Author Topic: What Has Happened to the Catholic Church (Read 6332 times)

parentsfortruth · « **Reply #30 on:** June 25, 2011, 09:19:31 PM »

A home aloner says that they can only go to Mass to a priest ordained before 1958 that has jurisdiction, and "only receive other sacraments in an emergency."

Hobbledehoy · « **Reply #31 on:** June 25, 2011, 10:10:31 PM »

Quote from: Hermenegild

Well, I'm happy to answer.

I wish to extend my gratitude for your earnest response. I was not asking for the sake of eliciting an argumentative exchange: I was merely genuinely curious.

Quote

I believe that the Church is in a state of sede impedite. Meaning that the true and legitimate successors of the apostles are prevented from electing a successor to Saint Peter due to the fact that they are imprisoned, incognito or in exile. Perhaps an election has taken place but our Lord has dictated that most of the faithful are ‘in the dark’ about this. The Church is in ‘eclipse’. I believe this because the Church has infallibly taught that she will have pastors and teachers until the end of time.

This is an interesting explanation of the current predicament, one which I have encountered before. However, whensoever I read such things, I inquire: how would one reconcile such a stance with the visibility of the Church?

Quote

With regards to receiving the sacraments from independent priests or bishops I am yet to hear a legitimate argument as to why I should do so. Now before you start condemning me please note that I do not impose or anathematize anyone who holds a contrary view. If one honestly believes that going to independent priests or bishops is the right thing to do then I respect that because I’m a nobody – just a simple Catholic trying to work one’s way through this great mess that we were chosen from eternity to live.

As I have written, I do not wish to play "Who Want's to be a Canonist?" I cannot pretend to have the science and competence to neither answer your queries authoritatively nor satisfactorily. It behooves me to study this question further. Although some individuals of bad will have posited this question in the throes of polemical fury, I shall assume for the sake of charity and mutual concord (and as evinced by your conscientiousness in regard to others who do not agree with you) that you are of good will, and you are positing this question sincerely. I therefore can neither dismiss you, nor present knee-jerk reactions as if they were arguments that are possessed of validity and cogency.

Quote

The Church has said when in doubt…don’t.

I would be appreciative if you would provide evidential support from pre-"Vatican II" sources in order to substantiate this statement.

Thanks!

Hobbledehoy · « **Reply #32 on:** June 25, 2011, 10:34:38 PM »

I would like to posit my personal observations regarding "home-aloners."

They are individual traditionalists who are of the opinion that it is not licit for one to attend the Chapels of clerics ordained to Holy Orders and clerics promoted to the sacred Episcopacy in material violation of the Code of Canon Law, and therefore bereft of jurisdiction in the external forum. Furthermore (and this is something that ought to be emphasized), they advance this opinion authoritatively and absolutely, and pretend that individual consciences would be bound thereto. In this they exceed their capacity as mere layfolk and usurp authority that is not theirs, and demonstrate the lack of either good will or proper understanding.

I don't think this would apply to Hermenegild (at least the latter half), since he wrote:

Quote

If one honestly believes that going to independent priests or bishops is the right thing to do then I respect that because I’m a nobody – just a simple Catholic trying to work one’s way through this great mess that we were chosen from eternity to live.

Interesting tangent: those who invoke the principle of Canon Law in order to discourage others from attending traditional Catholic Chapels seem to forget that Canon Law also forbids layfolk [and clerics] to publish written paraphernalia regarding faith and morals without the consent of the local Ordinary (Can. 1385). So, basically, everyone is in the same boat: a mariner cannot deride his fellow mariners for standing on the deck just because he attempts to climb up the mast in order to say he is not really on the vessel, to use naval imagery.

Pyrrhos · « **Reply #33 on:** June 26, 2011, 01:22:04 AM »

Quote from: Hobbledehoy

I would like to posit my personal observations regarding "home-aloners."

These observations are true if one only takes the "home aloners" simpliciter into account. If one adds the position "a Papal mandate is necessary for consecration", the situation gets much more difficult, since these people have much better apologists and go even into metaphysical argumentations.

But you are right, just invoking the Code of Canon Law usually leads to many contradictions.

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #34 on:** June 26, 2011, 04:05:37 PM »

Quote from: Hermenegild

Quote from: SpiritusSanctus
That's not what I said, going to a TLM said by an Independant priest is fine. Matthew's rule is that those who stay home from the TLM if they have access to one are not welcome here.

So any group saying a TLM is fine?

Pretty much.