SSPX Info, updates and interviews

  • Thread starter Thread starter prettiefly
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
LOL, Wasser, couldn’t you find a picture that was a little smaller than a wall size fresco. 😃

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV 🙂
 
wasserfall said:
Brother I sense that you need a bigger monitor.
Let me know where to send it. 😉
Click to expand...
You may be right. As I get older, I keep setting the zoom a little higher. 😦

Don’t get old my friend.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV 🙂
 
ImmaculataFides said:
This post is exactly what I am talking about.
Click to expand...
At points in history, disobedience to the Pope is not merely justified, it is an obligation. I’m not saying one should disobey the recent ones by any stretch of the imagination - JPII and BXVI have been excellent men, and have held at bay much of the damage of Vatican II, and how bad it could have been. They have - especially BXVI - fought for conservatism in the Church; JPII did as well in his own way, and, thanks to his extraordinarily long pontificate, much of what could have been was averted. Think of having a liberal Pope who trumpeted the same “end of tradition” horn, and didn’t invent the “hermeneutic of continuity” (which shows that the Pope has a real interest in it) - think of how it could have been.

I recommend all who believe that the Pope or other superiors, religious or secular, can never be lawfully questioned or disobeyed under any circumstances, read St Thomas Aquinas’s views on the matter, on Secunda Secundae Partis Q. 104 A. 5)*STh * and Secunda Secundae Partis Q. 105 AA. 1-2).STh
 
YoungTradCath said:
I find them too similar to novel-type writing to get concrete requirements from them. It’s beautiful writing, especially in Latin, but… is writing a novel good for interpretation? No, methinks.
Click to expand...
If you don’t think writing a novel is good for interpretation, you’ve never read Umberto Eco (The Name of the Rose and Foucault’s Pendulum), JRR Tolkien (The Lord of the Rings, The Silmarillion, Unfinished Tales, The Children of Hurin, and The Gospel According to Tolkien), or Gene Wolfe (The Book of the New Sun, along with the interpretative Lexicon Urthus and The Castle of the Otter). Don’t even think about James Joyce! I believe there’s even a journal that was published dealing solely with interpretation of The Book of the New Sun (an excellent piece of literature written by a Catholic - and it shows - much like Lord of the Rings). Umberto Eco stated in an interview that he believed in God, but studying the Angelic Doctor St Thomas Aquinas “cured him of his faith”. I can not fathom how a mind works, that could think in such a manner. But he’s an excellent novelist (at least in translation: I don’t read Italian).

Whether it’s good for accurate interpretation is another story. The Bible has many parts written in a narrative style, and men have been debating what it means and how to interpret it for nineteen hundred years.
 
CesarAugustus said:
Hans Küng strikes again:

rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2012/05/freak-extremes-meet-hans-kung-becomes.html

🙂
Click to expand...
It’s an opinion on the other extreme. Let’s not get too excited. Extremist opinions exist on both sides of the house.

He makes the same mistakes that many Traditionalists make.
  1. He tries to bind one pope with the writings of a previous pope, which we all know cannot be done. Pope Paul’s constitution on Holy Orders was as dogmatic as Pope Pius X condemnation of Modernism. Neither is a dogma; therefore, neither binds successive popes.
  2. He uses very reputable theologians to make his case against the reconciliation. Traditionalists use very reputable theologians to make their case against those whom they feel should excommunicated or ignored. Anyone of us can pull a quote from a theological piece. the problem is that the quote can lose its meaning if the context and the target audience is not known. The second problem is that no theologian, not even Thomas or Kung, can bind the Church. So . . . anyone can quote a theologian and any theologian can say anything. The key is whether the Holy See accepts our understanding of what the theologian said.
  3. What he says about a pope going into schism when he breaks with the Church is true. Every sedevacantist claims this about the popes from Bl. John XXIII to Pope Benedict XVI. Father Kung is the first liberal sede that I know of to invoke this rule.
Go figure. Einstein’s theory of matter and time is proven true by Catholics. Everything is circular. If you can connect the ends, we can meet ourselves come or going. Father Hans Kung and the SSPV on the same page. Who would have thought! :eek:
Khalid said:
At points in history, disobedience to the Pope is not merely justified, it is an obligation. I’m not saying one should disobey the recent ones by any stretch of the imagination - JPII and BXVI have been excellent men, and have held at bay much of the damage of Vatican II, and how bad it could have been. They have - especially BXVI - fought for conservatism in the Church; JPII did as well in his own way, and, thanks to his extraordinarily long pontificate, much of what could have been was averted. Think of having a liberal Pope who trumpeted the same “end of tradition” horn, and didn’t invent the “hermeneutic of continuity” (which shows that the Pope has a real interest in it) - think of how it could have been.

I recommend all who believe that the Pope or other superiors, religious or secular, can never be lawfully questioned or disobeyed under any circumstances, read St Thomas Aquinas’s views on the matter, on Obedience (*STh *Secunda Secundae Partis Q. 104 A. 5) and Disobedience (STh Secunda Secundae Partis Q. 105 AA. 1-2).
Click to expand...
Let’s avoid doing a Father Kung here. Several things have to be said about St. Thomas Aquinas position on obedience.
  1. It’s not his original idea. It comes from St. Benedict.
  2. If one wants to see the whole of it, go read the Rule of St. Benedict from cover to cover.
  3. Disobedience is not only permitted, but required when authority commands sin. Aquinas is quoting previous spiritual masters. This is not his own idea. It existed in the Benedictine, Franciscan and Augustinian rules. Let’s not forget that Dominicans follow the Augustinian rule.
  4. Aquinas is trying to do something different from what Benedict did. That’s why he does not go into the fine print. He’s trying to show how what was upheld and taught up to that time by religious orders was valid and and true. Remember, you can have a valid argument that is false: FP + FP + FC False but valid. Aquinas settles the question about the veracity and validity of the claims made by Benedict. “You must always obey. You may never obey a sinful command.”
  5. Nothing that Aquinas ever wrote has ever bound religious, clergy, bishops or popes. Aquinas was a theologian, not a lawgiver.
  6. Obedience comes form Moral Theology. Aquinas created systems to test theology, not to unpack theology That’s done in other fields of theology, some before him and some after him.
When we use Thomas correctly, he’s an absolute genius and the best resource in the house. When we use him incorrectly, we can end up in serious trouble.

When quoting him, sometimes it’s necessary to ask if this is an original idea of his own or if there is more and he’s simply systematizing it, as is the case on the theology of obedience. Obedience comes from moral theology and is applied in spiritual theology. Systematic theology cannot define obedience. I can only show that what moral theology says is valid and true. This opens the way for Spiritual Theology to apply it with confidence. Aquinas writings do not exist in isolation from other branches of theology. They’re part of a harmony.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV 🙂
 
JReducation said:
You are 100% correct. It was after the consecration of the bishops that he lost the faculty to ordain priests and the new bishops never had it, since they were suspended and excommunicated. They remain suspended until this flux is resolved.

I was not thinking before the eruption. You are right. Before the volcano erupted, everything was legal.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV 🙂
Click to expand...
That’s not entirely correct Br. The Society was unlawfully suppressed in 1975 and on the 23rd of July 1976 Archbishop Lefebvre was forbidden to ordain more priests because “The Society doesn’t exist any more”. The Society was persecuted from the very start, it wasn’t all happy clappy until 1988.
 
ImmaculataFides said:
That’s not entirely correct Br. The Society was unlawfully suppressed in 1975 and on the 23rd of July 1976 Archbishop Lefebvre was forbidden to ordain more priests because “The Society doesn’t exist any more”. The Society was persecuted from the very start, it wasn’t all happy clappy until 1988.
Click to expand...
Why do you say that it was unlawfully suppressed? Did the person who suppressed it not have the authority to do so?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV 🙂
 
JReducation said:
Why do you say that it was unlawfully suppressed? Did the person who suppressed it not have the authority to do so?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV 🙂
Click to expand...
The Pope indeed has that authority, however, if a censure is unjust and contradicts natural law it can be held as null and invalid. No crime was ever pointed out.
 
ImmaculataFides said:
The Pope indeed has that authority, however, if a censure is unjust and contradicts natural law it can be held as null and invalid. No crime was ever pointed out.
Click to expand...
Suppression is not a censure. They are two different juridical acts.

If there were a censure, it has to be proven to be unjust. To declare a censure unjust, one would have to put the pope on trial. No one on this earth has the power do that. Therefore, the pope is innocent of injustice until God proves him guilty. To assume that the pope is guilty of an injustice without a trial is in itself an injustice, because the person making the assumption has no right to do so. We can never assume that another person is subjectively culpable until we can prove it in a tribunal.

Where are we going to find a tribunal to try the pope? Who of us has the authority to try him and convict him without a trial?

Do you see how the person who made the statement made his mistake?

For suppression of an institute you need the following.
  1. The institute must be canonically erected; otherwise, there is nothing to suppress.
  2. If the institute is suppressed by the local bishop, he must have the written permission of the Sacred Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life.
  3. If the institute is of Pontifical Right, the Holy Father must give permission for the suppression.
  4. The Holy Father can suppress any institute without a reason, because a suppression is not a sin. A suppression is a statement which says that the institute no longer meets the objectives of the pope or that the institute has acted beyond that which is authorized in the decree of erection. If the latter were the case, then again, it does not meet the objectives of the pope. The objectives of the Church and the institute must be agreed upon at the time of erection. The institute cannot go beyond what’s in the decree of erection. Have you ever seen the decree of erection for the SSPX?
If the pope suppresses an institute, there is no possible way that the suppression is illegal. No institute has the right to exist without the pope’s approval. Therefore, suppression is not a violation of rights.

You can take this to the bank. I just went through an erection process with our community. We are all at the mercy of the pope. Suppression is his right at any time for any reason that he finds the suppression to be necessary.

He only has to justify it before God, not before the law; because there is no law that governs his right to suppress.

Before God, suppression is not a moral evil. The only thing that he would have to answer for is if he intentionally and directly did harm to any member of the institute or those served by the institute. That would be a moral evil. A collateral damage is not intentional; therefore, it carries no moral culpability.

In other words, the pope may know that if he suppresses an institute some people are going to suffer. It is his intent to suppress. If it is not his intent to do harm, even if he knows that harm will. result, the harm is collateral and carries not moral culpability.

Even if he intends to do harm, the only thing for which has to answer is the harm, not the suppression. Suppression is a juridical matter, not a moral matter. The pope can suppress without recourse to anyone or to any law.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV 🙂
 
I believe that, when this has finally all settled down, the Church as a whole will have learned valuable lessons on the resolution of issues of Faith and Authority, just as in the past, certain other issues ere clarified through long debate, usually after a crisis (such as the nature of the Holy Trinity, which was thrashed out in the 5th Century).
 
(cont’d)…
The statement by Cdl Gagnon in the newspaper* l’Osservatore Romani,* announdcing that he had imposed the sentence of excommunication, made no mention of these canons, either to confirm or to deny them. The SSPX always maintained that the decree of excommunication, in neglecting these provisions of Canon Law, was canonically defective and therefore invalid. Fr. Arnaud Rostand, SSPX USA District Superior, as recently as 17May2012, stated in an interview with Michael J. Matt, editor of The Remnant:
“… we have always maintained that the suppression of the Society was not valid and that the Society is still a branch of the Catholic Church….for canonical discrepancies and for doctrinal reasons.
Click to expand...
(www.fr_rostand_remnant_interview_5-17-2012.htm)
He continues:
We are today in a waiting phase. During the two past years doctrinal discussions took place between the experts of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and those of the Society of St. Pius X. Even though the discussions remained private, it is not a secret that the two positions were not reconciled. There is still disagreement on doctrinal matters, however,** it is clear that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith did not find any of our positions to be non-Catholic.** Despite this disagreement,** it appears that the Holy Father is willing to grant a canonical statute to the Society.** A few weeks ago His Excellency Bishop Fellay sent a doctrinal declaration to Rome. We are now waiting for the answer from Rome….
A personal prelature is an institution headed by a prelate. A prelature is like a diocese, except without territorial boundaries. The jurisdiction of the Superior is over persons, clergy, religious and lay people, wherever they are. It therefore seems to be a possibility for the Society that would allow us to remain as we are and continue to grow.
Click to expand...
 
Regarding all of the above.

There is not one canon that could not be applied equally well to the Protestant Reformers.
I’m quite sure that all of them believed in the “necessity” of what they were doing and believed they were quite justified “in their hearts.”

That does not mean they were not excomminicated. It doesn’t mean that they were not heretics. And it does not mean they were not schismatics.

These canons are not be be used as a loop hole for any sort of bad behavior.

There is quite a difference between culpable and incupable ignorance.

This is the central issue here.
 
Canon 1323, however, stipulates that no one can be excommunicated who:

Has not turned 17;
Was, without fault, ignorant of violating the law;
Acted under physical force, or under a chance occurrence that could not be foreseen or avoided;
Acted under compulsion of grave fear;
Lacked the use of reason.

In paragraph three of the very same canon the committee cites, we read: "Where there has been an external violation, imputability is presumed, unless it appears otherwise."

There is no doubt this applies to SSPX.
 
Lupe_Lu said:
Canon 1323, however, stipulates that no one can be excommunicated who:

Has not turned 17;
Was, without fault, ignorant of violating the law;
Acted under physical force, or under a chance occurrence that could not be foreseen or avoided;
Acted under compulsion of grave fear;
Lacked the use of reason.

In paragraph three of the very same canon the committee cites, we read: "Where there has been an external violation, imputability is presumed, unless it appears otherwise."

There is no doubt this applies to SSPX.
Click to expand...
This canon does not apply to the SSPX, if that’s what you’re trying to apply it to. Bl. John Paul’s had Cardinal Ratatzinger write to Archbishop Lefrebvre as much. In fact, it was Archbishop Lefebvre who let the cat out of the bag when he responded with his statement. Rome did not intend to make it a public statement.

I don’t know if the Archbishop did either. In any case, his letter reached the public.

The pope is the highest judge in the Church. He gets to decide when and to whom laws apply. This is the argument that is being made by laity, not by the clergy of the society. That the pope had to comply with this canon.

Bishop Fellay dropped this argument years ago. Instead, he came back to Rome and asked that the excommunication be rescinded, which is an admission that they were valid in the first place. He then confirms this admission with a thank you letter to Pope Benedict.

So I don’t understand why the laity doesn’t back off, when the Superior General of the affected group backed off a long time ago, realizing that he had no case, because the pope had ruled that they had no case.

It seems that it is laymen, not SSPX leadership, who keep this argument going and for what reason?

At times, the most holy thing to do is to let something go, especially when the affected people have accepted their fate and dealt with it.

If we keep bringing it up, when they no longer do so, then it is we who are guilty of the sin of division and insubordination to papal authority. Not the four bishops who were the only ones excommunicated. Therefore, they’re the only ones who had a right to question the validity of the excommunications and they yielded that point a long time ago. Again, why bother bringing up a law that the pope already said did not apply in this situation?

How are you going to argue against that level of authority?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV 🙂
 
I was responding to this from numealinesimpet:

Mgr Lefebvre invoked Canons 1321, 1323 & 1324. Here is a paraphrase: the canons are in any published New Code of Canon Law or on the Vatican Website. Here is a paraphrase:
Canon 1323, §4: A person who violates a law out of necessity is not subject to a penalty (1983 Code of Canon Law,), even if there is no state of necessity:
canon 1323: If one inculpably thought there was, he would not incur the penalty,

Clearly, that is NOT what Canon 1323 states.

It states what I said that it states.

I completely agree that SSPX was excommunicated, and that the Pope has an absolute and final right given to him by Christ to do whatever he wants in these matters.

I am simply trying to correct the misinformation above, and point out that Canon 1323, in fact, would condemn SSPX, not exonerate it.

The sentence in bold means, more or less: “Where there has been an external violation, the party is** PRESUMED GUILTY…” **

I hope that clears up any confusion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top