Three points on the recent SSPX ordinations [Peters]

  • Thread starter Thread starter Catholic_Opinion
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Hyacinth_II said:
This boxing needs to stop boys. What is this the intellectual boxing tournament?

geezzzzzzz :confused::rolleyes:

Let’s be thankful that God loves us. We are all precious in His eyes. Let’s go out and save souls with all this enthusiasm.🙂
Click to expand...
what makes you think we’re boxing, girl? and becareful your face doesn’t freeze like that (didn’t you hate it when people said that to you when you were little?)

We’ve both honestly expressed ourselves. So what if we had a little fun doing it? Sometimes, Hyacinth, it ISN"T constructive to fake the warm-fuzzies.
 
maurin said:
what makes you think we’re boxing, girl? and becareful your face doesn’t freeze like that (didn’t you hate it when people said that to you when you were little?)

We’ve both honestly expressed ourselves. So what if we had a little fun doing it? Sometimes, Hyacinth, it ISN"T constructive to fake the warm-fuzzies.
Click to expand...
😉 who’s faking? I am warm fuzzy.😃 But I will get out of your “discussion”.
 
otjm said:
Rome has so thoroughly debunked the “Emergency measure” that it is really beyond discussion. Again, one has only to look at where the discussion has been moved to to ascertain that this is not going to be a “Rome repentance”.
Click to expand...
I would be grateful if you could quote where they have done this, with references. Thanks.
 
JReducation said:
I understand that they are valid secular priests. That’s not an issue. I think that all of us agree on this point. But they are illicitly ordained and still suspended.

It was the Holy Father himself who said that they have no canonical status in the Church, when he lifted the excommunications. Is he wrong?
Click to expand...
The suspensions have not yet been officially lifted. True.
Consider Athanasius during the Arian crisis, when he (& Bp Eusebius) were contemplating going into other bishops’ dioceses and ordaining priests against the manifest wishes of the diocesan bishops. Eusebius even deposed a bishop, on the authority of the Catholic Church, and appointed a replacement, on the grounds that the incumbent was Arian. None of this was with the official backing of Rome. Athanasius was excommunicated, in an initiative of the bishops but endorsed by Pope Liberius.

It could be said that Athanasius at that point had no canonical status.

He did not say, “I will be obedient to the latest directives, and meanwhile God is in charge of the Church”. He said, in effect, “God’s Providence works through natural means except in very exceptional circumstances. We would be tempting Providence to do nothing. I will do what I was consecrated bishop to do, what it is in my own power to do. The rest is up to God.”
Now it was just repeated by Archbishop Levada of the Sacred Congregation for the Faith, this week. Is he wrong?
Click to expand...
He was correct in the sense that the suspensions have not been officially lifted.
Both sides cannot be right.
Click to expand...
One side affirms that there is a State of Emergency in the Church, the other tacitly denies it. Nevertheless, the leaders of both sides are currently working to resolve this crisis.

Some weeks ago, on the Bp Williamson thread, I asked you what advice you would have given to Archbp. Athaanasius. I think the thread was closed down before you had a chance to reply. Would you like to do so now? Thanks.
 
I would like to point out, as I have many times, that the use of an analogy like St. Athanasius is not evidence of anything. Like all analogies it can be true or false. It is circular reasoning to assume the correlation and then use the analogy to prove the assumption.
 
numealinesimpet said:
I missed the deadline for proof-reading my posting. To make my meaning clearer, this was my request:
I would be grateful if you could quote where they have debunked Mgr Lefebvre’s appeal to Canons 1323, 1324 +1321, with references. Thanks.
Click to expand...
 
pnewton said:
I would like to point out, as I have many times, that the use of an analogy like St. Athanasius is not evidence of anything. Like all analogies it can be true or false. It is circular reasoning to assume the correlation and then use the analogy to prove the assumption.
Click to expand...
As I have explained before, I am not jumping to the conclusion that the case of S. Athanasius proves the case of the SSPX. I am trying to untangle some steps of the argument that are usually jumped over. Some comments on this thread have appeared to pre-suppose that a situation like that of the Arian crisis either could never happen, or that, if it did, the Catholic response would have been to obey the Pope, sit tight, pray and do nothing else in the public forum. I say that the history of the Arian crisis proves otherwise.

The case of S. Athanasius does prove that there are precedents and principles that cannot be denied to the Catholic way. Once we agree that this is so, we can then move on to an intelligent discussion whether or not these proven principles do actually apply to the SSPX.
 
The first problem with using Athanasius is that Athanasius did not live under the Code of Canon Law of 1983. Archbishop Lefebvre did.

The second problem is that the pope is both the giver of the law and the ultimate interpreter of the law. His authority is absolute.

If the good Archbishop thought that there was a case of emergency and ordained bishops without papal permission and the pope saays, that the Archbishop’s criteria does not meet the criteria for a state of emergency, the Pope’s interpretation of the law trumps that of any bishop. Even canon law sates that he is the ultimate juror and jurdge.

If Pope does not recognize just cause for ordaining the bishops without consent, then the ordinations were illicit and the Archbishop has excommunicated himself.

As to their canonical standing in the Church, canon law makes it quite clear that a priest has to fit into one of the following groups to have canonical standing:
  1. **Be incardnated into a diocese. ** The SSPX clergy are not part of any diocese
  2. Be religious in vows in a religious community of either Pontifical Right or Diocesan Right. The priests of the SSPX are not religious. They are seculars.
  3. Be members of a secular institute or secular order that has the canonical approval of the Pontiff. The Society does not have the canonical approval of the Pontiff.
  4. Be members of a prelature under the Ordinary authority of an Apostolic Vicar. The SSPX are not an Apostolic Prelature, such as the Opus Dei.
  5. Be members of a priestly fraternity that is in communion with the local bishop. This would be a situation like that of the FSSP.
  6. Be members of an exempt religious community. There are only five exempt religious communities in the Church: Benedictines, Carmelites, Franciscans, Augustinians (including Dominicans) and Jesuits.
After you go through canon law the clergy of the SSPX does not come under the Congregation for the Clergy or the Congregation for Bishops or the Congregation for Religiious Institutes and Societies of Apostolic Life. That is why the only other authority left to handle their case is the Congregation of the Faith. Because they are Catholic, but they have no canonical status. They cannot be handed over to the Congregation on the Laity, because they are ordained. But they cannot be handed over to the Congregation on the Clergy, because they do not belong to any diocese and the same applies to the other Sacred Congregations in the Holy See.

No matter how much supporters of the SSPX may want to say that the principle of emergency and the case of St. Athanasius supports the SSPX, the fact is that the Pontiff himself does not believe it. And the Pontiff does not seem to be bending on this point.

Pope Benedict XVI said that the SSPX do not have a canonical place in the Church when he lifted the excommunications.

The fact that the Society of Saint Pius X does not possess a canonical status in the Church is not, in the end, based on disciplinary but on doctrinal reasons. As long as the Society does not have a canonical status in the Church, its ministers do not exercise legitimate ministries in the Church.

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/letters/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20090310_remissione-scomunica_en.html

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
JReducation said:
The second problem is that the pope is both the giver of the law and the ultimate interpreter of the law. His authority is absolute.
Click to expand...
JR, would you mind emailing the German Bishops this? I’m not certain they understand that. They called, individually of course,not as a body Idon’t think, for the Pope’s resignation.
 
maurin said:
JR, would you mind emailing the German Bishops this? I’m not certain they understand that. They called, individually of course,not as a body Idon’t think, for the Pope’s resignation.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure what’s going on there. But I certainly get the impression that they are not on the same page that we are. My fraternal suggestion is that they sit and talk things through very carefully. Maybe, it is a good idea if everyone steps back and takes a break to pray and rest. Sometimes, in the heat of an issue, people tend to say things that they later realize were not reasonable.

I say with with a certain amount of reservation, because our rule forbids us to ever say that a bishop is in error. St. Francis reminds us that this is a role for those in authority, not for us. Our role is to obey as long as something is not a sin.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
JReducation said:
I’m not sure what’s going on there. But I certainly get the impression that they are not on the same page that we are. My fraternal suggestion is that they sit and talk things through very carefully. Maybe, it is a good idea if everyone steps back and takes a break to pray and rest. Sometimes, in the heat of an issue, people tend to say things that they later realize were not reasonable.

I say with with a certain amount of reservation, because our rule forbids us to ever say that a bishop is in error. St. Francis reminds us that this is a role for those in authority, not for us. Our role is to obey as long as something is not a sin.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
Click to expand...
Seems that rule has not stopped you from bringing up the supposed “error” of the late Archbishop and the current Society Bishops. If as you say that St. Francis reminds you that this is a role for those in authority --not for you —would this not mean that you --should stay silent concerning Arch. Lefebvre and the Society. After all they are valid Bishops.
 
Walking_Home said:
Seems that rule has not stopped you from bringing up the supposed “error” of the late Archbishop and the current Society Bishops. If as you say that St. Francis reminds you that this is a role for those in authority --not for you —would this not mean that you --should stay silent concerning Arch. Lefebvre and the Society. After all they are valid Bishops.
Click to expand...
The rule is very clear. We are to remain quiet in everything but sin. When a bishop consecrates other bishops without the permission of the Holy Father, he is committing a sin.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
JReducation said:
The rule is very clear. We are to remain quiet in everything but sin. When a bishop consecrates other bishops without the permission of the Holy Father, he is committing a sin.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂

I say with with a certain amount of reservation,** because our rule forbids us to ever say** that a bishop is in error. St. Francis reminds us that this is a role for those in authority, not for us. Our role is to obey as long as something is not a sin.
Click to expand...
You said your rule forbids you to Ever say that a bishop is in error. That St. Francis reminds you that this is a role for those in authority—not for you. ( Ever --as in --at any time, In any way) – This does not allow for you as a follower of St. Francis to bring up the supposed “errors”/“sins” of a valid Bishop.
 
Walking_Home said:
You said your rule forbids you to Ever say that a bishop is in error. That St. Francis reminds you that this is a role for those in authority—not for you. ( Ever --as in --at any time, In any way) – This does not allow for you as a follower of St. Francis to bring up the supposed “errors”/“sins” of a valid Bishop.
Click to expand...
I will repat, if the bishop commits a sin and that sin is called such by the pope. The Rule also tells us to follow the pope.

In this case, Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI have called it a sin. It was they who said that the Archbishop violated canon law and incurred excommunication along with those who accepted to be consecrated bishops. Therefore, it is not my brothers or I who have said it.

Our holy father Francis not only mandated us to believe and follow what the pope orders or condemns, but he wanted all Catholics to follow his example. It is a form of penance and as Francis says, a form of “obedience that is pleasing to God and man.”

Let’s not get confused here. There is obedience to bishops who order or require that which is not sinful, even though we may have a better idea, and in those cases we must obey without comment. We are called to offer up the sacrifice for the salvation of souls, says our holy father Francis. Then there is a request or mandate to sin. There we are to look toward the pope for direction and follow his lead and his discretion. We also have the obligation of teaching what the pope says in such situations.

For Francis, the issue is not whether a bishop is validly ordained, but whether or not he is in communion with the Church. Remember that Francis lived at a time when the schism between East and West was finally done. He would not ask his brothers to show the same submission for the Orthodox bishops, even though they are valid bishops, except on those points that the pope agrees with.

In essence we obey Francis’ discretion and rules. He teaches us that it is not for us to determine if the bishop is in error. It is up to the pope. It is up to us to repeat what the pope says to ensure that all Catholics are in communion with their bishop and the pope.

I hope this is clearer and apologize if I was not as clear before.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
40.png
Walking_Home:
Now you are playing with the holy rule and that is not allowed to anyone, lay or religioius. The Rule of St. Francis was approved by a papal bull and cannot be played with. It is a sacred document of the Church.

I believe that you understand full well what I am trying to explain.
  1. You may not pass judgement on a bishop.
It it not I who passed the judgement, it was the pope.
  1. You must obey at all times, except in sin.
The bishops of the SSPX committed a sin, says the pope.
  1. You must follow the pope
We do. If he says it is a sin, so it is.
  1. You must teach what the pope teaches.
We do. If the pope says that a bishop or group of bishops have sinned we teach that.
  1. You may not comment on a bishop’s errors.
We do not, as long as the bishop is in communion with the pope.

Then you added “validly ordained”. Well the bishops of the Orthodox Churches are also validly ordained. Bu the Church says that they are not in full communion with the pope. Therefore, we say that they are not in full communion with the pope. SSPX bishops are not the only validly ordained bishops who are not in communion with the pope. You are making it sound as if they are valid bishops and the others are not, which is not the case.

You are saying “supposed error”. According to the holy rule an error that is confirmed by a pope is not alleged or supposed. It is an error and we must protec the laity from that error by teaching them what the pope says.

Our vow of obedience is to God, the Church, our holy father Francis, our major superiors and to our brothers when gathered in a chapter. Ultimately, it is the chapter, not you nor I, who decides how the rule is to be applied in every age and circumstance.

Your statement that the rule is not a rule at all is in conflict with several papal encylicals on the rule of St. Francis, beginning with the Bull of Pope Honorius given in 1221 and the latest one by Pope Pius XII in 1958 and several other popes in between, including St. Pius X.

In April, at our Chapter of Mats, to celebrate our 800 years of foundation, Pope Benedict XVI ordered us to teach truth. Therefore, we are keeping the rule by following his mandate. Ultimately, every rule of a religious order of Pontifical Right is subject to the interpretation of the reigning pope.

In this case, if Pope Benedict says that we must teach what the Church teaches, on this issue and others, that is what we do. We do not take it upon ourselves to pass a judgement or to comment on any bishop in communion with the Holy Father. But we do take very seriously our duty to obey him and say what he says and believe what he believes, except in matters of sin.

In this case, the Holy Fathers, John Paul II and Benedict XVI have not said anything that is a sin. They have spokien very objectively. They have not judged the state of the SSPX bishops’ souls. They have judged their disobedience and their actions. In other words, they have judged what can be seen, not what is inside a man’s soul. Like every good Catholic we pray for the repose of the soul of the Archbishop and for the reunification of the SSPX.

You, on the other hand, seem bent on attacking me or my order, rather than obeying and following an 800 year tradition that was approved by popes in several encyclicals. You can go to the Vatican website and look them up.

Just type in: Franciscan and . . .
  1. Innocent III
  2. Honorius
  3. Nicholas IV (was a Franciscan)
  4. Leo XIII
  5. Pius X (was a Franciscan)
  6. Pius XII
  7. John XXIII (was a Franciscan)
  8. Benedict XVI
You can also read up on Bonaventure’s interpretation and application of the holy rule. He was a brother, superior general and cardinal at the same time and later a Doctor of the Church. He wrote a wonderful constitution for the order which was in effect until John Paul II changed it in 1970. Now Benedict has changed it again this past year (2008).

Each pope interprets the rule for us according to the needs of the Church and the order at the time. That’s why the constitutions change, but the rule cannot be changed by a solemn decree of Pope Honorius. Therefore, the points that I outlined above continue in effect, but it is the Holy Father who decides how it is to be applied today.

In this case, he has commanded that we teach people what the Church teaches, not only on this issue.

Please do not play games with something that is holy and protected by the Church to this day and which you seem not to understand clearly. I don’t blame you for that. Religioius rules are not usual reading for most secular men and women, much less the constitutions that the popes give interpreting them. But every Catholic must show respect for those rules that have been approved by the Holy See and the Holy See’s interpretation of the same. Even if you’re not bound by the rule.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF
 
Walking_Home said:
Seems that rule has not stopped you from bringing up the supposed “error” of the late Archbishop and the current Society Bishops. If as you say that St. Francis reminds you that this is a role for those in authority --not for you —would this not mean that you --should stay silent concerning Arch. Lefebvre and the Society. After all they are valid Bishops.
Click to expand...
JR said:
What ever the Popes may have said --they are the ones in authority ----it is not for you to repeat it–for your rule forbids it. "because our rule forbids us to ever say that a bishop is in error. St. Francis reminds us that this is a role for those in authority,** not for us.**
Click to expand...
This is a good rule for all, though most here do not abide by it. I know I do not always do so. However, it is founded in the responsibility of authority and purpose of authority. In reference to the SSPX, this simply does not apply. Those priests have no authority. They opperate outside the structure of the Church. While their validity of ordination remains, their illicit standing leads them without diocese or Church assignment. They answer to no one and are over no one. Their rejection of the authority of the Church has also left them without the protection that authority provides. As been said often by those in the SSPX, they take no vows of obedience.

They can not have their cake of disobedience and eat the cake of having the respect of authority at the same time.
 
pnewton said:
This is a good rule for all, though most here do not abide by it. I know I do not always do so. .
Click to expand...
Great, so could you save us from your self-appointed position as teacher and lecturer until you “always do so” abide by it? Until then you’re no better than the group you’re denigrating. *And for the exact same reasons * for which you denigrate them.

Then we won’t have to think maybe you’re kind of like, in some ways, maybe just a teensey weensey, ummmm, hypocritical.
 
maurin said:
Great, so could you save us from your self-appointed position as teacher and lecturer until you “always do so” abide by it?

Then we won’t have to think maybe you’re kind of like, in some ways, maybe just a teensey weensey, ummmm, hypocritical.
Click to expand...
Yes, I am. When I in my imperfection rail against a bishop because of something I see as damaging to the Church I let my emotions get the better of me. West Coast bishops often bring out my worst side. Even though I understand this principle (although I am not bound by rule as our brother here), I do not live up to the ideal I believe in.

I do not mean to teach and lecture. I just post.

However, were I desirious of teaching, I could always fall back on the axiom that those who can’t do, teach.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top