This is not the point people are disagreeing about. StTommyMore made incorrect claims about the reason for this stance of the Society.
I’m not sure you got the gist of Floresco’s meaning. Here is his post again:
Re read now the second sentence of the second paragraph.
The dictionary does not help us here, since it gives general meanings for words. In terms of canon law and theology, “validity” and “licitness” are two different things and the distinction is important. Lawfulness corresponds to licitness, not validity. To say that a Sacrament is valid means that it has the correct matter, form and intent. It may nevertheless be illicit. For example, some non-Catholic churches have a valid Eucharist, but it is not licit for Catholics to attend (under most circumstances).
If you are interested in discussing this position of the SSPX, I recommend that you use less emotionally loaded language to do so.
Well, it is certainly easy enough to come to that conclusion when you read the document, based on the definition I posted which equates the two words as being the same. SInce he is a new member, I was disillusioned and saddened that he was alleged to be a liar.
I don’t see how they could enforce it.
Excuse me? Emotional loaded language? How so? Is this another extravagant interpretation of my words in the same manner as took place with StTommyMore?
I agree that was unfortunate. I think it far, far more likely that he misunderstood than that knowingly said something false. How much better it would have been to explain the misunderstanding, than to make such accusations.
You used the expression “get around” which carries negative connotations. It implies that I do not want to deal truthfully with the facts. You also refer to the SSPX position as a “denunciation” of the FSSP which is a (probably unnecessarily) strong term for disapproval.
I apologize. I misremembered what happened. I reread the thread and I see that you told StTommyMore that his statement was false. He responded by claiming that you had accused him of lying. You did not accuse anyone of lying. Please forgive me for adding to the confusion.
You’re right, I thought the prior post was dated May. Either way - why was this thread revived?
Of course your apology is accepted and appreciated. Pax tecum.
Thank you.
I didn’t say that there weren’t some that, for some twist of logic, except every Council except Vatican II. I said I have not seen one person that accepts Vatican II and rejects earlier council. That is the strawman. If that is not, then tell me who it is here that you have seen reject an earlier Church council.
Sorry, p newton, but this is not a respons to what I actually said. I wasn’t talking about people in the trenches, in the pews, nor here on this forum. I was talking about the Council itself.
Actually, it depends on the circumstances. Under some, it is clearly sinful.
I seem to live in an area where the Ordinary Form tends to be celebrated much better than in many other areas. Granted, we have no Latin or Ad orientem Ordinary Form Masses, but serious abuses are few and far between and most of the priests are very reverent and follow the rubrics - and at least occasionally use the Roman Canon. Our pastor uses the Roman Canon at the Sunday choir Mass almost every week.
I’d be okay with that… or at the very least, requiring the Roman Canon for Solemnities and other important days like Holy Thursday and All Souls, and banning EP2 from Sundays and feasts.
A very wise and practical perspective.
You shouldn’t. They do not have canonical status right now within the Catholic Church, thus they do not have the right to a public ministry within the Church. So no valid and licit Sacraments, no valid Mass.