Author Topic: Canonical Status of CMRI and SSPX (Read 8519 times)

MyrnaM · « **Reply #15 on:** June 11, 2014, 08:58:25 AM »

God provides always!

MyrnaM · « **Reply #16 on:** June 14, 2014, 08:27:44 AM »

Excuse me! Since this thread is about CMRI, I for one will tell you that the priests there are very well trained, and the fruits of CMRI prove that. God is with them.

In the eyes of God, they are doing the work of God and to those who think otherwise is to their destruction.

Ambrose · « **Reply #17 on:** June 14, 2014, 09:13:19 AM »

Quote from: Hermenegild

Read the article - you don't know what you are talking about.

They are not trained by the Church.

She didn't say they were trained by the Church, she only said they were well trained. There is a difference.

MyrnaM · « **Reply #18 on:** June 14, 2014, 11:27:07 AM »

Hermenegild with all due respect I wonder where you attend Mass?

Your tone here sounds so hateful toward a congregation that are continuing exactly what God expects of His priests. To be there for His flock.

Are you saying you wish evil upon their good works? Are you hoping they disappear if so, sounds like you yourself could use some training starting with charity.

Why not spend your time and energy to convert others towards Tradition, instead of tearing down what God has built up?

Ambrose · « **Reply #19 on:** June 14, 2014, 11:31:22 AM »

Quote from: Hermenegild

Yes - but my guess is that MyrnaM doesn't make that distinction.

You, however, Ambrose understand what untrained means and ignore the Church's teaching on the matter.

You may guess that, but she did not say that. You could have easily asked her.

I do not ignore Church teaching as you state. The training of priests is not a teaching, it is a discipline. A discipline binds so long as the law does not harm.

In our present situation, the only priests left on earth with approved training and a mission from the Church are all elderly, and very few of them are "traditional priests."

Canon 2261 and the commentaries on the canon mentions nothing about not approaching a priest with unapproved training such as SSPX and CMRI, and others. If these priests and those who ordain them incur censures for their acts, it does not flow to the laity, who are specifically allowed by Canon Law to approach such priests for the sacraments.

According to the Code, the laity have the right to request the sacraments from priests under censure, so even if these priests were under censure, (another debatable point), Catholics have the right to approach them and request the sacraments from them.

MyrnaM · « **Reply #20 on:** June 14, 2014, 12:59:07 PM »

I wonder in the eyes of God, what He thinks about His Church laws, if there is no authority to enforce them?

PerEvangelicaDicta · « **Reply #21 on:** June 14, 2014, 02:49:34 PM »

Quote

the false parallel church that has all the outside appearance of the true church, but is not protected from error and protected by infallibility.

Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ basics 101 - duality.

Not to beat a dead horse, but we have most - if not all - of Rome wearing masonic symbolism on their vestments, flashing masonic signs and giving each other masonic handshakes, promoting masonic philosphy, etc etc etc. This has been going on for years.

I'm totally confused as to how we can keep the true Faith via masonic authority that has usurped Rome? How can anything coming from freemasons be valid? How do we 'obey' people associated with such evil?

I'm asking honest questions, not trying to be sarcastic. What a horror show! Who has the answers for such a state?

Ambrose · « **Reply #22 on:** June 14, 2014, 03:07:31 PM »

Quote from: PerEvangelicaDicta

Quote
the false parallel church that has all the outside appearance of the true church, but is not protected from error and protected by infallibility.

Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ basics 101 - duality.

Not to beat a dead horse, but we have most - if not all - of Rome wearing masonic symbolism on their vestments, flashing masonic signs and giving each other masonic handshakes, promoting masonic philosphy, etc etc etc. This has been going on for years.

I'm totally confused as to how we can keep the true Faith via masonic authority that has usurped Rome? How can anything coming from freemasons be valid? How do we 'obey' people associated with such evil?

I'm asking honest questions, not trying to be sarcastic. What a horror show! Who has the answers for such a state?

The truth is that the Conciliar church is led by heretical antipopes, who, claiming to be true popes have led to this crisis, and Catholics have a duty to as soon as they become aware of this fact to separate themselves from these antipopes, their teachings, their laws, etc.

Croix de Fer · « **Reply #23 on:** June 14, 2014, 03:11:21 PM »

Quote

the false parallel church that has all the outside appearance of the true church

It doesn't even have the appearance of the true Church anymore. It hasn't for years. The novus ordo mass certainly doesn't have the appearance... Many of their nuns, especially the ones working for dioceses, wear no habit, rather they wear civilian clothes. Laypeople run the affairs of the diocesan chapels, not the priests. They allow novelties such as "charismatic" events take place in the chapels. The architecture of the chapels look like shopping plazas or insurance building designs, and they're littered, more or less - depending on the chapel, with masonic symbols. One particular novus ordo chapel located in the area I live has masonic symbols screaming to any awake onlooker. It's very much in the faces of zombie parishioners, but they're so disoriented from the Frankenfaith, they can't see it or they don't understand what it's about... As PED stated, there are masonic symbols on vestments; and I would not be surprised if a lot of parish events have masonic undertones, as they certainly have false ecuмenism.

PerEvangelicaDicta · « **Reply #24 on:** June 14, 2014, 06:35:56 PM »

Quote from: Ambrose

Quote from: PerEvangelicaDicta
Quote
the false parallel church that has all the outside appearance of the true church, but is not protected from error and protected by infallibility.

Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ basics 101 - duality.

Not to beat a dead horse, but we have most - if not all - of Rome wearing masonic symbolism on their vestments, flashing masonic signs and giving each other masonic handshakes, promoting masonic philosphy, etc etc etc. This has been going on for years.

I'm totally confused as to how we can keep the true Faith via masonic authority that has usurped Rome? How can anything coming from freemasons be valid? How do we 'obey' people associated with such evil?

I'm asking honest questions, not trying to be sarcastic. What a horror show! Who has the answers for such a state?

The truth is that the Conciliar church is led by heretical antipopes, who, claiming to be true popes have led to this crisis, and Catholics have a duty to as soon as they become aware of this fact to separate themselves from these antipopes, their teachings, their laws, etc.

Thank you Ambrose. I can find no other answer, but I continue to ask. Ultimately the Conciliar church is managed by people who do not hide who they are in all manner of display - enemies of the Faith.

Ascent, I always mention Rome re; masonic symbols but whoooweee are you right about manyl n.o. parishes. They look just like masonic temples in design and display. I won't set foot in them any longer.
The saddest display (for me) was visiting Mission San Diego. I looked forward to spending time alone in the old chapel to pray, but upon entry I was devastated. Knowing the history of these missions, it's heartbreaking to see such a holy historic house of God turned into a place of satanic worship. SHJ have mercy on us.

Neil O, I presume you've seen this one? I did not notice masonic display so much in some of the other mission chapels as this one.

Ambrose · « **Reply #25 on:** June 14, 2014, 07:44:48 PM »

Quote from: Hermenegild

Quote from: Ambrose
You may guess that, but she did not say that. You could have easily asked her.

Yes, I could have.

Quote from: Ambrose
I do not ignore Church teaching as you state. The training of priests is not a teaching, it is a discipline. A discipline binds so long as the law does not harm.

You either haven't read the article or disagree with Fr. Cekada.

Quote from: Ambrose
In our present situation, the only priests left on earth with approved training and a mission from the Church are all elderly, and very few of them are "traditional priests."

You don't know that with certainty. You are making assumptions.

Quote from: Ambrose
Canon 2261 and the commentaries on the canon mentions nothing about not approaching a priest with unapproved training such as SSPX and CMRI, and others. If these priests and those who ordain them incur censures for their acts, it does not flow to the laity, who are specifically allowed by Canon Law to approach such priests for the sacraments.

According to the Code, the laity have the right to request the sacraments from priests under censure, so even if these priests were under censure, (another debatable point), Catholics have the right to approach them and request the sacraments from them.

Well, that's the whole point. We aren't talking about priests under censure. We are talking about men receiving uncanonical and illicit holy orders - that doesn't make them priests. A priest is a man who has been trained by the Church and deemed canonically fit to receive holy orders. Who decided that these men were fit for ordination?

1. I told you I have read the article many times. I also told you you that generally I do agree with the article, but in this matter, the fitness of orders is a disciplinary law, not a doctrine, and I also told you that a law does not bind if it becomes harmful.

2. Ok, let me restate this more clearly: I am reasonably certain based on all available evidence that the remaining lawfully trained and sent clergy are mostly elderly priests. The only possible exceptions to this are those trained and ordained in Campos by Bp. Castro de Mayer, but even they are getting up there in years.

There may be some other exceptions to this, but overall most of the properly trained and ordained priests are saying the Novus Ordo and may have lost the Faith.

3. A man is made a priest once he is ordained. These priests are not clerics, but they are priests. If a priest is ordained illicitly, he is automatically suspended, but he is still a priest.

Do you consider the Greek schismatic priests to be not priests as well?

Ambrose · « **Reply #26 on:** June 15, 2014, 09:03:38 AM »

Quote from: Hermenegild

Quote from: Ambrose
Quote from: Hermenegild
Quote from: Ambrose
You may guess that, but she did not say that. You could have easily asked her.

Yes, I could have.

Quote from: Ambrose
I do not ignore Church teaching as you state. The training of priests is not a teaching, it is a discipline. A discipline binds so long as the law does not harm.

You either haven't read the article or disagree with Fr. Cekada.

Quote from: Ambrose
In our present situation, the only priests left on earth with approved training and a mission from the Church are all elderly, and very few of them are "traditional priests."

You don't know that with certainty. You are making assumptions.

Quote from: Ambrose
Canon 2261 and the commentaries on the canon mentions nothing about not approaching a priest with unapproved training such as SSPX and CMRI, and others. If these priests and those who ordain them incur censures for their acts, it does not flow to the laity, who are specifically allowed by Canon Law to approach such priests for the sacraments.

According to the Code, the laity have the right to request the sacraments from priests under censure, so even if these priests were under censure, (another debatable point), Catholics have the right to approach them and request the sacraments from them.

Well, that's the whole point. We aren't talking about priests under censure. We are talking about men receiving uncanonical and illicit holy orders - that doesn't make them priests. A priest is a man who has been trained by the Church and deemed canonically fit to receive holy orders. Who decided that these men were fit for ordination?

1. I told you I have read the article many times. I also told you you that generally I do agree with the article, but in this matter, the fitness of orders is a disciplinary law, not a doctrin, and I also told you that a law does not bind if it becomes harmful.

2. Ok, let me restate this more clearly: I am reasonably certain based on all available evidence that the remaining lawfully trained and sent clergy are mostly elderly priests. The only possible exceptions to this are those trained and ordained in Campos by Bp. Castro de Mayer, but even they are getting up there in years.

There may be some other exceptions to this, but overall most of the properly trained and ordained priests are saying the Novus Ordo and may have lost the Faith.

3. A man is made a priest once he is ordained. These priests are not clerics, but they are priests. If a priest is ordained illicitly, he is automatically suspended, but he is still a priest.

Do you consider the Greek schismatic priests to be not priests as well?

If you've read the article I don't think you understand it.

It is the authority of the Church that makes a man a priest - so that involves more than just a disciplinary ordinance.

A man is made a priest when he is ordained with the authorization from the Church. It is the Church who deems (with the authority of Christ) that a man should receive holy orders. So in that sense a schismatic "priest" is not really a priest even though he may have received valid orders. This is evident by the fact that schismatics who returned to the Church were often, in most cases, regarded as layman and not bound by any priestly obligations.

Instead of dancing around the issue, why don't you give some exact sources to support your view, so we can discuss this properly.

Vaguely directing me to Fr. Cekada's article is not getting to the core of your argument. Cite your sources, preferably by giving quoting them along with citations, and we can have a much more fruitful discussion.

MyrnaM · « **Reply #27 on:** June 15, 2014, 09:52:51 AM »

Quote from: Hermenegild

It is the authority of the Church that makes a man a priest - so that involves more than just a disciplinary ordinance.

You neglect to answer questions you don't like, just like a politician, are you one?

Just where is this authority to be found today, living in the Great Apostasy?

Certainly not within the confines of the Vatican II, new religion. Where then?

I ask a honest question, in your opinion where do we find this authority?

Ambrose · « **Reply #28 on:** June 17, 2014, 12:03:54 PM »

Quote from: Hermenegild

Quote from: Ambrose
Instead of dancing around the issue, why don't you give some exact sources to support your view, so we can discuss this properly.

Vaguely directing me to Fr. Cekada's article is not getting to the core of your argument. Cite your sources, preferably by giving quoting them along with citations, and we can have a much more fruitful discussion.

Alright here's some direct quotes from Fr. Cekada:

Quote
Church law requires that anyone ordained to the priesthood possess canonical fitness (idoneitas canonica).

Quote
A candidate who has not been “properly judged” according to the norms of law as to his virtue and knowledge is canonically unfit for the priesthood.

Ambrose, who "properly judged" the Traditionalist priests you approve of? Are you sure of their canonical fitness?

I of course agree with both of those quotes. The traditional priests are not "canonically" fit for the priesthood. They are priests without mission from the Church, they have no parishes, and they do not have the care of souls that comes with a mission.

With the exception of: the priests directly ordained by Lefebvre and Castro de Mayer, along with those priests ordained by members of the hierarchy, there are no other priests that I am aware of with a mission from the Church.

The priests ordained by Lefebvre would be considered vagus, those by Castro Mayer would be legitimate diocesan priests.

With that said, traditional priests, unlike priest of the past with missions and assignments, legally offer the sacraments due to the requests of the laity, not from a commission of the Church.

Ambrose · « **Reply #29 on:** June 17, 2014, 09:00:39 PM »

Quote from: Hermenegild

Quote from: Ambrose
The traditional priests are not "canonically" fit for the priesthood. They are priests without mission from the Church.

It seems you don't understand what canonical fitness is about. It is not about mission strictly speaking - although it is related.

Again, from Fr. Cekada:

Quote
The two principal criteria that determine a candidate’s canonical fitness for ordination are (a) virtuous conduct (mores congruentes) and (b) the required knowledge (debita scientia).

Quote
The Tridentine system insures that ordinands are “properly judged” (rite probati) over a long period of time on both their conduct and their knowledge, and that they are therefore indeed canonically fit for ordination.

Quote
A candidate who has not been “properly judged” according to the norms of law as to his virtue and knowledge is canonically unfit for the priesthood.

Quote
Even if in a particular case a canonically unfit candidate could prove that his priestly ordination or episcopal consecration was certainly valid, he would still be barred from exercising the orders so received, irrespective of whether they were conferred upon him by a Catholic or a schismatic prelate.

Ambrose, do you agree that a Catholic must avoid a canonically unfit candidate - even if you have no doubt about the validity of his orders?

The priest would be barred by law from using the power of his orders if he was: canonically unfit, therefore not judged to be worthy by his bishop, or illicitly ordained.

If any priest were to be ordained illicitly, he would be automatically suspended according to the law.

But, you are ignoring canon 2261, which allows the laity to ask for and receive the sacraments from priests under censure.

By this, I am not conceding that they are under censure, but even if they are, the Code is clear on this, we may approach them for the sacraments.