SSPX Myths

[CTA1967]

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/letters/2007/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20070707_lettera-vescovi_en.html

At the time, the Pope primarily wanted to assist the Society of Saint Pius X to recover full unity with the Successor of Peter, and sought to heal a wound experienced ever more painfully. Unfortunately this reconciliation has not yet come about.

Given at Saint Peter’s, 7 July 2007

As far as I know, this hasn’t changed in the past year.

 

[maurin]

I believe this is the Canon Law the Archbishop used in his self-defense. Had it not been written, it would have been interesting if he indeed would have consecrated the four to be bishops.

thank you.

 

[ProVobis]

God does have a sense of humor, the very Canon Law that was promulgated to the tastes of the modernist reformers who absolutely hated the iron hand of Pius XII and his predecessors, got what they wanted, and it contained the legal options that LeFebvre needed to help build up the Church.

It is also interesting to note that the Vatican never overturned these consecrations. Now one would think that if they had truly rejected the archbishop’s appeal, they would have declared those consecrations null and void. But they didn’t.

Schismatic or not, they became valid bishops even to the dismay of those reformers and detractors.

 

[Mousey]

Generally speaking, a true traditional Catholic recognizes that the decrees of the Pope of matters of Ecclesial discipline cannot be appealed to any higher authority.

So, if Pope John Paul II said, as he did in Ecclesia Dei, that those bishops are excommunicated, there can be no appeal to Canon Law.

You’re making this up.

Nope! He is correct

Can. 333 §1. By virtue of his office, the Roman Pontiff not only possesses power offer the universal Church but also obtains the primacy of ordinary power offer all particular churches and groups of them. Moreover, this primacy strengthens and protects the proper, ordinary, and immediate power which bishops possess in the particular churches entrusted to their care.

§2. In fulfilling the office of supreme pastor of the Church, the Roman Pontiff is always joined in communion with the other bishops and with the universal Church. He nevertheless has the right, according to the needs of the Church, to determine the manner, whether personal or collegial, of exercising this office.

§3. No appeal or recourse is permitted against a sentence or decree of the Roman Pontiff.

 

[ProVobis]

Nope! He is correct

Not convincing. #3 makes no sense if there is indeed another canon rule mitigating the penalty of the action. The Pope would be contradicting himself/Canon Law if your rule applies.

 

[ethelzguy]

Howdy Ethelzguy, been a while, eh? Hope you’re having a nice Sunday.

I’ve got one in response to what you asked. One of the priests at my former parish when I lived in LA referred to the Holy Ghost as a “She” and “Her” whenever referencing Him/It. Beautiful church, though, and some of the priests were ok.

You have aroused my curiosity. IS the Holy Spirit “gender specific”? We refer to the Church as the “Holy MOTHER Church”.

IS the Holy Spirit a “he”? If so, how is the Church a “she”?

 

[Mousey]

Not convincing. #3 makes no sense if there is indeed another canon rule mitigating the penalty of the action. The Pope would be contradicting himself/Canon Law if your rule applies.

It is not MY rule. It is canon law that spells out the power of the pope and says that

§3. No appeal or recourse is permitted against a sentence or decree of the Roman Pontiff

.Which puts the nail into their argument that they are not excommunicated. I found the application of the other canon law strained and vague and the application of it not convincing. So your problem, as I see it, is with the interpretation given it not that it is contradictory. You may see it as being contradictory but that is not true. As I see it, the canon says the Pope is supreme and above canon law.

 

[pnewton]

It is also interesting to note that the Vatican never overturned these consecrations. Now one would think that if they had truly rejected the archbishop’s appeal, they would have declared those consecrations null and void.

I do not believe that is possible. Since the consecrations were valid, they could not be anulled any more than bread can be un-transubstantiated.

I guess they could have let the new bishops slowly dissolve in water until they now longer have the outward appearance of bishops.

 

[Just_Lurking]

I believe this is the Canon Law the Archbishop used in his self-defense. Had it not been written, it would have been interesting if he indeed would have consecrated the four to be bishops.

Does this loophole also apply to the anathema from Trent?

 

[GailMac]

Wow o wow dept again! Myths indeed! More like wishful thinking! Rome has spoken on the matter. Time to get over your schism and come home.

I’m a convert and I happen to love the sounds of Latin and am even trying to learn it on my own. I’d go to a local Latin Mass, but I was invited to join the schismatics as we gathered for cake and coffee after going to it. I cannot get to another around here. When the schimatics clear out and it is safe to go back I will. Until then…

What I don’t like is telling folks I love Latin and the Latin Mass and having them wonder if I’m a SSPX fruit loop too! They’ve cast a shadow over all those who would love to have the Latin Mass more frequently and it is my belief have in fact stymied the return of same by their horrid acts of disobedience. Rarely do I admit loving Latin - I’ve learned in the years I’ve been catholic that admitting that starts tongues waging about fidelity to the Holy Father and the whole ball of wax. God bless the SSPX idiots who gave Latin a bad name!

Peace,

Gail

 

[maurin]

Wow o wow dept again! Myths indeed! More like wishful thinking! Rome has spoken on the matter. Time to get over your schism and come home.

I’m a convert and I happen to love the sounds of Latin and am even trying to learn it on my own. I’d go to a local Latin Mass, but I was invited to join the schismatics as we gathered for cake and coffee after going to it. I cannot get to another around here. When the schimatics clear out and it is safe to go back I will. Until then…

What I don’t like is telling folks I love Latin and the Latin Mass and having them wonder if I’m a SSPX fruit loop too! They’ve cast a shadow over all those who would love to have the Latin Mass more frequently and it is my belief have in fact stymied the return of same by their horrid acts of disobedience. Rarely do I admit loving Latin - I’ve learned in the years I’ve been catholic that admitting that starts tongues waging about fidelity to the Holy Father and the whole ball of wax. God bless the SSPX idiots who gave Latin a bad name!

Peace,

Gail

wowowow! what an extremely thoughtful, well-written and charity-filled post. Such a display of virtue and self-assurance!

thank you for taking the time to share this wisdom with us.

 

[maurin]

You have aroused my curiosity. IS the Holy Spirit “gender specific”? We refer to the Church as the “Holy MOTHER Church”.

IS the Holy Spirit a “he”? If so, how is the Church a “she”?

Your facetiousness is shining.

does anyone really need to explain this to you? Something tells me you already know the Church’s response to this.

 

[anthony022071]

The Holy Father is subject, of course, to the laws of the Church.

The pope has authority over the laws of the Church. He has authority to bind and loose.

Pope St. Gelasius (d. 496):
“Yet we do not hesitate to mention that which is known to the Universal Church, namely, that as the See of Blessed Peter the Apostle has the right to loose what has been bound by the judgments of any bishops, whatsoever, and since it has jurisdiction over every church, so that no one may pass judgment on its verdict, the canons providing that an appeal should be to it from any part of the world, no one is permitted to appeal against its judgment.” (Ep. 26)

St. Maximos:
“How much more in the case of the clergy and Church of the Romans, which from old until now presides over all the churches which are under the sun? Having surely received this canonically, as well as from councils and the apostles, as from the princes of the latter [Peter & Paul], and being numbered in their company, she is subject to no writings or issues in synodical documents, on account of the eminence of her pontificate… even as in all these things all are equally subject to her [the Church of Rome] according to sacerodotal law. And so when, without fear, but with all holy and becoming confidence, those ministers [the popes] are of the truly firm and immovable rock, that is of the most great and Apostolic Church of Rome.”
(Maximus, in J.B. Mansi, ed. Amplissima Collectio Conciliorum, vol. 10)

 

[CTA1967]

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/letters/2007/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20070707_lettera-vescovi_en.html

*At the time, the Pope primarily wanted to assist the Society of Saint Pius X to recover full unity with the Successor of Peter, and sought to heal a wound experienced ever more painfully. *

Was this totally ignored?

 

[JReducation]

I do not believe that is possible. Since the consecrations were valid, they could not be anulled any more than bread can be un-transubstantiated.

I guess they could have let the new bishops slowly dissolve in water until they now longer have the outward appearance of bishops.

You are right. None of the sacraments can be reversed. They are either valid or invalid.

This does not apply to those sacraments where you need faculties for validity: Matrimony and Penance. If the person does not have faculties, the sacrament is invalid.

This also applies to speaking for the Church. For example, the SSPX cannot receive the vows of religious profession: chastity, poverty and obedience. Because these vows are received by a religious superior who is in communion with the Church and who is authorized by the Church to receive them in the name of the Church. If you have ever been to a religious profession of vows, the superior responds to the religious: “I on the part of God, promise you that if you observe all of these things shall have eternal life.” No one can speak on the part of God unless they are authorized by the Church.

The SSPX does not have the authorization from the Church to absolve sins, receive marriage vows or religious vows.

The sacraments of Baptism, Eucharist, Confirmation and Holy Orders can be validly celebrated by any properly ordained cleric. However, their celebration is illicit if the permission of the Church is not there.

There is a difference between permission and faculties.

No faculties = no sacrament No permission = illicit sacrament

Fraternally,

JR

 

[CassiusLonginus]

You have aroused my curiosity. IS the Holy Spirit “gender specific”? We refer to the Church as the “Holy MOTHER Church”.

IS the Holy Spirit a “he”? If so, how is the Church a “she”?

C’mon…you’re kidding, right? God isn’t ‘gender specific’, however, Jesus is. Also, Jesus, a man, calles his parent “Father”. Also, Mary conceived of the Holy Ghost. Wouldn’t it seem strange that she cenceived of a ‘female’ spirit? God does have ‘maternal’ ‘instincts’ (but He also has Paternal ones, of course) but I think those things I mentioned above basically cover that.

Also, “Holy Mother Church” is a ‘mother’ because she is the Bride of Christ (a man). Just as a man is the head of his wife, so is Christ the head of the church. I heard that when I got married…

 

[anthony022071]

Not convincing. #3 makes no sense if there is indeed another canon rule mitigating the penalty of the action. The Pope would be contradicting himself/Canon Law if your rule applies.

What sense does it make to say that #3 doesn’t make sense?

It’s the pope’s decision whether a penalty is mitigated. He has authority to bind and loose,and so he has authority over canon rules.

 

[CassiusLonginus]

This does not apply to those sacraments where you need faculties for validity: Matrimony and Penance. If the person does not have faculties, the sacrament is invalid.

The SSPX does not have the authorization from the Church to absolve sins, receive marriage vows or religious vows.

Ah yes, here we are again at the “ordinary” versus “supplied” jurisdiction thingy again.

The SSPX does not have the authorization from the Church and therefore Christ supplies it Himself. The supreme law is the salvation of souls, that is, to make it as attainable as possible. The churchmen are making it as difficult as possible for many trads to get to heaven, thus they are ignoring their primary responsibility, thus the jurisdiction is supplied. You won’t take my word for it, I know, and good for you. Who am I anyway?. However, this has been argued by all. Before the end, the churchmen will swallow their pride and admit that JPII was wrong. It may literally take divine intervention though.

 

[JReducation]

Ah yes, here we are again at the “ordinary” versus “supplied” jurisdiction thingy again.

The SSPX does not have the authorization from the Church and therefore Christ supplies it Himself. The supreme law is the salvation of souls, that is, to make it as attainable as possible. The churchmen are making it as difficult as possible for many trads to get to heaven, thus they are ignoring their primary responsibility, thus the jurisdiction is supplied. You won’t take my word for it, I know, and good for you. Who am I anyway?. However, this has been argued by all. Before the end, the churchmen will swallow their pride and admit that JPII was wrong. It may literally take divine intervention though.

Unless he’s beatified and canonized.

 

[pnewton]

Unless he’s beatified and canonized.

I would bet a year’s salary that this will happend before…

Before the end, the churchmen will swallow their pride and admit that JPII was wrong. It may literally take divine intervention though.