|
Post by falconer on Jul 6, 2008 19:22:43 GMT
I can't speak for Monkeyman, but I'm reminded of the "Old Catholic Church" which went into schism after Papal Infallibility was proclaimed as a doctrine, and is now more or less indistinguishable from liberal Episcopalianism. Thanks Michael for making my point...re Old Catholics...set oneself adrift from the barque of Peter and all these funny notions will soon be embraced...SSPX would be no different. When I glanced over that quick I thought it said "the barbque (bar-b-q) of saint peter and I thought it was new gimmick to get people in with burgers and hot dogs.....
|
|
|
Post by Michael O'Donovan on Jul 6, 2008 19:29:22 GMT
When I glanced over that quick I thought it said "the barbque (bar-b-q) of saint peter and I thought it was new gimmick to get people in with burgers and hot dogs..... No, that's the Church of Ireland (which is kind of what you keep asking for; a lot of nice people with no real beliefs to speak of).
|
|
|
Post by mcallister on Jul 6, 2008 21:56:08 GMT
Secusia has made some excellent points in reaction to the accusations of schism, which neither monkeyman nor anyone else has attempted to answer.
|
|
|
Post by secusia on Jul 6, 2008 23:00:17 GMT
Yes, Monkeyman, you have stated your point that the SSPX are in your opinion adrift from the Church. What you have not been able to do is address my reply which shows how the SSPX is NOT in schism. if you can't answer the points, you should withdraw your accusation, as schism is a very VERY serious accusation.
|
|
|
Post by secusia on Jul 6, 2008 23:08:05 GMT
OH my goodness I have just read monkeyman's diatribe against the SSPX in general and Bishop Williamson in particular. Can you please provide proof of their disobedience to civil authority, their "hatred" of Jews, their unholy alliances with neo-pagans? because if you don't have proof, it is a MORTAL sin of slander to say these things, and the etc. Mr. Moderator, I ask basic justice for the SSPX. Should these criticisms be allowed to pass in a public forum, without proof? Character restitution may need to be made here!
|
|
|
Post by monkeyman on Jul 7, 2008 17:27:34 GMT
OH my goodness I have just read monkeyman's diatribe against the SSPX in general and Bishop Williamson in particular. Can you please provide proof of their disobedience to civil authority, their "hatred" of Jews, their unholy alliances with neo-pagans? because if you don't have proof, it is a MORTAL sin of slander to say these things, and the etc. Mr. Moderator, I ask basic justice for the SSPX. Should these criticisms be allowed to pass in a public forum, without proof? Character restitution may need to be made here! No it is not slander secusia and be very very careful how you bandy about that term. The sins of the SSPX are in the public domain...you are aware for example that Bishop Williamson isnt allowed into Canada on charges anti-semitism? How many Bishops of the Catholic Church can be said to be guilty of the same? So the fact that an Italian SSPX priest stood for election under Roberto Fiores party in Italy a few years ago doesnt mean they havent made alliances with neo-pagans??? Lets have a ding dong battle on this....Oh i havent addressed the charge of schism yet because it doesnt extend beyond the "mortal sins" of the 4 bishops. You do know they are excommunicated dont you?
|
|
|
Post by monkeyman on Jul 7, 2008 17:36:06 GMT
Character restitution? ? Dont make me laugh when every adherant of the SSPX begs forgiveness of the Vicar of Christ for the manner in which they have abused and spoken of him in the last 30 years then maybe we could work out something. I'm not going to make any excuses for defending the Church against the slander she has suffered at the hands of the SSPX.
|
|
|
Post by monkeyman on Jul 7, 2008 19:09:37 GMT
Seems to be some confusion here.... Cardinal Cassidy clarified in 1994 "The situation of the members of this Society [SSPX] is an internal matter of the Catholic Church." Now, if the SSPX were in schism, how could it be an "internal matter"? Schism, by definition, cuts one OFF from the Church. No-one denies that the SSPX refuses to obey some orders. (Sometimes true obedience means refusing to carry out the order given - see St. Teresa of Avila on this point. She tells the rather hilarious story of nuns who had to be restrained from committing sins because they were ordered to sin by their superiors - e.g. the nun who was ordered to go jump in a well.) However, even truly sinful disobedience does not make a schism. Schismatics must refuse submission to the Roman Pontiff or communion with her members subject to him. Now, if I refuse to acknowledge the Pope as my superior and the Vicar of Christ, I am indeed schismatic; but if I refuse to obey him in a particular matter (such as fasting if he makes a law to that effect) I commit a sin of disobedience, but I don't repudiate his authority. Again, the SSPX don't say that they are the only Catholics (which would make them at least suspect of schism.) They simply say (a fact we all know) that many of the laity and hierarchy are at least in material error. So where's the schism? Consecration to the episcopate without Papal mandate and against the express will of the Pope does contstitute an overt schismatic act...its funny I never charged the SSPX with schism in this thread...read carefully would you from now on please would you? So you mean the fac that other people are in error nullifies their actions. Very faulty logic. One never judges ones own actions in relation to others. We will all be judged singularly.
|
|
|
Post by secusia on Jul 7, 2008 23:03:32 GMT
So which is it then monkeyman? Are you accusing them of schism, or aren't you? You just said that they committed an "overt schismatic act" (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.) Then in the next line, you say you never accused them of schism. Well, I simply ask a fair minded reader to read what you did post and decide whether or not you accused the SSPX of schism:
For those outside the society (and within the Church!) they seem like Protestants- one should not overlook this impression. ...if they don't do a deal now they never will...and they'll just become the 21st centuries "Old Catholic". In fact theres an interesting thought...say they never reconcile? if one projects into the future and imagines what the SSPX will be like in 100year...women priests? contraception? divorce?...i'd say they'd imbrace all these....Thanks Michael for making my point...(Michael's point: I can't speak for Monkeyman, but I'm reminded of the "Old Catholic Church" which went into schism after Papal Infallibility was proclaimed as a doctrine, and is now more or less indistinguishable from liberal Episcopalianism. ) re Old Catholics...set oneself adrift from the barque of Peter and all these funny notions will soon be embraced...SSPX would be no different....Consecration to the episcopate without Papal mandate and against the express will of the Pope does contstitute an overt schismatic act...
I detect charges of schism in there. Actually, though, I didn't originally blame you for that - of course you think it's a schism, and certainly in 1988 you had powerful figures agreeing with you - but merely for refusing to respond in a reasoned way to my defence of the SSPX against charges of schism. I think that in 1988 and even after, it was much more understandable to say the SSPX was in schism, but I think in fairness we should all re-examine that now. For instance, we know that for years the SSPX was saying that the Mass was not abrogated, and Rome continues to insist that permission was necessary. Now Rome has done an about-turn (Congrats Pope Benedict) and maintains the truth - it's never been abrogated. Wouldn't fairness alone suggest that we look at the issue?
I continue to blame you for saying the following:
....but their politics is what chiefly defines them (the SSPX) now.-NO to Rome, NO to the civil authority placed over them by God,...and yes to Jew-hating, Nazi-sympathizing, holocaust denying, yes to rampant paranoia, yes to fascist political parties, unholy alliances with neo-pagans, white supremists etc .............
This is completely unacceptable, and IF (note well the IF) you don't have proof, it IS slander. If you have proof, please produce it, or scratch your comments from the thread. Can you show me a statement or fact, which shows that the SSPX hates Jews, sympathises with Nazis, denies the holocaust (wha'?) I can't speak for their alliances with neo-pagans. (By the way, iI'd like to point out that, as in the anti-Lisbon campaign, one sometimes is on the same side as undesirable political parties- it does not constitute an "unholy alliance" but merely co-operation in one particular goal.) 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. But give us a break with the Canadian government, will you? Like this is one of the most anti-Catholic countries going. Were not they the first (or one of the first) to legalise certain practices like abortion and same-sex marriage? Do you really expect them to roll out the red rug for Bishop Williamson? In fact, if Canada does not admit B. Williamson, I begin to like B. Williamson more.
|
|
|
Post by monkeyman on Jul 7, 2008 23:28:55 GMT
Well if thats your reasoning then I really feel for you...why you would want go by an oratorian priest over the supreme legislator in the Church-the Pope is anyones guess..the truth is you want to believe the SSPX and you want to believe the Church is somehow in error otherwise you wouldnt be quoting that stuff at me. Pope John Paul II declared that Lefebvre had excommunicated himself by his act along with Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer his co-consecrator plus the 4 lads. At no stage did they in the aftermath present themselves to the Roman authorities which they are obliged to do. The reality is and this is the story from seminarians in ÉCONE at the time, is that Lefebvre was all but sede-vacantist himself. Your attitude to the Canadian goevernment despite their woeful sins against God proves my point with regard to their(the sspx) disdain for civil authority as I suspect you are an admirer/devotee/closet follower of the SSPX. Also Bishop Williamson wouldnt approve of you debating this with me since he thinks women don't have the use of reason...and I'm quoting from sermon there...I've no problem in addressing anything else but it isnt the best policy to suppose that I accuse the SSPX of schism as a whole since it is but a priestly society governed by a man elevated to the episcopacy. I did say that it didnt extend beyond them officialy but I do think that many of the Catholic faithful who follow them are committing the sin of schism...yes of course...I've talked to these people. They say the Lord is'nt present in the tabernacles in the diocesan Churches, that priests might'nt be ordained validly-that in fact makes the reality worse...it makes them at least material heretics. As I said these facts are in the public domain...the SSPX have been slandering the pontificates of Blessed John XXIII, Paul VI and John Paul II.Its amzing you presume that because I have information about the SSPX that somehow I don't act in good faith...it would strike me that whatever I told you it wouldnt matter. Its pretty obvious the SSPX hates Jews- I'll address it tomorrow.They rejected the reformulation of the Good Friday prayer for the Jews.
|
|
|
Post by monkeyman on Jul 7, 2008 23:59:09 GMT
Yes, Monkeyman, you have stated your point that the SSPX are in your opinion adrift from the Church. What you have not been able to do is address my reply which shows how the SSPX is NOT in schism. if you can't answer the points, you should withdraw your accusation, as schism is a very VERY serious accusation. You are hilarious secusia!! which part of Ecclesia Dei adflicta did you not understand? When Cardinal Hoyos says the SSPX are not in schism he is talking about their priests and faithful. It was only 2 days ago that Fr Lombardi the Vatican press secretary explained to the french press that the 4 Bishops are excommunicated, the priests licity ordained but suspended and that the faithful are considered Catholics.
|
|
|
Post by monkeyman on Jul 8, 2008 0:03:02 GMT
Thanks Michael for making my point...re Old Catholics...set oneself adrift from the barque of Peter and all these funny notions will soon be embraced...SSPX would be no different. When I glanced over that quick I thought it said "the barbque (bar-b-q) of saint peter and I thought it was new gimmick to get people in with burgers and hot dogs..... The truth(Jesus Christ) shall set you free-the Church proclaims this Falconer unashamedly. It has no need of waffles and burgers...the truth attracts. With the help of God you might realise that some day.
|
|
|
Post by secusia on Jul 8, 2008 0:11:22 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. Therefore, I am quite at liberty, as a Catholic, to study and spread the idea that the Pope made a mistake in declaring the Bishops of the SSPX excommunicated from schism. I seem to recall another individual excommunicated by the Pope....oh yes, St. Athanasius. Monkeyman, these things do happen. Actually it's only in our century (and the previous one) that Catholics seem to think that the Pope 's statements and decisions are automatically infallible, or at least that one can never go wrong by obeying them. Monkeyman, I used to think too that the Pope could not make an error of this kind, but I simply had to change my mind when confronted by Church doctrine and history. This excessive interpretation of papal infallibility is simply not Catholic teaching. In fact, one far-seeing Father at the First Vatican Council "proposed a canon stating: "If anyone says that the authority of the Pope in the Church is so full that he may dispose of everything by his mere whim, let him be anathema." He was told that the Fathers had not come to Rome "to hear buffooneries."" (Michael Davies, Apologia pro Marcel Lefebvre). You say I'm a closet follower of the SSPX. 1. Who needs a closet? I'm not, Deo Gartias a heretic or schismatic by supporting the SSPX. 2. I'm a follower of Our Lord and His Church, which is still catholic, universal, not confined to the SSPX (nor would they ever, ever preach that it was so confined.) But yes, the SSPX certainly teach the full truth, including ones that are not frequently taught at the Novus Ordo parishes, e.g., extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the existence of hell, the necessity of respect for the sacramental species, etc. Also, Archbishop Lefebvre forbade SSPX priests to profess sedevacantism and rejected it himself. Yes, it's entirely possible that some (a minority, probably) of the SSPX faithful are at least material schismatics or heretics. That's not the SSPX's fault though. There will always be error and sin, especially when so many of the hierarchy neglect their flocks. Lots of the Novus Ordo faithful are material heretics, probably - try asking them about some of the above dogmas. But the examples which you pick are not sufficient for material heresy or schism. Matter, form, and intention (to do what the Church does) are required to confect a Sacrament and one may be allowed to doubt the intention of some priests trained after Vatican 2. Also, sometimes the correct words are not used, as in the substitution of "for all" instead of "for many". Documented cases of invalid matter have been found (don't know about Ireland, in this case.). Therefore, it's entirely reasonable to hold that the hosts in the tabernacles MAY be invalidly consecrated, and that therefore Our Lord MAY not be present. It's not ok to say that He is never present, automatically, by reason of using the New Rite. I agree with you there. But like everywhere, the faithful get mixed up, confused, or pick up doctrine badly. Incidentally, my local SSPX priest sings Oremus pro Pontifice with gusto and rejected without a second's delay, a suggestion that the Novus Ordo is automatically invalid. I would say Bishop Williamson would approve in the circumstances, ha ha. After all, I'm defending him! You know, not everything the SSPX bishops say over a coffee or in a muse is to be taken as dogma! But hey, give me B.W. over a modernist Bishop any time... at least he would listen to my legitimate concerns about liturgy and catechesis.
|
|
|
Post by secusia on Jul 8, 2008 0:35:03 GMT
You are hilarious secusia!! which part of Ecclesia Dei adflicta did you not understand? [/quote] 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.
|
|
|
Post by mcallister on Jul 8, 2008 9:20:06 GMT
Interesting - I once heard Fr. Corapi talk about the Canadian government. I don't think it's just the SSPX have a problem. Have you any issues with Fr. Corapi?
|
|