O
otjm
Guest
There is an old, old rule of law; false in part, suspect in all. Methinks it applies.
- Status
C
Cojuanco
Guest
Yes, I know. And it largely applied to Trent as well. If one occurrence is especially problematic, so is the other. Tanto monta, monta tanto,
P
ProVobis
Guest
OT a little but I’ve often wondered why prosecutors would try for as many counts as possible, knowing that a jury might favor the defendant if but one charge can be proven wrong.
C
Cojuanco
Guest
Knowing a few, the logic is thus:
There may be Offense 1 (O1), whose elements are A, B, C and D.
There is Offense 2 (O2) whose elements are A, B, and C but not D.
The prosecutor would then charge him with both. If D is proven, the defendant is guilty of O1. If he cannot prove D but can prove A, B and C, the defendant is guilty of O2.
Also, in terms of counts, one can be guilty of committing some of what is alleged, but not all. For example, taking the example of an abortionist whose actions amount to murder (in the civil sense - we all know they are all murder morally, if not legally). He performs, let us say, 20 abortions which are suspected of violating the law. Just because his performance of Abortion Number 1 did not amount to murder, doesn’t mean he can’t be found guilty of Abortion Number 2, which did provably amount to murder.
A jury must find a defendant innocent of one charge if the prosecutor cannot prove one element of one specific element of the charge; it has no effect on any other charges he may be confronted with.
M
McCall1981
Guest
This is what I was wondering, there would have to be some administrative structure. Would a personal prelature (like Opus Dei) be the solution, or no?
T
Thomas_Casey
Guest
I’ve cleaned up this thread. If you want to discuss the story in the OP, go for it. If you want to whine and complain about what the Church should be, find another forum. This is not the place for it. This forum is for the polite, academic and constructive discussion of Catholic traditions and customs.
P
ProVobis
Guest
Yes but my point was more along the lines of whether the jury might have doubts on the other elements, such as A, B, or C using your example. I guess it would depend a lot on whether D can be disproved, as opposed to not proved. I suppose the punishment to both O1 and O2 would have to be weighed (if it’s the same go only after O2) but then I’m not a prosecutor with years of experience in this.
J
janeway529
Guest
Not necessarily. We can take the Brazil example. In the Diocese of Campos, there exists the Personal Apostolic Administration of Saint John Mary Vianney. They have their own bishop and minister to the people who are particularly attached to the EF. I think something similar can be created IF the SSPX are willing to reconcile themselves with Rome.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_Apostolic_Administration_of_Saint_John_Mary_Vianney
M
Megan7
Guest
C
Cat
Guest
What drew me to Catholicism was Jesus. All the other stuff pales.
I don’t know what kind of Protestantism you are referring to, but it might make you feel better to know that Catholicism does not look anything like Evangelical Protestantism, which is what I came out of and which is the fastest-growing type of Protestantism (most of the mainline Protestant churches like Lutheranism, Methodism, etc. are losing members).
When my husband and I started attending Mass at our “modern” neighborhood parish, it was like being in a foreign nation. We had no clue what was going on, and the only thing about the Mass that was familiar to us was the Lord’s Prayer and the Bible readings.
C
Cat
Guest
If you were ever a Protestant, as I was for the first 47 years of my life, you wouldn’t have to ask this question!
Being Protestant is being in the neighborhood, but being Catholic is being home.
The Catholic Church is the Church that Jesus Christ Himself established, and so becoming and being Catholic means obeying Jesus, and that’s what my husband and I always longed to do while we were Protestants.
Being a Christian isn’t about the trappings–the church building, the ceremonials, the music, etc. These can be ripped away from you in a heartbeat; think of the nations where Catholics are “underground” and can’t hold Mass openly, or think about all those folks who are ill and confined to hospital beds in nursing institutions.
Being a Christian is all about Jesus and following Him, which means being part of His Church.
H
Hoosier_Daddy
Guest
We’ve been down this road with Williamson before. Remember when he was scraming his head off about reconciliation with BXVI?
- I would love it if this were true, but I have been let down by this type of rumor before so I will not get my hopes up.
- I have no idea how the Pope could make this so.
Without the prelature there are some jurisdiction issues and there will be some Bishops who are very unhappy. We have been told over and over again that independent chapels have financial and geographical problems. We have also been told that they cannot operate (like with confessions and marriages) outside of a Bishop’s approval. So, Does the Bishop of Rome override this? - I have often believed that Pope Francis could very well be the one to make reconcilliation possible. It just fits his maverick pontificate personality.
It is just the way of Francis to not be put in a box.
But my gut tells me this is the conservative version of what the liberals do.
A meeting took place and now the media sources speculate on how the CHurch will change.
All we know is that they met. It could have gone like this.
“hey, will you sign this”
“no”
“thought I’d ask for my ole pal Benedict, Have a nice day”
K
kozlosap
Guest
AGREED! In no way will Papa Francis allow them to come into full communion with their current, and very public stances on Vll and the NO Mass.
P
ProVobis
Guest
How can you be certain of this? And how do you know ALL of them have this position? Look at the FSSP, for example. Will such stereotyping never cease?AGREED! In no way will Papa Francis allow them to come into full communion with their current, and very public stances on Vll and the NO Mass.
M
McCall1981
Guest
Well, I have to say I don’t think it’s very likely that the rumor that Francis will just regularize the SSPX with no strings attached is true (although I’ll hope and pray for it).
That said, it does seem true that Francis met with Bp Fellay, and I think that 's very good news. For a while it seemed like there was no contact at all, and that formal schism may have been coming, but this makes me hope that at least the dialogue continues in some form.
That said, it does seem true that Francis met with Bp Fellay, and I think that 's very good news. For a while it seemed like there was no contact at all, and that formal schism may have been coming, but this makes me hope that at least the dialogue continues in some form.
T
Thomas_Casey
Guest
A clarification on this post . . . some people have asked me. Whining/complaining is when a person posts only negatives, but fails to offer any concrete positives that would help correct what he or she perceives as negatives and fails to entertain other opinions. That kind of post does not contribute to a fruitful discussion on traditions and customs.
C
curlycool89
Guest
Depends what you mean by “changed”.
Sure, some of the externals changed, but the essentials are still the same, and in many ways have been clarified since the time of/around the Second Vatican Council (from what I’ve been told, for example, many theologians believed that the essential matter for an ordination was the presentation of the paten/chalice to the new priest, as opposed to the laying on of hands by the bishop).
Really, if you want to get an idea of what the Second Vatican Council actually said, read it. Don’t read commentaries on it, read the actual documents. Sacrosanctum Concilium outlines the reform of the liturgy (yes, the council Fathers in fact called for a revision and simplification/return to noble simplicity). Lumen Gentium is an amazing self-reflection on the Church and her members (the chapters on Holiness and the Laity are earth-shattering, in some ways completely up-ending centuries of bad assumptions in classical spiritualities, especially regarding the laity). Dei Verbum changed the way Catholics study the scriptures. And then there’s Gaudium et Spes, just a great frank look at the Church vis-a-vis the world.
Gaudium et Spes is the one I assume that traditionalists dislike the most (for example, GS 42: “Christ did not bequeath to the Church a mission in the political, economic, or social order: the purpose he assigned to it was a religious one.” and it goes on to clarify what that means. Or in the same section “By its nature the Church is universal in that it is not committed to any one culture or to any political, economic or social system”). GS completely demolishes, in fact, some ideas from Protestantism (well, some denominations at least), such as the need to care about the world and for the world (GS 43 puts it very strongly: “The Christian who shirks his temporal duties … endangers his eternal salvation”.)
The documents of VII really are beautiful. Everyone should read them (at least the Constitutions) before bad-mouthing what “Vatican II did”.
O
otjm
Guest
I suspect that somewhere there are people who would hope that the SSPX would simply disappear. However, most of us hope that not only will there be dialogue, but that the dialogue will also work to resolve the situation.
Part of the problem is that dialogue will only work for so long, When the same positions are reiterated for the umpteenth time, one side, if not both, are going to run out of steam.
While John Paul I had no time for (name removed by moderator)ut on the matter, Paul VI, John Paul II and Benedict XVI have essentially had the same position; the documents of Vatican II are valid, do not contradict prior doctrine, can and must be read in continuity with prior documents, and that the OF is of equal validity and merit with the EF.
So the likelihood that Francis would upend that appears to be something approaching zero. He is not unfamiliar with the past, and there is no reason from his past history as bishop and then archbishop, to presume that his position varied from any of the prior popes.
Which puts the issue back in Bishop Fellay’s court. And since none of us are privy to what goes on between Bishop Fellay and the other bishops, or between him and the priests of the SSPX, no one really has any clue as to why he seemed so positive at one point that reconciliation could be accomplished, or why he made such an about-face. It is pure speculation, but it might be possible that at least some - bishops and/or priests - were open to the reconciliation, and he was not willing to cause a further split within the SSPX, taking some and leaving others behind. Or it could be that he misread their positions. Or it could be that the whole exercise was a political act without substance. He doesn’t say, and no one else seems to either.
*** has been said before, only time will tell. Either there will be an acceptance by at lest some of the SSPX of the Church’s position, or there will be more ordinations. Rome wants reconciliation, but not at all costs to truth, and has no need or reason to push the SSPX further away. At one point not so long ago, the SSPX seemed to be saying that they would go their own course. Whether that has changed in any way is not particularly indicated by any visit; keep in mind that Benedict XVI and Hans Kung had several meetings. The visits were not indicative that either side was changing there.
Every time something happens, speculation runs rampant. Rumors abound and get everyone chattering. This round seems particularly based on rumor and idle (I am trying to be polite) speculation. Time will tell; and not much else will. And prayer is always worthy.
K
Kyrie_eleison_9
Guest
Interesting. Thank you for your reply.If you were ever a Protestant, as I was for the first 47 years of my life, you wouldn’t have to ask this question!
Being Protestant is being in the neighborhood, but being Catholic is being home.
The Catholic Church is the Church that Jesus Christ Himself established, and so becoming and being Catholic means obeying Jesus, and that’s what my husband and I always longed to do while we were Protestants.
Being a Christian isn’t about the trappings–the church building, the ceremonials, the music, etc. These can be ripped away from you in a heartbeat; think of the nations where Catholics are “underground” and can’t hold Mass openly, or think about all those folks who are ill and confined to hospital beds in nursing institutions.
Being a Christian is all about Jesus and following Him, which means being part of His Church.
One question. Does “being in the neighborhood” get you to Heaven?
Q
QNDNNDQDCE
Guest
I am sure that not it is not true of each individual priest of the SSPX, but what Kozlosap says is true of the organization as a whole. Just look at their official website, and you will easily find all manner of venom against the Novus Ordo mass and the Second Vatican Council. Most of it is completely ridiculous. They have an article on their website which says, among other things, that communion under both kinds is a Protestant element of the NO mass (I am not making this up)! Furthermore, the mass is illegitimate They also say that Vatican II (especially Dignitatis Humanae) is heretical and that it cannot be reconciled with the true teaching of the Church. This is not the ranting of a few extreme wingnuts. This is the party line of the Society.
- Status