SSPX and automatic excommunication

[john81]

Still waiting on an answer on whether the Orthodox have jurisdiction. …

Me too…good discussion

 

[FrDavid96]

I thought just the 4 bishops were excommunicated, then later it was rescinded. Who else in the SSPX is still excommunicated?

I do not know the answer to that.

My point was that only those whose excommunications were actually lifted were lifted; because someone had previously posted “Since the excommunication of the SSPX was lifted.” That’s not an accurate statement because the SSPX (as such) was not excommunicated, individuals were.

Anyone who was not excommunicated is not in need of having it lifted.

Whatever other penalties might apply to other persons remain in-effect until those penalties are lifted.

 

[FrDavid96]

Still waiting on an answer on whether the Orthodox have jurisdiction. …

There is no point in answering.

You insist on this ridiculous notion of yours that you posted here:

… in order to have the fullness ofApostolic succession, one must possess jurisdiction. …

I’m not going to debate the point further with you because the statement that you’re trying to defend is so ridiculous that it doesn’t merit further discussion.

You made it clear that you have no idea what you’re posting (not a clue) when you posted this in defense of the earlier post:

Titular bishops and retired bishops do not enjoy the fullness of Apostolic succession. They do not have governance, which is a required mark as taught by Rome. Their Holy Orders are valid of course and they provide sacraments, but any “supplied jurisdiction” comes from the Roman pontiff.

In attempting to defend your earlier post by saying that retired bishops do not enjoy the fullness of Apostolic Succession, you clearly express that you have no idea of the meaning of the words you’re using.

I have no doubt, not even the slightest doubt, that Pope-Emeritus Benedict, who is a retired bishop, has the fullness of Apostolic Succession (merely to use the most obvious example). The idea that he does not is quite laughable.

 

[Butzi]

There is no point in answering.

You insist on this ridiculous notion of yours that you posted here:

I’m not going to debate the point further with you because the statement that you’re trying to defend is so ridiculous that it doesn’t merit further discussion.

You made it clear that you have no idea what you’re posting (not a clue) when you posted this in defense of the earlier post:

In attempting to defend your earlier post by saying that retired bishops do not enjoy the fullness of Apostolic Succession, you clearly express that you have no idea of the meaning of the words you’re using.

I have no doubt, not even the slightest doubt, that Pope-Emeritus Benedict, who is a retired bishop, has the fullness of Apostolic Succession (merely to use the most obvious example). The idea that he does not is quite laughable.

For someone who is a priest, you sure seem ill-tempered.

I understand. It’s okay. You can’t answer the question because of the dilemma.

Whether you agree with what I wrote about retired bishops does not address the Orthodox. I have amply shown based on Pius XI’S words and a universally accepted theology manual used at the seminarian level that the Orthodox cannot have “churches” if they reject the authority of the pope. If they don’t have jurisdiction, they do not have the fullness of apostolic succession because they lack governance. Modern Rome says otherwise. Thus proving there is a contradiction, despite what you say. I’m providing the quotes which are clear and unambiguous. You keep telling me I don’t understand. Explain it then.

 

[SyroMalankara]

This idea of comparing the SSPX to the Orthodox Churches is like comparing apples to STEAK. That’s right, there is no comparison.

The SSPX does not claim to be a Church, they are a society within the Western Catholic Church of the Latin Rite. The jurisdiction of the Western Church of the Latin Rite belongs to the Holy Synod based in Rome and its head is the Pope of Rome. The authority of any bishop in the Western Church belongs to the Roman Church Holy Synod and Papal mandate.

The Orthodox Churches (and Eastern Catholic Churches) are true Churches with full Apostolic Succession directly from the Apostles. Their jurisdiction doesn’t emanate or depend on the Pope of Rome. The Eastern Patriarchs and Catholicoi receive their authority from the same antiquity as the Pope of Rome - Christ Himself.

The SSPX members (only clergy are members) verbally claim to hold itself to all authority the Pope claims, yet acts contrary in many matters.

 

[Butzi]

This idea of comparing the SSPX to the Orthodox Churches is like comparing apples to STEAK. That’s right, there is no comparison.

The SSPX does not claim to be a Church, they are a society within the Western Catholic Church of the Latin Rite. The jurisdiction of the Western Church of the Latin Rite belongs to the Holy Synod based in Rome and its head is the Pope of Rome. The authority of any bishop in the Western Church belongs to the Roman Church Holy Synod and Papal mandate.

The Orthodox Churches (and Eastern Catholic Churches) are true Churches with full Apostolic Succession directly from the Apostles. Their jurisdiction doesn’t emanate or depend on the Pope of Rome. The Eastern Patriarchs and Catholicoi receive their authority from the same antiquity as the Pope of Rome - Christ Himself.

The SSPX members (only clergy are members) verbally claim to hold itself to all authority the Pope claims, yet acts contrary in many matters.

I agree with just about everything you stated.

However, Rome has taught otherwise in the past, as I have shown.

 

[SyroMalankara]

I’ll go over your quotes one by one:

PIUS IX
[Encyclical Amantissimus, April 18, 1862]
“He who leaves this [Roman] See cannot hope to remain within the Church; he who eats of the lamb outside of it has no part with God.”

This statement is nowhere in the original text. ewtn.com/library/encyc/p9amant2.htm

There are a whole lot of other ‘promotional pro-Roman Pontiff’ statements but not this one.

PIUS IX
[Letter Jam vos omnes, September 13, 1868]
“Now, anyone who wishes to examine with care and to meditate on the condition of the different religious societies divided among themselves and separated from the Catholic Church…will easily be convinced that no one of these societies nor all of them together in any way constitute or are that one Catholic Church which Our Lord founded and established and which He willed to create. Nor is it possible, either, to say that these societies are either a member or part of this same Church, since they are visibly separated from Catholic unity.”

This is written by Pius IX in 1868, **to Protestants and other non-Catholics.**In addition, this would seem to show how SSPX is another separated society and not Catholic at all. It’s disastrous… for the SSPX.

PIUS IX
[Encyclical Quartus supra, January 6, 1873, to the
Armenians]
“He who abandons the Chair of Peter on which the Church is founded, is falsely persuaded that he is in the Church, since he is already a sinner and a schismatic who raises up a chair against the one Chair of Peter, from which flow to all others the sacred rights of communion.”

This document is specifically written in reaction to the following
: "For by means of the new schism which arose three years ago among the Armenians in Constantinople, ".
papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9quartu.htm

This one is particularly interesting:

PIUS IX
[Encyclical Etsi multa, November 21, 1873]
The very first elements of Catholic doctrine teach that no one can be considered a legitimate bishop if he is not united by the communion of faith and charity with the Rock on which the Church of Christ is built, if he does not adhere to the Supreme Pastor to whom are confided all the sheep so that he may feed them, and if he is not bound to him who has the office of confirming his brethren who are in the world.

This is written not to any Easterners, but specifically to the “Old Catholic” schismatics: ETSI MULTA (On The Church In Italy, Germany, And Switzerland)

Just these few quotes (and there are many more) clearly demonstrate a marked difference in how the West views the East pre and post Vatican II.

If such a difference exists, it must be a work in progress, as there are many longer strides to go to achieve full unity and Communion with the East. However, let’s not take everything out of context and apply it to situations where it is not meant or applicable.

 

[Butzi]

Are you, as a Catholic in communion with Rome, contending that the Orthodox are not schismatic and heretical?

 

[SyroMalankara]

Are you, as a Catholic in communion with Rome, contending that the Orthodox are not schismatic and heretical?

Depends on the specific Orthodox. I’ve learned that these kinds of pointed questions, perhaps meant to elicit a reaction, are way above my paygrade.

As far as I understand it, the Holy See, for the last 100-200 years, has referred to the various Orthodox as separated brethren and less as “schismatic”, “heretics” and other terms reserved for the more recently estranged and fringe protestant sects.

 

[Butzi]

Depends on the specific Orthodox. I’ve learned that these kinds of pointed questions, perhaps meant to elicit a reaction, are way above my paygrade.

As far as I understand it, the Holy See, for the last 100-200 years, has referred to the various Orthodox as separated brethren and less as “schismatic”, “heretics” and other terms reserved for the more recently estranged and fringe protestant sects.

So rejecting Vatican I’s dogma of papal infallibility and universal jurisdiction does not make one heretical?

 

[SyroMalankara]

So rejecting Vatican I’s dogma of papal infallibility and universal jurisdiction does not make one heretical?

amazon.com/Fortescue-Eastern-Christian-Churches-Dissertations/dp/1593333455/ref=sr_1_1/176-5023926-9731137?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1415654924&sr=1-1&keywords=9781593333454

The arbiter and judge according to Vatican I is the Pope, he has decided that Orthodox are not to be termed heretical. Neither you nor I are of sufficient authority to undue what the last 5 or 6 Popes have decided.

 

[Butzi]

Wonderful! There’s no reason for me to return to Rome then and Orthodoxy is just fine.

 

[SyroMalankara]

Wonderful! There’s no reason for me to return to Rome then and Orthodoxy is just fine.

Seems you had already made up your mind, and was looking for justification. I’m happy for you!

 

[Butzi]

amazon.com/Fortescue-Eastern-Christian-Churches-Dissertations/dp/1593333455/ref=sr_1_1/176-5023926-9731137?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1415654924&sr=1-1&keywords=9781593333454

BTW, Fr. Fortesque had this to say about Pope Pius X in a letter to Herbert Thurston:

“You know, we have stuck out for our position all our lives–unity, authority, etc. Peter the Rock and so on. I have, too, and believe it, I am always preaching that sort of thing. And yet it is not now getting to a reductio ad absurdum?
Centralisation grows and goes madder every century. Even at Trent they hardly foresaw this kind of thing. Does it really mean that one cannot be a member of the Church of Christ without being, as we are, absolutely at the mercy of an Italian Lunatic?
… We must pull through even this beastliness somehow. After all, it is still the Church of the Fathers that we stand by and spend our lives defending. However, as bad as things are, nothing else is possible. I think that when I look at Rome, I see powerful arguments against us, but when I look at the Church of England or Matthew or anyone else, I see still more powerful arguments for us. But of course, saving a total collapse, things are as bad as they can be. Give us back the Xth century Johns and Stephen, or a Borgia! They were less disastrous than this deplorable person.”

 

[ProVobis]

“Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church, since they do not accept the Catholic doctrine of the Primacy, which, according to the will of God, the Bishop of Rome objectively has and exercises over the entire Church.”(Dominus Iesus)

So if I understand you correctly, the faculties (of hearing confessions and performing marriages, which the Orthodox appear to have) aren’t required to be coming from the pope as they don’t believe in the Primacy to begin with?

 

[SyroMalankara]

Actually, the majority of Orthodox recognize the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome, they differ on SUPREMACY.

 

[Butzi]

Actually, the majority of Orthodox recognize the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome, they differ on SUPREMACY.

And infallibility. …

 

[Butzi]

So if I understand you correctly, the faculties (of hearing confessions and performing marriages, which the Orthodox appear to have) aren’t required to be coming from the pope as they don’t believe in the Primacy to begin with?

Has not Rome decreed that universal jurisdiction and papal infallibility are dogmas of the faith and cannot be rejected if one is in the Church? Do not the Orthodox reject papal supremacy and papal infallibility?

If the Orthodox do indeed have jurisdiction that Rome recognizes, then how is that the Eastern Catholics have their own jurisdiction as well, many times within the same jurisdiction that the Orthodox hold prior to the schism? What point is there to ordinary jurisdiction then? To have it means that one legitimately governs that area as a bishop. How many Bishops can govern the same diocese and legitimatly hold jurisdiction?

 

[SyroMalankara]

Has not Rome decreed that universal jurisdiction and papal infallibility are dogmas of the faith and cannot be rejected if one is in the Church? Do not the Orthodox reject papal supremacy and papal infallibility?

If the Orthodox do indeed have jurisdiction that Rome recognizes, then how is that the Eastern Catholics have their own jurisdiction as well, many times within the same jurisdiction that the Orthodox hold prior to the schism? What point is there to ordinary jurisdiction then? To have it means that one legitimately governs that area as a bishop. How many Bishops can govern the same diocese and legitimatly hold jurisdiction?

In Rome speak, there is a legal difference between ‘ordinary’, ‘extraordinary’, ‘immediate’, ‘proper’, ‘temporal’, ‘spiritual’, ‘personal’, etc. Without apriori knowing what these mean, our discussions are fruitless and misleading.