philosopher

Declaration of War: Francis' Two-Stage Fight Against Summorum Pontificum

@Ultraviolet "A whole bunch of mine (three Popes and counting) have stated in one form or another, the SSPX and its priests, have yet to return to "full communion" with The Church. Since not being in "full communion" is the same Church classification used to describe the schismatic orthodox, it seems fair to say The Church applies it evenly to other schismatics as well."

Until I see a formal…More
@Ultraviolet "A whole bunch of mine (three Popes and counting) have stated in one form or another, the SSPX and its priests, have yet to return to "full communion" with The Church. Since not being in "full communion" is the same Church classification used to describe the schismatic orthodox, it seems fair to say The Church applies it evenly to other schismatics as well."

Until I see a formal written declaration ex cathedra by the Pope that the "order" (and not comments about individual bishops) is excommunicated and any Catholic will be excommunicated by assisting their masses, I will continue to support them. The 4 bishops that received a latae sententiae excommunication, was revoked and recended by Pope Benedict. There are no SSPX priests that have been excommunicated for schism.

The following excerpt is from a noted Vatican Canon lawyer, and he is neither a SSPX priest nor has he been excommunicated for schism.

"This study by Fr. Thomas C. Glover, JCD is extracted from the book, Is Tradition Excommunicated?, though first published in the November 1988 issue of The Northern Catholic. Fr. Glover is an English Oratorian and Doctor of Canon Law who worked at the Vatican for many years. He also served as a professor of Canon Law at the SSPX’s Econe seminary.

Voices are heard saying that Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop de Castro Mayer, together with the four bishops they consecrated on June 30, 1988, have been excommunicated for schism. The same voices also say that all the priests of the Society of St. Pius X, and all the laity who support them or attend their Masses, are automatically excommunicated for schism. Generally, they ignore the fact that there are plenty of traditional priests running Mass centers who are not members of the Society of St. Pius X, and include these as schismatics and so excommunicated. The facts do not support them.

There is no dispute that the episcopal consecrations took place without a pontifical mandate─that is, without the pope's permission and indeed against his express wishes. Canon 1382 states that a bishop who consecrates another without a pontifical mandate incurs excommunication latae sententiae, and the priest who allows himself to be consecrated a bishop incurs it likewise. Excommunication is of two types: latae sententiae and ferendae sententiae. The first type is often called automatic, as the delinquent incurs it simply by committing the offense specified in the law, whereas the second type requires the intervention of a judge or superior to impose the penalty.

On July 1, 1988, the Prefect of the Sacred Congregation of Bishops (the old Consistorial Congregation) issued a decree declaring that all six bishops were excommunicated. As the penalty is latae sententiae, this is not a condemnatory sentence imposing a penalty but a declaratory sentence saying that the penalty has been incurred by the violation of the penal law in question. To many, this will seem the end of the matter: the six bishops broke a law of whose existence all were aware and which carries with it automatic excommunication. This is not so.

First, no penalty is ever incurred without grave moral imputability (Canon 1323.7). This means, in the moral theologian's terminology, subjective mortal sin. The archbishop has made it clear many times that his primary purpose in consecrating successors is to ensure a future supply of traditional priests to provide the laity with Mass and the sacraments. He acted only after years of thought, and many months of protracted negotiations with the Holy See; and a similar intention and careful consideration can be discerned in the other five bishops. Even if the final decision is judged a mistake, it cannot amount to subjective mortal sin.

Secondly, Canon1323.4 states that even where an offense carrying a penalty has been committed, the penalty is not incurred if the act was performed out of necessity─unless it be something intrinsically evil or damaging to souls. Again, it is clear that it was the necessity of providing for a future supply of traditional priests which caused the archbishop and his co-consecrator to act as they did, after all hope for a "reconciliation" with Rome had proved groundless.

There is a very old "rule of law" (Regula iuris 15) which gives the benefit of any doubt in cases of penal law: Odia restringi, et Javores convenit ampliari. In other words, if there is a doubt whether a penalty has been incurred in a particular case, it means that is has not been incurred. It is not, therefore, necessary to prove that the Consecrations were morally innocent and done under necessity; it is enough to show sufficient serious arguments to establish that there is a doubt. So the six bishops are not excommunicated under Canon 1382.

But the decree of the Sacred Congregation for Bishops goes further by declaring the six bishops to be schismatics and so also automatically excommunicated under Canon 1364.1. It further warns the faithful that if they support "the schism of Archbishop Lefebvre, they too will be ipso facto excommunicated." This charge involves a large and unjustified mental leap. It is made by the pope in his apostolic letter Ecclesia Dei of July 2, 1988. Speaking of the consecrations, he writes:

In itself, this act was one of disobedience to the Roman Pontiff in a very grave matter and of supreme importance for the unity of the Church, such as is the ordination of bishops whereby the apostolic succession is sacramentally perpetuated. Hence such disobedience─which implied in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy─constitutes a schismatic act."

It does nothing of the sort. Schism, defined in Canon 751, means refusal of subjection to the supreme pontiff or refusal of communion with other members of the Church. A mere act of disobedience to a superior does not imply denial that the superior holds office or has authority. The child who says, "I won't!" to his mother does not deny that she is his mother; the soldier ordered to polish his buttons by his officer, who instead smokes a cigarette, is not denying the validity of the Queen's commission. Again, for the charge of "schism" to stick, it must be certain beyond all reasonable doubt. In a word, the six bishops have not incurred excommunication for schism, so those who adhere to them cannot be excommunicated either. There is indeed more muddled thinking here.

The phrases "followers of Archbishop Lefebvre," "Lefebvrist Mass centers," "Lefebvre priests" are frequently used. They imply that Archbishop Lefebvre is the head of the Society of St. Pius X. He is not. Fr. Schmidberger has been superior general for five years and has district superiors under him. Even if the six bishops had been excommunicated for illegal consecrations and schism, it would not in itself affect the others. If a retired Benedictine bishop were to be excommunicated, it would not mean that Benedictines throughout the world, and those who hear Mass in Benedictine churches, were excommunicated. Excommunication is a penalty for those who commit certain crimes with full moral guilt, not a contagious disease!

The point may seem academic: to support a schismatic against the pope and "adhere" to him is to join in his schism. But we have shown that the charge of schism will not stick. Even if it did, it would not automatically involve the laity who attend Mass centers in excommunication. Canon 844.2 allows the faithful to seek the Sacraments of Communion, Penance and Extreme Unction even from non-Catholic ministers (provided their orders are valid) if it is physically or morally impossible to go to a Catholic minister. This canon has caused great scandal among traditional Catholics but it is, of course, accepted by the pope! Even the old Code allowed access to an excommunicated priest in certain cases of necessity.

And there is no doubt that it is often physically impossible to receive traditional sacraments, except from a priest who supports the actions of Archbishop Lefebvre. This does lead to another point. Traditional Catholics have become used to defending their actions, justifying their attendance at Masses not authorized by the local bishop, and so on. This article is written in a similar strain, showing on the basis of canon law that the six bishops are not excommunicated either for illegal consecrations or schism, and in consequence, that other traditional priests and lay people are not excommunicated either. But it is a mistake to leave the question on this defensive note.

It is for the pope and bishops to justify their actions. They have abandoned the traditional rites of Mass and the sacraments─they have allowed heresy to be taught and abuse to abound throughout the Church. Traditional Catholics have merely remained faithful to what the Church has always taught and done, and this fidelity to Tradition is the sole cause of all their problems with authority. We now have the ludicrous episode of the Holy See condemning six bishops in the Church who are clearly Catholics! There may be plenty of others, but their Catholicism is no longer manifest, and their attitude over the past 20 years puts it in doubt.

It is now for the pope and those who claim to be "faithful" to him to explain their actions and to show that they are still Catholics. The six bishops involved in the events of June 30 have made their orthodoxy clear."

print

Maybe you were being faciteous but I think you knew what I meant: "there is still another distinction between the Schism of the the Orthodox and (the irregular canonical situation of the) SSPX."

However Canon Law at that time DID say in Can. 1382 "A bishop who consecrates some one a bishop without a pontifical mandate and the person who receives the consecration from him incur a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See."

Interestingly, Archbishop Vigano

"comments on the situation of the Society of St. Pius X with regard to its relationship with the Vatican. Unlike with the Franciscans of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, who had been more and more inclined to embrace the traditional liturgy and whose order has been essentially destroyed by Pope Francis, the SSPX still has a certain institutional independence from the Vatican. For Viganò, this seems to be a positive thing in light of the current papacy:

With regard to the Society of St. Pius X, we are witnessing a more subtle maneuver: Bergoglio maintains “good neighborly” relations, and while recognizing certain prerogatives of its Superiors — thus demonstrating that he considers them living members of the Church — on the other hand he may want to barter their complete canonical regularization for an acceptance of the “conciliar magisterium.” It is clear that this is an insidious trap: once an agreement is signed with the Holy See, the independence which the Society enjoys in virtue of its position of not being completely regular would be lost, and with it, its economic independence. Let us not forget that the Society has assets and resources that guarantee sustenance and security for its members. At a time when the Vatican is experiencing a serious financial crisis, those assets are certainly enticing to many, as we have seen in other cases, starting with the Franciscans of the Immaculate, and the persecution of Father Mannelli."

(interview, Abp. Viganò discusses ‘failure’ of Vatican II, Novus Ordo Mass, Life Site News)

Just my opinion, but if Vigano is correct, now is not the right time under the present pope for full regularization.
kaoshispano1

¿Justificación homosexual en la Iglesia?

SODOMA clerical NEVER thanks
Klaus Elmar Müller

Throw Away Your JP II Catechism NOW!

@Joseph a' Christian Wojtyla is a Saint, has never been a "false pope". Take care, that You are not in the hands of Satan! Your words don't come from a good spirit. That pope John-Paul did kiss the Koran, was only because of a sentimal joy about a gift; Polish people are very polite and emotional.
Prayhard

SSPX Theatens To Sue CM

Mrs Niles, fag hag and Garry need to be sued for all their lies and calumny against priests.
Prayhard

Conquered Cardinal Excited About "Drag Queen" Performer At His Eucharist

A pencil necked lisper.
Prayhard

Cordileone Won’t Do It For the Sake of "Unity"

He should be happy the early Christians chose martyrdom over this false unity.
Prayhard

Bishop Wants "to Get Rid of This Fascist"

The Bazilian bishops seem to be quite a crew of fags and heretics.
John A Cassani

John Stewart on the wuhan lab leak truth Stephen Colbert

He was certainly a liberal, but he was never hateful, and he was really funny. His criticisms of Bush from many years ago would probably be cheered by today’s conservatives. It’s good to see that he can still tell the truth.
Eva

Ein heißes Eisen und eine Falschmeldung

Mafia. Pädophilie.
Live Mike

Communist Infiltration of the Church???

On 15 July 1946, Catholic historian Professor William Thomas Walsh interviewed Sister Lucia at her convent of the Dorothean Sisters at Vilar, Portugal. This interview clearly demonstrates that Our Lady’s request for the Consecration of Russia will only be fulfilled when the Pope and together with the world’s Catholic bishops consecrate specifically Russia.
"Sister Lucia made it plain that Our …
More
On 15 July 1946, Catholic historian Professor William Thomas Walsh interviewed Sister Lucia at her convent of the Dorothean Sisters at Vilar, Portugal. This interview clearly demonstrates that Our Lady’s request for the Consecration of Russia will only be fulfilled when the Pope and together with the world’s Catholic bishops consecrate specifically Russia.
"Sister Lucia made it plain that Our Lady did not ask for the consecration of the world to Her Immaculate Heart. What She [Our Lady] demanded specifically was the consecration of Russia. Sister Lucia stated more than once and with deliberate emphasis: ‘What Our Lady wants is that the Pope and all the bishops in the world shall consecrate Russia to Her Immaculate Heart on one special day. If this is done, She will convert Russia and there will be peace. If it is not done, the errors of Russia will spread through every country in the world’.”

Professor Walsh asked, "Does this mean, in your opinion, that every country [including the United States of America and the Vatican City State], without exception, will be overcome by Communism?"
Sister Lucia replied, "Yes." [this was her precise answer] - William Thomas Walsh, Our Lady of Fatima 4th printing, (1947) p. 226; See also Louis Kaczmarek, The Wonders She Performs, 1986, p. 160

---------------------------------------
There is the little-known revelation of Our Lady of Fatima to Sister Lucia in the early 1950s. Our Lady appeared to Sister Lucy in May 1952 and said: “Make it known to the Holy Father that I am always awaiting the Consecration of Russia to My Immaculate Heart. Without that Consecration, Russia will not be able to convert, nor will the world have peace.”- Il Pellegrinaggio Della Meraviglie, p. 440. Rome, 1960. This same work, published under the auspices of the Italian episcopate, affirms that this message was communicated to Pope Pius XII in June. Also, Canon Barthas mentioned that apparition in his communication to the Mariological Congress of Lisbon-Fatima, in 1967; see De Primoridiis cultus marianae, Acta congressus mariologici-mariana in Lusitania anno 1967 celebrati, p. 517. Rome, 1970. See Frère François de Marie des Anges, Fatima: Intimate Joy World Event, Book Four, Fatima: Tragedy and Triumph, pp. 21 and 37.
---------------------------------------

Russia has not embraced the Catholic Faith and thus cannot possibly be said to have converted. Father Joaquin Alonso, probably the foremost Fatima expert of the 20th Century, had many interviews with Sister Lucy.
In 1976 he wrote: “... we should affirm that Sister Lucia always thought that the ‘conversion’ of Russia is not to be limited to the return of the Russian people to the Orthodox Christian religions, rejecting the Marxist atheism of the Soviets, but rather, it refers purely, plainly and simply to the total, integral conversion of Russia to the one true Church of Christ, the Catholic Church.”- La Verdad sobre el Secreto de Fatima, Fatima sin mitos, Father Joaquin Alonso, (2nd edition, Ejercito Azul, Madrid, 1988) p. 78. English translation by Joseph Cain. Original Spanish reads: “... podriamos decir que Lucia ha pensado siempre que la conversión de Rusia no se entiende solo de un retorno de los pueblos de Rusia a la religion cristiano-ortodoxa, rechazando el ateismo marxista y ateo de los soviets, sino que se refiere pura y llanmente a la conversion total e integral de un retorno a la unica y verdadera Iglesia, la catolica-romana.”
NOTE: It is an historical fact that Russia has NEVER been consecrated to the Immaculate Heart by any Pope together with all of the Catholic Bishops in strict accordance with the command of God given to Sister Lucia by Our Lady at Tuy, Spain June 13, 1929. Consequently, Russia never converted to Catholicism, the errors of Russia spread around the world, peace never came, wars are commonplace and Christians are persecuted & martyred.
Live Mike

"Houston, we have a problem."

"A reliable source told me was more like 200K VAERS records have been removed. Nobody knows why. I will pay up to $100K reward if you know why 200K records have disappeared and have access to the missing records. I'd love to see them." twitter.com/stkirsch/status/1404902414994395138
Live Mike

"Houston, we have a problem."

"CDC REMOVES 150K DEATHS FROM VAERS SYSTEM" brighteon.com/5b9f4df1-701d-4ba8-b080-7a8d391af98c
Fischl

SSPX Theatens To Sue CM

Threat or Theater
Resu Resu

In 1946 people were told to "trust the science"

You say tomato, I say tomahto. Can we agree that Science isn't Science unless it is continually questioning and continually doubting
Resu Resu

The 30 Most Disturbing Human Experiments in History

I wonder....historically, will the current experimental/investigational coronavirus vaccines be added to this list. Only time will tell.
John A Cassani

In 1946 people were told to "trust the science"

When did the term, “trust the science” come into use? I would imagine that back in the ‘40s, if anything, people would be told to “trust the research.” Research is part of the scientific process, and is a very important part, but it isn’t perfect. With DDT, nobody was researching its effect on wildlife. I’m sure they wouldn’t have liked the fact that it was on its way to driving the bald eagle …More
When did the term, “trust the science” come into use? I would imagine that back in the ‘40s, if anything, people would be told to “trust the research.” Research is part of the scientific process, and is a very important part, but it isn’t perfect. With DDT, nobody was researching its effect on wildlife. I’m sure they wouldn’t have liked the fact that it was on its way to driving the bald eagle to extinction. “Science” is a way that we can come to know things, with increasing certainty. It is always dependent on its data set. God and His revelation are the dataset for theology. He is an unimpeachable source. Clinical trials conducted by chemical or drug companies are not. Very little natural science can ever be truly settled, and most that can be, is only settled after an extraordinarily long period of time.