Too many Sympathetic for SSPX

[numealinesimpet]

Apparently something happened that was nonsensical. As usual, you never get the right story. It’s like the game that kids play. You tell someone something in his ear. By the time it gets to the other end its been edited and embellished as I like to say. After a while, you can’t separate fact from fiction.

I’ll give you the same advice that I gave my novices when they asked about it. Actually it was not advice, it was a question. The dialogue went something like this?

NOVICES: Brother, where can we get more information about this?

ME: Why do you need more information?

NOVICES: Just curiosity.

ME: Is it going to make you holier?

NOVICES: No but . . .

ME: Is it going to help in your ministry?

NOVICES: No, but . . . Brother.

ME: Does it help your understanding of theology?

NOVICES: Brother, does that mean that we can’t read more on this?

ME: It means no such thing. It means that you can get around to minding someone else’s business after you have finished saving your soul.

The End.

…

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

I like it, Bro. J.R. I read recently that when St (Padre) Pio was asked ‘what is the besetting sin of our time?’ he surprised the questioner by replying, ‘Curiosity’.

 

[puppy99]

But a SSPX priest told me they were never excommunicated wor.

Is he right or not?

 

[ImmaculataFides]

But a SSPX priest told me they were never excommunicated wor.

Is he right or not?

Depends on interpretation really. SSPX canon lawyers argue that the excommunication against the Bishops and Archbishop Lefebvre was invalid. Conciliar canon lawyers (for lack of a better word) argue the opposite.

 

[JReducation]

But a SSPX priest told me they were never excommunicated wor.

Is he right or not?

Depends on interpretation really. SSPX canon lawyers argue that the excommunication against the Bishops and Archbishop Lefebvre was invalid. Conciliar canon lawyers (for lack of a better word) argue the opposite.

The priests were never excommunicated. The bishops were.

It does not depend on anyone’s interpretation except that of the Pontiff. In Church law, there are no interpreters higher than the Pontiff. If the pope lifts an excommunication, it’s because there was a valid excommunication. You cannot lift what does not exist.

The faithful have to get is through their heads that the law is always on the side of the pope, because he can make and ignore it. Liberals and Traditionalists seem to be on the same page on this one. Many seem to believe that Canon Law applies to popes or that there can be multiple interpretations of a canon other than the pope’s.

Once the pope has spoken, the canon means what he says, nothing more and nothing less. The pope can speak in words or in actions. In this case, lifting the excommunication says, “There was a valid excommunication.” There is no longer room for interpretation. Canon Law is not subject to papal infallibility. It’s subject to papal authority. It was created this way so that the pope is never wrong.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[JustaServant]

I Just simply don’t understand why there are so many Traditionalists who don’t really see anything wrong the the SSPX, or are indifferent to their status. I’ve heard arguments that the SSPX’s actions are “necessary”. While I do believe that there is a genuine crisis in the church in regard to the Sacred Liturgy and in Catechism, I don’t see how that can justify supporting or implying that you endorse the SSPX. To me it seems that the end doesn’t justify the means and that remaining outside of full communion with Christ’s Church and with Peter cannot be ever be justified even if its for a good reason.

Any Thoughts?

I’m not sure I understand the question.
I “sympathize” with the SSPX, of course I am old enough to remember the battles fought in the 1970s and how that affected two generations.
Now my parents generation are dying off and Baby Boomers are getting old fast. My daughter’s generation don’t see it as we did because they have nothing to compare it to.
Any group of people who are marginalized will always lean toward radicalism to fight back. That is true whether it is for religious, political, or ethnic reasons. That’s not a justification, that is just a cold historical fact.
To simply dismiss thier reasons, which are far more complicated than altar girls and head coverings for women, is not terribly fair or advisable.
I for one hope agreement between Rome and the SSPX comes soon because I beleive the Society will be a great asset to the Church and will restore order to what was thrown out in the “spirit” of Vatican 2 back in 70s. Because none of those things were actually thrown out by Vatican 2 itself.

 

[ImmaculataFides]

The priests were never excommunicated. The bishops were.

It does not depend on anyone’s interpretation except that of the Pontiff. In Church law, there are no interpreters higher than the Pontiff. If the pope lifts an excommunication, it’s because there was a valid excommunication. You cannot lift what does not exist.

The faithful have to get is through their heads that the law is always on the side of the pope, because he can make and ignore it. Liberals and Traditionalists seem to be on the same page on this one. Many seem to believe that Canon Law applies to popes or that there can be multiple interpretations of a canon other than the pope’s.

Once the pope has spoken, the canon means what he says, nothing more and nothing less. The pope can speak in words or in actions. In this case, lifting the excommunication says, “There was a valid excommunication.” There is no longer room for interpretation. Canon Law is not subject to papal infallibility. It’s subject to papal authority. It was created this way so that the pope is never wrong.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

The fact is that the excommunications against the four Bishops and the Archbishop were Latae sententiae, not ferendae sententiae. The excommunications were not from the Pope. Rome simply notified them that they had incurred excommunication from their own actions. This the SSPX canon lawyers can effectively debate using of course, Canon Law, because they can argue that it was a state of necessity, it was for the salvation of souls. If the Archbishop thought he was doing the correct thing, he would of been absolved from the excommunication.

The thing about latae sententiae excommunications is that they can be debated because of subjective circumstances. If it was a ferendae sententiae excommunication however, the SSPX could not possibly argue that it was invalid because it was a valid, lawful exercise of power by the Supreme Pontiff. For this reason, the SSPX will always hold that the excommunication was invalid, because the grounds for it to be valid were not present.

 

[JReducation]

The fact is that the excommunications against the four Bishops and the Archbishop were Latae sententiae, not ferendae sententiae. The excommunications were not from the Pope. Rome simply notified them that they had incurred excommunication from their own actions. This the SSPX canon lawyers can effectively debate using of course, Canon Law, because they can argue that it was a state of necessity, it was for the salvation of souls. If the Archbishop thought he was doing the correct thing, he would of been absolved from the excommunication.

The thing about latae sententiae excommunications is that they can be debated because of subjective circumstances. If it was a ferendae sententiae excommunication however, the SSPX could not possibly argue that it was invalid because it was a valid, lawful exercise of power by the Supreme Pontiff. For this reason, the SSPX will always hold that the excommunication was invalid, because the grounds for it to be valid were not present.

They can only be debated if the pope allows the debate. This was precisely the Archbishop’s complaint. Bl. John Paul said that there would be no haring or debate, because the canon on the state of emergency did not apply to the Archbishop, because in his (the pope’s) judgment, there was no state of emergency and Cardinal Ratzinger back it up by reminding Archbishop Lefebvre that that Holy See was willing to entertain the ordination of one bishop.

The SSPX canon lawyers cannot argue something if there is no tribunal to hear the argument. Bl. John Paul closed off access to the tribunal to the SSPX. Their case has never been heard, because the pope said that it need not be heard. I fail to see what is so difficult for us to understand when a pope says, “You can’t have a hearing, because I say you don’t have a case and I’m the source of all law.”

That’s where the famous statement comes from, “Rome has spoken.” It’s not talking about little things. It’s talking about law. Roman Law depends on the ruler, whereas English Law stands on its own merit.

I certainly wish that the SSPX situation be healed and done with soon. But I do not ignore certain facts, just because I like many of the SSPX priests. One of those facts is that the pope, not Archbishop Lefebvre, has the final word on all legal matters. It almost feels as if there are people who keep wanting to give the Archbishop a voice where he has none.

There are three important facts here:

1. His Graces is deceased.
2. His Grace died excommunicated and his excommunication was never lifted. Pope Benedict deliberately excluded his name from the list.
3. His Grace himself said that the Holy Father had denied him a hearing on the grounds that the law did not apply to him, not that His Grace was happy. He was livid, but it was he who let that cat out of the bag in a letter to the pope, which circulated.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Alfonsus]

The fact is that the excommunications against the four Bishops and the Archbishop were Latae sententiae, not ferendae sententiae. The excommunications were not from the Pope. Rome simply notified them that they had incurred excommunication from their own actions. This the SSPX canon lawyers can effectively debate using of course, Canon Law, because they can argue that it was a state of necessity, it was for the salvation of souls. If the Archbishop thought he was doing the correct thing, he would of been absolved from the excommunication.

The thing about latae sententiae excommunications is that they can be debated because of subjective circumstances. If it was a ferendae sententiae excommunication however, the SSPX could not possibly argue that it was invalid because it was a valid, lawful exercise of power by the Supreme Pontiff. For this reason, the SSPX will always hold that the excommunication was invalid, because the grounds for it to be valid were not present.

Wich again, bumped against the interpretation of Pope John Paul II as the highest interpreter of the Law.

When dispute arises, the authentic interpreter interpretation trumps. It must be so, otherwise there is no need for a highest tribunal at all.

The then Pope John Paul II maintained the excommunication, so did Pope Benedict XVI, because of all evidences they deemed the ground for excommunication was substantive.

It means, SSPX can argue and argue and argue that the excommunication was invalid, but the supreme and authentic interpreter of the law already said that their argument cannot hold, the excommunication was valid. For a Catholic, this settled the problem. It was final. There is no higher Church tribunal to settle the case.

 

[JReducation]

Wich again, bumped against the interpretation of Pope John Paul II as the highest interpreter of the Law.

When dispute arises, the authentic interpreter interpretation trumps. It must be so, otherwise there is no need for a highest tribunal at all.

The then Pope John Paul II maintained the excommunication, so did Pope Benedict XVI, because of all evidences they deemed the ground for excommunication was substantive.

It means, SSPX can argue and argue and argue that the excommunication was invalid, but the supreme and authentic interpreter of the law already said that their argument cannot hold, the excommunication was valid. For a Catholic, this settled the problem. It was final. There is no higher Church tribunal to settle the case.

Alfonsus is correct. Canon Law holds that there is no appeal above the pope. If the pope refuses a hearing, the matter is settled. So why would any Catholic still be wondering? We can’t cherry pick when the pope has authority and when he does not.

Pope Boniface VI said that the law is “written in the pope’s heart and he choose to apply it to all or to some.” If he can choose to apply to some, then others are excluded. In this case, the Archbishop and his bishops were excluded, because the pope chose not to apply the law to them.

One can argue whether or not the pope should have allowed for a hearing, just to make everyone happy and then call the final ruling. That would be pure speculation. Let’s assume there were a hearing the Signatura ruled in favor of the Archbishop. The pope can overturn the ruling. The Signature is not the Supreme Court of the USA, hence the title Pontiff instead of president or prime minister.

I look at it this way. If the SSPX bishops were so convinced that they had a case and were determined to get their day in court, if not today in 200 years (I just made this up), they should not have asked that the excommunication be lifted. By making such a request, the bishops are admitting that there is an excommunication in force, regardless of what the rest of us want to think,.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[ProVobis]

Depends on interpretation really. SSPX canon lawyers argue that the excommunication against the Bishops and Archbishop Lefebvre was invalid. Conciliar canon lawyers (for lack of a better word) argue the opposite.

It seems that the SSPX canon lawyers could make a case that the excommunications were not latae sentenitiae (automatic) because of their belief that it was necessary and also because of the principle of “odia restringi et favores convenit ampliari” as Fr. Z pointed out on a different matter recently. wdtprs.com/blog/2012/05/quaeritur-ascension-thursdaysunday-obligation-when-travelling-complicated/ Also if they were indeed automatic, then any statement on it becomes unnecessary.

However, the excommunications were real so one can reasonably conclude that they were at least ferendae sentientiae, that is, directly imposed by a bishop or Pope, and can be done for no reason at all. And only the Pope could lift the excommunication.

 

[ProVobis]

I like it, Bro. J.R. I read recently that when St (Padre) Pio was asked ‘what is the besetting sin of our time?’ he surprised the questioner by replying, ‘Curiosity’.

Then are all physicists damned?

 

[Moore11]

Then are all physicists damned?

No, but cats are.

 

[ProVobis]

No, but cats are.

Ouch. Et tu, Brute?

 

[Moore11]

Ouch. Et tu, Brute?

Which brings us full circle. Since it is after the council I think you need to say “and you Brutis” Or are you willing to be in schizm over shakespear?

 

[JReducation]

Ouch. Et tu, Brute?

Which brings us full circle. Since it is after the council I think you need to say “and you Brutis” Or are you willing to be in schizm over shakespear?

I dare you both to try to say it in Greek.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[giuseppeTO]

Which brings us full circle. Since it is after the council I think you need to say “and you Brutis” Or are you willing to be in schizm over shakespear?

With the new ICEL recommendations, I believe “And with your spirit” would be best. (although I personally think the new translation should have been “And with your ghost”)

 

[JReducation]

With the new ICEL recommendations, I believe “And with your spirit” would be best. (although I personally think the new translation should have been “And with your ghost”)

“And with your ghost?” No way. Common’. You’re kidding, right? That’s from the German, geist. Spirit is directly from the Latin and it’s what the other language groups use.

That would sound too strange. 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

 

[Andre1000]

“And with your ghost?” No way. Common’. You’re kidding, right? That’s from the German, geist. Spirit is directly from the Latin and it’s what the other language groups use.

That would sound too strange. 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

Der Herr sei mit euch.
Und mit deinem Geiste.

 

[ProVobis]

Which brings us full circle. Since it is after the council I think you need to say “and you Brutis” Or are you willing to be in schizm over shakespear?

Hmmm. Maybe I’m risking ferendae sententiae excommunication here, but shouldn’t that be “And THOU, Brutus”? (Lost in translation in the Chinese. )

With the new ICEL recommendations, I believe “And with your spirit” would be best. (although I personally think the new translation should have been “And with your ghost”)

Definitely grounds for ferendae sententiae excommunication.

I dare you both to try to say it in Greek.

Audeo.

*Και εσείς, Βρούτος *in the Greek.

 

[JReducation]

Hmmm. Maybe I’m risking ferendae sententiae excommunication here, but shouldn’t that be “And THOU, Brutus”? (Lost in translation in the Chinese. )

Definitely grounds for ferendae sententiae excommunication.

Audeo.

*Και εσείς, Βρούτος *in the Greek.

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