|
Post by monkeyman on Jul 9, 2008 22:52:42 GMT
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.
|
|
|
Post by Askel McThurkill on Jul 10, 2008 11:13:49 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. Well, Mcallister, there is unfortunately more to what Monkeyman is saying about Fr Angles than hearsay, if you check out this article in Fidelity: sspx.agenda.tripod.com/id10.html. It may be biased against the SSPX, but it does detail some of Fr Angles' affections for the German regime of 1933-45, as well as that of other SSPX clergy including Msgr Williamson, about there anti-semitism (are you reading Secusia?) and it also gives them a right to reply. Interestingly, some of the accusations are not made by the journalist, but by current SSPX supporters.
|
|
|
Post by secusia on Jul 11, 2008 2:19:30 GMT
Thank you, Alaisdir, for responding in a reasoned fashion. Monkeyman's non sequiturs, laughing and ad hominem arguments make it impossible to have a reasoned discussion.
1. Re the existence of a state of necessity and the Pope's interpretation of Canon Law, as well as the Pope's right to excommunicate:
a) That a state of necessity existed at the time of the Consecrations, there is objectively speaking no doubt. Seminaries and catechesis were (and continue) to be rotten right through! Have you read Goodbye, Good Men for example? The faithful had the strict right to the Old Rite under Quo Primum, a fact that is now admitted, but was NOT admitted at the time. Even up to last September the only daily Tridentine Mass in Dublin, for example, was that of the SSPX! Monkeyman tries to reduce all these to a simple "viewpoint" of the Archbishop. There was no viewpoint about the set-up at all, when it was time to go to Mass on Sunday morning. There was no Old Rite Mass to go to. May I also point out that Cardinal Ottiviani, inter alia, pointed out the serious problems with the Novus Ordo. He was never corrected, to my knowledge; he could not be, because it is totally acceptable to state facts, except in Communist territories, where one must perhaps pretend that black is white if the authorities say so. Of course the Church has never been run this way. It's true that the heresy of automatic infallibility and illuminism is growing at the moment, as people get antsy if one makes even the slightest suggestion that the Pope can err in any shape or form. Sorry, people- he can! Our Lord founded the Church that way! Even humble lay folk are allowed to point out problems where no infallible teaching was concerned - how much more so a Prince of the Church. A scriptural precedent is St. Paul's rebuke of Peter; there are many more precedents in Church history.
b) You say "Necessity has to be proven" but the canons I just quoted say that even if one thinks culpably that there is a state of necessity, no automatic sentence applies. The sentencing of Archbishop Lefebvre was an automatic one, therefore it does not apply if he thought, even CULPABLY, that there was a state of necessity. I gave the code numbers; what's the problem? Did you miss them, or do I err in my quotation? Check out the Code online, and get back to me if my quotation is wrong! You're asking me if the Pope made a mistake; well if the Canon says that he did, the Canon says that he did, not Secusia. I only mentioned Cardinal Lara to back up the point, but it's already clear.
c.) No-one denies that the Pope has the right to excommunicate. Firstly, you are continuing to make no distinction between latae sententiae and ferendae sententiae excommunications. The first is automatic, and there is a list of sub-clauses which give circumstances where the penalty is NOT incurred, even though the act to which the penalty is attached be committed. Secondly, the Pope never has the right to impose an unfair excommunication, obviously, as no-one can have a right to be unfair (I am talking in general about the Pope and not about any one Pope here.) I already quoted a doctor of the Church on this so I'm not going to repeat it. (Incidentally, it is the Pope who declares a Doctor of the Church as a reliable teacher on faith and morals, so one cannot be accused of exercising private opinion when one quotes them.) The conclusion to be drawn here is that it is totally legitimate to discuss the actual incurring of a given excommunication, its validity, liceity and fairness. You continue to treat the excommunications as if they were a matter of faith, to which every Catholic is bound. This is a tyranny of consciences! The Pope's teaching - whether ex cathedra or ordinary infallible teaching - is binding on the faithful; his excommunications are NOT. Only when you have accepted this distinction, we get on with the rest of the discussion, as otherwise you are refusing to accept a Catholic principle taught, I repeat, by a doctor of the Church. Also, you refuse to address the issue of Athanasius. Whether the SSPX case is parallel to the case of Athanasius is a separate point; what is NOT a matter of debate is that the case CLEARLY shows that papal excommunications are not infallible.
2. On taking people's character and the reductio ad Hitlerum
Monkeyman, you must be down to the bottom of the barrel argument wise, when you start talking about Hitler. It is well known that the reference to Hitler is a serious logical error that prevents your argument from being taken seriously. On the basis of an alleged remark about a car- which I have yet to hear on tape or see in print - , you pass to the conclusion that the SSPX have an affection for Hitler! This is a clear reductio ad Hitlerum- "Reductio ad Hitlerum, also argumentum ad Hitlerum, or reductio (or argumentum) ad Nazium – dog Latin for "reduction (or argument) to Hitler (or the Nazis)" – is a modern informal fallacy in logic. It is a variety of both questionable cause and association fallacy....... Engaging in this fallacy is sometimes known as playing the Nazi card.[1][2]
The fallacy most often assumes the form of "Hitler (or the Nazis) supported X, therefore X must be evil/undesirable/bad".[2] The argument carries emotional weight as rhetoric, since in many cultures anything relating to Hitler or Nazis is automatically condemned. The tactic is often used to derail arguments, as such a comparison tends to distract and to result in angry and less reasoned responses." from Wikipedia
As regards Bishop Williamson, do you have that ON TAPE or IN PRINT? If not, it may be a distortion of what he said. Please confine yourself to proper sources.
3. Re the abuse of ecclesiatical authority and Clown masses:
You didn't answer my point. I never intended to imply that clown Masses took place in Ireland.
|
|
|
Post by monkeyman on Jul 11, 2008 17:43:31 GMT
Thank you, Alaisdir, for responding in a reasoned fashion. Monkeyman's non sequiturs, laughing and ad hominem arguments make it impossible to have a reasoned discussion. 1. Re the existence of a state of necessity and the Pope's interpretation of Canon Law, as well as the Pope's right to excommunicate:a) That a state of necessity existed at the time of the Consecrations, there is objectively speaking no doubt. Seminaries and catechesis were (and continue) to be rotten right through! Have you read Goodbye, Good Men for example? The faithful had the strict right to the Old Rite under Quo Primum, a fact that is now admitted, but was NOT admitted at the time. Even up to last September the only daily Tridentine Mass in Dublin, for example, was that of the SSPX! Monkeyman tries to reduce all these to a simple "viewpoint" of the Archbishop. There was no viewpoint about the set-up at all, when it was time to go to Mass on Sunday morning. There was no Old Rite Mass to go to. May I also point out that Cardinal Ottiviani, inter alia, pointed out the serious problems with the Novus Ordo. He was never corrected, to my knowledge; he could not be, because it is totally acceptable to state facts, except in Communist territories, where one must perhaps pretend that black is white if the authorities say so. Of course the Church has never been run this way. It's true that the heresy of automatic infallibility and illuminism is growing at the moment, as people get antsy if one makes even the slightest suggestion that the Pope can err in any shape or form. Sorry, people- he can! Our Lord founded the Church that way! Even humble lay folk are allowed to point out problems where no infallible teaching was concerned - how much more so a Prince of the Church. A scriptural precedent is St. Paul's rebuke of Peter; there are many more precedents in Church history. b) You say "Necessity has to be proven" but the canons I just quoted say that even if one thinks culpably that there is a state of necessity, no automatic sentence applies. The sentencing of Archbishop Lefebvre was an automatic one, therefore it does not apply if he thought, even CULPABLY, that there was a state of necessity. I gave the code numbers; what's the problem? Did you miss them, or do I err in my quotation? Check out the Code online, and get back to me if my quotation is wrong! You're asking me if the Pope made a mistake; well if the Canon says that he did, the Canon says that he did, not Secusia. I only mentioned Cardinal Lara to back up the point, but it's already clear. c.) No-one denies that the Pope has the right to excommunicate. Firstly, you are continuing to make no distinction between latae sententiae and ferendae sententiae excommunications. The first is automatic, and there is a list of sub-clauses which give circumstances where the penalty is NOT incurred, even though the act to which the penalty is attached be committed. Secondly, the Pope never has the right to impose an unfair excommunication, obviously, as no-one can have a right to be unfair (I am talking in general about the Pope and not about any one Pope here.) I already quoted a doctor of the Church on this so I'm not going to repeat it. (Incidentally, it is the Pope who declares a Doctor of the Church as a reliable teacher on faith and morals, so one cannot be accused of exercising private opinion when one quotes them.) The conclusion to be drawn here is that it is totally legitimate to discuss the actual incurring of a given excommunication, its validity, liceity and fairness. You continue to treat the excommunications as if they were a matter of faith, to which every Catholic is bound. This is a tyranny of consciences! The Pope's teaching - whether ex cathedra or ordinary infallible teaching - is binding on the faithful; his excommunications are NOT. Only when you have accepted this distinction, we get on with the rest of the discussion, as otherwise you are refusing to accept a Catholic principle taught, I repeat, by a doctor of the Church. Also, you refuse to address the issue of Athanasius. Whether the SSPX case is parallel to the case of Athanasius is a separate point; what is NOT a matter of debate is that the case CLEARLY shows that papal excommunications are not infallible. 2. On taking people's character and the reductio ad Hitlerum
Monkeyman, you must be down to the bottom of the barrel argument wise, when you start talking about Hitler. It is well known that the reference to Hitler is a serious logical error that prevents your argument from being taken seriously. On the basis of an alleged remark about a car- which I have yet to hear on tape or see in print - , you pass to the conclusion that the SSPX have an affection for Hitler! This is a clear reductio ad Hitlerum- "Reductio ad Hitlerum, also argumentum ad Hitlerum, or reductio (or argumentum) ad Nazium – dog Latin for "reduction (or argument) to Hitler (or the Nazis)" – is a modern informal fallacy in logic. It is a variety of both questionable cause and association fallacy....... Engaging in this fallacy is sometimes known as playing the Nazi card.[1][2] The fallacy most often assumes the form of "Hitler (or the Nazis) supported X, therefore X must be evil/undesirable/bad".[2] The argument carries emotional weight as rhetoric, since in many cultures anything relating to Hitler or Nazis is automatically condemned. The tactic is often used to derail arguments, as such a comparison tends to distract and to result in angry and less reasoned responses." from Wikipedia As regards Bishop Williamson, do you have that ON TAPE or IN PRINT? If not, it may be a distortion of what he said. Please confine yourself to proper sources. 3. Re the abuse of ecclesiatical authority and Clown masses:You didn't answer my point. I never intended to imply that clown Masses took place in Ireland. So you are now saying that I'm scraping the bottom of the barrel...not really you asked me about the allegations of Nazi sympathizing and holocaust denial and in relation to Dr Williamson I gave them. You should write to the Canadian governement on this matter and I'm sure they will clear up the matter as will the American if you choose to so. Quoting the code of canon law at Alaisdir is a bit ridiculous as neither 3 of us are competant. I would willing bet all my belongings on the veracity of what I've told you. I don't think I could convince you of anything though. You've also caved in to my side of the argument on the Mass...all pro SSPX literature from the last 25 years has been about the liturgy-over 90% so stop trying tosay its something else-for the clergy it maybe doctrinal but for the faithful who frequent their Masses its largely liturgical and based around the cult of Marcel Lefebvre. I have all the SSPX literature God knows theyve sent me enough of it over the years. As with Molagga on a different thread and I said it to him/her I'm not very impressed when someone lashes into latin when there is no need -we are all english speakers here. Why is it ok for you to suggest the following "Seminaries and catechesis were (and continue) to be rotten right through!" yet when I let you know of the serious problems in the SSPX it becomes bury the head in the sand time and like maccalister just glossover them. I should also state that I know of people in the SSPX priests and laity who are appalled by these attitudes but can do nothing to change it. I just found the following website which provides a small bit of information on this type of thing-its written by a guy called Matt Anger who was involved in these fascist political movements then converted to Catholicism and started to vear away from these harmful groups. Heres the link fringewatcher.blogspot.com/
|
|
|
Post by secusia on Jul 11, 2008 22:45:58 GMT
Well, monkeyman, I was not aware of the whole holocaust denial thing because it's never been mentioned in my hearing, being a question of history rather than of faith and morals. I didn't start lashing into Latin - there are some phrases that are used in English as a standard part of the language - et cetera being the most common example. Logical fallacies are commonly named in Latin -it's nothing to do with religion. I agree you wouldn't necessarily come across such phrases in everyday speech, but you do in debating - it's necessary. Hope this clears up any misunderstanding. To be honest, you really only gave one quote from Bishop Williamson and I asked if it were in print or on tape, as I don't trust quotes without a source. You also expect me to blindly trust the decision of the U.S. government and of the Canadian government, even though both are simply untrustworthy in the area of philosophy and religion. That does not equal burying my head in the sand. But frankly, I do think talking about fascism and stuff is unhelpful - often people call pro-lifers or anyone with a strong moral code, or people who are conservative politically, fascists. It's not really a way to open up discussion as the term is too emotionally charged. As regards the argument on Canon Law, I gave you the interpretation by a Canon Lawyer of the Pontifical Council, and I was told that that wouldn't wash, so I went back to the Canons themselves, and you say that none of us are competent to judge. I give up. I would like YOU, though, to explain why the Pope judged it necessary to have a Canon Lawyer at all, if you think he never requires help or expertise in this area. In fact, I think you (and Alaisdir) should explain in simple terms the following: the nature of the Papal office; what Papal infallibility means and what its limits are; why Doctors of the Church are so-called. There may be facts of which you are not aware. It's simply untrue to say that all SSPX literature is about the liturgy; to name just a few titles, what about "They have uncrowned Him", "Against the Heresies"; "Is Tradition Excommunicated?" to name just a few. HOW, precisely, have I caved into your side of the argument on the Mass? There is no "cult" around Marcel Lefebvre. I do believe he was a saint but that will be for the Church to pronounce or reject. You didn't bring up any serious problems within the SSPX - you gave an emotional and illogical criticism (based on hearsay?) about one priest and accused one of the bishops of anti-semitism, without giving what would objectively be considered proper evidence of same. You used this (mis?) information to cast doubt on the whole SSPX. And, in terms of Canon Law and the actual charges levelled at the SSPX bishops by the Vatican, you have been unable to sustain the charges of schism, excommunication and disobedience. Repeating "private judgement" like a mantra does not equal a counter argument. Finally, you persist in the allegation that the SSPX argument is all about the Mass, whereas at bottom it's all about the Faith - as any perusal of the above mentioned titles will reveal.
|
|
|
Post by Askel McThurkill on Jul 17, 2008 14:36:18 GMT
Its not up to Monkeyman to sustain charges of schism, excommunication and disobedience. The last is obvious to any objective observer: what is the SSPX if not in disobedience? The SSPX argument is that this disobedience is justifiable and justified. If the bishops are not excommunicated, why are they asking the pope to set them aside? The charge of schism stems from both of these two. And if you have ruled yourself out of attending any NO Mass or any 'legitimised' EF Mass, then you need to produce your own justification of schism.
Believe me, if the SSPX crisis is removed from the church for more than one generation, it will rapidly lose its present Catholic character as Monkeyman has predicted.
|
|
|
Post by monkeyman on Jul 17, 2008 22:05:34 GMT
Well, monkeyman, I was not aware of the whole holocaust denial thing because it's never been mentioned in my hearing, being a question of history rather than of faith and morals. I didn't start lashing into Latin - there are some phrases that are used in English as a standard part of the language - et cetera being the most common example. Logical fallacies are commonly named in Latin -it's nothing to do with religion. I agree you wouldn't necessarily come across such phrases in everyday speech, but you do in debating - it's necessary. Hope this clears up any misunderstanding. To be honest, you really only gave one quote from Bishop Williamson and I asked if it were in print or on tape, as I don't trust quotes without a source. You also expect me to blindly trust the decision of the U.S. government and of the Canadian government, even though both are simply untrustworthy in the area of philosophy and religion. That does not equal burying my head in the sand. But frankly, I do think talking about fascism and stuff is unhelpful - often people call pro-lifers or anyone with a strong moral code, or people who are conservative politically, fascists. It's not really a way to open up discussion as the term is too emotionally charged. As regards the argument on Canon Law, I gave you the interpretation by a Canon Lawyer of the Pontifical Council, and I was told that that wouldn't wash, so I went back to the Canons themselves, and you say that none of us are competent to judge. I give up. I would like YOU, though, to explain why the Pope judged it necessary to have a Canon Lawyer at all, if you think he never requires help or expertise in this area. In fact, I think you (and Alaisdir) should explain in simple terms the following: the nature of the Papal office; what Papal infallibility means and what its limits are; why Doctors of the Church are so-called. There may be facts of which you are not aware. It's simply untrue to say that all SSPX literature is about the liturgy; to name just a few titles, what about "They have uncrowned Him", "Against the Heresies"; "Is Tradition Excommunicated?" to name just a few. HOW, precisely, have I caved into your side of the argument on the Mass? There is no "cult" around Marcel Lefebvre. I do believe he was a saint but that will be for the Church to pronounce or reject. You didn't bring up any serious problems within the SSPX - you gave an emotional and illogical criticism (based on hearsay?) about one priest and accused one of the bishops of anti-semitism, without giving what would objectively be considered proper evidence of same. You used this (mis?) information to cast doubt on the whole SSPX. And, in terms of Canon Law and the actual charges levelled at the SSPX bishops by the Vatican, you have been unable to sustain the charges of schism, excommunication and disobedience. Repeating "private judgement" like a mantra does not equal a counter argument. Finally, you persist in the allegation that the SSPX argument is all about the Mass, whereas at bottom it's all about the Faith - as any perusal of the above mentioned titles will reveal. Its funny that isnt it..the whole thing about trusting the civil authority?? especially since the SSPX existence in the United States relies hard on the on the principle of religious freedom-had all this taken place several hundred years ago on mainland of Europe Archbishop Lefebvre would likely and rightly have been burnt at the stake. Its quite extraordinary I'm the one backing the Church while you are taking a traditional protestant stance of private judgement and even having recourse to the great historic argument which they always use against the Church...St Athanasius. Very predictable. Also with regard to the pro SSPX literature you mention only books though in order to convince faithful the SSPX use mass-produced leaflets regading the liturgy (eg Campos profession 62 reasons why we cannot attend the New Mass)this all plays to the faithfuls concerns over the last 35 years regarding the Mass-the SSPX would never attract any adherants on the basis of doctrine alone. I'm convinced that if they dont make an agreement with the Holy See soon they will be but a footnote in Church history.
|
|
|
Post by monkeyman on Jul 17, 2008 22:18:51 GMT
For you secusia maybe the term fascist is too charged but we have all been labelled this at some stage. You are ignoring what I've told you/chosen to turn a blind eye regading the fascism working within the SSPX-why? because its indefensible. This is real fascism. Lefties,liberals use the term to quickly stop all discussion- as you can see I havent done that as I have provided you with information supporting charges of neo-fascist thinking in several forms and I havent even started-I could provide you with heaps more.
|
|
|
Post by monkeyman on Jul 17, 2008 22:34:07 GMT
Well, monkeyman, I was not aware of the whole holocaust denial thing because it's never been mentioned in my hearing, being a question of history rather than of faith and morals. I didn't start lashing into Latin - there are some phrases that are used in English as a standard part of the language - et cetera being the most common example. Logical fallacies are commonly named in Latin -it's nothing to do with religion. I agree you wouldn't necessarily come across such phrases in everyday speech, but you do in debating - it's necessary. Hope this clears up any misunderstanding. To be honest, you really only gave one quote from Bishop Williamson and I asked if it were in print or on tape, as I don't trust quotes without a source. You also expect me to blindly trust the decision of the U.S. government and of the Canadian government, even though both are simply untrustworthy in the area of philosophy and religion. That does not equal burying my head in the sand. But frankly, I do think talking about fascism and stuff is unhelpful - often people call pro-lifers or anyone with a strong moral code, or people who are conservative politically, fascists. It's not really a way to open up discussion as the term is too emotionally charged. As regards the argument on Canon Law, I gave you the interpretation by a Canon Lawyer of the Pontifical Council, and I was told that that wouldn't wash, so I went back to the Canons themselves, and you say that none of us are competent to judge. I give up. I would like YOU, though, to explain why the Pope judged it necessary to have a Canon Lawyer at all, if you think he never requires help or expertise in this area. In fact, I think you (and Alaisdir) should explain in simple terms the following: the nature of the Papal office; what Papal infallibility means and what its limits are; why Doctors of the Church are so-called. There may be facts of which you are not aware. It's simply untrue to say that all SSPX literature is about the liturgy; to name just a few titles, what about "They have uncrowned Him", "Against the Heresies"; "Is Tradition Excommunicated?" to name just a few. HOW, precisely, have I caved into your side of the argument on the Mass? There is no "cult" around Marcel Lefebvre. I do believe he was a saint but that will be for the Church to pronounce or reject. You didn't bring up any serious problems within the SSPX - you gave an emotional and illogical criticism (based on hearsay?) about one priest and accused one of the bishops of anti-semitism, without giving what would objectively be considered proper evidence of same. You used this (mis?) information to cast doubt on the whole SSPX. And, in terms of Canon Law and the actual charges levelled at the SSPX bishops by the Vatican, you have been unable to sustain the charges of schism, excommunication and disobedience. Repeating "private judgement" like a mantra does not equal a counter argument. Finally, you persist in the allegation that the SSPX argument is all about the Mass, whereas at bottom it's all about the Faith - as any perusal of the above mentioned titles will reveal. You don't blindly trust the authority set over the canadian people-well thats fine since you are not a citizen but conversely why do you blindy trust a man or implicitly accept him to be of honest character who put himself forward for elevation to the episcopacy even against the express wish of the vicar of Christ and then for him to have recourse to Church law over the mind of the Pope yet who is the guarantor of the liturgy, unity and purity of the faith and also the maker of the law unto which the aforementioned individual is having recourse to??? I 'll leave you to answer that.
|
|
|
Post by royalosiodhachain on Jul 18, 2008 19:12:10 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. 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. Monkeyman, Your information is of null effect, Pope Benedict XVI already received the order of Pius X back into full communion along with the admission of guilt and wrongdoing done by Bishop Lefabre and furthermore agreed to conditions of renouncing the errors created by his disobedience. Have one free banana and put it on my bar tab!
|
|
|
Post by guillaume on Jul 19, 2008 5:40:42 GMT
Monkeyman, Your information is of null effect, Pope Benedict XVI already received the order of Pius X back into full communion along with the admission of guilt and wrongdoing done by Bishop Lefabre and furthermore agreed to conditions of renouncing the errors created by his disobedience. Have one free banana and put it on my bar tab! Breaking news Royal ! where did you get those informations from ?
|
|
|
Post by guillaume on Jul 19, 2008 6:22:14 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. 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. Perfidious means faithless and disloyal. The jews, regarding the existence of Jesus, the Incarnation and the fact He is the Son of God, God, Second Person of the Trinity, Messiah and Savior, indeed had showed their perfidy : their lack of faith and disloyalty regarding the Truth. Disloyalty and betrayal regarding also their role as the elected people. Disloyal to the One who introduced Himself to them first, via Abraham, Moses and all the Prophets. And then, sent his Son to save the whole humanity, and they rejected Him. rejected Him, they rejected the One, Yahvee, who had been to His people for so long, delivered them from multiple perils, in particular from slavery in Egypt. In this sense, the Jewish people had been perfidious, faithless and disloyal to God. This word had been used by many popes, priests and Saints for years. And there is nothing wrong with it. There is nothing wrong also for the SPPX to keep it - according to the Tradition - in the Good Friday prayer.
|
|
|
Post by monkeyman on Jul 22, 2008 19:17:19 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. 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. Monkeyman, Your information is of null effect, Pope Benedict XVI already received the order of Pius X back into full communion along with the admission of guilt and wrongdoing done by Bishop Lefabre and furthermore agreed to conditions of renouncing the errors created by his disobedience. Have one free banana and put it on my bar tab! Where the devil did you get that information- I suspect its wrong...if what you say is true would just prove my point that the leaders of the Order/movement are in an objective state of schism...theres no point quoting canon law when the Pope himself is of this opinion-the Church isnt a democracy. By the way, bananas are usually cut from a tree and not comsumed then in a liscensed premises
|
|