|
Post by mcallister on Jul 8, 2008 9:30:38 GMT
Excellent point Secusia. I also think it would be a mistake to think that everybody outside of the SSPX and their faithful were delighted with the change in the prayer. I do detect from Monkeyman some misunderstanding regarding Papal authority. One is entitled to decide that the decision of a particular Pope is imprudent, misguided or whatever. Interestingly, this type of erroneous thinking is particularly prevalent at the moment, fitting in with the cult of personality that surrounded in particular, JPII.
|
|
|
Post by Askel McThurkill on Jul 8, 2008 11:22:51 GMT
Excellent point Secusia. I also think it would be a mistake to think that everybody outside of the SSPX and their faithful were delighted with the change in the prayer. I do detect from Monkeyman some misunderstanding regarding Papal authority. One is entitled to decide that the decision of a particular Pope is imprudent, misguided or whatever. Interestingly, this type of erroneous thinking is particularly prevalent at the moment, fitting in with the cult of personality that surrounded in particular, JPII. Why not address the cult of personality around Archbishop Lefebvre? That is an issuing arising from the SSPX discussion.
|
|
|
Post by Askel McThurkill on Jul 8, 2008 11:34:24 GMT
I'm surprised to hear that an SSPX priest stood for election, okay - only cause I thought priests were not supposed to stand for election, don't know anything about Fiore's party. That would be Rev Father Giulio Tam SSPX who was candidate number 4 in the European Parliament elections in Italy in 2004, but not in Roberto Fiore's party, rather in Alessandra Mussolini's party. And yes, the late Benito was her grandfather. One of his sons married Sophia Loren's sister, so given Signorina Mussolini's film star looks, it is unsurprising she featured in Playboy magazine a couple of times. Not that this has anything to do with the SSPX, but it is obvious that Fr Tam is keeping some very bad company while infringing canon law. Did Bishop Fellay suspend him for all this?
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Jul 8, 2008 14:23:43 GMT
Monkeyman, I go by the teaching of the Church, which is that the Pope is not infallible in these areas (excommunications, etc.) See Vatican 1 (dogma on papal infallibiity), also St. Robert Bellarmine: "When the Supreme Pontiff pronounces a sentence of excommunication which is unjust or null, it must not be accepted, without, however, straying from the respect due to the Holy See." The Pope is indeed supreme legislator, but he cannot simply legislate what he likes, but only what is just. By what authority other than your own opinion (and those of the membership and adherents of the SSPX and sources they choose to cite) do you decide what decisions of a given Pope is either just or unjust? Perhaps the two excommunications of Archbishop Thuc were also unjust. The Church has a process of appeal. The SSPX are free to use those channels. Otherwise opinions regarding the excommunication of the bishops are as good as opinions that the US Supreme Court exceeded its authority in Roe v Wade: very interesting, but with no standing in law. And did Micheal Davies actually quote a source for that? I only accept papal infallibility as defined by Vatican I and I am not impressed with excessive ultramontanism. But I will take the ultramontanism of Rome over that of Econe and Metzegen anyday. Your confidence is admirable. I am always weary of the discrepancy between the official position of the SSPX and that I see from SSPX adherents. I am not at all entirely sure that it is either some or a minority or that the SSPX are not to blame for this position. There is a remarkable degree of consistence in the manner in which SSPX adherents describe the rest of the Church. Why pick Vatican II as a watershed? Liturgical abuses are a problem and they are being addressed - slowly granted. But there is no excuse to run outside the Church to avoid them Interesting. We have not witnessed this sort of thing among SSPX priests in Ireland for the past twenty years. I think Irish Catholics are slow to take seriously a half baked convert like Richard Williamson who regards our nation as inferior to his, though the Irish have been better historically at preaching and preserving the faith than the English and whatever little he does know about the Catholic faith, he learned from the hands of the Irish priest who instructed him (the late Fr John Flanagan SMA). For heaven's sake, before we get onto some of Williamson's more eccentric ideas, let me ask why a genuinely Catholic bishop would cite Orwell's 1984 ad nauseam, when it advances fornication as a good means of protest against totalitarianism?
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Jul 8, 2008 14:39:01 GMT
You are hilarious secusia!! which part of Ecclesia Dei adflicta did you not understand? Yes - which part of Athanasius' excommunication have you missed? The Pope said that the bishops were excommunicated by their own act. That does not make them excommunicated, as to be excommunicated you have to be guilty of a subjective mortal sin. You can't compare the cases. In 1988, the Pope requested Archbishop Lefebvre to refrain from the consecrations. The Archbishop disregarded this. His position would be better had the Vatican reneged on the 5 May protocol by not consecrating a bishop on 15 August as stipulated. In the circumstances, it was not the Vatican but the Archbishop who reneged on the agreement. These are lawyers' opinions, Secusia, and have no standing short of an appeal. Neri Capponi made similar statements. BTW, Dr Rudolf Kaschewsky is a layman. [/i] (Brian Mershon, April 10, 2007, published in http://www.renewamerica.us)[/quote] I wouldn't see Brian Mershon as an authority on anything, but the point is irrelevant - the lack of sanction doesn't make anything right or wrong. quintessentially Catholic Bishop W? Please! The man was only in the Church a wet day before he went to Econe. BTW, it isn't only the Canadian Government who have a problem with him as Immigration and Naturalisation Services in the US pulled his Green Card, occasioning his move to southern climes. There are two issues here. The prayers for the Jews did not pass down through the ages unaltered and recently, the SSPX rejected the latest reform in the prayers. This is a problem of obedience rather than anti-semitism. The problem of anti-semitism manifests itself in many other ways, not least the preaching of Richard Williamson, but among other things, the promotion of the writings of Fr Denis Fahey CSSp, an Irish priest whose work and apostolate were disowned by the bishops of Ireland before Vatican II and the new macro-ecumenism.
|
|
|
Post by Askel McThurkill on Jul 8, 2008 15:14:09 GMT
So which is it then monkeyman? the Rev. R.T. Glover, Oratorian canonist, disagrees with you. He shows on the basis of canon law that even the six bishops involved in the consecrations are not excommunicated either for illegal consecrations or for schism.) Father Glover, God help us? This is the former professor of Canon Law in Econe (from the days they had competant professors there). But now he lives in Spain no longer professing any religion. I am told he is happy in his new found atheism.
|
|
|
Post by monkeyman on Jul 8, 2008 17:55:44 GMT
So which is it then monkeyman? the Rev. R.T. Glover, Oratorian canonist, disagrees with you. He shows on the basis of canon law that even the six bishops involved in the consecrations are not excommunicated either for illegal consecrations or for schism.) Father Glover, God help us? This is the former professor of Canon Law in Econe (from the days they had competant professors there). But now he lives in Spain no longer professing any religion. I am told he is happy in his new found atheism. Perhaps he knows Falconer and Irishknight...just a thought...
|
|
|
Post by monkeyman on Jul 8, 2008 18:02:22 GMT
Excellent point Secusia. I also think it would be a mistake to think that everybody outside of the SSPX and their faithful were delighted with the change in the prayer. I do detect from Monkeyman some misunderstanding regarding Papal authority. One is entitled to decide that the decision of a particular Pope is imprudent, misguided or whatever. Interestingly, this type of erroneous thinking is particularly prevalent at the moment, fitting in with the cult of personality that surrounded in particular, JPII. Mccallister its a little silly to be seen to hide behind secusia and not face me yourself. It is not of the Catholic spirit to weigh up every utterance of the Pope and if we should obey it or not. I was waiting for this but expected it from secusia-the old canard about papolatry which you are basiclly hinting at- its an old prostestant fave to accuse a Catholic of this..thank you anyway..game,set,match monkeyman.
|
|
|
Post by monkeyman on Jul 8, 2008 18:40:59 GMT
You are hilarious secusia!! which part of Ecclesia Dei adflicta did you not understand? Yes - which part of Athanasius' excommunication have you missed? The Pope said that the bishops were excommunicated by their own act. That does not make them excommunicated, as to be excommunicated you have to be guilty of a subjective mortal sin. St. Athanasius subsequent rehabilitation clarifies that a Pope CAN be wrong in these areas. That MUST be conceded or you falsify history and doctrine. Next question : WAS the Pope wrong, did he make an error, in saying that the bishops had excommunicated themselves and committed a schismatic act? Yes, says, among others, Cardinal Lara, President of the Pontifical Commission for the Authentic Interpretation of Canon Law: Theact of consecrating a bishop (without the pope's permission) is not itself a schismatic act. La Repubblica, Oct. 7, 1988 Fr. Rudolf Kaschewsky, German Canonist, correspondent for Una Voce Deutschland concluded in July 1988: the widely spread opinion that the consecration of one or several bishops without papal mandate would cause an automatic excommunication and would lead to schism are false. Due to the very terms of the applicable law itself, an excommunication for the aforementioned case could not be applied, neither automatically, nor by sentence of a judge. Canon law and its interpretation are not the same thing at all as doctrine, monkeyman. It's a fact that the Pope may easily be mistaken here, and more and more evidence is coming to light about the SSPX - officially, the Vatican have softened their stance, though not enough of course in my opinion. An interesting quote from the Remnant: Prof. Georg was the Professor of Canon Law, Law of Church-State Relations and Canonical HIstory from 1960 to 1994 at Mainz University. He has been a well-respected priest for more than 40 years in the Archdiocese of Mainz. The Professor's conclusions appear to be consistent with those of the Holy See as expressed in numerous public interviews and written correspondence emanating from the PCED, specifically Cardinal Castrillón and Msgr. Camille Perl, president and secretary of the commission.
1. The SSPX is not schismatic, because she neither rejects the subordination to the Roman Pope nor rejects the communion with the bishops (can. 751). Rather the latter reject communion with the Society.
2. Because the Society is not schismatic, its members are not excommunicated. Both are untrue allegations, made by those, whom the reflective mirror presented to them by the Society irritates.
3. Absolutely nobody incurs any punishment by attending the masses of the Society. Of course one can fulfill one's Sunday obligation by attending a Sunday mass in a chapel or church of the Society. Whoever alleges otherwise, reveals that he merely fears concurrence (Brian Mershon, April 10, 2007, published in http://www.renewamerica.us)
Postscript: 1. Can you explain how i lack respect for civil authority? I merely said that one would not expect an anti-Christian administration to welcome the quintessentially Catholic Bishop W. Their opposition simply proves to me that Bishop Williamson is indeed a true follower of Christ, as Our Lord prophesied: the world hated Him and will hate his true followers... If the Canadian gvt were my rulers, I would still obey them in all things within their domain. 2. The Church prayed for the Jews using those words until 1960 something. It would be interesting to discuss the SSPX's rejection of the change, but that's a separate issue from using their refusal to change as "proof" that they hate the Jews. You will, therefore, have a difficult task ahead of you trying to explain how Popes, Bishops, Priests and faithful for centuries used this prayers piously without hating the Jews, while maintaining simultaenously that the SSPX's using it proves that the SSPX hates the Jews. [/quote] Blah blah blah as far as I the eye can see....I already stated that to consecrate Bishops against the express and stated will of the Pope is an overt schismatic act for those involved but you havent been listening or reading. Why would you quote a Cardinal over the Pope? ?? The Pope doesnt even need to have recourse to Canon Law....you somehow give an almost dogmatic and binding character to the utterances of St Robert Bellarmine -could you explain that?? You do know that yet again its mere opinion and further convinces me that if I said black you would say white. I really find it hard to stomach your admiration for Richard Williamson, a renowned anti-semite....afterall the Lord himself was of Jewish stock. You are also a little unclear over infalliblity and the governance of the Church. "Whatever you loose on earth etc" applies here. Excommunications are medicinal and are aimed at bringing about a good end, also they are penalities for contravening certain laws. I might add that some High Anglicans think theyre Catholics it doesnt make it so-re your quote about your priest. The confessions provided b SSPX clergy are completely invalid...I wouldnt be so proud of that.
|
|
|
Post by monkeyman on Jul 8, 2008 18:47:37 GMT
Ok so I was wrong with the name of the political party Don Tam ran for but my original assertion is and remains the same.
|
|
|
Post by mcallister on Jul 8, 2008 21:16:42 GMT
Hey monkeyman, cool it! Agreeing with someone is perfectly allowable. I hold to my point that not everybody thought the Pope should have given into pressure on the Good Friday prayer, even those who go along with it may hold that he, the Pope, has made an error of judgment, a logical and allowable position for a thinking Catholic. As for game, set and match to Monkeyman, well, put it this way, your self-confidence, if naught else, is hard to beat.
|
|
|
Post by mcallister on Jul 8, 2008 21:21:10 GMT
On this point see John Henry Newman's letter to the Duke of Norfolk. Excommunications are not covered by infallibility.
|
|
|
Post by monkeyman on Jul 8, 2008 21:31:21 GMT
On this point see John Henry Newman's letter to the Duke of Norfolk. Excommunications are not covered by infallibility. Here again we have deferring to private opinion of a Cardinal of the Church - not worth much given the circumstances.
|
|
|
Post by secusia on Jul 9, 2008 0:06:55 GMT
By what authority other than your own opinion (and those of the membership and adherents of the SSPX and sources they choose to cite) do you decide what decisions of a given Pope is either just or unjust? Perhaps the two excommunications of Archbishop Thuc were also unjust. The Church has a process of appeal. The SSPX are free to use those channels...... 1. By the law of the Church, Alaisdir. Canon Law, which proves that the Archbishop was not excommunicated, as no-one can be excommunicated latae sententiae without having committed a subjective mortal sin. A sentence ferendae sententiae was never imposed. It was simply declared that the sentence had been automatically incurred. That's not my opinion, that's a fact. the canons are there. Here they are: A person who violates a law out of necessity is not subject to a penalty (1983 Code of Canon Law, canon 1323, §4), even if there is no state of necessity: *if one inculpably thought there was, he would not incur the penalty (canon 1323, 70), *and if one culpably thought there was, he would still incur no automatic penalties (canon 1324, §3; §1, 80) St. Robert Bellarmine is not an adherent of the SSPX (though I think he would be if he were alive. I'm sure he's rooting for them in Heaven, not to speak of St. Athanasius. Did the faithful who followed St. Athanasius, err by using their private opinion? Or did they not just follow the teachings of the Church?) 2. One can also judge simply, without any knowledge of law, that it cannot be right that the one seminary which does teach the full doctrine of the Church should be suppressed, nor that the faithful should be denied the Old Mass, the Faith and Sacraments. (It was for this reason that Archbishop Lefebvre consecrated the four bishops.) Where, in the wasteland left after the reforms of the Council, could one find, for example, the ancient rite of the Sacrament of Confirmation? or the constant papal teaching on religious liberty? 3. Archbishop Lefebvre DID appeal. It's been placed by the SSPX on public record that Cardinal Villot arranged that the appeal was not accepted, and that Cardinal Staffa was threatened with dismissal if he dared to accept an appeal from Archbishop Lefebvre. (Vatican Encounter, pp. 85 and 191). Please, do not be naive. Can't you see that there was a power play? God expects us to use the evidence of our senses, which is completely different to private opinion. Can't you see that the SSPX are simply trying to preserve the Faith? Does it not HURT you deep inside when you see the particles of the consecrated Host on the floor in Novus Ordo churches? Are you not justly angry that our children are being robbed of their faith? Where is your outrage at these abuses, and why do you reserve so much criticism for the SSPX? 4. I can't believe you are asking why I pick Vatican 2 as a watershed, but an interested reader of this blog without any prejudice can read the Index of Leading Catholic Indicators by Kenneth C. Jones, which gives stats as to the horrifying situation since Vatican 2. Catholic World News (hardly an SSPX site) featured Jones writing and quoted him as saying "plummeting would be a more accurate term than "dwindling" to describe of the incredibly shrinking Catholic Church since 1965. In every area that is statistically measurable--such as the number of priests, seminarians, priestless parishes and nuns--the deterioration is obvious, and is the exact opposite of the trends before the Council." 5. The source for Michael Davies' quote is C. Butler, The Vatican Council (London, 1930), II, 80.6. Are you saying, Alaisdir, that the SSPX have not sung Oremus Pro Pontifice in Ireland for twenty years? And that they have preached the automatic invalidity of the Novus Ordo for the past twenty years? That's easily verified...I can ask em. How many SSPX Masses have you attended? I can tell you the time and hour of the Oremus Pro Pontifice if you want to verify... 7. Cardinal Lara, President of the Pontifical Commission for the Authentic Interpretation of Canon Law: The act of consecrating a bishop (without the pope's permission) is not itself a schismatic act. What do you mean, this is a lawyer's opinion? It is law we're talking about, not fiction, poetry, architecture or gregorian chant. Who do you expect should interpret canon law? A novelist? OR do you think that the Pope is infallible in his interpretation of canon law? Do you think the Pope was wrong to appoint Lara as President of the Pontifical Commission for the Authentic Interpretation of Canon Law? Did he make an error of judgement there, or did Cardinal Lara mess up? 8. Poor old Bishop Williamson. Now he's a half-baked convert. Incidentally, how does a convert get fully baked? Oh the US have a problem with him too. Ah, the US, that bastion of Catholicism, nyuk nyuk. How brave of it to deny Bishop Williamson a visa. Of course, Bishop WIlliamson is a soft target, seeing as even Catholics like yourselves seem prepared to throw him to the wolves. Do you really think that a nation which kills its own infants can be trusted to give a reasonable verdict on a Catholic bishop? By the way, monkeyman, you said he is a renowned anti-semite: please explain your understanding of the term anti-semite, AND a quote from Bishop Williamson proving that he is anti-semitic.
|
|
|
Post by secusia on Jul 9, 2008 0:59:56 GMT
You can't compare the cases. In 1988, the Pope requested Archbishop Lefebvre to refrain from the consecrations. The Archbishop disregarded this. His position would be better had the Vatican reneged on the 5 May protocol by not consecrating a bishop on 15 August as stipulated. In the circumstances, it was not the Vatican but the Archbishop who reneged on the agreement...... Then show me the correspondence between the society and the world's bishops regarding the establishment of SSPX apostolates in their respective dioceses? The point is absurd, especially in the light of the consecration of Licinio Rangel in Campos in 1992 where a parallel diocese was erected......The society indulges in schismatic acts by disregarding ecclesiastical authority and members of the faithful are warned to beware of attending SSPX Masses, which though not schismatic in itself, may lead to schismatic intent. Even defenders of the SSPX such as Michael Davies warned of this.... There are two issues here. The prayers for the Jews did not pass down through the ages unaltered and recently, the SSPX rejected the latest reform in the prayers. This is a problem of obedience rather than anti-semitism. The problem of anti-semitism manifests itself in many other ways, not least the preaching of Richard Williamson, but among other things, the promotion of the writings of Fr Denis Fahey CSSp, an Irish priest whose work and apostolate were disowned by the bishops of Ireland before Vatican II and the new macro-ecumenism. I'll get back to Father Fahey, but for the moment, a couple of answers to the above: 1. Are you saying that Pope Liberius would have approved of Athanasius' actions? Of course the Pope did not approve of the consecrations; I wasn't suggesting for a moment that he did. The key fact that is being missed here is the "state of necessity", where spiritual goods are so threatened that one is obliged to use extraordinary means in order to rescue his spiritual goods. And, even if the "state of necessity" did not exist, a latae sententiae penalty could not apply (see previous post.) Lefebvre realised that the agreement was a trap (not speculating on motives here, which of course are God's business), destined to "neutralise" the SSPX. Did the FSSP get a traditional Bishop yet by the way? Does this not prove the Archbishop's point? Are not the FSSP forced to say the Novus Ordo? 2. Oh right, you expect the bishops who allow travesties like Alive-O and clown Masses (where's your charges of heresy/schism/blasphemy for the latter by the way?) to seriously allow the SSPX to establish themselves in their dioceses? 3. Jurisdiction, or territory, was certainly not granted to any SSPX bishop, nor to Bishop Rangel either (I presume.) Therefore, there is no question of a parallel diocese but merely of a bishop to provide the Old Rite sacraments of Confirmation and Holy Orders - denied for years to the faithful. The SSPX does not disregard legitimate ecclesiastical authority but only abuse of authority. Incidentally, you don't seem to think that authority can be abused, or that the faithful have any recourse when authority is abused. Do you think, then, that the Pope is free to make whatever decisions he likes, regardless of the good of the faithful? A strange interpretation of "Feed my sheep." After all, Our Lord did not say "I give you full authority to go ahead and starve my sheep, Peter." 4. Have you got a quote from Michael Davies on that? 5. I thoroughly agree with you that the prayer for the Jews is not a question of anti-semitism. This is the very point I was making to monkeyman, who said that the SSPX hates Jews but could only come up with this as proof. Now, the obedience question is quite another matter. One may legitimately talk about whether or not the SSPX were disobedient in rejecting the prayer (I don't think they were) but to use their decision to bolster a charge of anti-semitism...no sirree.
|
|