B
bear06
Guest
I think I would find it hard for any rational person to claim anyone on this thread a liberal but you’re right and I’m afraid the key word is rational.
- Status
S
Sure
Guest
I am curious what pbm would say to this situation:
"LOS ANGELES-April 25, 2009 This morning in a Mass at the Cathedral of Los Angeles, Cardinal Mahoney of Los Angeles consecrated 4 bishops against the explicit will of the Holy Father. Cardinal Mahoney claims that he acted out of grave necessity in order to preserve the “Novus Ordo” Mass.
Cardinal Mahoney stated: “It is clear that a vast overemphasis has been placed on the tridentine Mass by people in the Vatican. Priests within my diocese are moving en masse to reduce the number of Novus Ordo Masses. Out of grave necessity, I must consecrate these bishops immediately so that the Novus Ordo Mass may continue in Los Angeles and throughout the world.”
The Vatican, in a document issued by Pope Benedict XVI, responded that the unfortunate consecrations performed by Cardinal Mahoney against the express will of the Holy Father ‘constitutes a schismatic act’ and, as such, Cardinal Mahoney and the 4 new bishops have ‘excommunicated themselves under the penalty envisaged under canon law.’"
Now, according to what pbm has written what matters is that Cardinal Mahoney sees a grave necessity as he so gracefully points out in his post right here:
"LOS ANGELES-April 25, 2009 This morning in a Mass at the Cathedral of Los Angeles, Cardinal Mahoney of Los Angeles consecrated 4 bishops against the explicit will of the Holy Father. Cardinal Mahoney claims that he acted out of grave necessity in order to preserve the “Novus Ordo” Mass.
Cardinal Mahoney stated: “It is clear that a vast overemphasis has been placed on the tridentine Mass by people in the Vatican. Priests within my diocese are moving en masse to reduce the number of Novus Ordo Masses. Out of grave necessity, I must consecrate these bishops immediately so that the Novus Ordo Mass may continue in Los Angeles and throughout the world.”
The Vatican, in a document issued by Pope Benedict XVI, responded that the unfortunate consecrations performed by Cardinal Mahoney against the express will of the Holy Father ‘constitutes a schismatic act’ and, as such, Cardinal Mahoney and the 4 new bishops have ‘excommunicated themselves under the penalty envisaged under canon law.’"
Now, according to what pbm has written what matters is that Cardinal Mahoney sees a grave necessity as he so gracefully points out in his post right here:
So, there we have it folks, logically, we know that pbm (and perhaps a few others) would undoubtedly support Cardinal Mahoney if he decided to consecrate bishops against the will of the Holy Father.
B
BobP123
Guest
Actually I’d be more worried about LA diocese having to claim bankruptcy than I would be about his consecrating all kinds of bishops.
S
Sure
Guest
Agreed!Actually I’d be more worried about LA diocese having to claim bankruptcy than I would be about his consecrating all kinds of bishops.
But the example makes the point.
G
GerardP
Guest
How do you draw that conclusion? For one thing, Mahoney were he to do such a thing probably would have been given retroactive permission by JPII. That is the only logical conclusion because JPII was not consistent.
Had liberals been treated with the severity that LeFebvre was treated, at least there would have been a semblence of justice and the Pope probably would not have had any trouble with LeFebvre at all.
[Edited by Moderator]
J
Jean_Anthony
Guest
This thread has gone off topic. Please return to the original topic or I will have to close the thread. Thank you.
G
GerardP
Guest
They stand for the preservation of the Catholic faith through the current crisis in the Church.
Everything they stand for, you will find conceded to in documents and admissions by Popes, Cardinals, Catechisms and Conciliar statements throughout the history of the Church.
Many people both inside and outside of the Church are concerned about them because they disagree with political strategies and policies that have been adopted by the majority of bishops and priests.
These policies can at times obscure the truth of the fullness of the Catholic faith and it’s uniqueness as the one true faith outside of which no on is saved.
The SSPX claim that many policies in the Church were provoked by a deliberate misreading of ambiguous statements in the Vatican II documents. They believe that those documents while not objectively in error can be prone to misinterpretation and misunderstanding of the traditional teaching of the Catholic faith.
They have resisted embracing these liberal policies and provided traditional teaching and sacraments to the faithful that have directly requested it of them.
37 years after archbishop LeFebvre was asked to provide guidance for seminarians in the post Vatican II upheaval, the Vatican has finally validated two points that the SSPX has been upholding.
- that every priest has the right to say the Roman Rite according to the guarantee laid down by Pope St. Pius V in Quo Primum and that it was never abrogated.
- that the Catholic Church is the one organizational Church that Christ established and is singly identified with the Mystical Body of Christ. This validates that Vatican II did not contradict Pope Pius XII In Mystici Corporis Christi
S
Sure
Guest
To the OP…
And in addition to some of what Gerard P said (which helps to explain the motives behind the actions of the SSPX), the official position of the Holy Catholic Church (as noted in official Church documents) is that:
And in addition to some of what Gerard P said (which helps to explain the motives behind the actions of the SSPX), the official position of the Holy Catholic Church (as noted in official Church documents) is that:
- The bishops of SSPX are excommunicated (Ecclesia Dei Adflicta)
- The priests of SSPX are suspended a divinis. (Ecclesia Dei Adflicta)
- Since they are suspended, they are forbidden by canon law to celebrate the sacraments. (Code of Canon Law)
- Their confessions are invalid. Their Masses are valid but illicit.(Code of Canon Law)
- According to the Ecclesia Dei Commission, it is permissible (but not recommended) to attend their Masses provided that one does not have a “schismatic” mindset. It would also be permissible to give a monetary offering at such a Mass. (Letter by Msgr. Perl of Ecclesia Dei Commission)
- The SSPX separation is not a “formal” schism. (Statement by a Cardinal (name?) from the Ecclesia Dei Commission)
G
GerardP
Guest
It should also be stated that the SSPX is working towards and petitioning that the official position of the Holy Catholic Church (ie. the heirarchy) be changed to coincide more accurately with the objective facts since the Church decrees through Her officials are not infallible and there is teaching from the Church on legitimate resistance to superiors. (St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Robt Bellarmine, Pope Innocent III etc.)
Some other aspects of the complaints about the SSPX should be addressed as well.
If only the one incurring them were to suffer, then YES, that is the more perfect way to act. If however there is a question of depriving innumerable souls of the graces they need for salvation, then NO, one cannot. So, before such an unjust campaign of suppression, the Archbishop and his Society could only continue.
Further proving that the actions mentioned above were indeed invalid, Rome has always tacitly recognized the SSPX’s legitimate continuation and the nullity of the suspensions; for example:
in Dec 1987, Cardinal Gagnon did not hesitate to attend as a prelate the Pontifical Mass of “suspended” Archbishop Lefebvre,
and in May 1988, Cardinal Ratzinger agreed to the principle of having a bishop consecrated from among the Society’s priests,
and during negotiations in 2001-2002, held between Cardinal Castrillion-Hoyos of the Ecclesia Dei Commission (at the behest of the pope) with Bishop Fellay, Superior General of the Society et al." *
Can. 144 §1 In common error, whether of fact or of law, and in positive and probable doubt, whether of law or of fact, the Church supplies executive power of governance for both the external and the internal forum.
Some other aspects of the complaints about the SSPX should be addressed as well.
The intrinsic validity of the excommunications is called into question by the SSPX and others. Just because a Pope states something doesn’t mean it’s valid. Recourse is always available to appeal to the Pontiff to correct himself or his predecessors on such matters
The SSPX replies: *"BUT EVEN IF THESE CENSURES WERE UNJUST, SHOULDN’T THEY BE OBSERVED?
If only the one incurring them were to suffer, then YES, that is the more perfect way to act. If however there is a question of depriving innumerable souls of the graces they need for salvation, then NO, one cannot. So, before such an unjust campaign of suppression, the Archbishop and his Society could only continue.
Further proving that the actions mentioned above were indeed invalid, Rome has always tacitly recognized the SSPX’s legitimate continuation and the nullity of the suspensions; for example:
in Dec 1987, Cardinal Gagnon did not hesitate to attend as a prelate the Pontifical Mass of “suspended” Archbishop Lefebvre,
and in May 1988, Cardinal Ratzinger agreed to the principle of having a bishop consecrated from among the Society’s priests,
and during negotiations in 2001-2002, held between Cardinal Castrillion-Hoyos of the Ecclesia Dei Commission (at the behest of the pope) with Bishop Fellay, Superior General of the Society et al." *
The SSPX claims supplied jurisdiction and necessity due to the crisis in the Church for their bringing the sacraments to the faithful who requested it.
The SSPX priests absolutions are indisputably valid in cases of death and common error
Can. 144 §1 In common error, whether of fact or of law, and in positive and probable doubt, whether of law or of fact, the Church supplies executive power of governance for both the external and the internal forum.
“Schismatic” mindset has never been defined.
Why would a Commission/Office of the Holy See permit such things if they were schismatic or suspended? The Orthodox are no longer even considered schismatic but their is no cross-communion with the Orthodox.
That means it’s a canonical irregularity. “Schism” means to tear something apart. Have you ever torn a piece of paper without “formally” tearing it apart? It’s either torn or it’s not.
S
Sure
Guest
Your quarrel is not with me but with the Vatican. I merely quoted the Church’s official documents on the subject. Obviously, you disagree with what the Church states on this issue.
I suppose then that the original poster is left with a prudential decision to choose between the facts noted in official Catholic Church documents or the interpretation of those facts by GerardP and the SSPX.
G
GerardP
Guest
I noticed that you switched from saying my quarrel was with the Vatican to saying you quoted the “Church.” instead of saying you quoted the Vatican. There’s a certain lack of evenhandedness whether conscious or unconscious in such an inconsistency.
The problem is the Church’s official documents don’t agree with the Church’s official teaching on these matter.
Much like the official rulings of the Vicar of Christ Pope Stephen on the validity of Pope Formosus, the rulings are wrong and have to be eventually changed by the Vicar of Christ as a matter of justice.
It’s taken 40 years for the Vatican to publicly agree with the claims made by Archbishop LeFebvre that the TLM was never legally suppressed.
Pope Benedict admitted to Bishop Fellay that there was a crisis of enormous scope in the Church at their meeting in 2005. Something that the Vatican officials were loathe to admit in the previous Pontificate and in Paul VI’s.
You’ve made another slanted verbal inconsistency. According to your statement, “the facts” are complete and infallibly documented in the “official Catholic Church documents” while the SSPX or any traditionalist who has right reason is only limited to “interpretations” of those facts.
Anyone watching the spinning of either the documents of Vatican II or the recent clarification by the Holy Office on the use of the word “subsists” knows that everyone including Vatican officials of the Catholic Church “interprets” or in some cases, writes documents away from the facts when they want to avoid what the Church has actually always taught everywhere and understood by everyone.
Merely quoting one side of a political/theological battle for the salvation of souls does not do the reality of the situation justice.
By merely quoting solely from “official Catholic Church Documents” you seem to leave out a series of “facts” that are not in the “official Documents of the Catholic Church.”
The original Poster asked if the claims of the SSPX were true.
No one has disputed the factual history of the persecution of Archbishop LeFebvre from the founding of the SSPX to the Apostolic Visitation in which Roman officials were spreading doubt on the historicity of the Resurrection. To LeFebvre’s declaration of resistance to the modernism in Rome.
To the mock trial that he was subjected to outside of all canonical procedure.
To the scandal that Assisi in 1986 caused which provoked LeFebvre into the actions of consecrating the bishops.
To the last minute “apology” that LeFebvre was required to sign after the protocol agreement had been signed. (that was the reason he realized he needed to recant his signature)
My first suggestion is that the Original poster actually do solid research if they are concerned. Read original sources and not books like “More Catholic than the Pope” which claims to be an “inside look” yet never quotes or interviews an actual priest of the SSPX. Read a book like “Liturgical Time Bombs in Vatican II” by the late Michael Davies alongside or instead of “More Catholic…” and you’ll see a huge difference.
Listen to the interviews of Bishop Williamson done by Bernard Janzen if you want an “inside look” into the SSPX. I’ve met bishop Williamson. He’s an amazing man who I’m sure is a saint.
My second suggestion is that the Original Poster actually make sure they learn the faith and not the Pop Culture version of the Faith that is so prevalent in many areas of the Church. For example EWTN often promotes good teaching but it is mixed with many errors and they do not correct themselves.
B
bear06
Guest
Dude. This has yet to happen and quite frankly, who are you to judge what the Vicar of Christ must and must not do?
That was already done once. This isn’t a new thing. Pope John Paul actually confirmed that the commission he called said that the TLM was never forbidden.
This is a joke. Cardinal Ratzinger talked of a crisis in the Church long before he met as pope with Fellay.
Excuse me but the documents had to be clarified because there are people in the Church who take documents and very erroneously interpret them. As always, the Vatican has to come out and tell them that they are wrong in their interpretation and the documents are still right. Nowhere did you find the Holy Father saying that the use of “subsists” was wrong. You did find the Holy Father saying that people’s interpretations were wrong.
Uh, yes it is. The responses the Holy Father gave were ordered by him to be published by the CDF.
Sorry you missed it but these have all been desputed.
Wow! I missed seeing the gun. It must have been the same one used when he signed documents in VII.
Well, I’m going to disagree with you here. Pete Vere was an SSPX attendee and he’s a canonist. He’s also done a canonical history of the SSPX that’s quite telling. I’m just guessing you have never read the book.
Well, I’m not in a position to say who is and who is not a saint but I have a guess far different from yours on Williams. I highly recommend researching Williamson though. He’s made some astonishing statements. He’s got some very interesting views on the Holocaust, The Poem of the Man-God, etc. He didn’t even like the Sound of Music!
I’m sure he will lead the charge in the schism of the schism.
J
Jean_Anthony
Guest
This thread is closed. Thank you all.
- Status