F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
Actually they were not excommunicated by the pope, they were excommunicated by their actions. The pope just confirmed their excommunications.
- Status
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
I do not understand how there can still be today a doubt as to the excommunications of the bishops of the SSPX.
Two reasons;
One, Pope Benedict lifted the excommunications which shows that the Catholic Church believed that they, the SSPX bishops, were excommunicated.
Two, for Pope Benedict to lift the excommunications, the SSPX bishops had to request that he do so. So the SSPX bishops must have believed that the Catholic Church excommunicated them or else they would not have asked to have it lifted.
Two reasons;
One, Pope Benedict lifted the excommunications which shows that the Catholic Church believed that they, the SSPX bishops, were excommunicated.
Two, for Pope Benedict to lift the excommunications, the SSPX bishops had to request that he do so. So the SSPX bishops must have believed that the Catholic Church excommunicated them or else they would not have asked to have it lifted.
T
Timothysis
Guest
But according to our zealous poster, “objectively” the excommunications were not valid, even though two popes and the bishops involved acted as if they were. Strangely, the principle people involved were all of the same mind, yet, according to our poster they were all wrong, regardless of the intricacies of Canon law. :whacky:
L
laszlo
Guest
500 some priest, 4 bishops, 100,000 - 600,000 estimated followers worldwide.
There are 75 priests in the US, the many of the rest of the priests in France; everywhere else diaspora only.
S
Shin
Guest
Hmm… I wonder what the usual bishop/priest ratio there is to a diocese.
L
laszlo
Guest
In the spirit of the true ecumenism, which is approved by the Church, you may attend the Mass with your friends, you may receive communion too is an occasion like a visit.Thank you all for replying. I appreciate it. We will be visiting friends that attend a SSPX and I wasn’t sure what to do.
Of course, I’m not sure, that I’m any more surer now.
The only requirement is to keep in your mind that fulness of the Christianity is the explicit acceptance of the primacy and rules of the Pope: this is what makes us Catholics, and this is the starting point of our tradition.
A
At_Trent
Guest
Hi, yes the excommunications are lifted on the 4 SSPX Bishops. Some other Bishops didn’t like it, prompting Pope BXVI to write a letter explaining why he lifted the excommunications. I think it is very important for anyone wanting to know how our pope feels about the SSPX, and the letter reveals some of his thoughts. Please read the whole letter. In it you will see H.H. BXVI mention hate.
vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/letters/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20090310_remissione-scomunica_en.html
After you have read the letter, ask yourself if you have sensed any animosity toward the SSPX in this thread. One must understand that there has been a stigma hanging over the SSPX since 1988. The answer to your second question is no, the SSPX in not currently in full communion. So, having been so short of time since the excommunications were lifted, that stigma lingers.
Right now, the SSPX clergy are suspended and without jurisdiction. There is talk of Rome working on an offer to the SSPX that will bring them in full communion though.
The SSPX Mass is valid, but illicit at this time, in the eyes of the Holy See. Naturally the Church doesn’t encourage one attend the SSPX Mass at this time. But, even before the excommunications were lifted, . Msgr. Camille Perl, secretary for the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei (PCED), wrote this in 2007…
“In the strict sense you may fulfill your Sunday obligation by attending a Mass celebrated by a priest of the Society of St. Pius X.”
The Mass is valid but illicit … the priests are suspended, but one can fulfill their obligation at an SSPX chapel. Confusing isn’t it ?
Follow your heart. Though I don’t speak for God the Father, I find it hard to believe He would damn a soul for feeding a spiritual hunger in a traditional manner.
T
Timothysis
Guest
These letters are always taken out of context. This letter was written to one individual with a particular set of circumstances; it is not meant as a letter to the faithful of the Church as a whole. Notice that he uses the phrase “in a strict sense…”
M
markomalley
Guest
One thing to keep in mind, though, is that while the priests are validly (but illicitly) ordained…and thus the Eucharist is valid, you may not receive absolution from one of their priests.
Can. 966 §1. The valid absolution of sins requires that the minister have, in addition to the power of orders, the faculty of exercising it for the faithful to whom he imparts absolution.
Since SSPX priests are not incardinated by any Ordinary, they are not capable of giving a valid absolution.
Can. 966 §1. The valid absolution of sins requires that the minister have, in addition to the power of orders, the faculty of exercising it for the faithful to whom he imparts absolution.
Since SSPX priests are not incardinated by any Ordinary, they are not capable of giving a valid absolution.
M
maurin
Guest
These threads on the Society never fail to offer amusement, intrigue and proof of the Truth of the Society’s point of view–the same point of view ofg the Church for two thousanf years before the Council.
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
So the Church taught disobedience to the pope and the totally disregard for an ecumenical council? I would be interested in reading those Church documents if you find the time to post a link to them.
I
Iotaunum
Guest
With regards to the question: “Does this mean that you can reject the non-infallible portions of Trent as well?” - I think I have already answered this when I explained that we can only reject that which is objectively contrary to previous dogmatic definitions and infallible teaching. I have not found any in the documents of Trent, but I am open to look at them if you can point any out to me.
As far as the SSPX is concerned Vatican II was different from other Councils and not infallible as far as the extraordinary magisterium is concerned since it did not want to define anything. Pope Paul VI himself said Vatican II *“had avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner dogmas affected by the mark of infallibility” *and “In view of conciliar practice and the pastoral purpose of the present Council, this sacred Synod defines matters of faith or morals as binding on the Church only when the Synod itself openly declares so.” - which of course it never did. It cannot be considered infallible by the ordinary and universal magisterium either, since the Ordinary Magesterium does not define but rather it passes on what was always believed. Since the purpose of the magisterium in all forms is to guard the deposit of faith and teach it, Vatican II can not, and does not claim to be considered as infallible magisterial teaching.
“But according to our zealous poster, “objectively” the excommunications were not valid, even though two popes and the bishops involved acted as if they were. Strangely, the principle people involved were all of the same mind, yet, according to our poster they were all wrong, regardless of the intricacies of Canon law.”
Firstly, I would never just make a claim without providing the evidence and reasoning for it. I have explained briefly why the excommunications were nullified from Canon Law – and I have done so in greater detail on a previous thread. If you would like to read that and tell me where I am mistaken, then by all means I will discuss the issue with you. I simply do not want to turn this particular thread into a “were the excommunications valid or not” one, which is why I only addressed it briefly. Also, I must correct an error in your statement: The SSPX have NEVER accepted the validity of the excommunications, or acted as if they did. This was made well known to everyone including the Pope. The SSPX did not ask to have it lifted since it did not exist as far as they were concerned. The SSPX pre talk talks (if I can describe them as such) asked the Pope for three things: It said:
1/ The Latin Mass should be freed since no one in the Latin rite can forbid the use of this Mass to any Priest.
(the Pope responded very generously with his Motu Proprio giving every priest permission to celebrate without the permission of their ordinary)
2/ The excommunications were invalid and did not in reality take place – this should be recognised.
(The Pope obviously could not agree to this, so he offered to “lift” the exommunications. The SSPX said, there is nothing to lift, but at least everyone can agree that presently the SSPX is not to be considered excommunicated – on this both sides agreed)
3/ The last thing the SSPX asked was to clarify Vatican II – get rid of anything which cannot be reconciled with traditional Catholic teaching, doctrines and dogmas and for the Pope to officially interpret those liberal/ambiguous passages in a traditional sense.
(This request was the main subject of the talks, as far as I was told by certain SSPX Clergy. The Pope did not want to do anything further about the Society until these issues were agreed upon, and the SSPX likewise did not want to accept any structures the Vatican may offer until the issues are agreed upon also.)
Also I cannot think of what you mean by “regardless of the intricacies of Canon law” – since I have give a detailed view of the case using all the relevant canons and arguments from both sides on another thread.
Regarding : “Can. 966 §1. The valid absolution of sins requires that the minister have, in addition to the power of orders, the faculty of exercising it for the faithful to whom he imparts absolution.” – this does invalidate SSPX confessions. I chose to confess there rather than to any local churches which I confessed at for years. The SSPX believe Supplied Jurisdiction makes their confessions and marriages valid. Also, I know from one Priest of the SSPX that there are some things which a Priest needs permission from the Holy See to forgive in confession, and the Holy See has given this permission in the past. It would not do so if it thought the confessions were invalid. I will not get into the canonical arguments for the validity of these sacraments here, but if anyone wants to start a new thread or send me a private message I will be happy to discuss the issue.
As far as the SSPX is concerned Vatican II was different from other Councils and not infallible as far as the extraordinary magisterium is concerned since it did not want to define anything. Pope Paul VI himself said Vatican II *“had avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner dogmas affected by the mark of infallibility” *and “In view of conciliar practice and the pastoral purpose of the present Council, this sacred Synod defines matters of faith or morals as binding on the Church only when the Synod itself openly declares so.” - which of course it never did. It cannot be considered infallible by the ordinary and universal magisterium either, since the Ordinary Magesterium does not define but rather it passes on what was always believed. Since the purpose of the magisterium in all forms is to guard the deposit of faith and teach it, Vatican II can not, and does not claim to be considered as infallible magisterial teaching.
“But according to our zealous poster, “objectively” the excommunications were not valid, even though two popes and the bishops involved acted as if they were. Strangely, the principle people involved were all of the same mind, yet, according to our poster they were all wrong, regardless of the intricacies of Canon law.”
Firstly, I would never just make a claim without providing the evidence and reasoning for it. I have explained briefly why the excommunications were nullified from Canon Law – and I have done so in greater detail on a previous thread. If you would like to read that and tell me where I am mistaken, then by all means I will discuss the issue with you. I simply do not want to turn this particular thread into a “were the excommunications valid or not” one, which is why I only addressed it briefly. Also, I must correct an error in your statement: The SSPX have NEVER accepted the validity of the excommunications, or acted as if they did. This was made well known to everyone including the Pope. The SSPX did not ask to have it lifted since it did not exist as far as they were concerned. The SSPX pre talk talks (if I can describe them as such) asked the Pope for three things: It said:
1/ The Latin Mass should be freed since no one in the Latin rite can forbid the use of this Mass to any Priest.
(the Pope responded very generously with his Motu Proprio giving every priest permission to celebrate without the permission of their ordinary)
2/ The excommunications were invalid and did not in reality take place – this should be recognised.
(The Pope obviously could not agree to this, so he offered to “lift” the exommunications. The SSPX said, there is nothing to lift, but at least everyone can agree that presently the SSPX is not to be considered excommunicated – on this both sides agreed)
3/ The last thing the SSPX asked was to clarify Vatican II – get rid of anything which cannot be reconciled with traditional Catholic teaching, doctrines and dogmas and for the Pope to officially interpret those liberal/ambiguous passages in a traditional sense.
(This request was the main subject of the talks, as far as I was told by certain SSPX Clergy. The Pope did not want to do anything further about the Society until these issues were agreed upon, and the SSPX likewise did not want to accept any structures the Vatican may offer until the issues are agreed upon also.)
Also I cannot think of what you mean by “regardless of the intricacies of Canon law” – since I have give a detailed view of the case using all the relevant canons and arguments from both sides on another thread.
Regarding : “Can. 966 §1. The valid absolution of sins requires that the minister have, in addition to the power of orders, the faculty of exercising it for the faithful to whom he imparts absolution.” – this does invalidate SSPX confessions. I chose to confess there rather than to any local churches which I confessed at for years. The SSPX believe Supplied Jurisdiction makes their confessions and marriages valid. Also, I know from one Priest of the SSPX that there are some things which a Priest needs permission from the Holy See to forgive in confession, and the Holy See has given this permission in the past. It would not do so if it thought the confessions were invalid. I will not get into the canonical arguments for the validity of these sacraments here, but if anyone wants to start a new thread or send me a private message I will be happy to discuss the issue.
T
Thomas_Casey
Guest
Question has been answered. Thank you for participating.
CLOSED
CLOSED
- Status