J
jmj1984
Guest
You pose questions and then answer them yourself
Well seeing as you know everything I’ll let you get on with it 
- Status
Well seeing as you know everything I’ll let you get on with it
D
Dan_Daly
Guest
I am not an SSPX member or apologist, but your statement that a bishop NEEDS the consent of the Pope to ordain another Bishop is not true. Furthermore Rome agrees that it isn’t true, and this whole situation has come about precisely because it is NOT true.
If Archbishop Lefebvre NEEDED the permission of the Pope to ordain Bishops, and he did not have that permission, than he could not ordain any Bishops.
But he did ordain bishops. Everyone agrees on that. They were not licit. But they were valid- which means they happened.
So if Archbishop Lefebvre NEEDED permission, he must have had permission, because he performed an act that required it.
He did not have permission from the Pope. Everyone agrees on that as well.
So obviously, a bishop doesn’t need permission from the Pope to ordain a bishop- because Archbishop Lefebvre has clearly demonstrated that the act can be done without it.
Pax and God Bless.
M
Melchior_1
Guest
Your kids don’t need YOUR permission to take the car out for a date. But I think you’d bring some punishment to them if they did, especially if they already asked you for the car and you said “no”.
Son: Dad, I need the car.
Dad: No, for several reasons the car needs to stay here.
Son: Big baseball game though, the team needs me to play.
Dad: That’s swell son, but you can’t use the car. Find another way to get to the game.
Son: I’m taking the car, Dad.
Dad: You won’t like what happens after.
Son: It needs to be done.
Son takes the car, Dad lays down the punishment; no more baseball. The son is relegated to playing sandlot games in the park, rather than Little League (ie; still playing baseball, but not sanctioned).
D
Dan_Daly
Guest
Oh I agree. There are consequences. But in your example, my child DID drive the car. It wasn’t authorized but it did happen.
Saying a Bishop NEEDS the Pope’s permission to ordain a bishop would be like saying a man and a woman NEED to be married in order to have sex.
Both are demonstratably false. That doesn’t mean performing the act without the “required” permission or married state of life is right, moral, licit, or without earthly and eternal consequences.
The above is an analogy. I don’t mean to directly equate the SSPX ordinations with fornication. Fornication is a violation of God’s law. I am not enough of an expert in the area to make the same declaration on the SSPX ordinations. I would certainly imagine though that there was a time before travel and communication were as easy as today, that a Bishop did not need the permission of the Pope to ordain a Bishop, and that the requirement was at some point created by the Church- in a similar manner to the way the Church added the requirement of witnesses for marriage at the Council of Trent (although it still different since permission is needed for LICIT ordinations and the Church created requirement of witnesses for marriage is required for VALIDITY.)
Pax and God Bless.
Saying a Bishop NEEDS the Pope’s permission to ordain a bishop would be like saying a man and a woman NEED to be married in order to have sex.
Both are demonstratably false. That doesn’t mean performing the act without the “required” permission or married state of life is right, moral, licit, or without earthly and eternal consequences.
The above is an analogy. I don’t mean to directly equate the SSPX ordinations with fornication. Fornication is a violation of God’s law. I am not enough of an expert in the area to make the same declaration on the SSPX ordinations. I would certainly imagine though that there was a time before travel and communication were as easy as today, that a Bishop did not need the permission of the Pope to ordain a Bishop, and that the requirement was at some point created by the Church- in a similar manner to the way the Church added the requirement of witnesses for marriage at the Council of Trent (although it still different since permission is needed for LICIT ordinations and the Church created requirement of witnesses for marriage is required for VALIDITY.)
Pax and God Bless.
M
Melchior_1
Guest
A Bishop NEEDS approval from the Pope to ordain another Bishop without there being any consequences. So in that sense, the approval from the Pope is needed.
Really, it’s a question of semantics at that point.
D
Dan_Daly
Guest
No it’s far more than semantics.
If there was NEED for permission and permission was not granted, there would not be any ordinations and the SSPX would have died out.
The SSPX has not died out, and are in the situation they are in, precisely because there is no NEED for permission.
Yes, absolutely, there are consequences, and I understand that differentiating between “need”, “should” “shall” “valid” “licit”,etc can be rather confusing especially for anyone on these boards that isn’t a native English speaker. However, the words are important- when speaking about anything, but especially about this case.
If you tell someone Archbishop Lefebvre couldn’t have ordained bishops without the Pope’s approval, and the Pope didn’t give it…
That person would quite logically assume that Lefebvre didn’t ordain any because he COULDN’T. So when the SSPX tells them that they have validly ordained bishops, the person will call them liars.
But they DO have validly ordained bishops. The Church says so.
The situation is indeed a confusing one, and I am far from the most knowledgable person on the topic. However, I know enough to know that using precise langauge is important- “schism” vs “schismatic acts” for example.
Prayers for everyone involved.
Pax.
If there was NEED for permission and permission was not granted, there would not be any ordinations and the SSPX would have died out.
The SSPX has not died out, and are in the situation they are in, precisely because there is no NEED for permission.
Yes, absolutely, there are consequences, and I understand that differentiating between “need”, “should” “shall” “valid” “licit”,etc can be rather confusing especially for anyone on these boards that isn’t a native English speaker. However, the words are important- when speaking about anything, but especially about this case.
If you tell someone Archbishop Lefebvre couldn’t have ordained bishops without the Pope’s approval, and the Pope didn’t give it…
That person would quite logically assume that Lefebvre didn’t ordain any because he COULDN’T. So when the SSPX tells them that they have validly ordained bishops, the person will call them liars.
But they DO have validly ordained bishops. The Church says so.
The situation is indeed a confusing one, and I am far from the most knowledgable person on the topic. However, I know enough to know that using precise langauge is important- “schism” vs “schismatic acts” for example.
Prayers for everyone involved.
Pax.
T
Te_Deum
Guest
The validity of a bishops’ consecration does not require papal approval for it to be that: valid. But it is necessary for the consecration to be licit. There, end of.
And the SSPX did not have that permission. They acted in disobedience and were justly censured.
And the SSPX did not have that permission. They acted in disobedience and were justly censured.
O
oneGODoneCHURCH
Guest
Ok I stand corrected they need premission to licitly ordain other bishops. That does not chang the answer to the question, nor the results.
O
oneGODoneCHURCH
Guest
I answered it because you ignord it.You pose questions and then answer them yourself
C
CopticChristian
Guest
catholic.com/thisrock/2006/0604ltrs.aspOh what a surprise another ad hominem attack
Do yourself a favour and go and read something on the society before attacking them because frankly you’re attacking a strawman, a caricature of the society not what it really is. And if you really believe that the society is an enemy, then should you not know your enemy? Instead of citing any sources, canons or any authority whatsoever you’ve made unsubstantiated allegations and insults regarding the society, do you in fact have any authorities whatsoever for your view that the societies sacraments are invalid? Or that they’re in bad conscience? Or in fact any of your allegations?
Schism, Heresy, and the SSPX
If a lie is repeated enough times, people will believe it. This seems to be your approach to the Society of St. Pius X (Kenneth Whitehead, “They Just Won’t Go Away,” February 2006). There has not been any attempt in the SSPX to establish a separate church. Where is the schism? The SSPX acknowledges the primacy of the pope and teaches everything the Church taught for the last two millennia. Where is the heresy? The SSPX practices far more charity toward its opponents than Rome practices toward the SSPX.
Weston J. Zach
Silverton, Oregon
Kenneth Whitehead replies: The SSPX may acknowledge the primacy of the pope in words, but it rejects the pope’s jurisdiction in practice. Pope John Paul II was prepared to give the SSPX legitimacy and to allow the Tridentine Mass as, in effect, another Roman “rite,” if Archbishop Lefebvre would only refrain from ordaining any new bishops and acknowledge the legitimacy and decisions of the Second Vatican Council. The archbishop refused and was excommunicated after he ordained four bishops. The SSPX continues to reject Vatican II; thus it is not true that it “teaches everything the Church taught for the last two millennia.” One of the things the Church has taught during that long period is that the formal acts and decisions of an ecumenical council of the Catholic Church are guaranteed by the Holy Spirit and are binding upon the faithful. The ancient Arians made evident their schism and heresy when they refused to accept the decisions of the Council of Nicaea. SSPXers today make evident the same thing when they reject the teachings and decisions of the twenty-first ecumenical council of the Catholic Church, Vatican II.
catholic.com/thisrock/quickquestions/keyword/SSPX
According to the Code of Canon Law, Catholic marriages ordinarily must be witnessed by the local ordinary or the parish priest, or by a minister—usually a priest or deacon—delegated by them to do so (canon 1108 §1). Because SSPX priests do not have faculties from the Church to witness Catholic marriages, Catholics may not have their marriage witnessed by an SSPX priest.
Check Catholic Answers on this site under Faith for other than ad hominem arguments concerning SSPX and their denial of the Holy Spirit and Vatican II.
J
jmj1984
Guest
Go read up the facts
C
CopticChristian
Guest
So based on reading up on the facts, this information comes from Catholic Answers, am I to believe that you disagree with what Catholic Answers proposes here for the Catholic Answers audience?
Secondly are you SSPX?
or SSPX supporter?
These are direct question requiring direct answers. No ad hominem or absurdum. Just answer the first one yes or no as well as the second one and third one. Can’t get any simpler than that.
J
jmj1984
Guest
No they’re questions designed to lend themselves to an ad hominem attack, so I’ll pass.So based on reading up on the facts, this information comes from Catholic Answers, am I to believe that you disagree with what Catholic Answers proposes here for the Catholic Answers audience?
Secondly are you SSPX?
or SSPX supporter?
These are direct question requiring direct answers. No ad hominem or absurdum. Just answer the first one yes or no as well as the second one and third one. Can’t get any simpler than that.
C
CopticChristian
Guest
Well then let’s go back to the first question. You said “read up the facts” and I assume you meant “read up on the facts” and you should probably have said “as I understand them”.
The first question is simple. Do you disagree with the information that Catholic Answers has posted on SSPX that I provided. You either agree or disagree. If you disagree please tell me why you disagree with the notion that SSPX has denied Vatican II and in doing so has denied the Holy Spirit that blesses the ecumenical councils?
No hominem, no hominy, no homily just the facts…
M
Melchior_1
Guest
Is everything that you disagree with an ad hominem attack? You seem to be saying that a lot lately.
C
CopticChristian
Guest
I think we are dealing with an SSPX that uses ad hominem, ad absurdum, argues with Guanophore and argues with everyone that posts. If you follow the trail of posting and see the shying away from answering a simple question it is clear that there is a hidden agenda, ad infinitum, ad hoc, ad whatever. Everyone is attacking imj1984. No one is answering questions for imj1984. imj1984 will not answer two simple questions.
- imj1984 are you SSPX?
- imj1984 are you SSPX supporter?
Yes there is lots of ad hominem lately.
O
oneGODoneCHURCH
Guest
Yes I asked 2 very easy yes or no question and he would not answer.I think we are dealing with an SSPX that uses ad hominem, ad absurdum, argues with Guanophore and argues with everyone that posts. If you follow the trail of posting and see the shying away from answering a simple question it is clear that there is a hidden agenda, ad infinitum, ad hoc, ad whatever. Everyone is attacking imj1984. No one is answering questions for imj1984. imj1984 will not answer two simple questions.
many are dusting their sandles after frustration with imj1984.
- imj1984 are you SSPX?
- imj1984 are you SSPX supporter?
Yes there is lots of ad hominem lately.
J
jmj1984
Guest
I do disagree with the information you’ve provided, for one its simplistic, for another thing its out of date and lastly its ambigous.Well then let’s go back to the first question. You said “read up the facts” and I assume you meant “read up on the facts” and you should probably have said “as I understand them”.
The first question is simple. Do you disagree with the information that Catholic Answers has posted on SSPX that I provided. You either agree or disagree. If you disagree please tell me why you disagree with the notion that SSPX has denied Vatican II and in doing so has denied the Holy Spirit that blesses the ecumenical councils?
No hominem, no hominy, no homily just the facts…
1)Its an oversimplification, as even a cursory glance at Archbishop Lefebvre’s work or Bishop fellays will show you the SSPX does not reject the entirity of Vatican II, they reject what they see as irreconciliable with Catholic Tradition. Their founder and the society itself remains open to the idea of it being ‘read in the light of tradition’
2)This idea of ‘the holy spirit blesses ecumenical councils’ is an oversimplification of complicated theology. Catholic doctrine is that ecumenical councils can be protected from error by The Holy Ghost as regards matters of faith and morals in much the same way the Pope is when speaking Ex Cathedra. The society’s position is that in view of the councils admission that it is pastoral, that its statements are only binding when it explicitly states so and the opinion of numerous theologians that it is pastoral and thus that whilst it could have had recourse to infallibility it chose not to invoke it.
3)The Holy See has repeatedly stated that the SSPX is not in schism, you can read an article on the subject here It makes reference to several interviews given by Cardinal Castrillon in which he states that the society are not in schism and are not heretical.
I can only assume that the article you have quoted was written before these interviews or that the person writing it was unaware of these interviews.
It is however undeniable that the relations between the society and Rome need to be normalised.
J
jmj1984
Guest
2 people on another part of the forum who couldn’t provide a shred of evidence to support their position, as to why you feel you need to involve the events of other threads on this one thats beyond meI think we are dealing with an SSPX that uses ad hominem, ad absurdum, argues with Guanophore and argues with everyone that posts. If you follow the trail of posting and see the shying away from answering a simple question it is clear that there is a hidden agenda, ad infinitum, ad hoc, ad whatever. Everyone is attacking imj1984. No one is answering questions for imj1984. imj1984 will not answer two simple questions.
many are dusting their sandles after frustration with imj1984.
- imj1984 are you SSPX?
- imj1984 are you SSPX supporter?
Yes there is lots of ad hominem lately.
Amusingly several of the people criticising the society for not accepting Vatican II, do themselves not believe that it was an ecumenical council or discount many of the 21 ecumenical councils of the church as ‘not ecumenical’ because they didn’t involve the east.
L
Luigi_Daniele
Guest
Should I be sceptical that the link posted by the OP returns a “no such address” (paraphrase)?
- Status