Society Pius X, Lefebvre, Seminary Studies!!!!!

[Sure]

Do you have any proof that vocations are “more plentiful in the traditional seminaries”?

SFD,

Any luck on an answer to the above? I don’t necessarily doubt it, but it would be great to see some proof and to see exactly what the difference is.

Thanks!

 

[GerardP]

That’s nice.

The indult is still perfectly valid and authoritative. And the interpretation of canon law by the Supreme Legislator is still valid and binding. You may not like either of these decisions, but they still are lawful and binding.

This is simply the non-Catholic “if the Pope said it or did it, it must be good!” attitude. And with that, as Dr. Drolesky pointed out, the confusion, deceit and damage is lost on “conservative” Catholics who will eventually find themselves no longer believing in what the Catholic Church teaches and living a more and more humanist existence.

 

[Sure]

This is simply the non-Catholic “if the Pope said it or did it, it must be good!” attitude. And with that, as Dr. Drolesky pointed out, the confusion, deceit and damage is lost on “conservative” Catholics who will eventually find themselves no longer believing in what the Catholic Church teaches and living a more and more humanist existence.

Nope. I didn’t say it was good. I said it is lawful and binding. I pretty much agree with Arch. Ranjith. I just recognize that my opinion or perception of tradition does not overrule the laws of the Church. It’s very simple.

 

[cam100]

The vocations are down at the NO seminaries and many of them are beds of iniquity. Vocations are more plentiful in the traditional seminaries.
SFD

The fact that vocations appear more plentiful in Traditional Catholic seminaries can also be attributed to the following often overlooked reasons:

1. There are far fewer traditional seminaries, so each one would be more likely to be filled.
2. Those Catholics who join the traditional movement usually do so because they have an above-average interest in the faith. If one has little interest in one’s faith, one will probably just go with the norm since that’s the more obvious and simplest choice. Therefore, young men in the traditional movement have already made an effort to follow that movement, and are therefore the ones that are more likely to be interested in a vocation to the priesthood.

 

[cam100]

cam100;3316270:

What is this “sin” that Archbishop Lefebvre would have been an accessory to, if he had not consecrated bishops at that particular time?

Essentially, doing nothing when the Church is in chaos and you have the power to do “something” about it.

The particulars of how one assists the Church in time of chaos are subject to the laws of the Church. Yes, helping the Church in time of chaos is a good thing. How do you help? For, one you follow the laws of the Church, and do whatever else you can within that framework.

There were other things the archbishop could have done to assist the Church besides illegally consecrating bishops. The ends do not justify the means.

 

[Sure]

The fact that vocations appear more plentiful in Traditional Catholic seminaries can also be attributed to the following often overlooked reasons:

1. There are far fewer traditional seminaries, so each one would be more likely to be filled.
2. Those Catholics who join the traditional movement usually do so because they have an above-average interest in the faith. If one has little interest in one’s faith, one will probably just go with the norm since that’s the more obvious and simplest choice. Therefore, young men in the traditional movement have already made an effort to follow that movement, and are therefore the ones that are more likely to be interested in a vocation to the priesthood.

Does anyone even know how many traditionalists there are in the world? Or even the US? We need that number before we can begin speculating on whether they inspire more vocations.

Anyone?

 

[GerardP]

Nope. I didn’t say it was good. I said it is lawful and binding.

If it’s not good, what is it? Answer: the opposite of Good. And you are saying that the Pope is irresistible when he lawfully promotes something that is harmful to the Church?

I pretty much agree with Arch. Ranjith. I just recognize that my opinion or perception of tradition does not overrule the laws of the Church. It’s very simple.

In other words evil laws and practices are pleasing to God if you follow them. Right? That’s essentially what you are saying.

So, you’ll go along with whatever comes down your way, right or wrong. Fine. Do that. Just don’t get on your high horse when people with a little more zeal for defending the faith don’t want to adopt your laissez faire approach to things.

So what if the bishop allows a clown mass and puts the Precious Blood of Christ into a water pistol in order to squirt it directly into the mouths of “the faithful” attending. Who cares? God is tough. He can take the abuse.

 

[GerardP]

The particulars of how one assists the Church in time of chaos are subject to the laws of the Church.

Holding onto tradition is the first one. Especially if an “Angel of Light” preaches a foreign gospel.

Yes, helping the Church in time of chaos is a good thing. How do you help? For, one you follow the laws of the Church, and do whatever else you can within that framework.

C’mon. How naive are you to think that the hierarchy always follows the laws of the Church? Paul VI illegally suppressed the TLM. JPII followed suit. Who believes they would be fair and judicial in their exercises of power?

If the laws of the Church mattered to JPII, he wouldn’t have persecuted LeFebvre the way he did and allowed others to do that for him.

There were other things the archbishop could have done to assist the Church besides illegally consecrating bishops.

Like what? He was targeted during and after the Council. His cousin Cardinal Lefebvre told him that the other liberal bishops particularly the French ones would make him pay.

The ends do not justify the means.

Let’s take that to it’s logical conclusion:

So, you believe that you should let a neighbor’s house burn down rather than trespass by running across his lawn with a fire hose?

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

How dare you question what a Bishop of the Church determined was best for his flock at the time.

Lefebvre had a flock to care for and he made a determination that he needed a replacement. He knew his time was coming to an end and the Vatican was going to continue to stall in it’s promise that he’d get a bishop to replace him.

Call upon the Archbishop’s general apostolic responsibility for the universal Church if you’d like, but let’s not pretend he had “a flock” in the sense of a particular segment of the people of God that had been entrusted to him. After his retirement from active ministry (as a religious superior or as a bishop), the only time Abp. Lefebvre had a flock was during the experimental existence of the SSPX, which of course ended over a decade before the consecrations of 1988. He was no one’s ordinary, no one’s proper pastor.

They are validly married. The priest only witnesses a marriage. The couple marries each other.

They might, of course, if they received a dispensation from form, as there exists a canonical impediment preventing individuals from marrying each other without the witness of the Church. For all the canonical erudition the SSPX pretends to possess, this is simply shoddy work. They’ve got a long-shot chance on confessions (basically, if they manage to prove that there are, in fact, several ignorant individuals - ignorant, that is, of the priests’ lack of faculties, something I feel confident in assuming the SSPX faithful are well aware of - are showing up at any given offering of confessions), but on marriage I just don’t see a leg to stand on.

 

[Sure]

If it’s not good, what is it? Answer: the opposite of Good. And you are saying that the Pope is irresistible when he lawfully promotes something that is harmful to the Church?

In other words evil laws and practices are pleasing to God if you follow them. Right? That’s essentially what you are saying.

So, you’ll go along with whatever comes down your way, right or wrong. Fine. Do that. Just don’t get on your high horse when people with a little more zeal for defending the faith don’t want to adopt your laissez faire approach to things.

So what if the bishop allows a clown mass and puts the Precious Blood of Christ into a water pistol in order to squirt it directly into the mouths of “the faithful” attending. Who cares? God is tough. He can take the abuse.

Wow. You’re all over the place on this one.

You throw out irresistable again, even though that’s not what we’re talking about.

By not good, I mean perhaps not the most prudent move. That doesn’t mean it’s evil. But the Supreme Legislator’s decisions on canon law are still binding and authoritative.

My “laissez faire” approach as you call it is to look to the law and authoritative statements of the Church. It’s pretty clear cut.

Your clown Mass example is stupid and unrelated. All the actions you mention would violate liturgical laws and would be disobedient.

It’s funny how a discussion on law and public statements of the Church always gets answered with: “clown Mass, Bugnini, Assisi, started with disobedience.”

 

[Sure]

Does anyone even know how many traditionalists there are in the world? Or even the US? We need that number before we can begin speculating on whether they inspire more vocations.

Anyone?

Anyone? Bueller?

 

[GerardP]

Call upon the Archbishop’s general apostolic responsibility for the universal Church if you’d like, but let’s not pretend he had “a flock” in the sense of a particular segment of the people of God that had been entrusted to him.

He did have a flock. The throngs of people that “flocked” to him out of dire necessity for straight Catholicism as opposed to post conciliar madness.

They might, of course, if they received a dispensation from form, as there exists a canonical impediment preventing individuals from marrying each other without the witness of the Church.

Such as a crisis in the Church? Obviously there were no issues with the marriage of the SSJV in Campos when their situation was regularized.

For all the canonical erudition the SSPX pretends to possess, this is simply shoddy work.

No it’s not. And sacramental validity is what we are discussing not canonical procedure. A Radical Sanation is the quick and easy answer for Rome. It means nothing sacramentally but just squares the canonical books with the sacramental reality.

They’ve got a long-shot chance on confessions (basically, if they manage to prove that there are, in fact, several ignorant individuals - ignorant, that is, of the priests’ lack of faculties, something I feel confident in assuming the SSPX faithful are well aware of - are showing up at any given offering of confessions),

I believe the canon 1335 allow the faithful to approach any valid priest for “any just cause.”

but on marriage I just don’t see a leg to stand on.

Again, Rome did nothing concerning the validity of the SSJV and in 1988 the protocol that Rome wanted LeFebvre to sign contained a provision for Radical sanation.

 

[GerardP]

Anyone? Bueller?

That’s complicated because so many people float between SSPX and diocesan masses and then you have the independents and the underground priests. Their adherents often don’t want to be found or counted.

 

[ProVobis]

“If you decided to get the MA instead of the M.Div, you will have to major in one of these areas and you’ll have to write a thesis. I don’t know what the rules are at St. Charles, at our school we had a choice between M.Th. M.Div., and MA. The MA was the longest and more rigorous program. The M.Div was a requirement for Holy Orders.”

Thanks for this information. That’s good to know.

By the way, do you have the percentages of fellow students who pursue Holy Orders? Maybe I assumed most attending a seminary were.

 

[Sure]

That’s complicated because so many people float between SSPX and diocesan masses and then you have the independents and the underground priests. Their adherents often don’t want to be found or counted.

So, just the SSPX then what is maybe 1,000,000 or 2,000,000?

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

Such as a crisis in the Church? Obviously there were no issues with the marriage of the SSJV in Campos when their situation was regularized.

No it’s not. And sacramental validity is what we are discussing not canonical procedure. A Radical Sanation is the quick and easy answer for Rome. It means nothing sacramentally but just squares the canonical books with the sacramental reality.

I believe the canon 1335 allow the faithful to approach any valid priest for “any just cause.”

Again, Rome did nothing concerning the validity of the SSJV and in 1988 the protocol that Rome wanted LeFebvre to sign contained a provision for Radical sanation.

I have two problems with your argument from can. 1335. First, the censure of the SSPX priests is not the reason preventing their celebrating of the Sacrament of Penance, because they didn’t have the faculties to begin with. As their bishops have no jurisdiction, and I think we could all reasonably presume in the absence of contrary evidence no other bishops have granted them the faculties, the temporary lifting of the latae sententiae suspension would not give them any more ability to absolve than they had without the suspension, which is none.

Secondly, we have a letter from the PCED claiming that SSPX priests are suspended (unavoce.org/articles/2003/perl-011803.htm). Now, you might cavil about just how binding the declaration is, but since the unofficial statements of Cdl. Castrillon Hoyos seem good enough to trump the PCILT on the matter of schism, it seems that the effort of the PCED to make public its decisions in that letter should be enough to count for declaration of the latae sententiae suspensions of the SSPX priests. In which case, again, the canon is off the table.

As to marriages, the very fact of radical sanation tells you that the marriages were considered invalid. Come on, now, “sanation” is healing, here of a defect, and if you bother to consult the canons for a definition of radical sanation you will find:

“Can. 1161 §1. The radical sanation of an invalid marriage is its convalidation without the renewal of consent, which is granted by competent authority and entails the dispensation from an impediment, if there is one, and from canonical form, if it was not observed, and the retroactivity of canonical effects.”

Ergo, you’ve provided evidence damning your position, for if Rome required radical sanations in its protocol with Abp. Lefebvre, then you have proof they considered the marriages invalid. Proof, that is, beyond the authentic ruling of the PCILT, which also spells it out rather explicitly.

So, in response to your assertion that a radical sanation means nothing sacramentally, a quick glance at the canons will show that it means a great deal, as it means the difference between invalidity (before the sanation) and validity (after the sanation).

 

[cam100]

cam100;3316807:

The ends do not justify the means.

Let’s take that to it’s logical conclusion:

So, you believe that you should let a neighbor’s house burn down rather than trespass by running across his lawn with a fire hose?

Here’s a better analogy: Your neighbor’s house (the Church) is on fire. The fire chief (the pope) is standing there, along with the entire fire department (the hierarchy). You think they’re not doing a good job, so you grab a hose and run to the house. Of course, the fire chief orders you to stop and tells you that you’ll just cause more trouble if you get in the way. What do you do?

Actually, this analogy is still not good because it leaves out a critical detail: Although it is unlikely, maybe the fire chief and the entire department are incompetent and they’ll let the house burn down, but the Church can never “burn down”.

The Church would not have been destroyed if Lefebvre had not consecrated those bishops. He did not “save the Church” by his transgression of Church law, and God did not need disobedience to preserve His Church.

 

[GerardP]

So, just the SSPX then what is maybe 1,000,000 or 2,000,000?

In the U.S.? I don’t know, but I would guess much more than that. The priest at the chapel I attend takes care of about 600 people a week regularly for mass.

I think St. Mary’s Kansas has about 3000 registered parisioners supporting the SSPX.

 

[stmaria]

No. The indult for Communion in the hand was issued before JPII became Pope. And, since he was the Supreme Legislator, his interpretation of canon law as allowing for altar girls was completely authoritative and valid. .

The first altar girls were introduced in 1966, without approval. Pope John Paul rejected altar girls in 1980. Just like communion in the hand, the use of altar girls was so widespread that in 1994
Pope John Paul gave in and allowed the practice even though he rejected them in 1980.
Eucharistic Mystery
Sacred Congregation for the Sacraments and Divine Worship
Approved and Confirmed by His Holiness Pope John Paul II April 17, 1980
ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP2INAES.HTM

1. There are, of course, various roles that women can perform in the liturgical assembly: these include reading the Word of God and proclaiming the intentions of the Prayer of the Faithful. **
   Women are not, however, permitted to act as altar servers.**

 

[SFD]

Check your facts again. Vocations have risen 77% since 1980. Nearly all of the seminaries have been thoroughly cleaned up and are forming very good young priests.

Do you have any proof that vocations are “more plentiful in the traditional seminaries”?

Did the post Vatican II era start in 1980? The loss of priests (and religious) during that time was devastating. The seminaries were emptied during that time as well. What did they “rebound” 77%from?

There is also a question of valid orders…is the new rites of ordination and consecration even valid? They certainly appear to contradict what Pius XII laid down in Sacramentum Ordinis.

Anyway, I thought it wasn’t about mere numbers?

SFD