I’m sorry, I must have misinterpreted what he said.Infer away. It IS your modus operandi. Your take on the letter is one big assumption which is not what the Pope says above: Where in the above does the Pope say the SSPX IS in schism?
He doesn’t.
How’s that, mr. smartypants? close enough?
Irregular Canonical status does not imply schism. No matter what your weak assertions to the contrary be.I’m sorry, I must have misinterpreted what he said.
The bolded words indicate full communion with the Holy See?
Got it.
Look, I’m not going to continue this. Legitimate authorities do indeed dispute the point, so you and I are not going to get anywhere.
Let’s agree’ that Jesus Christ is Lord, the Church needs more reverence, and more on.
Irregular Canonical status does not imply schism. No matter what your weak assertions to the contrary be.
I am so grateful that finally I can be taken seriously. Thank you. This is almost as good as a pay raise! Hooray!diggerdomer,
I can begin to take you seriously now.
“A danger of schism…” is what the Pope refers to, in citing any Concecrations of Bishops without the Papal Mandate.
Nowhere does he say that a schism exists. An irregular Canonical situation, yes. I and others have never shyed away from this fact.
The question was raised: Where does the Pope say the SSPX is not in schism?
I raised the question: Where does the Pope say the SSPX is in schism.
my question still has not been answered. It is much easier to prove the postive statement (the SSPX is in schism) than it is to prove the negative (the SSPX is not in schism).
Case in point: the super soaker thread on this forum. Is the priest who uses such profane and childish methods at Mass in Communion with the Pope and the Church or is he out of Communion with the Pope and the Church?
I CERTAINLY CAN BE WRONG HERE, but I sincerely think that you are not incompetent, but I do believe you are playing so.I am so grateful that finally I can be taken seriously. Thank you. This is almost as good as a pay raise! Hooray!
I posted the sources I refer to in message 46 (I think…let me know if you don’t see it). I may be wrong, I have no problem acknowledging that. But from the documents I read (and posted the links to) I kept coming across the mention of “schism” and “schismatic acts.” Lifting the penalty of excommunication is separate and distinct to the schismatic issue(s) that led to the excommunication.
I’m no canon lawyer, so again I may be really off base, but reading the sources I see from the Vatican I can’t help but conclude that the SSPX is in schism.
Cheers
p.s. sorry I may be incompetent but have no idea what you’re referring to about super soaker.
another swing and a miss, and another weak statement.I guess you can’t get more irregular than having no status at all!
- The Society has **no canonical status ***in the Church, and its ministers – even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty – do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church.
That is funny! Of course you have no need for me to take you seriously, I know. Good response, and touche’!!!I am so grateful that finally I can be taken seriously. Thank you. This is almost as good as a pay raise! Hooray!
diggerdomer,
Case in point: the super soaker thread on this forum. Is the priest who uses such profane and childish methods at Mass in Communion with the Pope and the Church or is he out of Communion with the Pope and the Church?
Thread title: Maybe not a clown Mass, but a clown act for sure.p.s. sorry I may be incompetent but have no idea what you’re referring to about super soaker.
Maurin, are you familiar with Iraqi Information Minister Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf, “Baghdad Bob”, from the Gulf War?another swing and a miss, and another weak statement.
Of course the Society has Canonical status in the Church.
Even a laicised and excommunicated priest has a certain Canonical status: in an emergency he may hear confession and offer absolution in very narrow circumstances. “You are a priest forever…”
Are you familiar with your Catholic Faith which was taught “semper” and “ubique”?Maurin, are you familiar with Iraqi Information Minister Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf, “Baghdad Bob”, from the Gulf War?
What older documents am I citing that have been superseded? Please, if there are more current relevant teachings that I am unaware of let me know. I thought the info I found was still current and applicable.I CERTAINLY CAN BE WRONG HERE, but I sincerely think that you are not incompetent, but I do believe you are playing so.
You continually cite older documents which are superceded by new ones. You continually assert your interpretation of that which has been written, which is contrary to what is actually written in these documents in question. And then you claim innocence through incompetence.
That’s my take on it. I could, I admit and allow for, be wrong.
done already digger.What older documents am I citing that have been superseded? Please, if there are more current relevant teachings that I am unaware of let me know. I thought the info I found was still current and applicable.
Thanks.
According to the Catholic Encyclopedia:Irregular Canonical status does not imply schism. No matter what your weak assertions to the contrary be.
.Irregularity: A canonical impediment, of its nature permanent, rendering unlawful, though not invalid, the reception and/or the exercise of the sacrament of Holy Orders. Irregularities are of two kinds; ex delicto, arising from the commission of certain grave crimes, and ex defectu, arising from defects that are not crimes.
The chief irregularities ex delicto are apostasy, heresy, schism, murder, abortion, usurpation of sacred orders, bigamy, marriage attempted by one bound by Holy Orders or religious vows, guilty reception of heretical baptism.
Among irregularities ex defectu are illigitimacy, grave bodily deformity or disablement, epilepsy, insanity and second marriage
you’re joking, right Frosty? Because schism is one of the factors, it does not mean the sole factor.According to the Catholic Encyclopedia:
.
If it does not imply schism, then perhaps you can tell us what it does imply. According to your interpretation, of course!
Thanks but that’s no help. If it’s already done, obviously I missed it and am still looking for help.done already digger.
You stated that an irregular canonical status does not imply schism, did you not? I merely addressed your erroneous assertation. It definitely does imply schism. You quite obviously do not want to accept that fact.you’re joking, right Frosty? Because schism is one of the factors, it does not mean the sole factor.
Since the others have been wont to give us the Pope’s declaration that the SSPX is in schism, maybe you can give it to us?
Diggerdomer has already shown that the lifting of the excommunciations has ended any schisms, if there was indeed one at all. There are a lot of schismatic acts in the world which certainly put one at risk but do not FORMALLY place any one in schism. A permanent schism is, of course, a very grievous matter and something that shouldn’t be thown around casually without definite knowledge. Otherwise it just amounts to good old fashioned gossip.ProVobis and Maurin,
How hard is this? It’s a simple question.
Where does the Pope say, anywhere, that the lifting of the excommunication of the Leferve Bishops ended the schism of SSPX?
You stated that an irregular canonical status does not imply schism, did you not? I merely addressed your erroneous assertation. It definitely does imply schism. You quite obviously do not want to accept that fact.
I have no intention of sparring with you on this issue. I only wonder why, when you are pointedly asked by other posters to show them * that the Holy Father says the SSPX is not in schism, you continue to refuse to do so. This is the same tactic you have used on this particular thread and every other that has to do with the SSPX question. Deflecting a question addressed to you by haughtily tossing back another question instead of facing up to the challenge hardly proves your point or makes you credible.
Try baiting someone else. Have a nice day, Maurin,*
Because it is easier to prove the positive, Frosty. The Pope has not stated that the SSPX is in schism because no schism exists. What reason would he have to state the negative? The negative is a given, unless stated otherwise.
The burden of proof would fall on all of you who are speaking in contradiction to the Pope. It is reasonable to say that those of you who make assertions in contradiction to the Pope are the master baiters.
Now, offer proof that the Pope considers the SSPX is in schism, or desist.
Nope, I never stated that. Actually, I tend to think that lifting the excommunication did NOT end the schism.Diggerdomer has already shown that the lifting of the excommunciations has ended any schisms, if there was indeed one at all. There are a lot of schismatic acts in the world which certainly put one at risk but do not FORMALLY place any one in schism. A permanent schism is, of course, a very grievous matter and something that shouldn’t be thown around casually without definite knowledge. Otherwise it just amounts to good old fashioned gossip.
actually, you have unwittingly proven Pro Vobis’ point–whether you had intended to or not.Nope, I never stated that. Actually, I tend to think that lifting the excommunication did NOT end the schism.
Cheers