SSPX update?

[Faithdancer]

You said the “west” Europe, the US possibly South America, Canada, would probably be “the west” as in western society. Europe’s statistics are actually worse than the US. You said the poster was making an “absurdity” and yet you say that the statistics mean nothing to you. You then drop back to the old defense of not “Judging” based on statistics.

My point is this. If you dont agree, fine. If you want to make an argument using your own facts, fine. If you want to have vague definitions as to what “most” Catholics are not using some definitions of the “west” known only to you that is not fine. Don’t call others absurd and then throw data out the window while saying others should not “judge” using statistics.

Tell me what do you think "most Catholics believe about the issues posted?

Here is the deal.
The state of the average Catholic is dire indeed. The SSPX would have you believe it is VII’s and the “modernists” fault. Others want to pretend nothing is wrong. Both are wrong.
As Br JR pointed out earlier sometimes other orders can take the SSPX’s criticism personally. But sometimes the opposite effect is to dismiss their criticism entirely.

I’ll tell you this: It will take way more than the “SSPX” to fix what ails the Church and it is important to know that in some ways the Church is stronger. Benedict XVI himself has noted how the Church needs to learn that it could be a little smaller and still be stronger than ever.

The SSPX thinks they are stronger and able to have more of a voice and impact outside the Church. They are dead wrong. Some in the Church think they make no difference whatsoever and could care less. They are dead wrong as well. We should not only be praying for the SSPX to rejoin but our hearts should ache that they have not.

I dont mean to be harsh.
Obviously you live in an area that is fortunate and healthy for the Church. Some of us do not. You should be thankful that you are in a situation that those statistics are easy for you to dismiss. Some of us are in the middle of the progressive battlefield and we are losing. It saddens us that the SSPX who are on the right side of many issues are not able to be part of the allied powers and have chosen to be axis.

Good points. And no one has said here that religious orders and secular priests that are in good standing with the Church haven’t been trying to counter the onslaught of secularism, moral relativism and heterodoxy that infests the Church today. But whatever has been done, or is being done, obviously isn’t nearly enough. Enter SSPX (into full communion with Rome): the clout of a cohesive, organized body of conservative and orthodox Catholics in countering heterodoxy, particularly in moral teachings, would be beyond proportion to their numeric size- something akin to Opus Dei.

 

[Faithdancer]

The statistics are for the U.S. Statistically, about 5% of French Catholics attend Mass every Sunday. So they are in much worse shape than the U.S.

South America has been having its troubles with increasing secularism and decreasing Mass attendance as well. So, what does that leave us? The Phillipines, and, where else? Mexico? When their nationals move to the US, they vote overwhelmingly for Obama and his abortionist, destruction-of-holy-matrimony presidency.

 

[Dee_S]

Dee, I relate completely to what you have written. I still sit in the pews afraid that I am endangering my faith. Only someone that has walked in our shoes for an extended length of time can know what we have experienced and what someone goes through once they return to the Church.

:console:Hi Lormar…Sorry to hear you are still suffering through this stage. Deo Gratias, it does pass as mine did, and you will be blessed even more for the merit and effort that God knows and sees. So, hold tight, and be brave…:grouphug: keeping you and all like us in prayer

 

[pnewton]

How do you rate the CARA study from Fordham University?

There was no information on it. I do not argue statistics. I do not rate statistics. As you linked nothing, I have no idea what you were referring to. However, if it is the one I remember from the past, it was severly limited by including just the United States, thus isolating nationality as a bigger factor than religion.

In the years here, I have noticed that the news, if one looks at everything and not just the studies that supports one’s position, I find a mixed bag. Things are far from dire and there is much cause for optimism. As I have always enjoyed the virtue of Hope, I prefer to shy away from pessimism.

 

[pnewton]

When their nationals move to the US, they vote overwhelmingly for Obama and his abortionist, destruction-of-holy-matrimony presidency.

Two points. Foreign nationals to not get to vote. Obama has only ran for national office twice. Two points can not establish a trend.

 

[Dee_S]

Originally Posted by Melchior_ forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
*There are individuals, yes. But in the case of the SSPX it’s a wholesale group who lack the full communion.

Members of the SSPX can’t exactly see SSPX for confession(s) either, so that makes the lack of full communion a bit more awkward.*

Technically speaking, it would only be the clergy since the laity were and are not excommunicated.

No, sorry, but this is not true.Even though the laity were not excommunicated (they did not consecrate bishops) they are, by formal adherence to the SSPX, not in full communion with the Church.

---

Ecclesia Dei* commission**
At the same time, the Pope set up the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia dei to help SSPX members and adherents who wished “to remain united to the Successor of Peter in the Catholic Church while preserving their spiritual and liturgical traditions” to enter “full ecclesial communion”.[5] This Commission has issued many formal written clarifications about the canonical situation of people involved with the Society of St. Pius X.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canonical_situation_of_the_Society_of_St._Pius_X

From the Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei - Pope John Paul II

“1. With great affliction the Church has learned of the unlawful episcopal ordination conferred on 30 June last by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, which has frustrated all the efforts made during the previous years to ensure the full communion with the Church of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X founded by the same Mons. Lefebvre. These efforts, especially intense during recent months, in which the Apostolic See has shown comprehension to the limits of the possible, were all to no avail.(1)”

**“But especially contradictory is a notion of Tradition which opposes the universal Magisterium of the Church possessed by the Bishop of Rome and the Body of Bishops. It is impossible to remain faithful to the Tradition while breaking the ecclesial bond with him to whom, in the person of the Apostle Peter, Christ himself entrusted the ministry of unity in his Church.(**6)”

"5. Faced with the situation that has arisen I deem it my duty to inform all the Catholic faithful of some aspects which this sad event has highlighted.

a) The outcome of the movement promoted by Mons. Lefebvre can and must be, for all the Catholic faithful, a motive for sincere reflection concerning their own fidelity to the Church’s Tradition, authentically interpreted by the ecclesiastical Magisterium, ordinary and extraordinary, especially in the Ecumenical Councils from Nicaea to Vatican II. From this reflection all should draw a renewed and efficacious conviction of the necessity of strengthening still more their fidelity by rejecting erroneous interpretations and arbitrary and unauthorized applications in matters of doctrine, liturgy and discipline."
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/j...ii_motu-proprio_02071988_ecclesia-dei_en.html

 

[RPRPsych]

Two points. Foreign nationals to not get to vote. Obama has only ran for national office twice. Two points can not establish a trend.

Not to mention that Obama got a significant number of votes from American-born citizens of all colours and ethnicities. It’s not as simple as “Mexican immigrants vs innocent Americans”.

I agree that voting for Obama is a grave matter indeed, but let’s not play divide-and-rule.

 

[ClemtheCatholic]

Okay… this link seems a bit peculiar: http://www.sspx.org/sspx_faqs/q7_pope.htm. How does one view all of this?

In particular, what am I to make of these paragraphs?:

*There seem to be two errors common in these turbulent times. The first temptation is to presume to judge the Holy Father of being a formal heretic, a situation which would, according to them, cause the apparent pope to be an anti-pope, possessing no true jurisdiction. Although this has been put forward as a theoretical possibility by some theologians[1] historically, such a theory[2] cannot explain what happens to such doctrines as the visibility of the Church, or Christ’s promise to be with His Church until the end of time. Such a simplistic notion is actually based on the same premise as the opposite temptation: that the pope is actually protected by an extended infallibility which cannot account for any error.

The opposite error is far more common and assumes that whatever the pope does or teaches is correct. This is perhaps understandable since, in normal times, this is in actuality what happens. But one must distinguish: history is replete with examples of popes who taught or did things which were not proper. As an example, Pope Liberius signed some form of a semi-Arian document, and Pope John XXII temporarily taught that the souls of the saved do not see God until after the Final Judgment. Some Renaissance popes led lives of dubious morality. In all these cases, though wrong, papal infallibility was not involved.

The pope is infallible primarily in matters of faith and morals, and secondarily in matters of discipline (legislation for the Universal Church, canonizations, etc.) to the extent that these involve faith and morals (cf. principle 4), and then only when imposing for all time a definitive teaching. Indeed, if the pope had some form of personal infallibility with regard to his ordinary teaching, there would be no need for a definition of its limits.*

Thanks!!

 

[giuseppeTO]

Originally Posted by Melchior_ forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
*There are individuals, yes. But in the case of the SSPX it’s a wholesale group who lack the full communion.
*
Members of the SSPX can’t exactly see SSPX for confession(s) either, so that makes the lack of full communion a bit more awkward.

No, sorry, but this is not true.Even though the laity were not excommunicated (they did not consecrate bishops) they are, by formal adherence to the SSPX, not in full communion with the Church.

---

Ecclesia Dei*** commission
At the same time, the Pope set up the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia dei to help SSPX members and adherents who wished “to remain united to the Successor of Peter in the Catholic Church while preserving their spiritual and liturgical traditions” to enter “full ecclesial communion”.[5] This Commission has issued many formal written clarifications about the canonical situation of people involved with the Society of St. Pius X.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canonical_situation_of_the_Society_of_St._Pius_X

From the Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei - Pope John Paul II

“1. With great affliction the Church has learned of the unlawful episcopal ordination conferred on 30 June last by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, which has frustrated all the efforts made during the previous years to ensure the full communion with the Church of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X founded by the same Mons. Lefebvre. These efforts, especially intense during recent months, in which the Apostolic See has shown comprehension to the limits of the possible, were all to no avail.(1)”

**“But especially contradictory is a notion of Tradition which opposes the universal Magisterium of the Church possessed by the Bishop of Rome and the Body of Bishops. It is impossible to remain faithful to the Tradition while breaking the ecclesial bond with him to whom, in the person of the Apostle Peter, Christ himself entrusted the ministry of unity in his Church.(**6)”

"5. Faced with the situation that has arisen I deem it my duty to inform all the Catholic faithful of some aspects which this sad event has highlighted.

a) The outcome of the movement promoted by Mons. Lefebvre can and must be, for all the Catholic faithful, a motive for sincere reflection concerning their own fidelity to the Church’s Tradition, authentically interpreted by the ecclesiastical Magisterium, ordinary and extraordinary, especially in the Ecumenical Councils from Nicaea to Vatican II. From this reflection all should draw a renewed and efficacious conviction of the necessity of strengthening still more their fidelity by rejecting erroneous interpretations and arbitrary and unauthorized applications in matters of doctrine, liturgy and discipline."
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/j...ii_motu-proprio_02071988_ecclesia-dei_en.html

I’m afraid you are the one that is mistaken here Dee. A layman cannot be canonically irregular.

 

[giuseppeTO]

In the case of SSPX the issue is that crimes have been committed.

Bro Jr,

You push the rhetorical envelop too far here when you use the term “crime” which invites the corollary that those Bishops who have committed the crimes are “criminals”. This is not a term that has been used by Rome, to my knowledge and the introduction into the flow of this thread, or any other discussion of this situation, will do nothing but inflame the passions and lead to a broader use of the term on both sides of the argument.

I certainly understand your discussion of infractions of canon law and the Holy Father has chosen for some private reason (which we generally attribute to charity) not to further penalize the Society Bishops for continuing to ordain priests after removing the excommunications. Indeed, Bishop Fellay moved a planned ordination from the German seminary to Econe two years ago at the request of the Pontiff so as not to exacerbate the tensions in the Diocese at the time.

So I think it best that you refrain from that term for the sake of keeping this useful discussion at the proper temperature.

 

[giuseppeTO]

I’m afraid you are the one that is mistaken here Dee. A layman cannot be canonically irregular.

Originally Posted by Melchior_ forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
*There are individuals, yes. But in the case of the SSPX it’s a wholesale group who lack the full communion.
*
Members of the SSPX can’t exactly see SSPX for confession(s) either, so that makes the lack of full communion a bit more awkward.

No, sorry, but this is not true.Even though the laity were not excommunicated (they did not consecrate bishops) they are, by formal adherence to the SSPX, not in full communion with the Church.

---

Ecclesia Dei*** commission
At the same time, the Pope set up the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia dei to help SSPX members and adherents who wished “to remain united to the Successor of Peter in the Catholic Church while preserving their spiritual and liturgical traditions” to enter “full ecclesial communion”.[5] This Commission has issued many formal written clarifications about the canonical situation of people involved with the Society of St. Pius X.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canonical_situation_of_the_Society_of_St._Pius_X

From the Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei - Pope John Paul II

“1. With great affliction the Church has learned of the unlawful episcopal ordination conferred on 30 June last by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, which has frustrated all the efforts made during the previous years to ensure the full communion with the Church of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X founded by the same Mons. Lefebvre. These efforts, especially intense during recent months, in which the Apostolic See has shown comprehension to the limits of the possible, were all to no avail.(1)”

**“But especially contradictory is a notion of Tradition which opposes the universal Magisterium of the Church possessed by the Bishop of Rome and the Body of Bishops. It is impossible to remain faithful to the Tradition while breaking the ecclesial bond with him to whom, in the person of the Apostle Peter, Christ himself entrusted the ministry of unity in his Church.(**6)”

"5. Faced with the situation that has arisen I deem it my duty to inform all the Catholic faithful of some aspects which this sad event has highlighted.

a) The outcome of the movement promoted by Mons. Lefebvre can and must be, for all the Catholic faithful, a motive for sincere reflection concerning their own fidelity to the Church’s Tradition, authentically interpreted by the ecclesiastical Magisterium, ordinary and extraordinary, especially in the Ecumenical Councils from Nicaea to Vatican II. From this reflection all should draw a renewed and efficacious conviction of the necessity of strengthening still more their fidelity by rejecting erroneous interpretations and arbitrary and unauthorized applications in matters of doctrine, liturgy and discipline."
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/j...ii_motu-proprio_02071988_ecclesia-dei_en.html

Canonical regularity aside, since there is no definition of the term “full communion” - if you mean by that those who agree with all of the ordinary and extraordinary teachings of the Pope, if even a fraction of the statistics are accurate in the U.S. alone, there are many more not in “full communion” with the Pope that the entire worldwide SSPX combined.

 

[Melchior_1]

Bro Jr,

You push the rhetorical envelop too far here when you use the term “crime” which invites the corollary that those Bishops who have committed the crimes are “criminals”. This is not a term that has been used by Rome, to my knowledge and the introduction into the flow of this thread, or any other discussion of this situation, will do nothing but inflame the passions and lead to a broader use of the term on both sides of the argument.

I certainly understand your discussion of infractions of canon law and the Holy Father has chosen for some private reason (which we generally attribute to charity) not to further penalize the Society Bishops for continuing to ordain priests after removing the excommunications. Indeed, Bishop Fellay moved a planned ordination from the German seminary to Econe two years ago at the request of the Pontiff so as not to exacerbate the tensions in the Diocese at the time.

So I think it best that you refrain from that term for the sake of keeping this useful discussion at the proper temperature.

Brother never called them criminals, he said they committed some crimes, which they did by breaking Canon Law. I’m interested in knowing what type of language you would use to describe someone who breaks the law.

Canon Crimes? Canon Criminals?

 

[Boulder257]

Bro Jr,

You push the rhetorical envelop too far here when you use the term “crime” which invites the corollary that those Bishops who have committed the crimes are “criminals”. This is not a term that has been used by Rome, to my knowledge and the introduction into the flow of this thread, or any other discussion of this situation, will do nothing but inflame the passions and lead to a broader use of the term on both sides of the argument.

I certainly understand your discussion of infractions of canon law and the Holy Father has chosen for some private reason (which we generally attribute to charity) not to further penalize the Society Bishops for continuing to ordain priests after removing the excommunications. Indeed, Bishop Fellay moved a planned ordination from the German seminary to Econe two years ago at the request of the Pontiff so as not to exacerbate the tensions in the Diocese at the time.

So I think it best that you refrain from that term for the sake of keeping this useful discussion at the proper temperature.

I am sure brother was very careful in his choice of words to NOT call them criminals. I think he is certainly correct in that the bishops of the SSPX have broken laws that they themselves are subject to. This is the very definition of a crime. You may not like the terminology, but it’s accurate.

 

[curlycool89]

I am sure brother was very careful in his choice of words to NOT call them criminals. I think he is certainly correct in that the bishops of the SSPX have broken laws that they themselves are subject to. This is the very definition of a crime. You may not like the terminology, but it’s accurate.

Yep.

This is a serious situation and we shouldn’t be sugar-coating what has happened. It is objectively true that they are breaking the law (Canon Law) and intend to continue to break the law, which is a just and valid law because it is founded on Peter. That’s just the facts of the current situation.

You can’t just decide which laws you want to follow, that’s really just as bad as deciding which moral laws to follow. Either way, you are spitting in the face of the Church by saying that you are above it because you are saying you have the right of interpretation which belongs to Peter alone.

If the Pope declared tomorrow that henceforth all Masses should be in Latin, we would be obliged to follow. I wouldn’t like it and I wouldn’t agree with it, but nowhere does Jesus say that I have to like what Peter does. All Jesus said was to follow Peter, and so follow Peter I shall do, because Peter is the earthly steward of Jesus.

 

[EcceAgnusDei]

It’s not presumptuous at all, since that’s the law. When one violates a law that carries a specific penalty, the pope does not have to do anything. The penalty is activated by the person violating the law.

Since there is a law about ordaining bishops without a papal mandate and there is a law about intentionally breaking communion with the Bishop of Rome, should they choose to ordain a bishop without such a mandate, the excommunication takes place automatically.

The excommunication, yes. But you said they would be declared to be in schism, which is different from excommunication. So certainly you can say that an illicit episcopal consecration would result in excommunication – that’s in Canon Law. However, nowhere in Canon Law does it say that such an act would make the people involved schismatics, which is what you claimed. Such a statement would have to come from the Holy Father.

We can’t forget that they were warned by the Holy See that if they did not come into full communion with the Holy See there could be a break that would do incalculable damage and that it would be their fault, not the Vatican’s fault. I can’t recall the exact wording of the sentence, but people probably remember this statement issued by the Holy See.

Yes, I remember the statement. But incalculable damage does not equal schism “game over” as you stated. The statement from the Vatican did not say that.

To respond to your statement, it’s not presumption. It’s knowledge of the law. Unless the Holy Father changes the law or dispenses them from the law, we can only operate by speaking from the law as it is right now. Therefore, we can say that if they ordain another bishop without a papal mandate they will be excommunicated and they will be in schism.

Excommunication does not equal schism. The 1988 consecrations are a clear example of that. A schismatic act, as John Paul II declared, but he did not say they were in schism. There is a nuance there that is important to note.

Even though we may like the SSPX, we must be very careful not to assume canonical exceptions for them that are not in the books. Canonical exceptions only exist when the reigning pope says so, such as the Jesuits. They’re exempt from almost every canon that has to do with religious life, but they’re a very special order and these exceptions were negotiated by St. Ignatius. The SSPX has not negotiated any exceptions, yet. Until they do, we can safely speak from Canon Law.

I don’t disagree here.

However, I will warn this. One must make sure that one understands the tradition of Canon Law. Just reading the law is not enough. Canon Law often means more than what it says. There are points that are not in writing, but are in the mind of the person who wrote the law. One must know about these. That’s how the commentaries and courses come in helpful.

Indeed.

• PAX

 

[Boulder257]

Excommunication does not equal schism. The 1988 consecrations are a clear example of that. A schismatic act, as John Paul II declared, but he did not say they were in schism. There is a nuance there that is important to note.

True; however, it is schismatic acts that leads to schism. Therefore, the nuance here, and the message that should be taken away from this is that the action was schismatic and could lead to schism. I don’t think the Pope, in any way, was excusing them or saying their actions, while schismatic, would not lead to schism. He is very clearly warning them that they are about to cause a schism should they mantain their actions (which they have done). He stops short of calling them in schism only because he is trying to provide them with every possibility to return to their sense. His patience is only going to go so far before he does say, “game over.”

Personally, I would’n’t want to be on the other side of the line playing “chicken” with the Holy Father. He has the authority handed to him by Jesus Christ. He’s going to win everytime. I think for those of us that have been following this saw an extraordinary gesture in Charity when he liften the excommunications. Let’s not forget that he did not do so because the SSPX were right, but because he was offering them a chance to come back into the fold. A gesture of great Charirty was mistaken by the SSPX and their faithful to be a sign of weakness. How dangerous pride can be.

Which each game they play, and the obvious double sided rhetoric offered by the SSPX (as Dee provided in examples in earlier posts) one can see The Holy Father’s patience wearing more and more thin.

 

[EcceAgnusDei]

True; however, it is schismatic acts that leads to schism. Therefore, the nuance here, and the message that should be taken away from this is that the action was schismatic and could lead to schism. I don’t think the Pope, in any way, was excusing them or saying their actions, while schismatic, would not lead to schism. He is very clearly warning them that they are about to cause a schism should they mantain their actions (which they have done). He stops short of calling them in schism only because he is trying to provide them with every possibility to return to their sense. His patience is only going to go so far before he does say, “game over.”

Personally, I would’n’t want to be on the other side of the line playing “chicken” with the Holy Father. He has the authority handed to him by Jesus Christ. He’s going to win everytime. I think for those of us that have been following this saw an extraordinary gesture in Charity when he liften the excommunications. Let’s not forget that he did not do so because the SSPX were right, but because he was offering them a chance to come back into the fold. A gesture of great Charirty was mistaken by the SSPX and their faithful to be a sign of weakness. How dangerous pride can be.

I agree with the essence of this. My only point was that it is presumptuous to pretend that we know with certainty what the Pope would or would not do if there were further consecrations and such statements of certainty should be avoided.

Look at all the people who said they knew what was going to happen with the SSPX in the recent past and it turns out that almost all of them were wrong.

Which each game they play, and the obvious double sided rhetoric offered by the SSPX (as Dee provided in examples in earlier posts) one can see The Holy Father’s patience wearing more and more thin.

I don’t think many of us are in position to judge the actual level of the Holy Father’s patience.

• PAX

 

[Boulder257]

I agree with the essence of this. My only point was that it is presumptuous to pretend that we know with certainty what the Pope would or would not do if there were further consecrations and such statements of certainty should be avoided.

Look at all the people who said they knew what was going to happen with the SSPX in the recent past and it turns out that almost all of them were wrong.

I don’t think many of us are in position to judge the actual level of the Holy Father’s patience.

• PAX

I agree. My point in regards to Holy Father’s patience is purely speculative in nature and my own personal opinion. I can definitely point to certain things he has done which lead me to this conclusion, but I will certainly admit it’s personal opinion.

 

[JReducation]

Let’s not play games and let’s not play Canon Lawyers or students of Canon Law unless you are a layer or have formal training in Canon Law.

The law is simple. If you ordain a bishop without a papal mandate, both parties are excommunicated. The law carries this penalty. The pope does not need to say anything.

Second, if you intentionally break with the primacy of Peter, you are schismatic. The pope does not have to call you schismatic. The law calls you schismatic.

To ordain more bishops, given the history of what happened the last time they had illegal ordinations is a schismatic act. In addition, it makes statement. It says that regardless of what happened in the past, “We’re going to do it our way not your way?” That’s a schismatic person speaking. Therefore, you’re in schism.

The only thing that can save you from excommunication and schism is a direct intervention by the pope. If the pope does not intervene on your behalf, the law is what it is. The writers of the law intended it to be carried out this way. Only the pope can change the intent of the law or create an exception.

To say that it’s presumptuous to say that the SSPX will be in schism if they ordain more bishops is presumptuous in itself. The assumption is that the pope will step in and rescue them. Until the pope says the he will rescue the, we take the law as it is written and as the writers intended it to be applied. There is not presumption there. You can’t presume, if your statement is based on a) what’s written on paper and b) legal tradition. A presumption would be to predict what is out of the ordinary.

I understand that people have an affection for the SSPX. There are a number of priests in the SSPX for whom I have a special affection, some are friends. My affection cannot change the law. Only the pope can change it. I can’t let my affection cloud my vision of what the law says. I would be presuming.

To presume that the pope is going to step in at the eleventh hour and rescue the SSPX from the law is like the man who sins and presumes that at the eleventh hour Christ will step in and offer him an opportunity for mercy. It can happen and it may happen. But it has not been guaranteed to happen. The only guarantee is what legal tradition has taught us.

Because legal tradition has taught us that this is very dangerous, we must pray that it never occurs to them to ordain another bishop. We must pray that they will step down and accept what the pope has to offer.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[ClemtheCatholic]

Okay… this link seems a bit peculiar: http://www.sspx.org/sspx_faqs/q7_pope.htm. How does one view all of this?

In particular, what am I to make of these paragraphs?:

*There seem to be two errors common in these turbulent times. The first temptation is to presume to judge the Holy Father of being a formal heretic, a situation which would, according to them, cause the apparent pope to be an anti-pope, possessing no true jurisdiction. Although this has been put forward as a theoretical possibility by some theologians[1] historically, such a theory[2] cannot explain what happens to such doctrines as the visibility of the Church, or Christ’s promise to be with His Church until the end of time. Such a simplistic notion is actually based on the same premise as the opposite temptation: that the pope is actually protected by an extended infallibility which cannot account for any error.

The opposite error is far more common and assumes that whatever the pope does or teaches is correct. This is perhaps understandable since, in normal times, this is in actuality what happens. But one must distinguish: history is replete with examples of popes who taught or did things which were not proper. As an example, Pope Liberius signed some form of a semi-Arian document, and Pope John XXII temporarily taught that the souls of the saved do not see God until after the Final Judgment. Some Renaissance popes led lives of dubious morality. In all these cases, though wrong, papal infallibility was not involved.

The pope is infallible primarily in matters of faith and morals, and secondarily in matters of discipline (legislation for the Universal Church, canonizations, etc.) to the extent that these involve faith and morals (cf. principle 4), and then only when imposing for all time a definitive teaching. Indeed, if the pope had some form of personal infallibility with regard to his ordinary teaching, there would be no need for a definition of its limits.*

Thanks!!

Think this got lost in all the commotion! Still hoping somebody might be able to tell me if there are any problems with what SSPX has written here…