SSPX 1988 Consecration video

  • Thread starter Thread starter CatholicNick
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Two things to note:
  1. As Jkirk said, Ecclesia Dei did not excommunicate them. It merely referred to the excommunication. If that excommunication had not taken place automatically, they are not excommunicated.
  2. For some reason, the original Ecclesia Dei document was never properly signed by Cardinal Ratzinger. Hence, technically, it has no force.
The Orthodox are heretics and schismatics. As you are so very sensitive to these things, I suppose you couldn’t stand watching the video of the Divine Liturgy celebrated by Patriarch Bartholomew in the presence of the Pope.
 
Resurrexit said:
Jkirk - not relevant to this discussion, but - the 1983 Code of Canon law says that a bishop may consecrate without permission, if in his opinion, there is a very good reason to do so. Lefebvre thought he was ‘saving the priesthood’. Whether that is the case (I certainly don’t think so), is irrelevant, but Lefebvre thought it was necessary, and that’s the key.
Click to expand...
Rubbish! He had a deal, in which he was going to get a great deal of what he needed (but not everything he wanted), a deal to which he agreed and then reneged on a day or so latter. And the Supreme Pontiff determined that no good reason or “emergency” existed (again, he’s the supreme legislator). Canon law allowing bishops to consecrate without permission exists for bishops working under oppressive political regimes (like in Russia or China) who are in danger or near death and for whom the normal channels to the Holy See are closed.
 
Resurrexit said:
Two things to note:
  1. As Jkirk said, Ecclesia Dei did not excommunicate them. It merely referred to the excommunication. If that excommunication had not taken place automatically, they are not excommunicated.
  2. For some reason, the original Ecclesia Dei document was never properly signed by Cardinal Ratzinger. Hence, technically, it has no force.
The Orthodox are heretics and schismatics. As you are so very sensitive to these things, I suppose you couldn’t stand watching the video of the Divine Liturgy celebrated by Patriarch Bartholomew in the presence of the Pope.
Click to expand...
Again, rubbish, it simply has to be promulgated by the pope. The Pope and the Holy See believe the excommunication took place and are valid and that’s what matters.

The Orthodox are material heretics and schismatics, not formal ones. They are the descendents of those in error and according to the Catechism, cannot be charge with the “sin of seperation.” That in no way applys to Lefebrve and the Four, who are VERY much culpable for the sin of seperation.
 
JKirkLVNV said:
Rubbish! He had a deal, in which he was going to get a great deal of what he needed (but not everything he wanted), a deal to which he agreed and then reneged on a day or so latter.
Click to expand...
The law states that a bishop may consecrate, if he deems it necessary.
JKirkLVNV said:
And the Supreme Pontiff determined that no good reason or “emergency” existed (again, he’s the supreme legislator).
Click to expand...
When was that? Was it a passing comment, or a proper decree?
 
Resurrexit said:
Two things to note:
  1. As Jkirk said, Ecclesia Dei did not excommunicate them. It merely referred to the excommunication. If that excommunication had not taken place automatically, they are not excommunicated.
  2. For some reason, the original Ecclesia Dei document was never properly signed by Cardinal Ratzinger. Hence, technically, it has no force.
The Orthodox are heretics and schismatics. As you are so very sensitive to these things, I suppose you couldn’t stand watching the video of the Divine Liturgy celebrated by Patriarch Bartholomew in the presence of the Pope.
Click to expand...
  1. Ecclesia Dei says they committed a schismatic act therefore they did because of the force of the document. It doesn’t say “if they committed a schismatic act, then they incur the penalty.” It states that they did, so they did. Period.
  2. I believe this has been dismissed before by the Vatican. I mean, are you really arguing that the document has no force?
The Orthodox are a very interesting point. Is there canonical status the same as the bishops of SSPX? Is there a difference because they are an independent Church with a Patriarch? Does the fact that the Orthodox bishops have never personally broken a personal vow made to God make a difference? Interesting.

By the way, I notice from your profile that we share the exact same interests.👍
 
JKirkLVNV said:
(again, he’s the supreme legislator).
Click to expand...
And judge too. Anyway, the SSPX argument is similar to the wishy washy arguments of liberal modernists to do whatever their “conscience” tells them without any effect on the soul.

Just a reminder from the First Vatican Council:
  1. Since the Roman Pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole Church, we likewise teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful [52], and that in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment [53]. The sentence of the Apostolic See (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon [54].
 
Resurrexit said:
Forget it then.
Click to expand...
I’d dearly love to, if you’d stop posting this stuff! It’s incorrect and it leads innocent people into wrong conclusions about the Church! This ISN’T a question of “I dearly love the Tridentine Mass” and “isn’t this moving?” You’re entitled to that. You’re not entitled (excep in seclular law, I suppose) to factually mislead people about the Church. If you’d left it at “lovely Mass, ain’t it, guv?”, I would have passed it by. But you didn’t. You attempted to assert something that isn’t true about the Church. I don’t let those occasions pass.
 
Resurrexit said:
The law states that a bishop may consecrate, if he deems it necessary.

When was that? Was it a passing comment, or a proper decree?
Click to expand...
If the Pope thought that these conditions may have existed he would have worded Ecclesia Dei to say that he may be excommunicated if the act was schismatic. But he didn’t say that. He said that it WAS a schismatic act. Since he stated this in a motu propio, there can be no debate on whether the law allowed Lefebvre to act as he did. Ecclesia Dei calls it a schismatic act which means that the canon you are referring to could not have applied otherwise it could not have been called schismatic. The wording takes the whole “if necessary” rationalization right off the table.

I think you’re English so this might be lost on you…

The Pope’s action in Ecclesia Dei is a lot like an umpire. He called strike three. We can debate all day if it was a little out side or if it scraped the outside edge of the plate, but ultimately, it’s a strike because he called it that way. And the law says that when you get strike three, you’re out. Lefebvre was caught looking and I suspect he knew it.
 
  1. The SSPX are currently in Schism
  2. In my opinion the 1988 excommunications are doubtful
  3. I do not support the SSPX
  4. The 1988 Mass is of historical interesting
  5. And yes, it is pretty!
 
God Bless Archbishop Lefebvre, Castro de Mayer, and the four bishops consecrated.

http://www.orlandolatinmass.com/lefebvre50.jpg

An act to save the Church. Not schism. Cry about a non-existant schism when you have clergy attending Orthodox services and giving Anglicans a basillica to offer their services. The only schism that exists is those with Hegelian minds who no longer believe in Catholic truth.
 
We are getting way off topic here.

The point that I was trying to make earlier is that regardless of your opinions on the SSPX Consecrations of 1988, this video is extremely interesting as it records a significant historical event and serves as an example of Traditional Episcopal Consecration. And whether you believe the SSPX is in schism or not, it is an excellent Liturgy and very beautiful.

The Nazi propaganda video Triumph of the Wills is also an interesting video for recording a significant historical event and is an excellent example of 1930s cinematography. Does saying so make me a Nazi?
 
Caesar said:
The Nazi propaganda video Triumph of the Wills is also an interesting video for recording a significant historical event and is an excellent example of 1930s cinematography. But just because I think it is interesting doesnt make me a Nazi.
Click to expand...
Couldn’t have put it better myself! 😃
 
There are more people --laity, priests, and bishops within the Church–who are causing more harm than the SSPX is accused of doing----yet here some of you are—ready to judge them----when the enemy is within the Church.
 
EddieArent said:
God Bless Archbishop Lefebvre, Castro de Mayer, and the four bishops consecrated
Click to expand...
At least, may He bless the four bishops consecrated by bringing them to their senses and bringing them back to the obedience of the Church. As for the Lefebrve and Castro de Mayer, they died excommunicate. Tell me, what does the Church “traditionally” teach about the state of those who die excommunicate?

Nonetheless, sinner that I am, I will pray for their souls, as I hope my soul will be prayed for.
 
Walking_Home said:
There are more people --laity, priests, and bishops within the Church–who are causing more harm than the SSPX is accused of doing----yet here some of you are—ready to judge them----when the enemy is within the Church.
Click to expand...
I agree, completely. I think that objectively, Richard McBrien and Joan Chichester, lax and timid bishops who hid child molesters, heretical, ignorant or simply lazy priests, “Future Church,” etc. are doing FAR more harm to the Church than the SSPX. Lot’s and LOTS more. This isn’t about that, however, this is about historical facts, facts in evidence, if you will, and the authority of the Church. We shouldn’t stand by and allow what isn’t true to be stated as though it was.
 
Resurrexit said:
No sorry. :o But if you look up the 1983 Code of Canon Law - it’s in there somewhere. 🙂
Click to expand...
It is in there.

To those of you who are saying that the 4 bishops are not in schism: In order to hold this position, you necessarily have to hold that Ecclesia Dei does not have the force of law. Do you really want to do that? Because that is pretty far out there in Hutton Gibson-land.

Note, I am not saying that everyone in the SSPX is in schism. I am saying those 4 bishops are per Ecclesia Dei.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top