F
Fauken
Guest
No, but he would be violating his own laws, since he’s the one who can change the canons as he sees fit. Which doesn’t really look good for him.
Last edited:
What would happen if a Cardinal joined the SSPX? Would he still be able to vote in the next Conclave?
- Status
O
OrbisNonSufficit
Guest
I guess that’s true too. Good point.
A
AlNg
Guest
Like I said, I am not sure what some people mean by the word slavery. Here is a comment by a poster:
" Understood in the correct sense, based on Scripture and Tradition, the Church has never taught that slavery is entirely inadmissible."
post number 112 in
https://forums.catholic-questions.org/t/attending-sspx-chapels-as-of-2020/593809/116
J
jrgmercado
Guest
I would think that a Cardinal would have to be in “good standing” to be eligible for concave…so if he’s sanctioned, probably not but if I remember correctly, at the last concave, a Cardinal didn’t attend because of some scandal going on, so he self “policed” himself. I can see a situation in this scenario were a Cardinal could be barred from attending due to some action and not being laicised prior to the Pope death.
B
Bernoulli
Guest
Universi Dominici Gregis lists the only reasons a cardinal may be excluded.
Last edited:
M
Maximian
Guest
Yes I agree they are different but even so their statements should not be taken as official SSPX positions (as often happens)
M
Maximian
Guest
It’s a reasonable assumption but, as I learn from other posts above, an incorrect one.
Yes, that is true. The Church has historically been leery of fomenting social unrest and revolution — even where social systems were less than ideal, the Church has generally worked with the existing social order, seeking to reform gradually, and it has usually had to be gradual, what is un-Christian about it. To say “slaves should obey their masters” raises the question of “all right, what, then, is the alternative?”. To say “slaves should rebel”? To say “okay, masters, it’s immoral for you to be masters, cut that stuff out right now”? And, as I pointed out above, some people, for lack of a better word, “sell themselves into slavery” for a time — indentured servitude and debt that requires a large part of their income.HomeschoolDad:
Like I said, I am not sure what some people mean by the word slavery. Here is a comment by a poster:
" Understood in the correct sense, based on Scripture and Tradition, the Church has never taught that slavery is entirely inadmissible."
post number 112 in
Comparing the Church’s teachings on slavery to those on capital punishment does nothing to justify the change to the Catechism, because the Church’s view of slavery has never changed in the way you think it has. Understood in the correct sense, based on Scripture and Tradition, the Church has never taught that slavery is entirely inadmissible. While she would not work to institute slavery where it does not already exist, she has always warned against interfering with an already existing system …
I would just say to anyone in the present day (having worked in this field for many years), stay as far away from debt as you can, borrow as little as you can get by with borrowing, try to get things paid off and don’t live in debt. I have no mortgage, I drive a beater with no car payment, and I have told my son, unless he lets someone wheedle him out of it, he will never have a mortgage either.
M
Maximian
Guest
I am envisaging the Cardinal becoming a full member of the Society.
M
Maximian
Guest
I imagine you can find some of those among diocesan priests too.
C
Cirdan_XII
Guest
I agree.
However, it is easy to follow the narratve, as reinforced by much of the press, that antisemitism is a problem afflicting primarily the far right (and maybe the not quite so far right, but still right) of the political spectrum. This is factually incorrect. On the contrary, right-wing and conservative organisations have been in the spotlight for antisemitism, But they have also (maybe as a result of this pressure) in many cases also taken effective actions against it. They have made it clear that it is not their policy and have expelled aberrent individuals.
Antisemitism occurs across the political spectrum, but other parts of the political spectrum have not been as effective in condemning it, maybe because the public pressure wasn’t there for them to do it.
For example, in the UK the Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn, had a whole swathe of proven and pretty toxic accusations of anti semitism levelled against him. And not just against him personally but against people close to him in the party leadership. Yet the party refused to take any of them down.
Similarly, antisemitism in Europe is also rife among Muslim immigrants. In fact the majority of antisemitic incidents recorded by the police are traced to Muslims. Yet there is a huge fear among the press and politicians to say so for fear of being called racist. There have even been cases where the perpetrator was a Muslim who also had right wing sympathies (without actually being a member in any organisation), where the press jumped on and exaggerated the right wing bit while totally ignoring the Muslim bit. There was one case recently where they misreported the guy’s name to make him sound German. And Muslim leaders themselves, rather than taking action and disowning suchindividuals, are (with some noteworthy exceptions) seeking to relativize and excuse this type of behavior rather than stamp it out.
However, it is easy to follow the narratve, as reinforced by much of the press, that antisemitism is a problem afflicting primarily the far right (and maybe the not quite so far right, but still right) of the political spectrum. This is factually incorrect. On the contrary, right-wing and conservative organisations have been in the spotlight for antisemitism, But they have also (maybe as a result of this pressure) in many cases also taken effective actions against it. They have made it clear that it is not their policy and have expelled aberrent individuals.
Antisemitism occurs across the political spectrum, but other parts of the political spectrum have not been as effective in condemning it, maybe because the public pressure wasn’t there for them to do it.
For example, in the UK the Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn, had a whole swathe of proven and pretty toxic accusations of anti semitism levelled against him. And not just against him personally but against people close to him in the party leadership. Yet the party refused to take any of them down.
Similarly, antisemitism in Europe is also rife among Muslim immigrants. In fact the majority of antisemitic incidents recorded by the police are traced to Muslims. Yet there is a huge fear among the press and politicians to say so for fear of being called racist. There have even been cases where the perpetrator was a Muslim who also had right wing sympathies (without actually being a member in any organisation), where the press jumped on and exaggerated the right wing bit while totally ignoring the Muslim bit. There was one case recently where they misreported the guy’s name to make him sound German. And Muslim leaders themselves, rather than taking action and disowning suchindividuals, are (with some noteworthy exceptions) seeking to relativize and excuse this type of behavior rather than stamp it out.
Last edited:
I
InThePew
Guest
The short answer is, provided he still remains a member of the college (and under the age of 80) then yes. The Apostolic Constitution Universi Dominici Gregis is unambiguous in this regard when it says: " No Cardinal elector can be excluded from active or passive voice in the election of the Supreme Pontiff, for any reason or pretext".
That said, a Cardinal who did formally join the SSPX would effectively be contracting the Profession of Faith he took before becoming a bishop, as well as the oath he took upon becoming a cardinal. the Profession of Faith includes the following:
That said, there’s nothing wrong with enjoying friendly relationships with the Society - they have a church in the parish where my friend is the assistant priest and he often goes over there for adoration (but notably not confession nor mass). Still, there’s a world of difference between this and formally joining the Society.
As an aside, the Society cannot incardinate clergy since they are not a legitimately established Society of Apostolic Life / prelature / etc. Obviously priests join them and they ordain priests but the overall situation remains messy.
That said, a Cardinal who did formally join the SSPX would effectively be contracting the Profession of Faith he took before becoming a bishop, as well as the oath he took upon becoming a cardinal. the Profession of Faith includes the following:
Joining the SSPX would fundamentally be at odds with this, leaving the Cardinal’s position untenable and the Holy Father with no choice but to remove him if he refused to resign or reconcile. If this did not happen prior to the Holy Father’s death however, he would (in theory at least) be free to participate in a conclave but I expect that his brother Cardinals would prevail upon him to step aside. This is because SSPX remains in imperfect communion with the Church and refuses to accept certain rather important teachings from and subsequent the Second Vatican Council regarding, amongst other things, ecumenism.
That said, there’s nothing wrong with enjoying friendly relationships with the Society - they have a church in the parish where my friend is the assistant priest and he often goes over there for adoration (but notably not confession nor mass). Still, there’s a world of difference between this and formally joining the Society.
As an aside, the Society cannot incardinate clergy since they are not a legitimately established Society of Apostolic Life / prelature / etc. Obviously priests join them and they ordain priests but the overall situation remains messy.
I
InThePew
Guest
You might have missed the last paragraph about “religious submission of will and intellect to the teachings which either the Roman Pontiff or the College of Bishops enunciate when they exercise their authentic Magisterium”. the teachings of the Council (and subsequent Popes) on Ecumenism would seem to come under that category. In Archbishop Lefebvre’s words: “We refuse… to follow the Rome of neo-Modernist and neo-Protestant tendencies which were clearly evident in the Second Vatican Council and, after the Council, in all the reforms which issued from it.”
Besides this, the refusal to recognise the novus ordo would also present insurmountable problems in terms of trying to reconcile it with the promise to maintain communion / unity with the Church and of obedience to the Holy Father. Not to mention the fact that he (presumably) wouldn’t celebrate mass with the other Cardinals (not rreally a good start).
Finally there’s the Oath of Fidelity made by deacons, priests (and others) with its promise to “follow and foster the common discipline of the entire Church” and “maintain the observance of all ecclesiastical laws” - the latter presumably including liturgical law - and following “what the Bishops, as authentic doctors and teachers of the faith, declare, or what they, as those who govern the Church, establish”. this last part would include liturgical praxis.
The problem with this is that it would require permission from the local ordinary both to set up shop (so to speak) as well as for the grant of faculties.
Besides this, the refusal to recognise the novus ordo would also present insurmountable problems in terms of trying to reconcile it with the promise to maintain communion / unity with the Church and of obedience to the Holy Father. Not to mention the fact that he (presumably) wouldn’t celebrate mass with the other Cardinals (not rreally a good start).
Finally there’s the Oath of Fidelity made by deacons, priests (and others) with its promise to “follow and foster the common discipline of the entire Church” and “maintain the observance of all ecclesiastical laws” - the latter presumably including liturgical law - and following “what the Bishops, as authentic doctors and teachers of the faith, declare, or what they, as those who govern the Church, establish”. this last part would include liturgical praxis.
The problem with this is that it would require permission from the local ordinary both to set up shop (so to speak) as well as for the grant of faculties.
I
InThePew
Guest
Sure certain questions are open for discussion and refinement but that’s based on accepting the notion of ecumensim and inter-faith dialogue in principle, as well as the magisterial nature of that teaching. Given that SSPX regard the Assis meetings as “scandalous” this would pose more than a few issues for any bishop.
Of course the difference is that SSPX reject the Novus Ordo in its entirety, rather than just criticising it or making up adaptations. That aside, complaining that others ignore the GIRM doesn’t really take you very far - it’s a bit like saying others speed and get away with it so why shouldn’t I?
Certainly, the right (probably) exists in theory at least and, in fairness, there are some local bishops who want nothing to do with SSPX and, if they could, would exclude them from their territory altogether. That is, however, the right of any local bishop. SSPX’s real difficulty is that they don’t want to be subject any control from local bishops but that’s simply not how the Church functions - the Church is local as much as it is universal and for good reason. So for any Cardinal to formally associate himself with SSPX would basically be to put himself at odds with his brother bishop as well as the whole notion of ecclesial governance as we know it.
Of course the difference is that SSPX reject the Novus Ordo in its entirety, rather than just criticising it or making up adaptations. That aside, complaining that others ignore the GIRM doesn’t really take you very far - it’s a bit like saying others speed and get away with it so why shouldn’t I?
Certainly, the right (probably) exists in theory at least and, in fairness, there are some local bishops who want nothing to do with SSPX and, if they could, would exclude them from their territory altogether. That is, however, the right of any local bishop. SSPX’s real difficulty is that they don’t want to be subject any control from local bishops but that’s simply not how the Church functions - the Church is local as much as it is universal and for good reason. So for any Cardinal to formally associate himself with SSPX would basically be to put himself at odds with his brother bishop as well as the whole notion of ecclesial governance as we know it.
C
commenter
Guest
The bishops who “pushed the SSPX away first” are all dead or retired now.
If one uses the reported “1970s opposition to SSPX” as a justification for current (future) SSPX policy, then
that policy will never need to be reconsidered. It’s like a football field with goal posts on wheels, you can always push the goal line back.
If one uses the reported “1970s opposition to SSPX” as a justification for current (future) SSPX policy, then
that policy will never need to be reconsidered. It’s like a football field with goal posts on wheels, you can always push the goal line back.
Last edited:
M
Maximian
Guest
I think the faithful of both persuasions often do not realise how close the contact is between the SSPX and the Vatican. The Pope has been very friendly to SSPX and there is constant high level contact.
The mutual hostility is strongest among laypeople
The mutual hostility is strongest among laypeople
C
commenter
Guest
The SSPX has been in my city for 45 years. I lived a block away from the chapel. In recent years I never heard any layperson outside SSPX say anything for or against SSPX.
I suppose if they had a fish fry like the PNCC does, people would get their fish there during Lent.
Re: the long run…
I heard decades ago there would often be arguments or even fist fights between diocesan and the PNCC laity, who knew each other and disliked each other, but that’s long forgotten. They are now a friendly but totally separate group of people.
I think the same thing will happen with SSPX.
Last edited:
P
Paul_Edwards
Guest
I have an even more interesting scenario, could he be elected as Pope? After all it’s normally a well known cardinal who gets elected and he certainly wouldn’t be “infamous” among everyone in the room if that’s the right word.
Imagine what would happen
Imagine what would happen
D
Dovekin
Guest
The position you describe explicitly contradicts a principle stated in Vatican II’s Decree on Ecumenism. Your assertions of a “true ecumenism” is not an affirmation of Vatican II, but a rejection. I am not saying which position is correct, just that the position you describe opposes what Vatican II taught.
P
Paul_Edwards
Guest
This is the problem with Vatican II, even if there is no error, it’s worded in such a way that it’s meaning can end up confusing everybody like in this case and causing people to think we now believe new and illogical things. In fact sometimes a sentence is just so hard to understand it’s unbelievable.
Rose is obviously correct, and has made a de facto plain English statement, so perhaps we will have to “interpret Vatican II in the light of tradition” once again somehow as Pope Benedict said we should
Rose is obviously correct, and has made a de facto plain English statement, so perhaps we will have to “interpret Vatican II in the light of tradition” once again somehow as Pope Benedict said we should
- Status