Lover of Truth - I appreciate you sticking your neck out there defending Cekada about the Shiavo case.  I agree with you/Cekada.

Quote from: + PG +

I am enjoying reading this thread.  Here is my opinion:

Ambrose is a politician.

SJB is correct about Cekada and his "facts", although(LOT), I do subscribe to his quidlibet(some of his articles are really good).

When a schismatic calls me a politician, I take it as a compliment.  

Quote from: + PG +

Lover of Truth - I appreciate you sticking your neck out there defending Cekada about the Shiavo case.  I agree with you/Cekada.

This is what LoT wrote and I may be wrong, but his understanding of Catholic theology is my understanding.  Therefore, ITA with him as well.


Regarding the Terri Schiavo issue.  It is obvious that she was entitled to water, they watered a plant in the room she was in but would not give her a drop.

 That being said, and obviously I could be wrong, I believe Father Cekeda's point was that a person is not obliged to undergo extraordinary means to be kept alive.  That is it.  And he is correct.  Catholic theology teaches that one is not obliged to be kept alive by extraordinary means.  They can chose to be kept alive that way but don't have to.  

 He did not deny that Terri wanted to be kept alive or that she had a right to be.  He just used the situation to present Catholic teaching on the issue IMO.

 Now, some might say having a tube shoved in your nose is common now and not extraordinary.  But I claim that the contrary could be true and being fed through your nose though common can still be considered extraordinary or unduly burdensome.  

 She, would IMO, according to Catholic theology, have the right to refuse such treatment.

During subsequent hearings in early 2005, 33 others – including 14 physicians (6 who are neurologists) submitted testimony declaring Terri had been misdiagnosed, while none were submitted by Felos to contradict their findings. Again, Judge Greer refused to consider the growing and glaring evidence. Consider what neurologist Dr. James Gabel, M.D., M.S., F.A.H.A, reported:

“Terri Schiavo is not in a persistent vegetative state. The parts of Terri Schiavo’s brain which would allow her to perceive pain, her thalami, were clearly intact and visible on her CT scan images shown by her own husband, Michael Schiavo, on national television. The parts of Terri Schiavo’s brain, which would allow her to swallow on her own, were also intact, and, in fact, she did not suffer from medically significant dysphagia (swallowing difficulty). If she had, she would have been dead long ago from a condition known as aspiration pneumonia, an infection in the lungs which is the result of inhaling one’s own saliva.”

In short, Terri was not dying. She was not suffering or receiving any type of life support. She was simply disabled and unable to feed herself.

Terri could have been fed orally and by law she should have been. Granted, she might have needed swallowing therapy to stimulate the muscles in her throat that had not been used for many years, but this would have been a relatively short and simple treatment. Yet Judge Greer refused to even consider it, incredibly noting that “Terri might aspirate food into her lungs and die a cruel and painful death.”

Quote from: SenzaDubbio

Quote from: Ambrose

Last I checked, the customery offering for a mass stipend for CMRI priests was $20.

I had emailed Fr. Hughes to ask if it was a 1/3 day's wage.

"That is the amount given by theologians as a general norm.  (Actually, some say 1/2 and some say 1/3).  But in practice, in normal times, the bishops would determine the amount in their dioceses, using these general norms."

When I have had masses said by CMRI, they told me that the customary offering is $20.   That seems to be the standard amount asked for by traditional priests, as a donation, around $15 to $20.

I am not sure why Fr. Benedict said this, when CMRI sets the requested donation at $20.00.

This is the bulletin from St. Michael's in Spokane, for June 1, 2014, the flagship CMRI church:

http://www.stmichaels.org/stmichaels/bulletin.pdf

At the bottom of the first page, it gives the customary stipend offerings.

Quote from: SJB

Quote from: 2Vermont

Quote from: SJB

Quote from: Ambrose

Quote from: SJB

Quote from: Ambrose

Footnote 71 used to support Fr. Cekada's assertion ...

I'm not sure this is an actual decision made by the Holy Office.

He cited his source.  It comes from a respected pre-Conciliar canonist.  It appears to me to be a quote from the Holy Office or a description of the decision from Fr. Regatillo.

Fr. Regatillo is either quoting from the decision, or is attesting to the fact of the decision of the Holy Office.  Are you arguing that he misrepresented or failed to understand the decision of the Holy Office?  If so, what evidence are you relying on?

The fact is that it isn't an actual decision of the Holy Office, and Cekada represents it as "a final nail in the coffin," which if it was, would be all that is needed. In other words, I'm saying Cekada plays fast and loose with the facts, including the relating of the entire question to a single priest from a "backwater diocese," when it appears to be a letter written to Fr. Dolan, and signed by nine priests with whom he had relatively close ties.

Do you have proof that it isn't an actual decision of the Holy Office?

I think the reference itself doesn't cite any specific actual decision of the Holy Office.

Again, I'm saying Cekada plays fast and loose with the facts, including the relating of the entire question to a single priest from a "backwater diocese," when it appears to be a letter written to Fr. Dolan, and signed by nine priests with whom he had relatively close ties.

It appears to be a letter written to Fr. Dolan?  If you want to  assert that Fr Cekada is lying about the decision of the Holy Office (aka playing fast and loose with the facts), you had better prove it.  Otherwise, you're no better.

Quote from: Ambrose

Quote from: Hermenegild

Quote from: Ambrose

Regarding CMRI and SSPX, they are the only two large traditional groups that have any canonical claim.  The CMRI was given canonical approval in 1969, by a legitimate diocesan bishop, and the SSPX in 1970, although the SSPX was only approved for a six year experimental basis.

There was a number of points to deal with but for the time being please confirm the Catholic authorities that set up both the CMRI and the SSPX.

Note that I'm happy to come back to the other points.

I will move this to a new thread, as it is a topic of its own.

I'm curious to hear your response to SJB regarding his opinion of Fr Cekada's source/letter.  Do you now agree with him?  Do you also think he's lying?