S
SpiritusSanctus
Guest
God does.If the Church doesn’t require it, then who requiers it?
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
- Status
S
SpiritusSanctus
Guest
Never said that.
And Peter and Benedict are two different Popes. If Peter were still Pope today, he’d most likely prefer women to have their heads covered.
S
Spirithound
Guest
Wouldn’t that be a violation of papal infallibility?
J
JMJ_coder
Guest
You said it when you claimed that your opinion was of a higher authority than the authority of the Pope.
Tu es Petrus.
His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI stands in the Shoes of the Fisherman. He is the Vicar of Christ. He is given the authority to lead the Church. Not you.
M
MarkThompson
Guest
Don’t worry, JMJ, it’s just the ethos of Protestantism at work again. Martin Luther also thought he knew better than the Pope and had a direct line to God.
P
ProVobis
Guest
Now that I didn’t hear. I thought Anthony Quinn was the guy.
J
JMJ_coder
Guest
Heh. Great movie, and the title certainly fits.Now that I didn’t hear. I thought Anthony Quinn was the guy.
P
ProVobis
Guest
According to the documents, when he lifted the SSPX excommunications back in January, Pope Benedict used the term “void of juridical effects.” What does that mean? Is he undoing/reversing the excommunications or is he saying there is nothing to undo?
A
archangel04
Guest
Yes SpiritusSanctus as you say because you are not a self-made pope. What you say is to be true and what our canon laws say are all false. That statement makes no sence! Who says they are required? Things change in the Church, but the Dogmas and traditions remain the same.
A
Adeodatus
Guest
Or we could continue to talk about how beautiful, pure, holy, upright, reverent, serene and heavenly the TLM at the National Shrine was, and how the TLM will enrich the faith of Catholics everywhere and help spark moral (as well as anti-Marxist, anti-homosexualist) renewal in God’s Church.
Just a thought, that we could talk about how great all of that obviously is. :angel1:
Just a thought, that we could talk about how great all of that obviously is. :angel1:
J
JReducation
Guest
That is legal language for saying that he’s lifting the excommunication. To be void of juridical effects means that the excommunication was valid, but the punishement is now been voided. To void is not the same as to annul. It means that you no longer have to pay the penalty.
If a cop gives you a traffic ticket and the judge dismisses it, you did get a ticket. You just don’t have to pay the fine. If the judge says that the ticket is invalid, because your rights were violated, then there was no ticket. It cannot be put into your file. A voided ticket is in your file. But it does not carry any penalties and can no longer be used against you.
This is the same thing when you void an excommunication of juridical effects. You can no longer be punished. The punishment has been taken away. That’s what an excommunication is meant to be, a pusnishment. It’s not meant to chase you away. The idea is that you will fix whatever you broke, so that you can return to full communion with the Church.
As Pope Benedict said, this did not work with the SSPX, so what’s the use of maintaining the status quo? You have to find another solution to bring them back. He has done is to give them their day in court. It does not mean that they are going to win every argument. But at least they are being heard and I’m sure that they have some legitimate complaints. I don’t think that they are diabolical or heretics. They are just disobedient and at times too cocky for their own good. But that’s not something that can’t be fixed.
All of us disobey at times and all of us are cocky at times. Is it not true?
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
J
JReducation
Guest
God and the Church cannot contradict each other and never have done so. If the Church no longer requires it, then neither does God. “Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Those were Christ’s words to Peter. Those words have not been abrogated.
Even Pope John Paul II in Vita Consacrata ammended canon law to allow women religious to go without a veil, as long as they had some distinctive article of clothing he said, even a pin was enough. It was examined by the Sacred Congregation for the Faith to make sure that it was not in conflict with Church teaching. Cardinal Ratzinger put his stamp of approval on it. I went to the Sacred Congregation for Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life to make sure that it did not violate any laws or doctrines regarding religious life and they found nothing to worry about.
So there is no requirement for wome to cover their head in a church. There is only one instance that I know of when women must cover their heads, unless their culture or their faith does not allow it. Women must wear a veil when they meet the Holy Father in a private audience out of respect for his office. Exceptions are maid for reasons of faith and culture.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
P
ProVobis
Guest
I was thinking along the lines of a check marked or implied “Void” which means the check was never valid because the amount of money written had been in error (couldn’t be covered) or because it wasn’t signed or cannot be made valid in the future for whatever reason. However, I’ll accept your definition, but still reserve the right to use my arguments against those who simply think their third-hand or fourth-hand knowledge of the matter is the gospel truth. Excommunication and schisms are serious matters and shouldn’t be just tossed around as though a simple fix is in order so the world can move on in peace.
P
ProVobis
Guest
This is true; however, there have never been promises that the Church cannot contradict itself, especially in practices and the rules of the game. The game is still the same game but loses its appeal when the goal posts are moved too often.
L
Lormar
Guest
Or we could talk about his beautiful sermon which has affected many in a personal manner…
J
JReducation
Guest
This is a legal term, not a banking term. I’m not sure that void means invalid in the banking business either. But that’s another topic.
Excommunication is not tossed around. An excommunication is a punishment in the hope that the person will seek to re-establish communion with the Church. If it does acheive the desired effect after so many years and yet the people involved want reconliation with the Church, as is the case with the SSPX, then the Church can void the excommunication and find another process to help heal and bring people back.
What has happened in this case, I’m not so sure that it has helped the SSPX that much. But this is just my opinion. Don’t take it to the bank. Only time will tell.
Even though Pope Benedict lifted the excommunication, he slammed them with an apostolic suspension in public. He publicly stated that the four bishops have no canonical authority, no canonical ministry, and no canonical place in the Church. This is very humiliating to a bishop. What it says is that you are back in the Church, but you do not have the rights or privileges that your brother bishops have. It’s almost a threat over their heads. If they violate this, they can find themselves excommunictated again. So far, they have been very good about not saying tha tthey have canonical authority, rights and place in the Church. They have not acknowledge the statement, at least not in public. But they have not said anything to the contrary. They have simply kept quiet. I’m going to guess that this was one of the agreed upon term to lifting the excommunication and that this agreement took place behind closed doors. Again, I’m speculating.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
J
JReducation
Guest
You just said the key word, practices. This was a practice, not a divine command. The Church can change any practice she wants. Whether it is a prudent thing to do or not, is another discussion and we can certain discuss that.
But we cannnot say that God wanted women to cover their heads and that the Church violated God’s will. Either God wanted it and the Church did it or God was not particularly interested in it one way or the other and the Church was free to do it.
Since our Church is not schismatic, we have to believe that she is free to do this.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
S
SpiritusSanctus
Guest
You’re putting words in my mouth. Where did I ever claim such a thing?
S
SpiritusSanctus
Guest
No it’s not. Luther wanted to form his own church. Me? I remain a Catholic and attend the TLM. There’s a difference there.
S
SpiritusSanctus
Guest
Something to remember here is that God isn’t going to agree with EVERYTHING the Church approves. The Church approves female altar servers today but that doesn’t mean God approves of it. It is, afterall, HIS Church that He started. The Pope may be the one running it, but it doesn’t make it the Pope’s Church. Paul VI may have thought otherwise, but just because two Popes did away with women having their heads covered doesn’t mean God approves of it. Weren’t 200+ other Popes in favor of women having their heads covered? Two Popes can’t suddenly be right over 200+ others. That’s not how it works.God and the Church cannot contradict each other and never have done so. If the Church no longer requires it, then neither does God. “Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Those were Christ’s words to Peter. Those words have not been abrogated.
Even Pope John Paul II in Vita Consacrata ammended canon law to allow women religious to go without a veil, as long as they had some distinctive article of clothing he said, even a pin was enough. It was examined by the Sacred Congregation for the Faith to make sure that it was not in conflict with Church teaching. Cardinal Ratzinger put his stamp of approval on it. I went to the Sacred Congregation for Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life to make sure that it did not violate any laws or doctrines regarding religious life and they found nothing to worry about.
So there is no requirement for wome to cover their head in a church. There is only one instance that I know of when women must cover their heads, unless their culture or their faith does not allow it. Women must wear a veil when they meet the Holy Father in a private audience out of respect for his office. Exceptions are maid for reasons of faith and culture.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
- Status