The Mass of Vatican II

[Dr.Bombay]

You’ll have to excuse Bombay. Somebody slipped him some cool-aid while he wasn’t looking and he hasn’t been the same since.

If anyone is confused, here’s some help:
matt1618.freeyellow.com/schism.html

Let’s not forget the Apostolic Letter (I’m sure someone, somewhere will be posting an excerpt from an interview which does not trump Ecclesia Dei):

adoremus.org/EcclesiaDei.html

And our own CA thinks they’re in schism.
catholic.com/thisrock/2003/0301fea2.asp

And before the cool-aid incident our own Bombay:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=453571&postcount=37
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=551195&postcount=149

More semantic games. Neither I nor the fine staff of Catholic Answers are the Holy See.

The SSPX are not schismatic. Nor does the Church consider them as such.

The SSPX situation is considered an internal Church matter. Schismatics are not inside the Church. Unsubstantiated hearsay on the internet does not change that simple fact.

 

[bear06]

More semantic games. Neither I nor the fine staff of Catholic Answers are the Holy See.

The SSPX are not schismatic. Nor does the Church consider them as such.

The SSPX situation is considered an internal Church matter. Schismatics are not inside the Church. Unsubstantiated hearsay on the internet does not change that simple fact.

Uh, the “internal matter” statement was not an official Holy See statement. As I recall, it was an article. To my knowledge, and I could be wrong, the Church has never put forth a document claiming that the SSPX are not schismatic nor that the situation with them is an “internal matter” (although I don’t think that would be incorrect since when you are disobedient, you are not necessarily outside of the Church). Nice try but maybe you do have an official Vatican document that says they are not in schism? Holy Father trumps interviewee,

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

The SSPX are not schismatic. Nor does the Church consider them as such.

Pax tecum!

Dr. Bombay, Ecclesia Dei says that they are in schism…literally. No semantics are played with it. The document states word for word that they are in schism. You can think they aren’t all you want (and you’re completely wrong), but don’t say that the Church does not consider them to be in schism because that simply is not true.

In Christ,
Rand

 

[Walking_Home]

Originally Posted by Walking_Home​

It is confusing—whether some Anglicans have or not- valid orders.
Maybe some—like you mention—used a back door.

Jimmy Akin mentions a Brazilian schismatic group. I don’t think it could be Campos because they came back before August when the thread was started. I wonder who else is down there. Did Campos split when they came back?

---

I came across this today. From what this says— the Church does not recognize the Anglican orders as valid.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=115695

Quote=GKC
Yep. I’ve discussed it.

Nope, it’s not an open question, for RCs. The bull
Apostolicae Curae, issued over Leo XIII’s signature in 1896, was reaffirmed by (then) Cardinal Ratzinger a few years ago. And lately the official Anglican Communion has been doing its best to make Leo’s judgement accurate, ex post facto, at least. There is some theoretical wiggle room, with respect to a few technical issues, and at least two Anglican priests were reordained sub conditione when they crossed the Tiber, indicating a certain lack of certainty, in those individual cases. But generally, the RC position is that Anglican orders are null and void.
Of course, Anglicans have a different opinion.

For background and exposition, Clark’s ANGLICAN ORDERS AND DEFECT OF INTENTION is the best summary of the RC position. For the Anglican side, Fr. J. Hughes’ two books, ABSOLUTELY NULL AND UTTERLY VOID and STEWARDS OF THE LORD are superb.

GKC

 

[bear06]

---

I came across this today. From what this says— the Church does not recognize the Anglican orders as valid.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=115695

Quote=GKC
Yep. I’ve discussed it.

Nope, it’s not an open question, for RCs. The bull
Apostolicae Curae, issued over Leo XIII’s signature in 1896, was reaffirmed by (then) Cardinal Ratzinger a few years ago. And lately the official Anglican Communion has been doing its best to make Leo’s judgement accurate, ex post facto, at least. There is some theoretical wiggle room, with respect to a few technical issues, and at least two Anglican priests were reordained sub conditione when they crossed the Tiber, indicating a certain lack of certainty, in those individual cases. But generally, the RC position is that Anglican orders are null and void.
Of course, Anglicans have a different opinion.

For background and exposition, Clark’s ANGLICAN ORDERS AND DEFECT OF INTENTION is the best summary of the RC position. For the Anglican side, Fr. J. Hughes’ two books, ABSOLUTELY NULL AND UTTERLY VOID and STEWARDS OF THE LORD are superb.

GKC

Thanks WH. That’s pretty much what Apostolicae Curae has said and the then Cardinal Ratzinger backed that up.

The interesting thing about the Milingo ordinations is that those guys had already be ordained by the “Old Catholic church” and these were just supposedly conditinoal ordinations. I’ll look and maybe you can see too if we can find any statements on ordinations by the “Old Catholic church”.

 

[bear06]

I think I might have actually found something on the Old Catholic ordinations:

While firmly restating the judgment of Apostolicae Curae
that Anglican ordination is invalid, the Catholic Church takes
account of the involvement, in some Anglican episcopal
ordinations, of bishops of the Old Catholic Church of the Union of
Utrecht who are validly ordained. In particular and probably rare
cases the authorities in Rome may judge that there is a “prudent
doubt” concerning the invalidity of priestly ordination received by
an individual Anglican minister ordain in this line of succession.

ewtn.com/library/ISSUES/LEONARD.TXT

 

[JNB]

The SSPX, at best is in an irregular situation, and is divided, between anmore "moderate"faction(moderate being a relative word) and the Bp.Williamson wing, and sadly, because of Bp. Fellays desire to keep SSPX unity at all and any cost, he is in effect letting Bp. Williamson run the show.

That said, the question of the SSPX being schismatic or not almost depends on the priest celebrating the mass, since some are like Williamson, quasi sede, and again some are more “moderate” in their outlook.

Anyways, Cdl. Hoyos was clear in saying the SSPX, at this time, is an internal matter. By the way this is for other posters, the “information” on the freeyellow site from “Dr” Shawn is quite tainted, written by a bitter man whith an axe to grind.

More semantic games. Neither I nor the fine staff of Catholic Answers are the Holy See.

The SSPX are not schismatic. Nor does the Church consider them as such.

The SSPX situation is considered an internal Church matter. Schismatics are not inside the Church. Unsubstantiated hearsay on the internet does not change that simple fact.

 

[Rara_Avis]

Well, yes it was because they were not using the proper form. That said, it appears that some are now approaching schismatic groups with valid succession and they are ordaining them.

Please read Akin’s article:

 

[Rara_Avis]

I think I might have actually found something on the Old Catholic ordinations:

ewtn.com/library/ISSUES/LEONARD.TXT

Yes Old Catholic ordinations are valid … in fact - even though I am not an Old Catholic - if I were on my death bed I would call the Old Catholic to come minister the Sacraments before I would call many a new priest.

btw - I am not SSPX either but I would also call them before I would call a new priest.

 

[Dr.Bombay]

Uh, the “internal matter” statement was not an official Holy See statement. As I recall, it was an article. To my knowledge, and I could be wrong, the Church has never put forth a document claiming that the SSPX are not schismatic nor that the situation with them is an “internal matter” (although I don’t think that would be incorrect since when you are disobedient, you are not necessarily outside of the Church). Nice try but maybe you do have an official Vatican document that says they are not in schism? Holy Father trumps interviewee,

The onus is on you to provide official documentation, though little good that would do since you would twist it to fit your own agenda.

I am not going to participate in a debate of arbitrary links that engage in speculation based on hearsay from internet scandalmongers. Nor will I attempt to expain for others mistakes or misinterpretations of official Church documents.

Furthermore, I refuse to engage in the type of forum “gotcha” you favor by responding to ancient quotes you dredge up that may or may not have been posted under my name years ago. Such tactics barely warrant even this much of a response.

Finally, I do not have a dog in this fight (yet). I am not a member of the SSPX nor do I attend Mass at their local chapel. However, I am quite confident that no person posting under a psuedonym on the internet may assume for himself a power reserved to the Apostolic See. In other words, the SSPX is not schismatic nor has the Church declared them as such. Facts trump speculation.

 

[Dr.Bombay]

Pax tecum!

Dr. Bombay, Ecclesia Dei says that they are in schism…literally. No semantics are played with it. The document states word for word that they are in schism. You can think they aren’t all you want (and you’re completely wrong), but don’t say that the Church does not consider them to be in schism because that simply is not true.

In Christ,
Rand

Wrong. Before you continue to spread such opinions about your fellow Catholics, perhaps you should check out your new Catechism and what it has to say about the sin of calumny.

"He becomes guilty:
of calumny who, by remarks contrary to the truth, harms the reputation of others and gives occasion for false judgments concerning them."

The SSPX is not schismatic nor has the Church declared them as such.

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

Wrong. Before you continue to spread such opinions about your fellow Catholics, perhaps you should check out your new Catechism and what it has to say about the sin of calumny.

"He becomes guilty:
of calumny who, by remarks contrary to the truth, harms the reputation of others and gives occasion for false judgments concerning them."

The SSPX is not schismatic nor has the Church declared them as such.

Pax tecum!

I’m wrong? Really? That’s funny, because Ecclesia Dei says exactly what I said it does. Let’s look at it, shall we:

In itself, this act was one of disobedience to the Roman Pontiff in a very grave matter and of supreme importance for the unity of the church, such as is the ordination of bishops whereby the apostolic succession is sacramentally perpetuated. Hence such disobedience - which implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy - constitutes a schismatic act.

Says it right there, clear as day. Also this part:

Everyone should be aware that formal adherence to the schism is a grave offence against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church’s law.

The Church HAS declared them to be in schism. I’m beginning to wonder if you’ve even read Ecclesia Dei.

In Christ,
Rand

 

[Dr.Bombay]

Pax tecum!

I’m wrong? Really? That’s funny, because Ecclesia Dei says exactly what I said it does. Let’s look at it, shall we:

Says it right there, clear as day. Also this part:

The Church HAS declared them to be in schism. I’m beginning to wonder if you’ve even read Ecclesia Dei.

In Christ,
Rand

Ecclesia Dei refers to the four bishops consecrated, as well as Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop de Castro Mayer. It is not a blanket excommunication of every member of the SSPX, nor is it a declaration that they are in schism.

The SSPX is not schismatic nor has the Church declared them as such. And you have no power to overrule that judgement. Or are you more Catholic than the Pope?

 

[bear06]

Ecclesia Dei refers to the four bishops consecrated, as well as Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop de Castro Mayer. It is not a blanket excommunication of every member of the SSPX, nor is it a declaration that they are in schism.

The SSPX is not schismatic nor has the Church declared them as such. And you have no power to overrule that judgement. Or are you more Catholic than the Pope?

Let’s try this another way, if one is not in full communion with the Church, what are one?

Also, there have been other bishops consecrated after Ecclesia Dei so you’ll at least have to admit that they are in schism not just the 4.

 

[Dr.Bombay]

Let’s try this another way, if one is not in full communion with the Church, what are one?

Also, there have been other bishops consecrated after Ecclesia Dei so you’ll at least have to admit that they are in schism not just the 4.

Which bishops consecrated by whom?

 

[bear06]

Which bishops consecrated by whom?

Let’s try Bishop Rangel by Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, assisted by Alfonso de Galarreta and Richard Williamson. Could you also answer the first question?

 

[Dr.Bombay]

Let’s try Bishop Rangel by Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, assisted by Alfonso de Galarreta and Richard Williamson. Could you also answer the first question?

Bishop Rangel was not in schism.

Imperfect communion is not schism. Canonical irregularity is not schism.

 

[bear06]

Bishop Rangel was not in schism.

Imperfect communion is not schism. Canonical irregularity is not schism.

Please! Put on your thinking cap. Lefebvre was excommunicated for his schismatic act of ordaining bishops without papal approval. In turn, those he ordained were also excommunicated for their schismatic act. Ordaining bishops without papal approval is a schismatic act. One is in schism if they participate in a schismatic act. Not only was Bishop Rangel in schism, he was also excommunicated which is why he asked to be absolved from his excommunication.

ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP2CAMPO.HTM

On 15 August last year, Bishop Licinio Rangel, **together **with 25 priests of the Union of St John Mary Vianney Campos, Brazil, addressed a letter to the Holy Father in which he expressed his act of full submission to the Catholic Church asking to be absolved from the excommunication incurred on 28 July 1991, when he accepted ordination to the office of Bishop without papal mandate. On the Solemnity of Christmas 2001, the Holy Father sent an Autograph Letter to Bishop Rangel, absolving him from the excommunication and receiving him back into full Catholic communion. Subsequently, the Pope appointed him administrator of a new Apostolic Administration with headquarters in the Diocese of Campos for the pastoral care of the faithful who remain attached to the Tridentine Rite. The Papal Letter, at the request of the Holy Father, was presented to Bishop Rangel in the course of a celebration in the Cathedral of Campos on Friday 18 January, by Cardinal Dario Castrillón Hoyos, President of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei. During this celebration, Bishop Rangel made his profession of faith and took the oath of fidelity to the Supreme Pontiff, declaring at the same time that he accepted all the teachings of the Second Vatican Council.

 

[Damascus]

Bishop Rangel was not in schism.

Imperfect communion is not schism. Canonical irregularity is not schism.

If this is true, then the women priestess that claim to have been ordained are okay too?

 

[bear06]

BTW. Canon 1382 might be helpful:

Can. 1382 Both the Bishop who, without a pontifical mandate, consecrates a person a Bishop, and the one who receives the consecration from him, incur a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See.