SSPX - I dont get it

[gelsbern]

I think what bugs me the most is that Feeney was excommunicated for teaching that there was salvation outside the catholic church, and now, 56 years later we have the church saying that “salvation is at least remotely possible outside the church”. What gives?

We excommunicate a person for wanting to carry on in the Church’s rich tradition, and yet John Kerry and the Bishop who gave him communion are still members of the Church?

It’s confusing to me, I guess it’s ok to be disobedient if it’s politically correct, or if it’s a cool thing to do, or you live in L.A. but try to keep the catholic tradition alive and bam, you fired!

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Can. 16 (CCL, 1983): “Leges authentice interpretatur legislator et is cui potestas authentice interpretandi fuerit ab eodem commissa.”

“Laws are authentically interpreted by the legislator and by the one to whom the legislator has granted the power to interpret them authentically.”

AND

Can. 331 (ibid): “Ecclesiae Romanae Episcopus, in quo permanet munus a Domino singular Petro, primo Apostolorum, concessum et successoribus eius transmittendum. Collegii Episcoporum est caput. Vicarius Christi atque universae Ecclesiae his in terris Pastor;qui ideo vi muneris sui suprema, plena, immediata et universali in Ecclesia gaudet ordinaria potestate, quam semper libere exercere valet.”

"The bishop of the Church of Rome, in whom resides the office given in a special way by the Lord to Peter, first of the Apostles and to be transmitted to his successors, is head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ and Pastor of the universal Church on earth; therefore, in virtue of his office, he enjoys supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church, which he can always freely exercise."

---

Not a contest at all. This is, as I said, verifiable fact.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

gelsbern:

I think what bugs me the most is that Feeney was excommunicated for teaching that there was salvation outside the catholic church, and now, 56 years later we have the church saying that “salvation is at least remotely possible outside the church”. What gives? ** I for one am grateful, as a convert from a loving Christian background, whose family do NOT believe as I believe regarding the Catholic Church, but who, nonetheless, love Christ and live in obedience to Him, insofar as they understand what it is to obey Him. **

We excommunicate a person for wanting to carry on in the Church’s rich tradition, and yet John Kerry and the Bishop who gave him communion are still members of the Church? Now there you have me. I don’t get it either, nor why Teddy Kennedy can stand up with what seems ecclesiastical impunity and fight to kill Ms. Schiavo. Ya got me.

It’s confusing to me, I guess it’s ok to be disobedient if it’s politically correct, or if it’s a cool thing to do, or you live in L.A. but try to keep the catholic tradition alive and bam, you fired! **To this, I can only say that the Holy Father is our final authority, absent the Lord’s physical return to this Earth. There are things I don’t get. I’m not comfortable with what the CCC has to say about Muslims, but I trust him to know better than me and I trust Christ not to allow His Church to be lead into error. **

 

[gelsbern]

Yes yes, the Pope has all authority over the church, (wonder if Jesus knows) but the pope is still subject to the laws of the church, and those laws are spelled out in the Canons

Now as to why Bishop LeFebvre’s exommunication was invalid;

Let’s look up the section about a state of urgency or grave necessity. Now remember, this canon applies to ALL possible things one can be excommunicated for.

Canon 1323, §4
Can. 1323 The following are not subject to a penalty when they have violated a law or precept:
…
4/ a person who acted coerced by grave fear, even if only relatively grave, or due to necessity or grave inconvenience unless the act is intrinsically evil or tends to the harm of souls;
…
7/ a person who without negligence thought that one of the circumstances mentioned in nn. 4 or 5 was present.

LeFebve throught there was a need to do this.

Even if he was at fault in his thinking he still wouldn’t be excommunicated

canon 1324, §3; §1, 80

Can. 1324 §1. The perpetrator of a violation is not exempt from a penalty, but the penalty established by law or precept must be tempered or a penance employed in its place if the delict was committed:

3/ from grave heat of passion which did not precede and hinder all deliberation of mind and consent of will and provided that the passion itself had not been stimulated or fostered voluntarily;

1/ by a person who had only the imperfect use of reason;

8/ by a person who thought in culpable error that one of the circumstances mentioned in ⇒ can. 1323, nn. 4 or 5 was present;

So yes LeFebvre was disobedient, but according to canon law he could not be excommunicated for his actions. If we start excommunicating for disobedience, and as Ecclesia Dei infers, this happens automatically, then that means

All priests who use altar girls when boys or men are available are in disobedience and automatically excommunicated.
All priests who use EMHC’s when there are enough ordinary ministers are in disobedience and automatically communicated.
All priests who wash the feet of women, fracture the blood of Christ after the consecration, let a lay person do a homily are all in disobedience and automatically excommunicated.

I mean come on folks, I have yet to read of one priest who has been excommunicated for having sex with little boys and yet we are going to turn a man who wanted to keep the Catholic tradition alive into a villain?

Something is wrong here.

 

[HagiaSophia]

gelsbern:

I think what bugs me the most is that Feeney was excommunicated for teaching that there was salvation outside the catholic church,

You’d better recheck your sources on Feeney - that certainly is not what he said.

gelsbern:

We excommunicate a person for wanting to carry on in the Church’s rich tradition, and yet John Kerry and the Bishop who gave him communion are still members of the Church?

No, we did not see Lefevbre excommunicated “for carrying on a rich tradition” - he consecrated new bishops and they denied the validity of the pope and bishops acting as the magesterium at Vatican II. The consequences of that certainly theologically would call into question the very Eucharist you receive, the priest who administers the scraments and the legitimacy of the pope as holder of the keys. Many of these very things are discussed on the SSPX and fellow traveler sites which some people here are so fond of perusing.

. Since that time a number of other things they don’t agree with have been thrown into the mix.

gelsbern:

It’s confusing to me

,

Sadly,I think that is somewhat obvious.

gelsbern:

I guess it’s ok to be disobedient if it’s politically correct, or if it’s a cool thing to do, or you live in L.A. but try to keep the catholic tradition alive and bam, you fired!

None of the above is factual; and I believe you know that. This is just a vent.

All men suffer at some point over principles they hold and what they believe. It is the human condition and Bishop Sheen himself
said that at the end of one’s priesthood if one hadn’t been crucified one hadn’t been a good priest. Our forefathers and our saints lived through tumultous and terrible times, often not recognized for their sanctity and they suffered. What we have been through and are going through in no way approaches what they saw and experienced and yet how we whine and whimper.

The church is for sinners, and that includes all the commandments, not just one or two. Christ calls us all to stay within the church, and no one understood the frailty of the human creature the way He did. Submission is hard, humility difficult and obedience perhaps one of the great struggles of the human ego. One has to specualate that is what Christ was referring to when He tells us to take up our crosses and follow Him.

And after reading this same stuff over and over again one can only come to the conclusion that if what the church says were read, studied and quoted half as much as what the fringe elements publish, we’d be the best catechized people on earth.

When we remember the story of Solomon the wise, who knew immediately which was the mother who loved and had borne the child, she would suffer it being lost to her before she would see it cut in half and divided. There is a great lesson in that story.

 

[bear06]

Yes yes, the Pope has all authority over the church, (wonder if Jesus knows) but the pope is still subject to the laws of the church, and those laws are spelled out in the Canons

What don’t we get here? ewtn.com/library/councils/v1.htm#6

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]. And so they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman Pontiff.

 

[gelsbern]

HagiaSophia:

You’d better recheck your sources on Feeney - that certainly is not what he said.

In regard to Fr. Feeney, you are correct, it was a typo of a quick thought and I should have proofread it as I wanted to show that there were indeed past injustices done that mirror what has happened to +LeFebvre

catholicism.org/TTAS/chapter_1.htm

 

[HagiaSophia]

gelsbern:

HagiaSophia:

You’d better recheck your sources on Feeney - that certainly is not what he said.

In regard to Fr. Feeney, you are correct, it was a typo of a quick thought and I should have proofread it as I wanted to show that there were indeed past injustices done that mirror what has happened to +LeFebvre

catholicism.org/TTAS/chapter_1.htm

Fr. Feeney’s problems with the Church were no “injustice” - they were merited and he received the consequences of his actions.

Providing a link to the Feeneyites website is scarcely proof of a claim of injustice. He was in error then, his followers are now.

 

[gelsbern]

Perhaps feeney was a bad example, but he was reinstated and his excommunication dropped. Feeney didn’t believe in baptism of desire, only the baptism of water. But he was a bad example to use.

There are unjust excommunications. +LaFebvre is one of those in my opinion.

Now I should state my position again, I believe that the N.O. is possibly valid, so I attend N.O. masses, but only ones with older priests and where the parish has a sense of reverence. Outside of that I attend an Indult TLM here in Cincinnati, and once in a while, I do go to an SSPX Chapel, especially for the Easter Vigil where they do the traditional blessing of the fire, and other traditions for the Vigil. I want the SSPX to come into communion with Rome, but I don’t think I want the SSPX to be the one to have to change. What I mean is they accept the Pope as the Supreme Pontiff, They submit to his teachings in all things except the requirement to have to say the N.O. Mass because of questions of validity when said in english. I think Rome should take some initiative and start sweeping out the liberalism and modernism that is poisoning the faithful and possibly reinstate the Mass of alll time without requiring an Indult.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

gelsbern:

Yes yes, the Pope has all authority over the church, (wonder if Jesus knows) but the pope is still subject to the laws of the church, and those laws are spelled out in the Canons

Now as to why Bishop LeFebvre’s exommunication was invalid;

Let’s look up the section about a state of urgency or grave necessity. Now remember, this canon applies to ALL possible things one can be excommunicated for.

Canon 1323, §4
Can. 1323 The following are not subject to a penalty when they have violated a law or precept:
…
4/ a person who acted coerced by grave fear, even if only relatively grave, or due to necessity or grave inconvenience unless the act is intrinsically evil or tends to the harm of souls;
…
7/ a person who without negligence thought that one of the circumstances mentioned in nn. 4 or 5 was present.

LeFebve throught there was a need to do this.

Even if he was at fault in his thinking he still wouldn’t be excommunicated

canon 1324, §3; §1, 80

Can. 1324 §1. The perpetrator of a violation is not exempt from a penalty, but the penalty established by law or precept must be tempered or a penance employed in its place if the delict was committed:

3/ from grave heat of passion which did not precede and hinder all deliberation of mind and consent of will and provided that the passion itself had not been stimulated or fostered voluntarily;

1/ by a person who had only the imperfect use of reason;

8/ by a person who thought in culpable error that one of the circumstances mentioned in ⇒ can. 1323, nn. 4 or 5 was present;

So yes LeFebvre was disobedient, but according to canon law he could not be excommunicated for his actions. If we start excommunicating for disobedience, and as Ecclesia Dei infers, this happens automatically, then that means

All priests who use altar girls when boys or men are available are in disobedience and automatically excommunicated.
All priests who use EMHC’s when there are enough ordinary ministers are in disobedience and automatically communicated.
All priests who wash the feet of women, fracture the blood of Christ after the consecration, let a lay person do a homily are all in disobedience and automatically excommunicated.

I mean come on folks, I have yet to read of one priest who has been excommunicated for having sex with little boys and yet we are going to turn a man who wanted to keep the Catholic tradition alive into a villain?

Something is wrong here.

You’ve trotted this out before, ie, the pope subject to canon laws. He isn’t since he’s the supreme legislator and suspend it, abrogate it, modify it, etc, at will. What he cannnot do is proclaim/teach something (faith and morals) contrary to what his predeceasors have taught if they taught it in such a way as to make a binding statement.

State of emergency? The Holy Father had told him he could have the bishops he needed, the Arch. had signed an agreement stating his submission, and then he broke his word, like, the next day!!! Where was the state of emergency? Ya’ll keep presenting the same, easily refuted arguments.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

gelsbern:

Now I should state my position again, I believe that the N.O. is possibly valid, so I attend N.O. masses, but only ones with older priests and where the parish has a sense of reverence. Outside of that I attend an Indult TLM here in Cincinnati, and once in a while, I do go to an SSPX Chapel, especially for the Easter Vigil where they do the traditional blessing of the fire, (AS HAS BEEN DONE IN EVERY NO PARISH I’VE EVER ATTENDED) and other traditions for the Vigil. I want the SSPX to come into communion with Rome, but I don’t think I want the SSPX to be the one to have to change. What I mean is they accept the Pope as the Supreme Pontiff, They submit to his teachings in all things except the requirement to have to say the N.O. Mass because of questions of validity when said in english. I think Rome should take some initiative and start sweeping out the liberalism and modernism that is poisoning the faithful and possibly reinstate the Mass of alll time without requiring an Indult.

The NO Mass is the Mass of the Church. I doubt very much that you are going to get your way, according to Cardinal Arrinze, who said the NO Mass was here to stay. Now that Mass may be said in Latin. I urge you, as did our Pope, not to give aid to schism.

 

[gelsbern]

JKirkLVNV:

The NO Mass is the Mass of the Church. I doubt very much that you are going to get your way, according to Cardinal Arrinze, who said the NO Mass was here to stay. Now that Mass may be said in Latin. I urge you, as did our Pope, not to give aid to schism.

Again, that’s fine, the NO is valid when said in LATIN, it is questionable with the english translation that is erroneous and full of omissions. If the Vatican would go back to Latin or correct the translation errors, put back in what was taken out, and stand against any and all abuses and people will flock back to the Church.

 

[HagiaSophia]

JKirkLVNV:

You’ve trotted this out before, ie, the pope subject to canon laws. He isn’t since he’s the supreme legislator and suspend it, abrogate it, modify it, etc, at will. .

Just a few comments on the continual practice of selectively trying to “quote” canon law in this and other threads. Let us remove ourselves from the canon law for just a moment and examine the practice of “law” as it is now practiced.

There are laws on our books in both civil and criminal courts; yet when one goes to court there are two sides to the questions of each case. Isn’t this so that the “appication” of these laws is examined with regard to the “particulars” of each individual case?

Do not judges whho have made a study of the law, examine both spirit of intent, precedent, view of the courts in common practice often before they come to a final decision?

Would any of you attempt to purchase of set of Blackstone and go to court to defend yourselves without proper legal advice as to how those laws contained therein would be seen in regard to your case, your position?

It is wisely said that a man who represents himself in court has a “fool for counsel”.

Well the canon courts operate in much this same way; there are canons on the books, in order to practice before the courts, one has to be trained in the canons, how one canon may be interpreted in light of another. How does the church by precedent from the past look towards these kinds of cases? What have other legal minds and church authorities felt about these matters? Based on what the church teaches, there is more than the cut and dried canon on the books - how to use the canon, when to use it, mitigating circumstances, facts of individual cases, etc.

When all this is done the case is laid before a judge; who is taking into account not just the letter of the law, but the spirit of it, is how decisions are made in individual cases.

So for those who think they’ve read a law or two and are presumptive enough to without a by your leave, come to the conclusion that they know how to APPLY or INTERPRET without any questions, absolutely certain that they have amongst everyone else in the church come to the right and proper disposition of the matter, I suggest a “rethink”.

It is one thing to become aware of a canon and ask about it - to inquire as to how it is to be used or what else may affect it, or what others think or know about it – it is another to continually post as if by looking into a book and posting it in a forum, one can claim an expertise in the matter.

 

[HagiaSophia]

gelsbern:

Again, that’s fine, the NO is valid when said in LATIN, it is questionable with the english translation that is erroneous and full of omissions. If the Vatican would go back to Latin or correct the translation errors, put back in what was taken out, and stand against any and all abuses and people will flock back to the Church.

Well it comes, slowly I grant you, but in the works nonetheless:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=44469

 

[HagiaSophia]

gelsbern:

Under canon law, the “excommunication” is not valid, but sheeple refuse to learn about Canon law.

We are meant to be the flock–Christ is referrred to as the Good Shepherd, we are His lambs. He tells us a good shepherd will seek to find us when we are lost, He tell us that He knows His and that His sheep know Him. I find it a great comfort and the Feast of the Good Shepherd one of the lovliest feasts in the calendar. Don’t you?

 

[JKirkLVNV]

gelsbern:

Again, that’s fine, the NO is valid when said in LATIN, it is questionable with the english translation that is erroneous and full of omissions. If the Vatican would go back to Latin or correct the translation errors, put back in what was taken out, and stand against any and all abuses and people will flock back to the Church.

My NO Mass parish, in Las Vegas, is packed, every Mass. Of course, our pastor and parochial vicars celebrate according to the rubrics. I think the people who stay away don’t do so because of the Liturgy, but because of Church teaching, to which they do not wish to submit.

 

[Dr.Bombay]

JKirkLVNV:

My NO Mass parish, in Las Vegas, is packed, every Mass. Of course, our pastor and parochial vicars celebrate according to the rubrics. I think the people who stay away don’t do so because of the Liturgy, but because of Church teaching, to which they do not wish to submit.

You got that right. People are always going to make one excuse or another to justify their non-attendance at Mass. When, in reality, they don’t want to attend because that might require them to give up their favorite sins.

My favorite excuse is: “The priest is always begging for money!”

 

[pnewton]

gelsbern:

There are unjust excommunications. +LaFebvre is one of those in my opinion.

This statement highlights the problem with those that refuse to acknowledge the fact of the SSPX schism. Nobody’s opinion matters except the Holy Father. That is schism by definition. \

All attempts to quote SSPX propaganda are irrelevant. The schism remains in effect until Pope John Paul II or his successor says otherwise.

 

[demolitionman65]

It is one thing to become aware of a canon and ask about it - to inquire as to how it is to be used or what else may affect it, or what others think or know about it – it is another to continually post as if by looking into a book and posting it in a forum, one can claim an expertise in the matter.

YOU GO, GIRL!!!

Again, that’s fine, the NO is valid when said in LATIN,

The NO is VALID when it is said VALIDLY.

Hoenstly, I think part of the rad/trad agenda is to freeze the language in latinae. Which is absurd. Do you know why Latin was adopted in the first place? To make sure that the laity understood the Mass!! Then we got locked into it for 1500 years, the vernacular changed, and the Mass became inaccessible. Again.

Latin Mass is fine. But a valid Mass in the vernacular is just as good (if not better) so that the common people may understand.

 

[tradcatmel]

geocities.com/Athens/Oracle/9463/noschism.html

no schism no excommunication