TLM At the National Shrine

[SpiritusSanctus]

No, you’re quite simply and factually wrong, along the same lines as claiming that Napoleon won a resounding victory at Waterloo. The Church never said it had to be a veil, most women for years wore hats, and color was NEVER a consideration, apart from local cultures and customs. And no, women do not have to have their heads covered now. The Holy See has said that Paul spoke to a matter of custom and discipline, not immutable truth, and custom and discipline can change (and have).

Promote away. Your type of “promotion” will only leave a bad taste in the mouths of the faithful for the TLM.

Hats will do as I already said, you need to read my posts more carefully.

I personally don’t care that Paul VI said it wasn’t necessary, women do have to have their heads covered. I’d rather listen to 200+ Popes on this issue than one Pope who’s beliefs seemed to be completely different to what his predecessors taught.

 

[SpiritusSanctus]

Again, a little education is in order. The Holy See has granted a limited use of the EF in the local vernaculars in the past, centuries before Vatican II. Once again, you simply are not clear on what you’re talking about.

Then that would not be a TLM. The EF is a name tagged to any Mass that is reverent enough to be considered by some as Traditional. The Traditional Latin Mass is a name given to the Mass of Pius V and it is said in, obviously, Latin. Again, exactly why I never call it the OF and EF. It’s the Novus Ordo and TLM.

 

[Oneofthewomen]

Vatican II revised it. The 1983 law on that isn’t something to be going by.

But is not this the Code of Canon Law that the Pope follows?!:

And I would really like to know ***where exactly ***in the 1917 code that it states what type and color of head covering is required?

Please post a link or something that "confirms" this.

 

[SpiritusSanctus]

But is not this the Code of Canon Law that the Pope follows?!:

And I would really like to know ***where exactly ***in the 1917 code that it states what type and color of head covering is required?

Please post a link or something that "confirms" this.

So, it doesn’t matter that more Popes followed the 1917 Code of Canon Law than those who follow the 1983 one? Both Codes can’t be right here, you take your pick on which one is right.

 

[Oneofthewomen]

So, it doesn’t matter that more Popes followed the 1917 Code of Canon Law than those who follow the 1983 one? Both Codes can’t be right here, you take your pick on which one is right.

Please go here and read the introduction.
vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P1.HTM

As far as what code to follow, here is what the Church says now

Can. 1 The canons of this Code regard only the Latin Church.
Can. 2 For the most part the Code does not define the rites which must be observed in celebrating liturgical actions. Therefore, liturgical laws in force until now retain their force unless one of them is contrary to the canons of the Code.
Can. 3 The canons of the Code neither abrogate nor derogate from the agreements entered into by the Apostolic See with nations or other political societies. These agreements therefore continue in force exactly as at present, notwithstanding contrary prescripts of this Code.
Can. 4 Acquired rights and privileges granted to physical or juridic persons up to this time by the Apostolic See remain intact if they are in use and have not been revoked, unless the canons of this Code expressly revoke them.
Can. 5 §1. Universal or particular customs presently in force which are contrary to the prescripts of these canons and are reprobated by the canons of this Code are absolutely suppressed and are not permitted to revive in the future. Other contrary customs are also considered suppressed unless the Code expressly provides otherwise or unless they are centenary or immemorial customs which can be tolerated if, in the judgment of the ordinary, they cannot be removed due to the circumstances of places and persons.
§2. Universal or particular customs beyond the law (praeter ius) which are in force until now are preserved.
Can. 6 §1. When this Code takes force, the following are abrogated:
1/ the Code of Canon Law promulgated in 1917;
2/ other universal or particular laws contrary to the prescripts of this Code unless other provision is expressly made for particular laws;

3/ any universal or particular penal laws whatsoever issued by the Apostolic See unless they are contained in this Code;
4/ other universal disciplinary laws regarding matter which this Code completely reorders.
§2. Insofar as they repeat former law, the canons of this Code must be assessed also in accord with canonical tradition.

Please explain? You claim not to be a sedevaticanist, yet you seem to refuse to follow the law that the Pope does.
As you said, you cannot have it both ways!

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Then that would not be a TLM. The EF is a name tagged to any Mass that is reverent enough to be considered by some as Traditional. The Traditional Latin Mass is a name given to the Mass of Pius V and it is said in, obviously, Latin. Again, exactly why I never call it the OF and EF. It’s the Novus Ordo and TLM.

Oh, my word!!! They are ONE AND THE SAME!!! The TLM/Pian Mass has been said before, by permission of the Holy See, IN THE VERNACULAR.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I simply cannot agree with this rather simplistic statement, especially given the multi-cultural world in which we live. How for instance is it fair to have, oh lets say an English Mass in a city with a large Hispanic or Asian population? How about a parish made up of immigrants all from different ethnic and linguistic backgrounds? How do you choose which language to use? Majority rule perhaps? It simply doesn’t make sense given the culture we live in here in the US. In a homogenius culture perhaps, but in a multi ethinic and linguistic one, I don’t think so.

Having the Mass in Latin, while not perfect at least put EVERYONE on the same page so to speak. I know there wil be those who jump up and point out that the Church for years endorsed the so called ethnic parishes which catered to various ethnic groups. However, the Mass itself was still in Latin with the only the Homily and in some cases the readings and Gospel in the vernacular. Not the entire Mass. One could still attend Mass anywhere in the Latin Rite and have no problem with the basic prayers and with the Consecration.

Perhaps though what the vernacular only advocate is what we have now. A fragmenting of the community into small insular groups, each with the Mass in their own particular language and with the attendees of each particular group having little or no contact with the community as a whole. While it does work after a fashion, it creates a separationist mentality and the barriers it places between the Community are substantial and obvious to anyone who has ever had to attend these Parishes.

No my own opinion is that what the advocates for vernacular Masses really want is the Mass in their own language, regardless of the hardship or deprivation that it may cause for others. And I find that whole attitude disturbing.

The Extraordinary Form by its nature was designed so that all people everywhere could attend and worship together regardless of where they were, what ethnic group they were and what language they spoke. The rigidness of the Rite made change difficult and the use of Latin made it accesible to ALL. I have read accounts on this forum where immigrants in this country assimilated much easier into the Church community due to the Mass being in Latin and thus familiar to them. Why is it so easy for the vernacular only types to dismiss their stories and experiences as being inconsequential and having no merit?

More than that, when did the preferences of the congregation come to be the deciding factors in what happens in the Mass anyway? I didn’t think the Mass was about us and what we want. I thought it was for God and is about Him.

First of all, I should have said “In my opinion, I believe that most people, etc., etc.” Your pardon.

I can tell you that in my city, we offer Mass in English, Spanish, Filipino, Korean, and Polish…that’s every weekend.

I think one reason the vernacular Mass has been, in Cardinal Ratzinger’s words, “helpful,” is because we think and reason in our own language. For me, the Mass resonates far more in my native tounge than in Latin. I also don’t buy the argument that Latin fosters community. Being merely present in the same room isn’t community and we’d all be following in our native tongue missals anyway. And ethnic parishes existed even when the Mass was only in Latin.

You find it disturbing that I, living in an English-speaking country, prefer the Mass at which I assist to be in English? Why? Were I to go to Spain, I would expect it in Spanish. If I went to France, I’d expect it to be in French. I don’t understand the problem, given that we have permission for vernacular Masses.

The charge that the EF is so rigid that it can’t be offered in the vernacular is fairly absurd. If the translation is available for us to follow along in our missals, then it can surely be said out loud by the priest.

Finally, the Mass is about God AND about us. It is about the covenant relationship that exists between the Most Holy and us. You’re quite right, mere individual preference shouldn’t enter into it, but the issues of comprehension and the conveyance of meaning certainly do. Does God need the Mass to be in Latin? Do we need the Mass to be in Latin? I don’t think so.

I really think the “traditionalists” are whistling past the graveyard, as it were, when they inveigh against the vernacular. I bet more of the faithful desire it than don’t and the Church doesn’t force the faithful on a non-essential. Latin in our worship is NOT an essential. The original liturgies were in Greek and the change was made in favor of Latin because it was a broader vernacular (though a high level one). The vernacular isn’t going anywhere and I think it’s perfectly reasonable to think that the EF might someday be offered in the vernacular and to hope for it.

 

[JReducation]

Oh, my word!!! They are ONE AND THE SAME!!! The TLM/Pian Mass has been said before, by permission of the Holy See, IN THE VERNACULAR.

You are correct on this. The term “TLM” is not a legal term. Church law does not refer to the Tridentine form as the Traditional Latin Mass. That’s a popular way of saying it, not the legal way. Nor does Church law call it the Novus Ordo. Novus Ordo was the name given to the rubrics, meaning New Order, when they were new. They are no longer new. Summorum Pontificum has called them the EF and the OF. To contradict that is to contradict the pope himself. That is only allowed when one knows that the pope is promoting sin. Otherwise, one is not allowed to contradict or refuse to comply.

The code of Canon Law of 1983 abrogated the code of 1917, which abrogated the one before that and so forth. Whatever remains in place is that which is repeated in the code or which was previously agreed on. These previous agreements only refer to dioceses and religious orders, not to individuals. This leads me to the Tridentine mass celbrated in the vernacular.

Yes, there were indults given to certain religious orders to celebrate Tridentine mass in the vernacular. The Franciscans were always allowed to celebrate it in the local language when on mission to those nations that did not have a European connection, such as Asia and Africa or the indigenous populations of South America. They also celbrated it in Hebrew or Arabic in the Middle East. The reason was that it was very difficult to translate from Latin into the local languages, because many of them did not have a written form or the people could not read. They could not follow along with a book that had Latin on one side and their language on the other. Translations were difficult and often useless, if the people could not read. It was much easier for the people to memorize the prayers in their own languages.

The Franciscans were not alone in this indult. The Jesuits also asked for it and it was granted. The White Fathers of Africa asked for it and they had it. There is a letter that St. Maximilian Kolbe wrote to our Provincial Minister in Poland where he briefly comments on how challenging it was for him to learn the prayers of the mass in Japanese when he was a missionary there. Not only were the Conventual Franciscans allowed to use the local language, but Maximilian Kolbe ordered them not to wear the Franciscan habit, but to adopt the dress of the local holy men. There are pictures of St. Max shile in Japan dressed as a coolie (sp?). He looks very Asian. The Jesuits wore the orange cassocks made of the same fabric and dyed in the same color as the Buddhist monks. There were many indults given. We are not familiar with them, because the USA is a predominantly European country. Our indigenous population is very small.

However, the Friars in the southwest left behind books where they seem to have blended the local languages with the Latin during the mass. These date back to the 1500s.

As I said before, these are indults. The Tridentine mass was always celebrated in Latin and I believe that it should be celebrated in Latin to keep it’s historical purity. But it’s not a dogma or a moral law.

The Tridentine mass was not written in Latin to bring everyone together. It was written in Latin, because it was the dominant language of Europe. However, the Venetians never adopted it. They have had their own tradition. Many religious orders never adopted it or modified it according to their traditions and the wishes of their founders. I don’t understand why the defenders of the Tridentine mass fail to remember that there were always indults, exceptions, and other traditions. This was never a one size fits all. It was always the ordinary form, but not everyone’s form.

I’ll close with one simple example. My order was not allowed to sing the mass until Leon XIII dispensed us from the mandate by St. Francis that we recite the mass and the divine office. We were never allowed to chant Gregorian Chant until Paul VI lifted the ban set by St. Francis.

Canon law then, as today, said that if a rule or custom is over 100 years old, it may be continued until it is discontinued by order of the Holy See.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Like this, you mean?

youtube.com/watch?v=nHWuBBOTUjk

That is absolutely scurilous. He’s an old man with the hardest job in the world. He nodded off. That’s not a commentary on the OF. I’d be willing to bet that, given the age some of the pontiffs lived to be, between Trent and Vatican II, that any number of them nodded off when the Pian Mass was the only Mass.

 

[SpiritusSanctus]

Please go here and read the introduction.
vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P1.HTM

As far as what code to follow, here is what the Church says now

Can. 1 The canons of this Code regard only the Latin Church.
Can. 2 For the most part the Code does not define the rites which must be observed in celebrating liturgical actions. Therefore, liturgical laws in force until now retain their force unless one of them is contrary to the canons of the Code.
Can. 3 The canons of the Code neither abrogate nor derogate from the agreements entered into by the Apostolic See with nations or other political societies. These agreements therefore continue in force exactly as at present, notwithstanding contrary prescripts of this Code.
Can. 4 Acquired rights and privileges granted to physical or juridic persons up to this time by the Apostolic See remain intact if they are in use and have not been revoked, unless the canons of this Code expressly revoke them.
Can. 5 §1. Universal or particular customs presently in force which are contrary to the prescripts of these canons and are reprobated by the canons of this Code are absolutely suppressed and are not permitted to revive in the future. Other contrary customs are also considered suppressed unless the Code expressly provides otherwise or unless they are centenary or immemorial customs which can be tolerated if, in the judgment of the ordinary, they cannot be removed due to the circumstances of places and persons.
§2. Universal or particular customs beyond the law (praeter ius) which are in force until now are preserved.
Can. 6 §1. When this Code takes force, the following are abrogated:
1/ the Code of Canon Law promulgated in 1917;
2/ other universal or particular laws contrary to the prescripts of this Code unless other provision is expressly made for particular laws;

3/ any universal or particular penal laws whatsoever issued by the Apostolic See unless they are contained in this Code;
4/ other universal disciplinary laws regarding matter which this Code completely reorders.
§2. Insofar as they repeat former law, the canons of this Code must be assessed also in accord with canonical tradition.

Please explain? You claim not to be a sedevaticanist, yet you seem to refuse to follow the law that the Pope does.
As you said, you cannot have it both ways!

I am not a sedevacanist, I don’t know how many times I have to say it. Your definition of a sedevacanist isn’t even right, judging by what you’re saying. A sedevacanist is supposed to describe someone who doesn’t believe there is a valid Pope. The modern-day definition of the word, however, now describes anyone who does not agree with everything the Pope says. That’s nothing but a false definition of the word. Archbishop LeFebvre did not agree with many things that Paul VI and John Paul II were doing but it didn’t make him a sedevacanist. Even not obeying their commands didn’t make him a sedevacanist. He didn’t obey them because they were asking him to do things that were not Traditional, and as Archbishop LeFebvre states, obeying them would have been considered “blind obedience”. That’s not to say we should never obey the Pope, but if it’s not Traditional then don’t do it. That’s what Traditional Catholics go by. You don’t have to like it, but it’s our beliefs and our beliefs on the subject will not change.

Anyway, getting back to the original topic of the thread, I still think more women should have had their heads covered at that Mass. The Mass was better than a Novus Ordo no doubt, but still some things I didn’t like too much.

 

[JReducation]

I am not a sedevacanist, I don’t know how many times I have to say it. Your definition of a sedevacanist isn’t even right, judging by what you’re saying. A sedevacanist is supposed to describe someone who doesn’t believe there is a valid Pope. The modern-day definition of the word, however, now describes anyone who does not agree with everything the Pope says. That’s nothing but a false definition of the word. Archbishop LeFebvre did not agree with many things that Paul VI and John Paul II were doing but it didn’t make him a sedevacanist. Even not obeying their commands didn’t make him a sedevacanist. He didn’t obey them because they were asking him to do things that were not Traditional, and as Archbishop LeFebvre states, obeying them would have been considered “blind obedience”. That’s not to say we should never obey the Pope, but if it’s not Traditional then don’t do it. That’s what Traditional Catholics go by. You don’t have to like it, but it’s our beliefs and our beliefs on the subject will not change.

Anyway, getting back to the original topic of the thread, I still think more women should have had their heads covered at that Mass. The Mass was better than a Novus Ordo no doubt, but still some things I didn’t like too much.

My friend, there are two points here that need to be looked at very carefully. First, the Archbishop was mistaken on his understanding of obedience. The fact that he was excommunicated is the proof of that. There is a limit to how and what we disobey before the Church exercises her right to penalize us.

Second, we Traditionalists or other, are not a parallel magisterium. There is only one magisterium and only one pope who can speak for the magisterium. No bishop can speak for the magisterium if he contradicts the pope, unless the pope is teaching heresy.

As to the veils, they are no longer required. If you observe mass at the basilica of St. Peter and mass celebrated by the Holy Father, they are not required. If you visit the Vatican, they veils are not on the required dress code and they do have a dress code on every door, which they enforce very strictly. The Code of 1983 abrogated the code of 1917. This point was not repeated in the new code. Also the veils do not add or take away from the liturgy. It is what happens on the sanctuary that is essential, not the veil. There are several rites in the Church that do not require a veil. Are we going to say that they are not validly celebrated? No. We can’t. What is immoral for one Catholic Church is immoral for all 22 Catholic Churches. Despite the fact that we are 22 autonomous Churches, we are all in communion with Peter. Whatever Peter binds is bound and whaterver he unbinds is unbound. Canon law is promulgated by Peter.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JMJ_coder]

Yes but you’re missing the point.

Here, let me show you what I’m talking about.

Say, for illustrative purposes, “Dominus vobiscum” is doctrine. So we can’t change it, right? But some translators will say that means “The Lord be with you,” right? I can just as rightfully say it can also mean “A Lord is with you.” Or you can go with the actual literal translation, “Lord you with.” All are significant changes in meaning and mood. And therefore none of the translations can be doctrine because this doctrine can’t be accurately expressed in English. Or in any other language, for that matter. That, I believe, is what Pope John was trying to convey in his Veterum Sapientia.

Folks, if you don’t like Veterum Sapientia or Canon 249, fine, take it up with the Vatican for even having it on their website. But please don’t pick me apart for merely pointing out the fact that these were written for the Church and not just an opinion by a single Pope. And if you know better, then get elected the Pope or call a council denouncing Veterum Sapientia and rewrite Canon Law to suit your agenda. And good luck in preserving whatever stability and integrity is still left within the Church.

You do realize we aren’t Muslims, right? Muslims hold that you MUST read the Koran in Arabic and all else is expressly forbidden.

Why do you like the Latin. It is a horrid translation from the original Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic. We should burn all our Latin missals and Bibles and use only Greek so we don’t have the changes in meaning that occur when translating into Latin.

Do you see now where such a rigid understanding leads?

Also, all the Liturgical prayers are not held in original in English, but in Latin. The English must agree with the Latin (which is why a recognitio is required) from which it is translated from.

 

[SpiritusSanctus]

My friend, there are two points here that need to be looked at very carefully. First, the Archbishop was mistaken on his understanding of obedience. The fact that he was excommunicated is the proof of that. There is a limit to how and what we disobey before the Church exercises her right to penalize us.

Second, we Traditionalists or other, are not a parallel magisterium. There is only one magisterium and only one pope who can speak for the magisterium. No bishop can speak for the magisterium if he contradicts the pope, unless the pope is teaching heresy.

As to the veils, they are no longer required. If you observe mass at the basilica of St. Peter and mass celebrated by the Holy Father, they are not required. If you visit the Vatican, they veils are not on the required dress code and they do have a dress code on every door, which they enforce very strictly. The Code of 1983 abrogated the code of 1917. This point was not repeated in the new code. Also the veils do not add or take away from the liturgy. It is what happens on the sanctuary that is essential, not the veil. There are several rites in the Church that do not require a veil. Are we going to say that they are not validly celebrated? No. We can’t. What is immoral for one Catholic Church is immoral for all 22 Catholic Churches. Despite the fact that we are 22 autonomous Churches, we are all in communion with Peter. Whatever Peter binds is bound and whaterver he unbinds is unbound. Canon law is promulgated by Peter.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

The Church may not say they’re required anymore but they are regardless.

 

[JMJ_coder]

The Church may not say they’re required anymore but they are regardless.

So you’re basically saying you know better than the Pope and the Magisterium. Sorry, but I think I’ll take my chances with Peter.

 

[doanli]

Hope this is on EWTN’s YouTube page.

 

[JReducation]

The Church may not say they’re required anymore but they are regardless.

If the Church doesn’t require it, then who requiers it?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[ProVobis]

The code of Canon Law of 1983 abrogated the code of 1917, which abrogated the one before that and so forth.

Yes and that is what gave Lefebrve his loophole. There is no doubt as to his disobedience but where the dispute lies is in the penalty incurred. Under the “penalty” canon, it excludes:

4° acted under the compulsion of grave fear, even if only relative, or by reason of necessity or grave inconvenience, unless, however, the act is intrinsically evil or tends to be harmful to souls;

the Archbishop claimed he was indeed so compelled, which means he felt he had no choice. Only God can judge whether he was so compelled. I really can’t think the Pope can decide what one’s intentions are, though he can undoutedly determine if he broke the objective code of disobedience. Just because the Pope say he wasn’t so compelled doesn’t make it so, especially when the law is so lenient the way it’s written.

I will concede that the Pope could have excommunicated the Archbishop ferendae sententiae, then Lefebrve would have no loopholes, but he chose not to do that for whatever reasons. And I think we both can agree that under the 1917 Canon Law he would have had no loopholes and he probably would have been so excommunicated f.s. But then he might have chosen not to consecrate four bishops unapproved by the Vatican. That is all conjecture, however.

As I said, I’m not a traditionalist and I have no plans to attend an SSPX Mass in the near future (it’s too overcrowded for me) and I have no special love for Lefebrve, but I wouldn’t want to throw stones with everyone else if there is the slightest hint that I could be wrong. I’d give AbL as much benefit of the doubt as I gave JPII in the sex abuse coverup charges levelled against him.

 

[JReducation]

Yes and that is what gave Lefebrve his loophole. There is no doubt as to his disobedience but where the dispute lies is in the penalty incurred. Under the “penalty” canon, it excludes:

the Archbishop claimed he was indeed so compelled, which means he felt he had no choice. Only God can judge whether he was so compelled. I really can’t think the Pope can decide what one’s intentions are, though he can undoutedly determine if he broke the objective code of disobedience. Just because the Pope say he wasn’t so compelled doesn’t make it so, especially when the law is so lenient the way it’s written.

I will concede that the Pope could have excommunicated the Archbishop ferendae sententiae, then Lefebrve would have no loopholes, but he chose not to do that for whatever reasons. And I think we both can agree that under the 1917 Canon Law he would have had no loopholes and he probably would have been so excommunicated f.s. But then he might have chosen not to consecrate four bishops unapproved by the Vatican. That is all conjecture, however.

As I said, I’m not a traditionalist and I have no plans to attend an SSPX Mass in the near future and I have no special love for Lefebrve, but I wouldn’t want to throw stones with everyone else if there is the slightest hint that I could be wrong. I’d give AbL as much benefit of the doubt as I gave JPII in the sex abuse coverup charges levelled against him.

Everything that you’re saying about the loop hole is accurate. However, there is a point in dogma, that the pope decides when canon law applies and when it does not. When the argument was presented to John Paul II that the Archbishop has aceted under grave fear, Cardinal Ratzinger stated that this great fear did not exist, because the Archbishop’s fear was unfounded and that the canon was not speaking about this situation since the Archbishop had been told not to ordain the four bishops. What happened wsa that taking Cardinal Ratzinger’s interpretation of the theology behind the canon, Pope John Paul declared thatt he excommunication was binding, because there was no cause for fear and that the canon did not apply to the Archbishop.

What many people forget is that the pope is the giver of the law. Therefore, he can take the law away and say that it no longer exists or that it does not apply to you. There is no authority in the Church who can overrule him on that. Nor will heaven overrule him on that either, because of the power to bind and unbind. It is from this authority that popes have alwasy taken their clue on when and how they apply canon law.

For example, Canon Law makes no provisions for the EF. But the Holy Father has said that the EF was never abrogated, therefore it must be permitted. Neither God nor man will argue that with him, because even though it’s not on paper that he can do this or that the EF was not abrogated and that it should be preserved, if the pope says that it must be preserved, it is binding on everyone and it trumps whatever the law has to say about the liturgy.

Popes have added and deleted to canon law all the time. Even the code of 1917 which was abrogated in 1983 is not the actual code of 1917. The actual code of 1917 was very different from the one that was abrogated in 1983. The Popes between 1917 and 1983 had added, deleted, ammended, reworded many points in the code, as situations came up that were not predictable when the code was written. So it is with the code of 1983. It’s not the same version that we use today. About 80% of the original is still in place.

By the Congregation of the Faith saying that this particular code does not apply in the case of Archbishop Lefebvre and having the pope put his seal of approval on what the Congregation said, a precedent has been established, which can only be changed by a pope. Notice that Pope Benedict did not say that the excommunications were not valid. He said that he was granting a remission to the four bishops, not to Archbishop Lefebvre. He has the authority to lift the Archbishop’s excommunication after his deat. This was done for Joan of Arc. But he did not do so. This suggests that he stands by what he advised Pope John Paul II.

All that being said, the SSPX have many legitimate concerns; but they are placing blame in the wrong place and they are guilty of badmouthing the Holy See and other Catholics. While we must be fair and listen to their concerns, we must also be fair and point out what has often come accross as their arrogance. Arrogance places liberals and conservatives in the same place.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[ProVobis]

JR,

Under those circumstances then, the Archbishop was in effect excommunicated ferendae sententiae and we’re all under the same threat.

 

[JReducation]

JR,

Under those circumstances then, the Archbishop was in effect excommunicated ferendae sententiae and we’re all under the same threat.

That’s an interesting point. I’m not a canon lawyer, I’m a theologian. We’re two different creatures. But looking back at my canon law courses, you are probably right about all of us being under the same threat.

However, it’s not something to worry about as long as we remain in communion with Peter. Because it is Peter who has the final say in any excommunication.

Remember how the whole thing with Joan of Arc happened? The English bishops excommunicated her. But the law has always said that the pope must be notified after an excommunication and he gives it his seal of approval. In Joan’s case, the pope did not approve. The excommunication did not have to be lifted. Without the pope’s approval, whethere it’s explicit or implied by his silence, the excommunication is invalid.

I remember this from my courses. There is a tricky part about excommunication. Any bishop can excommunicate. The pope must be informed and he must approve. However, here’s the tricky part, approval does not require a spoken or written word. The pope’s silence is enough. Hence the expression, “Silence is consent.” This actually came from ecclesial law. If a pope knwowingly remains silent on a point of law, he is given it his approval.

Can he excommunicate any of us? Yes. He can excommunnicate all of us and neither heaven nor earth would contradict him. He has the right to bind and unbind. Will he do so? No.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF