|
Post by Askel McThurkill on Jul 9, 2008 9:05:16 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Askel McThurkill on Jul 9, 2008 9:09:50 GMT
|
|
|
Post by mcallister on Jul 9, 2008 11:15:15 GMT
Oh for goodness sake Monkeyman, don't make me doubt your intelligence. Excommunications are not covered by infallibility. This is not Newman's private opinion, it is a fact. I just cited this source for your convenience.
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Jul 9, 2008 12:12:21 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?) Fine. Necessity has to be proved. Are you suggesting that JPII knew little of the code of Canon Law he himself promulgated, where he was following the practice of the Church (in relation to the consecration of bishops) in place from Pius XII's dealings with the Patriotic Catholic Association in China? Remember the Chinese Patriotic bishops can also fall back on the necessity clause. This is caricature. Were all the seminaries in all the dioceses throughout the Catholic world teaching error? The point that comes next is if the SSPX believes itself to be indefectible and that the Church (outside it) isn't. Again this is caricature in two points. First of all the appeal in Paul VI's time related to a completely different set of circumstances and underscores Monkeyman's point that the SSPX have shifted the goalposts. You are offering a very good case for private judgement there, Secusia. I have attended a good many NO Churches in the past, but I have to say that particles of the host falling is something I have not observed (not that I believe they are free from criticism. In regard to teaching the faith, I am not satisfied that children in the SSPX are getting the Faith undiluted either. When I read SSPX polemics, I wonder if they are not referring to an earlier era: Pius XI's suppression of Action Francaise; the Dreyfus case; the French Revolution. The problem with Ken Jones' compilation is that it set out to prove a point; that Vatican II brought about the devestation. When the devestation which followed the Council can be understood as an indication that the Church was not in good shape before hand - that some relatively minor changes would bring about such an avalanche. Thank you. It doesn't prove anything other than the fact sometimes the late Mr Davies gave references. My point is rather there is a big gulf between the official position of the SSPX and what SSPX adherents (whom they can and will disown) actually believe. Take the popular argument against going to an indult Mass - if the hosts are taken out of the tabernacle, they were probably consecrated at a NO Mass and therefore invalid. This shows up among SSPX people all over Ireland and has even come to the attention of some of the Irish bishops. The Pope is above Canon Law and has the right to excommunicate the various offending bishops (many of whom have been excommunicated) for an act of disobedience. I am aware of several cases of excommunication not including the SSPX and the Chinese Patriots. When he ceases putting his own private judgement above that of the Church. As long as he preaches hatred against the Nation of Our Lord, yes. I am also aware of his contempt for my own nation too. No, but we are not talking about a Catholic bishop here. That's over to Monkeyman.
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Jul 9, 2008 12:26:26 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: I'm waiting. No, it doesn't. The Archbishop abrogated the agreement before a conflict could emerge and forfeited an opportunity to substantiate his claim that it was a trap. The necessity claim is unproven. BTW, no priest of the FSSP can be obliged to say the NO - the position is that the FSSP cannot forbid their priests from saying it. No institute or diocese in the Latin Rite Catholic Church can forbid a priest from saying the NO, as it is the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite. I am interested to hear what evidence you have of clown Masses in Ireland. I have only heard rumours of it on two occasions at most, at a time when I was looking for evidence of this sort of thing. I am interested in the 'Angelus' claim: 'one restored diocese', by which they meant Campos. Really? As the leading Old Catholic, Lord Acton said, quoted by either Falconer or Irishknight elsewhere in this forum: Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely...this is a consequence of the fallen nature of man...and a reason why we don't set up independent authority structures (a point which both the SSPX and Acton missed) I heard him saying it at a meeting in Dublin in 2000, during his last visit to Ireland. What I would say is that it is not in itself anti-semitism, but rather respect for legitimate authority. Monkeyman's point, I believe, is that the act betrays an underlying antisemitism among SSPX priests and adherents. Unfortunately, that doesn't hold. Private judgement comes to mind once again here.
|
|
|
Post by monkeyman on Jul 9, 2008 18:00:26 GMT
Oh for goodness sake Monkeyman, don't make me doubt your intelligence. Excommunications are not covered by infallibility. This is not Newman's private opinion, it is a fact. I just cited this source for your convenience. I think you are ignoring the little fact that the governance of the Church rests with Peter and he is the one who makes the legislation and what he largely says gos. As I said to secusia you are not interested in the viewpoint of Rome-which you view with suspicion, all you are interested in is the politics of Econe. Lefebvre said for years to his seminarians "if I ever go wrong you are to leave me"- this is a piece of advice they should have taken.
|
|
|
Post by monkeyman on Jul 9, 2008 18:11:13 GMT
So there is no affection for uncle Adolf among the clergy of the SSPX?? Oh well I reckon a good long talk with Father Angels-the Superior for Ireland should put anyones mind at rest. Yes Adolf we admire you alot!! Afterall he has claimed to various individuals known to myself that his very own family (who hail from Spain) have in their possession a daimler/or is it a rolls royce...hmmm...anyway they have a car that was owned by the Fuhrer... I'm always amazed this type of thing is tolerated considering Archbishop Lefevbres own father died at the hands of the Nazis...tut tut
|
|
|
Post by mcallister on Jul 9, 2008 18:15:30 GMT
No I'm not. I simply said that excommunications are not covered by infalllibility In other words they may or may not have moral validity. Simple statement. Of course I know the governance of the Church lies with Peter. Why are you bringing in these red herrings? How do you Monkeyman, explain the excommunication of St Athanasius by Pope Liberius? ( Not in connection to the SSPX, just in general ? )
|
|
|
Post by mcallister on Jul 9, 2008 18:21:11 GMT
Not knowing the priest in question at all, I can't reply to this, but I do know that these type of accusations based entirely on hearsay would not be tolerated on other boards. What is the moderator's policy on this?
|
|
|
Post by monkeyman on Jul 9, 2008 18:28:50 GMT
Secusia just for your benefit I have left you a little present...its about your friend Bishop Richard. The reason he's not allowed back into Canada is a good one...Holocaust Denial and Anti-Semitism.It goes back to 1989, when he preached at Notre-Dame-de-Lourdes church in Sherbrooke, Canada saying among other things that..."there was not one Jew killed in the gas chambers. It was all lies, lies, lies. The Jews created the Holocaust so we would prostrate ourselves on our knees before them and approve of their new State of Israel.... Jews made up the Holocaust, Protestants get their orders from the devil, and the Vatican has sold its soul to liberalism." I can call some of the people who were there up if you like...but then again maybe they are Freemasons out to besmirch the good name of Dr Williamson.
|
|
|
Post by monkeyman on Jul 9, 2008 18:50:35 GMT
Not knowing the priest in question at all, I can't reply to this, but I do know that these type of accusations based entirely on hearsay would not be tolerated on other boards. What is the moderator's policy on this? He's Father Ramon Angels, St Johns Church Mounttown, Dún Laoighaire, Co Dublin-he also processes the societies laicisation appeals to Rome. I'm surprised I thought all people on this forum were Irish citiizens/living here.
|
|
|
Post by monkeyman on Jul 9, 2008 18:51:50 GMT
Hearsay...good man.
|
|
|
Post by monkeyman on Jul 9, 2008 19:04:48 GMT
No I'm not. I simply said that excommunications are not covered by infalllibility In other words they may or may not have moral validity. Simple statement. Of course I know the governance of the Church lies with Peter. Why are you bringing in these red herrings? How do you Monkeyman, explain the excommunication of St Athanasius by Pope Liberius? ( Not in connection to the SSPX, just in general ? ) Ok all wise-cracking aside on my side...this is the perrenial instance proferred by the SSPX as justification for their disobedience-I'm not including laity as members here only clergy. Neither case can be likened to the other. We are not nor were not dealing with a heresy at the time but a perception/viewpoint..ie that of the Archbishop. The Pope had disagreed on the choice of candidate..the archbishop then went ahead even after canonical warning...it doesnt get any clearer than that. Its one thing to consecrate to the episcopacy in times of necessity-it is another to do so against the will of the Pope- as I said before-on the face of it, it is an overt schismatic act.
|
|
|
Post by Michael O'Donovan on Jul 9, 2008 20:04:22 GMT
|
|
|
Post by mcallister on Jul 9, 2008 21:30:41 GMT
Of course I know of him, what I meant was I don't know him, as in, I'm not acquainted with him. Those stories are hearsay if they are based on secondary sources. As I said I can't comment one way or another except to say that in a small country like Ireland it is not prudent to post hearsay on a public forum. Obviously there is a very loose policy on this board as regards this kind of thing but generally stricter rules would apply.
|
|