDIX II])
Over and above the canonical question, there remains that of natural law. Must one observe a censure when no crime can be pointed out or when the very authority not to mention the identity of the judge is unsure?
sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/q3_sspx_suppressed.htm
No, they call themselves Roman Catholics, as they are. They do not “encroach upon” territory of the Bishops. They do a great service to Catholics, especially in the dioceses which are run by corrupt, bad bishops.
Except in cases of necessity, such as exists in today’s Church, when jurisdiction is supplied. This is Canon Law.
B
BobP123
Guest
Then consider the protocol which was signed by Lefebrve and the Holy See in 1988:
unavoce.org/protocol.htm
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
But is this not part of the agreement that Lefebreve reneged on 2 days latter?
No one can seriously argue that the current situation and operating conditions of the Society exists with the sanction of the Church. If no reconciliation is needed, then there would be no efforts toward a reconciliation.
P
paramedicgirl
Guest
I heard an SSPX priest refer to the “Roman Rite” just last week, not the “Latin Rite.”
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
The Pope, who is the Supreme Legislator IN canon law and is not himself bound by the canons and may alter or dispense with them at will, determined that no case of necessity existed. Thus, jurisdiction is NOT supplied. If the Holy See directed the bishop to withdraw his permission and if that direction was satisfactory to the Pope (ie, he didn’t object or intervene), then THAT is the relevant canon law (the Pope being the Supreme Legislator).
All of the above is from an SSPX website. The tone is both editorial and conspiratorial (“Cardinal Villot arranges”, “Pope Paul VI is convinced,” etc). This is NOT objective fact. Whatever objective facts MAY be (maybe the cardinal DID arrange and maybe the pope WAS convinced), the one objective fact that is incontrovertible is this: The Society does not act with the approbation or approval of the Holy See. It’s bishops are excommunicate, it’s priests suspended ad divinis, and the laity are warned AGAINST the danger of schism by the Sevant of God Pope John Paul II. These penalties have NEVER been lifted by his successor. They may be, but they haven’t been yet.
J
jmcrae
Guest
No one thinks that the Eastern Bishops are in communion with Rome, though - and everyone is perfectly well aware that Roman Catholics cannot receive the Sacraments from them.
L
laudamus_te
Guest
The Church itself provides jurisdiction in cases of necessity, not the Pope.
You can overlook the “editorializing” of the content from the SSPX website, but the facts remain. A commission of bishops unlawfully attempted to have approval of the Society withdrawn. The pope later said he approved of this council’s actions. But "it is impossible that mere papal approbation in June could empower this commission which had met the previous February."
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
The Church cannot decide differently from the Supreme Pontiff. He said there was no necessity.
According to the SSPX, it was impossible. According to the Supreme Legislator, it wasn’t.
L
laudamus_te
Guest
Yes, the Church can. Look it up in the Code of Canon Law.
B
bear06
Guest
Got a canon for me to look at? If you know it, please share.
G
Genesis315
Guest
Not just Supreme legislator, but also Supreme judge:
From Vatican I:
- 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].
53 From Michael Palaeologus’s profession of faith which was read out at the second Council of Lyons (D no. 466).
54 Nicholas I, Ep. ad Michaelem imp. (Letter to the emperor Michael) (PL 119, 954).
B
bear06
Guest
Come on Genesis! This is Pastor Aeternus. You know you can’t use a Vatican I, Dogmatic Consitution to prove your point. 
L
laudamus_te
Guest
I understand that the Church supplies jurisdiction under canon 144.
As I am not a canon lawyer (are you?), I do not intend to get into a debate about canon law. But I can read the debates and come to my own conclusions.
- Status