Too many Sympathetic for SSPX

[ProVobis]

You win the prize. I was burning up grey matter trying to remember “brute” in Greek and all I came up with was “Spartan.” LOL

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

You mean the Google translator was right?

 

[rebeccanew]

As in the fable, The Emperor’s Clothing, just because everyone says it is doesn’t make it so.

 

[Cavaradossi]

What historically happens to those groups that break away from Rome is that they lose their moral compass. The Eastern Orthodox Churches allow divorce and re-marriage.

I don’t want to derail this thread, but I constantly see this idea that the East started allowing for divorce and re-marriage after the East-West schism thrown around as if it were a fact, but it is simply untrue. If one will examine chapter nine of St. Basil’s epistle 188, to Amphilochius, concerning the canons (also known as his First Canonical Epistle) Basil writes about when it is possible for a man to leave his wife and live with another woman without the new relationship being adulterous. The allowance for divorce and remarriage in the East then, can be no younger than 1633 years old (St. Basil reposed in the year 379), and considering that Basil references what is allowed by custom as opposed to what should be allowable in theory, the practice must be even older still.

newadvent.org/fathers/3202188.htm

 

[RogerDeCourcy]

Christians are called to be saints. It’s that simple. Divorcing your wife isn’t saintly i.e. it’s not something Heaven rejoices over.

A very high standard has been set, by Christ Himself and by what He did. We owe Him. That we are fallible shouldn’t be used an excuse to not try to meet those high standards.

I like to think of it this way: earthly pleasures tend to cause other problems and they fade. Might as well try for sainthood!

 

[numealinesimpet]

My comments on the above: The pope may be the highest interpreter of Canon Law, but he is not the arbiter of abjective facts. It is no disrespect to the Pope or the Papacy to admit that. If I personally find myself in a State of Emergency, and the Pope tells me I am not, the pope might be wrong. He might not have the full facts at his disposal.

The lifting of the Decree of Excommunication is, on the argument of the SSPX and those taking this opinion (and there are many of the highest standing, not formally affiliated to the SSPX) who maintain that the lifting of the decree was ‘without prejudice’ to whether it was invalid in the first place. I can see that, in a general way, this could be the case. The imposition of Excommunication is a disciplinary measure over and above the original offence. It could be lifted for a number of reasons, including ‘a quiet gestiure of reconciliation ‘(which led to a huge uproa’ - Pope Benedict’s phrase)’ as Pope Benedict put it in the case of the SSPX. But in the general case, the pope, according to Vatican I, is infallible only when pronouncing definitively on a question of Faith and/or Morals. He can be mistaken on questions of fact. …Ttherefore there is a theoretical possibility that a decree of excommunication can be issued incorrectly. The historical record, accepted by the Fathers of Vatican I, is that S. Athanasius was excommuunicated with the endorsment of Pope Liberius. Athanasius did not argue, he simply continued with his work. If such a decree were subsequently lifted, it would not prove* ipso facto* that the original excommunication was valid.

 

[numealinesimpet]

Audeo.

*Και εσείς, Βρούτος *in the Greek.

My info is that Caesar’s actual words were ‘kai su, huios?’ (no fancy Greek font available, I’m afraid) … ‘You too, son?’

 

[numealinesimpet]

… Can you imagine younger children saying “And with your ghost” after they have been taught that there are no such things as ghosts.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

Ah. I actually tell them there are such things as ghosts. As for leprechauns - I don’t believe in them, but they’re there.

 

[asd72]

I don’t want to derail this thread, but I constantly see this idea that the East started allowing for divorce and re-marriage after the East-West schism thrown around as if it were a fact, but it is simply untrue. If one will examine chapter nine of St. Basil’s epistle 188, to Amphilochius, concerning the canons (also known as his First Canonical Epistle) Basil writes about when it is possible for a man to leave his wife and live with another woman without the new relationship being adulterous. The allowance for divorce and remarriage in the East then, can be no younger than 1633 years old (St. Basil reposed in the year 379), and considering that Basil references what is allowed by custom as opposed to what should be allowable in theory, the practice must be even older still.

newadvent.org/fathers/3202188.htm

Yes I looked into this and it seems eccelesial divorce predates the east west schism. The east have a different theology of marriage in that they believe the sacrament of marriage is conferred by the Priest onto the couple, whereas in the Latin Church the sacrament is administered by the couple to each other.

It is something for the ecumenical dialogues between Catholic and Orthodox Churches to address. We should be sensitive to each other and avoid accusations either way in this area to promote unity.

 

[numealinesimpet]

‘And with your ghost?’ I am reminded of that famous line in Hamlet - in translation. You know, the Dutch translation doesn’t work nearly as well. They translate it, ‘Omlet,omlet, ik ben de popaspook.’

 

[ProVobis]

My info is that Caesar’s actual words were ‘kai su, huios?’ (no fancy Greek font available, I’m afraid) … ‘You too, son?’

Could be but here’s another take.

Plutarch, Shakespeare’s principal source for the story, provides no precedent for the switching of languages at this point; Suetonius, however, does. In his Life of Julius Caesar, Suetonius has Caesar turn to Greek: Kai su, teknon? (“You too, child?”). For those who know the gossip, which Plutarch details fully, Caesar’s calling Brutus “child” will recall the old story of Brutus’s being Caesar’s illegitimate son.

upperswandhamlane.wordpress.com/2011/03/16/%E2%80%9Cand-thou-brutus%E2%80%9D%E2%80%94a-literature-note-for-the-ides-of-march/

 

[numealinesimpet]

Could be but here’s another take.
Plutarch, Shakespeare’s principal source for the story, provides no precedent for the switching of languages at this point; Suetonius, however, does. In his Life of Julius Caesar, Suetonius has Caesar turn to Greek: Kai su, teknon? (“You too, child?”). For those who know the gossip, which Plutarch details fully, Caesar’s calling Brutus “child” will recall the old story of Brutus’s being Caesar’s illegitimate son.

Ah I’m sure I simply remembered the quote wrongly. Euge!

 

[NickVA]

When I said sympathetic in my OP i meant “condoning of”

I certainly hope they come into full communion soon! I am not anti-sspx, but I just refuse to imply that I condone their past disobedience to the Holy father. We should all pray that they come back.

 

[ProVobis]

The lifting of the Decree of Excommunication is, on the argument of the SSPX and those taking this opinion (and there are many of the highest standing, not formally affiliated to the SSPX) who maintain that the lifting of the decree was ‘without prejudice’ to whether it was invalid in the first place. I can see that, in a general way, this could be the case. The imposition of Excommunication is a disciplinary measure over and above the original offence. It could be lifted for a number of reasons, including ‘a quiet gestiure of reconciliation ‘(which led to a huge uproa’ - Pope Benedict’s phrase)’ as Pope Benedict put it in the case of the SSPX.

If I can add something, it seems as if an excommunication is easier to lift than a public humiliation. How does one erase that? The excommunication has been so implanted in the public image that many clergy, laity, and much of news media still call anything associated with SSPX schismatic. Just saying.

 

[Rich_C]

When I said sympathetic in my OP i meant “condoning of”

I certainly hope they come into full communion soon! I am not anti-sspx, but I just refuse to imply that I condone their past disobedience to the Holy father. We should all pray that they come back.

Haha, well you opened a can of worms that’s for sure.

By the way, can the phase “not in full communion” really be applied to the clergy of the SSPX? I thought this phrase referred to people outside the Church. The Society’s members are all Catholics who recognize the pope, but are not supposed to conduct the sacraments at present. I think the term “irregular” and “regularized” fit the situation, or something like that. Could anyone clarify that for all reading?

 

[JReducation]

My comments on the above: The pope may be the highest interpreter of Canon Law, but he is not the arbiter of abjective facts. It is no disrespect to the Pope or the Papacy to admit that. If I personally find myself in a State of Emergency, and the Pope tells me I am not, the pope might be wrong. He might not have the full facts at his disposal.

The lifting of the Decree of Excommunication is, on the argument of the SSPX and those taking this opinion (and there are many of the highest standing, not formally affiliated to the SSPX) who maintain that the lifting of the decree was ‘without prejudice’ to whether it was invalid in the first place. I can see that, in a general way, this could be the case. The imposition of Excommunication is a disciplinary measure over and above the original offence. It could be lifted for a number of reasons, including ‘a quiet gestiure of reconciliation ‘(which led to a huge uproa’ - Pope Benedict’s phrase)’ as Pope Benedict put it in the case of the SSPX. But in the general case, the pope, according to Vatican I, is infallible only when pronouncing definitively on a question of Faith and/or Morals. He can be mistaken on questions of fact. …Ttherefore there is a theoretical possibility that a decree of excommunication can be issued incorrectly. The historical record, accepted by the Fathers of Vatican I, is that S. Athanasius was excommuunicated with the endorsment of Pope Liberius. Athanasius did not argue, he simply continued with his work. If such a decree were subsequently lifted, it would not prove* ipso facto* that the original excommunication was valid.

I think at this point the excommunication is a non-issue. I’m not sure why people keep bringing it up. It is what it is. The Holy Father said that he was lifting it. The law says that the penalty for the ordination is excommunication. There are plenty of documents around that prove that they were warned not to proceed. The situation with St. Athanasius is no where near the same here. That argument was over dogma, not over law. Law does not have to be infallible to be valid. In Catholicism, you cannot put the law on trial, because to do so is to put the source of the law on trial.

Haha, well you opened a can of worms that’s for sure.

By the way, can the phase “not in full communion” really be applied to the clergy of the SSPX? I thought this phrase referred to people outside the Church. The Society’s members are all Catholics who recognize the pope, but are not supposed to conduct the sacraments at present. I think the term “irregular” and “regularized” fit the situation, or something like that. Could anyone clarify that for all reading?

You can be a Catholic and not be in full communion. It’s not just for other Christians. There are two ways of breaking communion. The obvious one is the way that the Protestant Reformers and the early Orthodox did it.

The second way is rarely used, but in principle it exists. Peter can decide that he does not want you in full communion until you satisfy what he demands of you. You’re not breaking the communion, Peter is severing you. This is what happens in an interdict.

In the case of the SSPX, it was the other way around. The bishops were excommunicated and the deacons and priests were suspended. The excommunication was lifted, but the suspensions remained in place. What Peter did was not sever them, as would be the case in an interdict, but he drew a line that said, “This is as close as you come, until you do what I ask.” By withholding their priestly privileges, he is keeping them from enjoying the benefits of communion. One of the benefits of communion is that clergy are members of the hierarchy. None of the SSPX men are part of the hierarchy. Another element of communion is that you have a place of your own in the Church. These men don’t have a place of their own.

Let me give an example of that last one. FSSP, Franciscans, Carthusians, Opus Dei, Jesuits, Missionaries of Charity are all very different from each other, but each has a place in the Church that no one can take away from them except the pope. And everyone respects those spaces that they occupy and no one tries to duplicate them or invade their place in the Church. A Jesuit will not do what a Franciscan does, because it’s not his place. An FSSP will not do what a Carthusian does, because it’s not his place, and so forth. Right now, the place that the SSPX could be occupying is taken by the FSSP. A different kind of space will have to be created for them. But they forfeited this space by disobedience to the law. Now, thanks be to God, they desire to submit to the law.

We have to pray for them. This is not easy on them. Even after full communion, the road ahead will be hard. Trust is a very hard thing to gain. There is a lot of mutual distrust between the SSPX and the mainstream Catholic. There is enough fault on both sides to go around the globe at least twice.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Rich_C]

Brother JR, I think I follow what you’re saying but I may have misunderstand the implications of the term. Do you know where it originated so I could read about it? People ask me things about Catholicism all the time and I feel like I let the Church down when I don’t have an answer.

Another example I’d be curious to have your thoughts on: recently a priest in my diocese was suspended for refusing Holy Communion to a woman who identified herself as a Buddhist and Lesbian before Mass began. Is that priest no longer in “full communion” because of the suspension? I guess the line is still unclear to me.

 

[TrueLight]

Another example I’d be curious to have your thoughts on: recently a priest in my diocese was suspended for refusing Holy Communion to a woman who identified herself as a Buddhist and Lesbian before Mass began.

:dts:

 

[newyorkcatholic]

Brother JR, I think I follow what you’re saying but I may have misunderstand the implications of the term. Do you know where it originated so I could read about it? People ask me things about Catholicism all the time and I feel like I let the Church down when I don’t have an answer.

Another example I’d be curious to have your thoughts on: recently a priest in my diocese was suspended for refusing Holy Communion to a woman who identified herself as a Buddhist and Lesbian before Mass began. Is that priest no longer in “full communion” because of the suspension? I guess the line is still unclear to me.

Are you sure he was “suspended”? I think that priest you are referring to is actually incardinated in a diocese in Russia, and all that happened was his faculties in that diocese (in DC) were suspended.

The priest himself still has faculties in his home diocese and anywhere else the bishop will accept him.

Apart from that, it was a terrible injustice that was done to him. Whatever the law is, he did the right thing from all appearances and I applaud and support him.

 

[JReducation]

Brother JR, I think I follow what you’re saying but I may have misunderstand the implications of the term. Do you know where it originated so I could read about it? People ask me things about Catholicism all the time and I feel like I let the Church down when I don’t have an answer.

Another example I’d be curious to have your thoughts on: recently a priest in my diocese was suspended for refusing Holy Communion to a woman who identified herself as a Buddhist and Lesbian before Mass began. Is that priest no longer in “full communion” because of the suspension? I guess the line is still unclear to me.

He is in full communion, because of the nature of the suspension. He was not suspended for violating the law. In fact, if I remember the case, he was not suspended. He was put on administrative leave, which is very different. In that case, he is told to sit on the bench until they get to the bottom of the complaint.

In the case of the SSPX priests, the suspension is a result of breaking with the Primacy. If the pope says that you cannot ordain and you do so, then you are directly breaking with him. If the pope says that you cannot celebrate the sacraments and you do so, again you’re breaking with him. If the pope says that you cannot allow an excommunicated bishop or even a suspended bishop to ordain you and you do so, your are braking communion with him.

In the case that you’re talking about, the situation does not involve breaking with the local bishop or the pope. It involves a he said, she said situation. He says that she was in a state of public sin and she says that he was abusive. This not a break with the line of succession.

Even a person who teaches error can still be in communion with the Church, as long as he does not challenge the authority of the local bishop or the pope or violate a canon that has as a consequence an interdict or excommunication.

There is a case in the Diocese of Madison, WI that is an example of breaking communion. You probably read about it. The laity wants to oust a society of priests from their parish. The bishop has ordered them to stand down. If they do not stand down, THAT is a break with the Primacy, because the bishops is in the Church and the Church is in the bishop. The bishop governs in communion with Peter. To break with one, you break with the other.

Does that help?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Rich_C]

Brother JR,

So if I understand you correctly, the first offense usually doesn’t constitute being out of “full communion” but once correction comes down from the hierarchy, an obstinate refusal to obey that command would? I think that makes sense.

This is why I tend to stick to pre-conciliar explanations of the faith, they are so much clearer to me. Thanks for shedding light on the status of the SSPX and others.

v/r
Rich