J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
But not contrary to an explicit ruling by the Supreme Legislator (and judge, as Genesis points out).
- Status
L
laudamus_te
Guest
Yes, it does. That is the whole meaning of jurisdiction supplied by the Church, not the pope.
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
Cite an autoritative source that states that.
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
This is a helpful site that refutes the spurious claim of the SSPX to supplied jurisdicition:
sspx-schism.com/JurisdictionAndSchism.htm
L
laudamus_te
Guest
L
laudamus_te
Guest
I don’t understand. How much more authoritative can you get than Canon Law? Canon Law says that jurisdiction is provided by the Church in certain circumstances.
It seems that you are saying that the pope is supreme arbitor, and must be obeyed in all things at all times. As I understand it, the Supreme Legislator is God, not the pope. The Church is the Mystical Body of Christ, not the Mystical Body of the Pope.
L
laudamus_te
Guest
I don’t believe Pastor Aeternus was meant to be interpreted in the way you are obviously interpreting it. You are suggesting that the Pope has absolute power to govern the Church at his own whims. The idea that such an interpretation could be made was considered ridiculous at the First Vatican Council.
B
BobP123
Guest
Ok, so what does the Pope say about our receiving the Sacraments from a SSPX priest TODAY? The Archbishop is history, what matters is NOW. I’ve seen nothing but basher websites from ten, twenty years ago, while all the time both sides are trying their best at negotiations in Rome. What good has the bashing done so far? Do you or anyone else here know what’s going on behind closed doors? Didn’t Cardinal Hoyos say it’s an internal matter? Or is the consensus of this board going to determine what the Pope should do or what the Pope is thinking?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
The unabashed hatred for the SSPX, its priests and the laity who attend their Masses that I have witnessed on this forum is amazing. These are good, Catholic priests, and good Catholics who go to their chapels. We do not find it necessary to hold those who do not agree with us in such utter contempt as some of you here often display. I can’t help but wonder, what exactly is it that you are so afraid of? Because it is usually fear that causes the “bashing” mentality.
Believe it or not, most of us are just Catholics living as good a Catholic life as these troubled times allow. We are well-educated, clear-thinking Catholics who do not take lightly our decision to avoid the NOM. It is very disheartening to be treated with such uncharitableness, but I try not to let it bother me. In fact, it only makes me stronger and more resolved.
Believe it or not, most of us are just Catholics living as good a Catholic life as these troubled times allow. We are well-educated, clear-thinking Catholics who do not take lightly our decision to avoid the NOM. It is very disheartening to be treated with such uncharitableness, but I try not to let it bother me. In fact, it only makes me stronger and more resolved.
W
Walking_Home
Guest
I agree. It is unconscionable the way the SSPX is treated.
J
jmcrae
Guest
If the SSPX is in full communion with the Catholic Church, then why are their priests not subject to the authority of their local Catholic Bishops?
Why do they take their orders from men who have been excommunicated from the Church, instead?
Please reconcile for me how someone can claim to be Catholic in full communion, yet not subject to the lawfully appointed authority of the Catholic Church.
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
Regarding canon law, you CAN’T get more authoritative than canon law, which clearly states that the Pope is the final and supreme legislator and interpeter of that law. In other words, it means what HE says it means. When Canon Law says that jurisdiction is provided by the Church in certain circumstances, it does not mean jursidiction is provided without reference to the Pope. It does not mean that judrisdiction is supplied if the pope clearly states that it is not. It does not mean that grave necessity exists in the face of the Pontiff clearly stating that grave necessity does NOT exist.
Certainly God is the Final and Supreme Legislator. He, however, has been deadly silent on the topic of the SSPX. The Pope, to whom the Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity has given the absolute authority to govern the Church, on the other hand, has had quite a bit to say on that topic. He has said that the bishops are excommunicate, that the priests are suspended ad divinis and are without faculties, and he has warned the faithful against adherance to schism. Of course, that was the Servant of God Pope John Paul II. His successor, however, has not altered that ruling a whit.
Read your last paragraph again. If I recall my readings of history, that COULD be a general paraphrase of what the Protestant “reformers” said, couldn’t it?
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
I’m sorry, Bob, I haven’t read every last post on this thread, but I wonder who is bashing the SSPX? When someone states (for example) that the bishops are excommunicate or the priests have faculties or aren’t suspended, etc., how is it bashing to simply state the contrary facts?
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
Who’s bashing the SSPX?
P
paramedicgirl
Guest
And this is why I have stopped participating in SSPX threads. Like BobP said, it is an internal matter of the Church, and as knowledgeable as everyone here is, they actually DON’T know better than the Church when it comes to the SSPX. I too am sick of the apparent anti-SSPX mentality that is prevalent here. I know many fine traditional SSPX Catholics who are wonderful people. They don’t fit the profile (protestant, sedevacantist, mini pope, you name it) that is often unjustly portrayed here on a regular basis by some members.
B
BobP123
Guest
I don’t think anyone here has said that they are in full communion with the Catholic Church. I don’t know, maybe an Apostolic Administration can be worked out with the Vatican, where the local bishop would not be involved. After all, they are valid bishops themselves. Are you open to such an idea? It is hardly new.
Whether they are in full or partial communion with Rome or their bishop or whatever is their business. They are negotiating with Rome, we’re not. Can we try not to interfere? Our business is to find that worship which we find that is most pleasing to God. Yes, we run the risk of being schismatics, but then we run that risk anywhere we attend Mass if you think about it. How many Catholics are secretly opposed to what the Pope is saying or doing, for example? But If the Mass is valid, it’s valid, I would think.
M
MariaGorettiGrl
Guest
I think God pretty much told us which was most pleasing to Him when He said, “You are Peter, and upon this rock (peter) I build my church…Whatever you loose on Earth shall be loosed in Heaven and whatever you bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven.”
It’s not up to us which church “feels” best to us. Otherwise we could go to absolutely any church we want (“This church is Baptist, but I really like the way they worship!”). The fact is if God didn’t want the Pope changing His church, then He shouldn’t have let that pope become pope.
Please don’t consider this SSPX bashing! I have family and friends who are SSPX and I love them all dearly! There are two sides to every argument and this is my side.
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
No one is interfering. No one is bashing. People are simply responding to other people who come to these threads and make erroneous statements. Answering an erroneous statement with fact is NOT interfering nor is it bashing. Answering error with the truth of the Church is actually an act of love.
And we NEVER have to run the risk of being a schismatic, ever. To say that “we” have to find “that worship that is most pleasing to God” is an exercise in subjectivity and it potentially sets our judgement against the judgement of the Church. I’m not saying you or anyone else here is a Protestant, but how is that different from what Protestants have done? The only objective worship that we can feel safe in knowing is pleasing to God is the sanctioned Mass of the Church, which includes the indult Tridentine. Can that Mass (in whatever rite it is celebrated) be abused and thus displeasing to God? Certainly. But the Pauline Mass (for example) cannot be objectively said to be displeasing to God. In order to say that, there would have to be a new revelation. That is not possible (according to the Church). Objectively, we have to assume that it IS pleasing to God, because the Church to whom Christ gave authority to bind and to loose (the disciplines of the Church enjoy at least a negative infallibilty in that they cannot lead the faithful into impiety) says that that Mass confects the Holy Sacrifice, which is what God intended the Mass to do.
B
bear06
Guest
What exactly is your interpretation? Is it that the pope has authority unless someone disagrees with him?
I don’t think any interpretation is necessary. PA is incredibly straightforward.
B
bear06
Guest
- Status