Read an Interview with Matthew, the owner of CathInfo

Author Topic: ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLXVI (366) July 19,2014 A.D.  (Read 12125 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline JPaul

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3832
  • Reputation: +3712/-282
  • Gender: Male
ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLXVI (366) July 19,2014 A.D.
« Reply #75 on: September 06, 2014, 08:31:33 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Pterp,
    Quote
    This is a different argument. Before you were, in effect, calling Bishop Fellay a liar.

    Now, proven wrong, you claim he should not be so "delicate".


    Proven wrong? I think not.

    Quote
    But in that case you condemn Archbishop Lefevre - as I just posted on another thread, did he not - at the very least - playdown his 1974 declaration? Did he not on the one hand declare the Roman Curia was filled with anti-Christs and yet, simultaneously, seek an agreement with these "anti-Christs"? Did he not have second thoughts about the May 5th protocol, having a sleepless night and longing for morning to come so he could send a new response to Rome ... which was penned "Eminence, Yesterday it was with real satisfaction that I put my signature on the Protocol drafted during the preceding days. ..."?  But in that case you condemn Archbishop Lefevre - as I just posted on another thread, did he not - at the very least - playdown his 1974 declaration? Did he not on the one hand declare the Roman Curia was filled with anti-Christs and yet, simultaneously, seek an agreement with these "anti-Christs"? Did he not have second thoughts about the May 5th protocol, having a sleepless night and longing for morning to come so he could send a new response to Rome ... which was penned "Eminence, Yesterday it was with real satisfaction that I put my signature on the Protocol drafted during the preceding days. ..."?


    I do condemn his inconsistency, which thank you, you have amply demonstrated, and admitted to, in the above.
    Catholic principals and Truth do not know of politics, diplomacy, and "delicacies". They require one stand. one form, and one response.
    SiSi NoNo.

    Offline drew

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 332
    • Reputation: +1032/-179
    • Gender: Male
    ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLXVI (366) July 19,2014 A.D.
    « Reply #76 on: September 06, 2014, 08:51:43 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: peterp
    Quote from: drew
    For the record, you accused Neil Obstat of schism.  That accusation in itself is utterly false and I provided you with a detailed moral and legal exposition of the term.  The first post concluded that the act itself is grounds for calumny but left the door open that ignorance may have been a mitigating factor.  If your accusation was made from ignorance you should have apologized and retracted it.  You did not and therefore you are guilty of calumny because it is a lie and you now have no excuse for not knowing it.

    This is both false and calumny because you have deliberately ignore the qualifier (of which you have been told about repeatedly). You did not provided an exposition , it was an argumentation. The exposition appeared originally in The Remanant. It was not relevant (save the definition of schism) because the argumentation deals with disobedience not a rejection per se of authority. Your first posts left no door open as it stated, falsely "Your accusation of schism is both morally and legally repugnant. It is calumny ...". You also conclude that I know it to be a lie (which is clearly not the case) and that there is an intent to injure which is also not the case (as already explained to you). Simply Drew, you are a liar.


    Your objection here is superficial and pointless.  I provided both an exposition and an argument addressing your false accusation against Neil Obstat of schism.  The exposition was necessary because terms must be properly exposited to write accurate propositions and structure sound arguments.  As to the claim that the "exposition appeared originally in The Remnant" is not entirely accurate, it is immaterial, and implies plagiarism.
     
    The article you are referring was written by Fr. Brian Harrison and was published in the Remnant.  But what is the point.  I cited Fr. Harrison's contribution in the post script to my post.  Furthermore, I had an email exchange with Fr. Harrison in which I discussed using his exposition and arguments in the defense of Fr. Samuel Waters in his case against a decree of excommunication from Archbishop Chaput.  So not only have I credited Fr. Harrison for his intellectual contribution, I have also  personally consulted with him before using his arguments.

    The essential point is that you demonstrated complete ignorance regarding the legal and moral meaning of the word schism that you irresponsibly made against Neil Obstat.  You should be grateful to me and Fr. Harrison for dispelling your ignorance.  Now that you have had a proper exposition of the word you have no excuse for your accusation of schism.  

    Let other be the judge as to who is a "liar."  


    Quote from: peterp
    Quote from: drew
    You have no understanding of the meaning of schism nor how jurisdiction operates outside of its ordinary application.  It is amazing how you can accuse another of "schism" and then say that an exposition of exactly what schism is, and is not, is "irrelevant and shows no grasp of the subject."

    I notice you completely ignore the term bishop's flock. I didn't write the argumentation (that you wrongly label exposition) "shows no grasp of the subject" but it is YOU who has no grasp of the subject.
    Quote from: drew
    You are talking about ordinary jurisdiction.  So what?  If you have restricted yourself to obedience only to those exercising ordinary jurisdiction, then you have no right to receive any sacraments from Bishop Fellay who is consequently in schism for exercising jurisdiction in the sacraments of Penance and Marriage, as well as tribunals regarding the nullity of marriages, in "canonical tribunals" against member priests of the SSPX and his acts that presuppose jurisdiction over non-SSPX religious communities.  Are you now accusing Bishop Fellay of being in schism?


    "So what?" - just about sums it up you don’t have a clue what you are writing about. I notice you didn't addess the term bishop’s flock again. And when you have J.Paul, who is hardly a “Felleyite”,  stating “Of course Bishop Williamson does not have an official flock…”  it becomes screaming obviously to everyone that you do not understand meaning of the terms used:
    "... the Pope designates a flock for a bishop by giving him a diocese. Jurisdiction is the power which a superior has over his flock and which a pastor has over his sheep." (Bishop Tissier de Mallerais)
    Bishop Tissier de Mallerais defines the limits of their jurisdiction to two groups - those seeking the sacrament of confirmation and holy orders - "Our jurisdiction is extraordinary and suppletory. It is not exercised over a determined territory, but case by case over the persons who are in need: confirmands, seminarians of the Society or candidates to the priesthood recommended by other traditional works."
    Your logic and understanding of Bishop Fellay jurisdiction faulty. He has ordinary jurisdiction over members of the Society as the Superior General, and supplied jurisdiction in the sacraments of confirmation and holy orders, over religious communities etc.


    I have no problem with the quotation taken from +Tissier but you do not understand what he is saying.  Bishop Fellay does not exercise any "ordinary jurisdiction" over the SSPX or anyone else, and is in fact himself subject to ordinary jurisdiction.  That is assuming that he has not privately taken the 1989 Profession of Faith and Oath of Fidelity and in reward for which he has been secretly given ordinary jurisdiction.  But would anyone be surprised to learn that this what has in fact happened?

    But to the point, +Tissier said that "our jurisdiction is... exercised... case by case over the persons who are in need."  That is, the jurisdiction is supplied by the Church because of the rights of the faithful.  And this is exactly what I have already explained to you.

    Jesus Christ is the Good Shepherd.  All who exercise jurisdiction in the Church as shepherds do so by participation in the priesthood of Christ.  The ordinary exercise of this power that belongs to the Church is delegated by the Pope according to legal norms, but if the Pope fails in teaching the faith or in the worship of God, or those to whom he has delegated jurisdiction fail, then any member of the flock of Christ is at liberty to seek a faithful shepherd to follow.  

    Schism is the denial of jurisdiction per se.  The denial of jurisdiction per accidens is not.


    Quote from: peterp
    Quote from: drew
    The pope does not "confer 'supplied jurisdiction.'"  He confers ordinary jurisdiction according to legal norms.  I have already explained this question in a previous post.  Try to read it more carefully.  Since  you think the pope confers "supplied jurisdiction" please produce the document in which Bishop Fellay was given "supplied jurisdiction.

    The Roman Pontiff is the source of jurisdiction upon this earth, all power emanates from him:
    "... the Church, or more properly the Supreme Pontiff, from whom all jurisdiction emanates and from whom all common law has its origin, supplies the necessary jurisdiction." (Miaskiewicz,  p.28)
    "When the Church, or more specifically the Roman Pontiff, is said to supply jurisdiction in any case whatsoever, be it in common error or in doubt, it is readily understood that the Pope acts in virtue of the plenitude of the jurisdictional power Christ entrusted to his person." (ibid. p.197)
    "If it is said that the Church supply, it has to be understood of the Superiors of the Church, or rather of her supreme prince the Roman Pontiff, whence proceedes all jurisdiction and from which comes the common law; it is supplied a iure that is, by common law or by the author of the common law." (Wernz-Vidal, Vol. II, num 379)
    "In factual or legal common error and in positive and probable doubt of law or of fact, the Church supplies executive power of governance for both the external and internal forum." (Can. 144 §1)


    The Pope is not the "source of jurisdiction upon this earth."  The "source" of jurisdiction is God.  "All power in heaven and on earth is given to Me (Jesus Chrsit)."  When God founded His Church He endowed His Church with the attributes of authority, infallibility, and indefectibility.  Jurisdiction is grounded upon the attribute of authority.  The Pope in his office exercises this power of the Church.  The power belongs essentially (per se) to the Church and only accidently (per accidens) to the Roman Pontiff.  When the Pope dies or resigns jurisdiction does not die or resign with him.  Ordinary jurisdiction is delegated according to legal norms.  Supplied jurisdiction in not delegated according to legal norms except in the case of "common error or in doubt" which are addressed in the Code of Canon Law.  I repeat, with these two limited exceptions cited in Canon Law, supplied jurisdiction is not created by positive laws and it is not exercised by positive law.  Those who have argued that traditional priest exercise supplied jurisdiction according to canonical norms have done a real disservice to all faithful Catholics.  No SSPX priest does or has ever exercised supplied jurisdiction by virtue of the prescriptions of positive law because of "common error or doubt."

    The authorities you are quoting are only addressing the legal prescriptions of jurisdiction.  They are not dealing with the situation during a time of general apostasy in the hierarchy.


    Quote from: peterp
    Quote from: drew
    Now you say that "the pope who confers 'supplied jurisdiction'"[1] does so on a "case by case"[2] basis "over individuals in need."[3]  I suppose you have not thought about the paper work involved in this.[4]

    [1] As previously quoted: i) Miaskiewicz, p.28, p.197; ii) Wernz-Vidal, Vol. II, num 379; iii) Can. 144 §1;
    [2] i) "Our jurisdiction is extraordinary and suppletory. It is not exercised over a determined territory, but case by case over the persons who are in need: confirmands, seminarians of the Society or candidates to the priesthood recommended by other traditional works." (Bp. Tissier de Mallerais Fideliter Interview, May/June 1998);
    ii) "... every single time that this reputed bishop or pastor under the requisite conditions of canon 209 attempts the performance of a jurisdictional act, he receives the necessary jurisdiction in actu. Thus, he does not possess the jurisdiction one moment before nor a single moment after the performance of the action. It does not matter how many acts he performs. The jurisdiction is always supplied in the self-same manner: in actu." (Miaskiewicz, p. 290);
    (iii) "The power is given not habitually but in actu: the agent does not possess the power before he uses it, nor does he retain it afterwards: he possesses it by delegation of the law ONLY AS LONG AS IT IS NECESSARY FOR THE VALID EXERCISE OF THE ACT." (The Validity of Confessions & Marriages in the chapels of the Society of St. Pius X, Fr. Angles);
    [3] i) "... the individual is to make use of the benefit of canon 209 ..." (Miaskiewicz, p. 290);
    (ii) "it is a personal and not a territorial jurisdiction. It is very important to understand this. Your priests have jurisdiction over your persons and not over a territory." (Bp. Tissier de Mallerais Fideliter Interview, May/June 1998);
    [4] There's no paper work, it's just you simply do not understand jurisdiction. Seriously Drew, use the serach facility of CathInfo and you will see jurisdiction/supplied jurisdiction has been done to death. And there are some excellent references.


    You are conflating two distinct categories.  Bishop Tissier understands the problem and you do not.  I agree that supplied jurisdiction is exercised on a case by case basis and have said this from my first post.  You have not.  It is so because it is the individual person's needs that create the supplied jurisdiction.  It is the penitent in need of absolution that gives the jurisdiction to the traditional priest.  The problem is that you have claimed that it is "the pope who confers 'supplied jurisdiction.'"  The only situations where supplied jurisdiction conferred by the Pope are addressed in Canon Law.  The positive law of the Church does not address directly all the multitudinous situations were supplied jurisdiction may be necessary.  This fact is recognized in Canon Law which states that the highest law is the salvation of souls.


    Quote from: peterp
    Quote from: drew
    "Arbitrarily" is an adverb that describes an act that is determined by the free and independent will of the individual.  No Catholic has a right to act "arbitrarily"  with regard to the question of ordinary jurisdiction.  If you read again my first post on the subject of schism you will find nothing that suggests anything of the kind.  In fact, no one in this exchange has ever suggested that Catholics can act "arbitrarily" with regard to any moral act.

    Your "shepherd" is your local ordinary. To reject his authority is schismatic. You wrote: "If any faithful member ... wants to regard Bishop Williamson as their "shepherd," he is free to do so ...". No he isn't, it is "necessary to acknowledge the authority of the Church and of her appointed rulers. Those who reject the jurisdiction established by Christ are no longer members of His kingdom." (Members of the Church, Catholic Encyclopedia).


    Again, so what?  You are addressing the ordinary exercise of jurisdiction.  Now, as  explained before from St. Pius X, the purpose of jurisdiction is to teach the doctrines of the Catholic faith and offer the proper worship to God.  Jurisdiction has no authority to teach error or corrupt worship.  

    You apparently do not have a problem with the Novus Ordo doctrine or worship and if that is the case, then you have no right to act in matters of doctrine or worship outside the authority of your local ordinary.  You are publically admitting that you have no right to attend a SSPX Mass or to receive the sacraments from any SSPX priest without the permission of your local ordinary.  So why are you posting on this forum?  


    Quote from: peterp
    Quote from: drew
    About my "schismatic attitude," let's take an example of England during the 16th century.  It was a "state of apostasy in a restricted geographical area"  and the local ordinary was a party to the apostasy.  So, did St. Thomas More have a "schismatic attitude" when he refused to pray with his local ordinary before climbing the steps to his execution?  Or would it be proper to say that, "the normal ordinary laws governing jurisdiction are not always applicable"?

    We don't need a strawman example, you simply need to understand the difference between to deny and to not comply. To deny that laws apply is to reject the subject's jurisdiction (it is the subject's power to apply laws), where as to not comply with an exercise of the law is an act of disobedience against the subject.


    The straw man is not my example.  It is you or whoever else "we" refers.  You have made unsubstantiated accusations and cannot examine jurisdiction with any greater moral insight than a Pharisee.
     
    I have said nothing about the distinction between "to deny" and "to not comply" so who is inventing a straw man?  I hope you don't smoke.  If you understood the distinction, I would not have had to explain to what schism is in the first place.  If you would re-read my post you will find the qualification that any of the faithful are free to follow +Williamson as their shepherd until those exercising ordinary jurisdiction teach correct doctrine and proper worship of God.  If the local ordinary did this, then there would be no right or reciprocal duty to for supplied jurisdiction.  

    Quote from: peterp
    Quote from: drew
    "Attitudes" belong in the realm of psychology.  There is no canonical crime called "schismatic attitude."

    I didn’t say there was, but this mentality leads to schism.


    Does the  "p" after peter stand for "pan"?  

    Drew


    Offline drew

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 332
    • Reputation: +1032/-179
    • Gender: Male
    ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLXVI (366) July 19,2014 A.D.
    « Reply #77 on: September 06, 2014, 09:03:23 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: peterp
    Quote from: drew
    The metaphor of a "train" going to Rome is attributed to Fr. Alain-Marc Nély, the second assistant to Bishop Fellay, who is reported to have said, "The train is leaving for Rome, and those who want to get off will get off." Bishop Fellay has already removed any possible obstacles to his return to Rome and therefore the metaphor of a "train" that travels on a determined track and direction is most appropriate.  The only question is with regard to speed - sooner or later, it ends up at the station.  The "obstacles" have been so completely removed that there is no longer any grounds to argue that a "state of emergency" and therefore a "state of necessity" exists.  Those still following Bishop Fellay at this time can offer no moral justification for doing so.  

    Is Bishop Fellay a liar or is eveybody else?  He overthrew the norms adopted by the General Chapter 2006 that there would be "no practical agreement without a doctrinal solution" and has followed his own prescription for that agreement in 2012 that he approved.  The General Chapter was not informed about GREC in 2006.  Since they established the norms that Bishop Fellay was obligated to follow, they necessarily possessed a right to know of this fact.  

    In Bishop Fellay's reply written by Fr. Pfluger to the Letter from the Three Bishops he admits to acting in a secretive manner because of their "attitude" (perhaps, a "schismatic attitude"?) has kept the "Superior General from communicating and sharing with you these weighty matters." This is an open admission of duplicity which he apparently believes he is entitled to. If he has not revealed his intentions honestly to the "three bishops" or the General Chapter, why would think that he has leveled with anyone else, especially you?  Fr. Pfluger also says that the Society should proceed with a practical agreement because, "To require that we wait until everything is regulated before reaching what you call a practical agreement is not realistic. Seeing how things happen, it is likely that it will take decades for this crisis to come to an end."  The Letter even explains the reason for a practical agreement now: "Let us note in passing that it was not we who were looking for a practical agreement. That is untrue. We have not refused a priori to consider, as you ask, the Pope’s offer. For the common good of the Society, we would prefer by far the current solution of an intermediary status quo, but clearly, Rome is not going to tolerate it any longer."  Rome demands a "practical agreement" and Bishop Fellay agrees.  

    The duplicity of Bishop Fellay is evident again in Cardinal Antonio Canizares Llovera's report that Bishop Fellay most favorably approved of a 'reverently' offered Novus Ordo and said that even Archbishop Lefebvre would not have opposed the Novus Ordo offered in such a manner.  Or Bishop Peter Elliott who said that Bishop Fellay and/or the priests in his presence told him that the "Tridentine Mass could be said or sung in the vernacular."  These reports were denied by Bishop Fellay.  Who is the liar?  

    The Open Letter by the 37 priests from the French District documents numerous examples of duplicity of Bishop Fellay and his assistants.  Are these 37 priests lying or is Bishop Fellay?  The Carmelites in Germany have separated from the SSPX and accused Bishop Fellay of duplicity.  The Dominicans in France have done the same and published, for limited distribution, a history documenting this behavior.  Who is lying, Bishop Fellay or the Carmelites and the Dominicans?

    The secretive GREC discussions presupposed the "hermeneutic continuity" and so did the "Doctrinal Discussions" with Rome.  Without the context of the "hermeneutic of continuity" they could not have taken place.  It is really immaterial anymore what Bishop Fellay has said; it is however most material what he has done.  By quoting Bishop Fellay's denial of his accepting the Hermeneutic of Continuity you are just providing more documentary proof that he is a liar.  If Bishop Fellay were interested in "preserving the Faith" as you claim, his doctrinal discussions would have ended with demands for dogmatic declarations and the publication of a syllabus of errors against the "hermeneutic of rupture"  that is the only Catholic answer to the demand for a practical agreement from Rome.  It never happened.  

    Remember, it was the same Bishop Fellay who said he rejected the "hermeneutic of continuity" who also said, that Religious Liberty “is used in so many ways. And looking closer, I really have the impression that not many know what really the Council says about it. The Council is presenting a religious liberty which, in fact, is a very, very limited one: very limited!” (CNS interview, May 2012)  

    When do think Bishop Fellay made the 1989 Profession of Faith and took the Oath of Fidelity?  Do you think he will lie about it if you ask him?  Or is he, what you would say, developing a "schismatic attitude"?

    Drew

    Sorry I didn;t addres these falsehoods in the last post.

    I notice that you did not address your camlmnies that I highlighted previously.

    But to answer your waffle:
    i)
    a) You inserted the word express,
    b) this quote is dubious to say the least.
    c)you claimed "that it will occur has already been determined." of which have provided no proof for this assertion.

    ii) You use terms like [legall] norms without understanding what you are writing:
    a) the declaration did not define legal "norms";
    b) the declaration did not exclude there ever being a practical agreement;
    c) the declaration did not curtail or restrict the superior general's role;
    d) the declaration did not deal with post-doctrinal discussions or events;
    e) the meeting in Albano (Obtober 2012) agreed that Bp. Fellay should continue negotiations with Rome.

    iii) The "three bishops" letter is now an irrelevance. There is an updated one of the three society bishops published on the 25th anniversary of their consecrations. You use words like duplicity (deceitfulness, dishonesty) without any evidence and really it says alot about you when you believe Cardinal Llovera/Bishop Elliott/CNS as being the oracles of truth.

    iv) GREC is nothing knew it has been know about for years:
    http://angeluspress.org/blog/catholic-or-compromised-what-is-the-grec/

    v) I gave you an explicit quote from Bp. Fellay rejecting "Hermeneutic of Continuity". You have not provided any evidence to the contrary. Drew you are a liar.


    The term "waffle" is synonymous  with duplicity.  Bishop Fellay is guilty of duplicity by his own admission in the letter addressed to the three bishops.  And I have provided plenty of additional evidence by many priests and religious to substantiate the charge.  Your replies have addressed nothing.  As for the GREC discussions, they were only common knowledge among the insiders.  Bishop Fellay never acknowledged the discussions until they were publicly exposed.  

    You have yet to understand that the GREC discussions and the Doctrinal Discussions with Rome presuppose the hermeneutic of continuity.  Bishop Fellay's denial of the hermeneutic of continuity is only evidence of his lying.

    Now you have made the accusation against me of duplicity without evidence and that will be hard to produce since evidence for a "waffle" requires that I have said one thing to you and something else to another on the same question.  So you are back to where we began are exchange, that is, you making an unsubstantiated allegation against another.  

    Neil Obstat was right.  You are not worth the trouble to read.  

    Drew


    Offline peterp

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 203
    • Reputation: +0/-5
    ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLXVI (366) July 19,2014 A.D.
    « Reply #78 on: October 15, 2014, 05:20:00 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: drew
    Your objection here is superficial and pointless.  I provided both an exposition and an argument addressing your false accusation against Neil Obstat of schism.  The exposition was necessary because terms must be properly exposited to write accurate propositions and structure sound arguments.  As to the claim that the "exposition appeared originally in The Remnant" is not entirely accurate, it is immaterial, and implies plagiarism.
     
    The article you are referring was written by Fr. Brian Harrison and was published in the Remnant.  But what is the point.  I cited Fr. Harrison's contribution in the post script to my post.  Furthermore, I had an email exchange with Fr. Harrison in which I discussed using his exposition and arguments in the defense of Fr. Samuel Waters in his case against a decree of excommunication from Archbishop Chaput.  So not only have I credited Fr. Harrison for his intellectual contribution, I have also  personally consulted with him before using his arguments.

    The essential point is that you demonstrated complete ignorance regarding the legal and moral meaning of the word schism that you irresponsibly made against Neil Obstat.  You should be grateful to me and Fr. Harrison for dispelling your ignorance.  Now that you have had a proper exposition of the word you have no excuse for your accusation of schism.  

    Let other be the judge as to who is a "liar."


    Drew, the exposition was Fr. Harrison's not yours. You used his exposition to formulate an argument (in defense of Fr. Walters) which you think (wrongly) can also be used here. It cannot. You may think it "pointless" but that just shows your level of ignorance. The "point" is this:
     
    (i) there is no treatment whatever in Harrison's exposition that rejects as schismatic (since they are) your claims of:
    - a complete rejection per se - not just specific instances of disobedience - of a local ordinary's jurisdiction;
    - since there exists a state of apostacy in most, if not all, the Church's hierachy;
    - consequently ordinary jurisdiction no longer operates;
    - therefore, an individual is not subject to his local ordinary's jurisdiction;
    - so the individual is at liberty to chose whichever Shepherd he wishes;
    - even one prohibited from exercising his ministry by the Church [I suspect Harrison would acknowledge Rome's declaration that the Shepherd in question does "not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church."];

    (ii) in Harrison's exposition is there no treatment of "... or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him." (c.751) - except in noting that it did not apply in that specific case. This is why, on your own, you could only muster a lame (and false) two sentence defense on this point in your "open letter'; your lack of competence is obvious and it is clear, as previously stated, you have no grasp of the subject.

     I had already acknowledged in my first post that you referenced Harrison, the issue here is your underhanded attempt to misuse and falsify his exposition to defend your false claims including, now, your inuendo (viz. that an email correspondence with him also confirms this). You are a liar for the reasons previously given (viz. guilty of calumny etc.), the falsification of Harrison's exposition, and the attempt to portray your argument as an exposition validated by Harrison.

    Drew, given that you have identified yourself as the author of the open letter on the Mission's website, you need to answer this question: In what capacity are you writing, is it a personal one or on behalf of the Mission?

    Quote from: drew
    I have no problem with the quotation taken from +Tissier but you do not understand what he is saying.  Bishop Fellay does not exercise any "ordinary jurisdiction" over the SSPX or anyone else, and is in fact himself subject to ordinary jurisdiction.  That is assuming that he has not privately taken the 1989 Profession of Faith and Oath of Fidelity and in reward for which he has been secretly given ordinary jurisdiction.  But would anyone be surprised to learn that this what has in fact happened?

    But to the point, +Tissier said that "our jurisdiction is... exercised... case by case over the persons who are in need."  That is, the jurisdiction is supplied by the Church because of the rights of the faithful.  And this is exactly what I have already explained to you.


    Because of your lack of understanding you again failed to grasp what is being said. The quotes from +Tissier de Mallerais gave:
    (i) a definition of Bishop's Flock (the two words you are too petrified to mention),
    (ii) defined the limits of their supplied jurisdiction (viz. confirmands and seminarians), and
    (iii) showed a jurisdiction over individuals and not a flock (as others have noted).
    This is what +Tissier de Mallerais is stating: they lack any flock and their supplied jurisdiction is limited to two instances. Again, you demonstrate complete ignorance on all this, as well as in your understanding of Bp. Fellay's jurisdiction: he has the power of ordinary jurisdiction from his office (as Superior General) over members of the SSPX. You wrongly think the laity are members, they are not, save  those of the Third Order - over which his ordinary jurisdiction extends and clerics.

    You have falsified +TdM's quote (with elipses). He is quite specific on the limits of their supplied jurisdiction, namely, confirmations and ordinations; that is all.

    Quote from: drew
    Jesus Christ is the Good Shepherd.  All who exercise jurisdiction in the Church as shepherds do so by participation in the priesthood of Christ.  The ordinary exercise of this power that belongs to the Church is delegated by the Pope according to legal norms, but if the Pope fails in teaching the faith or in the worship of God, or those to whom he has delegated jurisdiction fail, then any member of the flock of Christ is at liberty to seek a faithful shepherd to follow.  

    Schism is the denial of jurisdiction per se.  The denial of jurisdiction per accidens is not.

    I'll reply to this in the next quote but you and again demostrate you have no knowledge on the subject matter and the last sentence is idiotic. But even more, you haven't thought your perverse logic through: since you concede to the pope only an accidental power, yet claim the denial of such power is not schism!

    Quote from: drew
    The Pope is not the "source of jurisdiction upon this earth."  The "source" of jurisdiction is God.  "All power in heaven and on earth is given to Me (Jesus Chrsit)."  When God founded His Church He endowed His Church with the attributes of authority, infallibility, and indefectibility.  Jurisdiction is grounded upon the attribute of authority.  The Pope in his office exercises this power of the Church.  The power belongs essentially (per se) to the Church and only accidently (per accidens) to the Roman Pontiff.  When the Pope dies or resigns jurisdiction does not die or resign with him.  Ordinary jurisdiction is delegated according to legal norms.  Supplied jurisdiction in not delegated according to legal norms except in the case of "common error or in doubt" which are addressed in the Code of Canon Law.  I repeat, with these two limited exceptions cited in Canon Law, supplied jurisdiction is not created by positive laws and it is not exercised by positive law.  Those who have argued that traditional priest exercise supplied jurisdiction according to canonical norms have done a real disservice to all faithful Catholics.  No SSPX priest does or has ever exercised supplied jurisdiction by virtue of the prescriptions of positive law because of "common error or doubt."

    The authorities you are quoting are only addressing the legal prescriptions of jurisdiction.  They are not dealing with the situation during a time of general apostasy in the hierarchy.


    Drew, firstly and most importantly, your ignorance on jurisdiction leads you to espose heresy:
    "... power belongs essentially (per se) to the Church and only accidently (per accidens) to the Roman Pontiff."
    This is Febronianism, a heresy, condemned by the church.

    and to reject doctrine:
    "Supplied jurisdiction in [sic] not delegated according to legal norms [viz. Law promulgated by the Roman Pontiff] ..."
    This statement can only mean there exists two separate sources of jurisdition; one outside the authority of the pope. It is a rejection of Mystici Corporis Christi; that within the Mystical Body jurisdiction eminates from two heads.

    Secondly, you fail to comprehend what is meant by "source of jurisdiction upon this earth". Let me explain it to you in the most simplist of terms (by quoting Miaskiewicz): "Jurisdictional power was conferred by Christ upon the Church. From this source the Roman Pontiff has ever drawn the plenitude of this power. And having drawn from Christ, the Church, through the Pope, has traditionally conferred upon her subjects a share in that power by means of legitimate commission."
    Hence, Christ is the remote source and the Pope the proximate source of jurisdiction, understand? And in this case the law can be seen as an 'immediate source' in that it supplies "executive power of governance" (I did embolden it last time but you failed to grasp the significance). This is why during an interregnum the supplementary principle is still applicable. And you are wrong, delegated jurisdiction bestowed by the Pope does cease on his death. Ordinary jurisdiction, being attached to an office by law, continues, that should have been obvious for anyone with a basic knowledge of jurisdiction.

    Thirdly, it is clear you think supplied jurisdiction to be a diffent species from ordinary or delegated jusridiction. It isn't. "Supplied jurisdiction is a jurisdiction, be it ordinary or delegated, which is bestowed in an extraordinary manner ... ", to quote Miaskiewicz again. Further, you are incapable of distiguishing between ordinary or delegated jurisdiction; when you write nonsense like "Ordinary jurisdiction is delegated according to legal norms." it shows your complete ignorance of the terms. So much for terms must be properly expoisted to write accurate propositions and structure sounds arguments.

    "... with these two limited exceptions cited in Canon Law, supplied jurisdiction is not created ..."
    Simply, Drew, you don't even know the basics. You are completely clueless in what you write:
    i) there are more than two 'exceptions'. Try reading the canons on absolution in danger of death or dispenations of martrimonial impedements (just two examples);
    ii) these two exceptions are not 'limited' but wide ranging; they apply to all kinds of jurisdictional activity - you simply don't understand the terminology;
    iii) jurisdiction is bestowed not created;

    Forthly, I have provided you with serveral, authorative, sources (I can add Bellamine too, and quoted in DTC) who have stated all jurisdiction eminates, on earth, from the Soverign Pontiff. Cardinal Ottaviani stated that what was common doctrine must now be accepted as entirely certain by reason of the words of the Pius XII (published in Institutiones iuris publici ecclesiastici). Whereas, Drew, your incompetence is clear both in the fact that you cannot reference any authorative sources and you cannot even get the terminology right.

    Quote from: drew
    You are conflating two distinct categories.  Bishop Tissier understands the problem and you do not.  I agree that supplied jurisdiction is exercised on a case by case basis and have said this from my first post.  You have not.  It is so because it is the individual person's needs that create the supplied jurisdiction.  It is the penitent in need of absolution that gives the jurisdiction to the traditional priest.  The problem is that you have claimed that it is "the pope who confers 'supplied jurisdiction.'"  The only situations where supplied jurisdiction conferred by the Pope are addressed in Canon Law.  The positive law of the Church does not address directly all the multitudinous situations were supplied jurisdiction may be necessary.  This fact is recognized in Canon Law which states that the highest law is the salvation of souls.


    It is good you now accept supplied jurisdiction is exercised on a case by case basis (since the sources I gave did blow you away). I can understand you claiming that you always said this (and of course that I did not), but any reader can review the posts; this all began because you could not differentiate between an individual and a bishop's flock (and what this term means, which is why you're too scared to mention it, and why someone else [J.Paul] did it for you).
    All jurisdiction eminates from the Soverign Pontiff as already shown. Your heresy of accidental papal power has been addressed previously.

    Quote from: drew
    Again, so what?  You are addressing the ordinary exercise of jurisdiction.  Now, as  explained before from St. Pius X, the purpose of jurisdiction is to teach the doctrines of the Catholic faith and offer the proper worship to God.  Jurisdiction has no authority to teach error or corrupt worship.  

    You apparently do not have a problem with the Novus Ordo doctrine or worship and if that is the case, then you have no right to act in matters of doctrine or worship outside the authority of your local ordinary.  You are publically admitting that you have no right to attend a SSPX Mass or to receive the sacraments from any SSPX priest without the permission of your local ordinary.  So why are you posting on this forum?

    None of this follows but, again, this is due to your lack of understanding of what jurisdiction is, and it has't even occurred to you that if you followed your logic through you would reject the Bishop of Rome's jurisdiction for the same reasons you reject your local ordinaries ... which would mean? Farcical, but you would still contend that is not schismatic!

    Quote from: drew
    The straw man is not my example.  It is you or whoever else "we" refers.  You have made unsubstantiated accusations and cannot examine  jurisdiction with any greater moral insight than a Pharisee.
     
    I have said nothing about the distinction between "to deny" and "to not comply" so who is inventing a straw man?  I hope you don't smoke.  If you understood the distinction, I would not have had to explain to what schism is in the first place.  If you would re-read my post you will find the qualification that any of the faithful are free to follow +Williamson as their shepherd until those exercising ordinary jurisdiction teach correct doctrine and proper worship of God.  If the local ordinary did this, then there would be no right or reciprocal duty to for supplied jurisdiction.

    It is clear that you have no understanding of jurisdiction. You cannot even use the correct terms (even though you wrote terms must be properly expoisted) and the name-calling denotes a desparation. I thought the rhyming "to deny" and "to not comply" might make it easier for you to understand the difference - an instance of refusal to obey (to not comply with a certain command) not being schismatic but a refusal of obedience per se (to deny all jurisdiction) being schismatic. I don't know how to put it more simply.

    Quote from: drew
    Does the "p" after peter stand for "pan"?


    Drew, if you now need to resort to name-calling then it is clear you can muster no sensible response. Further if what you wrote here is also the thinking of the 'Mission' it validates Bishop Chaput's actions.

    This 'Mission' is not a Catholic association. It was not validly erected as Bishop Chaput rightly pointed out [You should be aware that the supplementary principle will not allow the arrogation of a power only conferred upon Ordinaries; the Church will not supply].
    If the Mission concurs with your claims of multiple sources of jurisdiction it denies Catholic doctine.
    If it concurs with your claims listed at the being of this post, it is a schismatic sect.
    If it concurs with your views of accidental papal power it is an heretical sect.

    Readers beware.

    Offline Maria Auxiliadora

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1257
    • Reputation: +1265/-64
    • Gender: Female
    ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLXVI (366) July 19,2014 A.D.
    « Reply #79 on: October 15, 2014, 10:00:29 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • peterp,

    A Jewish lawyer who has been reading the Open Letters on SS Peter and Paul Mission website for two years (over and over) in order the prove the Mission a cult...etc. has converted and asked to be baptized last Thursday, Oct. 9th. confessing Our Lord Jesus Christ as God. Obviously, the Mission is defending the Catholic faith and saving souls. And your newly "reintegrated" SSPX?... well we know where that is going. You are not going to convert the Romans, they will convert you.

    http://www.saintspeterandpaulrcm.com/open_letters.htm

    The love of God be your motivation, the will of God your guiding principle, the glory of God your goal.
    (St. Clement Mary Hofbauer)


    Online Neil Obstat

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 17929
    • Reputation: +8177/-616
    • Gender: Male
    ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLXVI (366) July 19,2014 A.D.
    « Reply #80 on: October 16, 2014, 04:03:25 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • .

    Post
    Quote from: drew

    Does the  "p" after peter stand for "pan"?

    Drew



    The whole username is misspelled, missing a 'w'.  It should have "petwerp."

    .
    .--. .-.-.- ... .-.-.- ..-. --- .-. - .... . -.- .. -. --. -.. --- -- --..-- - .... . .--. --- .-- . .-. .- -. -.. -....- -....- .--- ..- ... - -.- .. -.. -.. .. -. --. .-.-.

    Offline Charlotte NC Bill

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 421
    • Reputation: +494/-4
    • Gender: Male
    ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLXVI (366) July 19,2014 A.D.
    « Reply #81 on: October 20, 2014, 07:57:34 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • It's amazing this Teflon cult of Bishop Fellay amongst most SSPX'ers. He's still ( mostly ) treated like the anointed one, chosen to lead traditional Catholics. His inconsistencies don't matter as long as they get their bells and smells next Sunday. Some folks here drove all the way to the new Seminary to hear him. I wouldn't drive the 1/2 hr. to Mt. Holly if he came.

    Offline peterp

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 203
    • Reputation: +0/-5
    ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLXVI (366) July 19,2014 A.D.
    « Reply #82 on: October 21, 2014, 08:35:01 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Marie Auxiliadora
    peterp,

    A Jewish lawyer who has been reading the Open Letters on SS Peter and Paul Mission website for two years (over and over) in order the prove the Mission a cult...etc. has converted and asked to be baptized last Thursday, Oct. 9th. confessing Our Lord Jesus Christ as God. Obviously, the Mission is defending the Catholic faith and saving souls. And your newly "reintegrated" SSPX?... well we know where that is going. You are not going to convert the Romans, they will convert you.

    http://www.saintspeterandpaulrcm.com/open_letters.htm




    Marie Auxiliadora, I have no knowledge about your Jewish friend but I doubt he has been privy to the things Drew has written on this forum.

    Perhap you should direct him here, or direct him to:

    i) Miaskiewicz's dissertation on Supplied Jurisdiction and how the supply of jurisdiction cannot extend beyond the limits within which it is restricted by law. So how was this so-called "mission" erected, when only an Ordinary has the power to erect a pius union?

    ii) Mystici Corporis Christi. Perhaps he can explain why Drew is right and this is wrong: "Since He was all wise He could not leave the body of the Church He had founded as a human society without a visible head. Nor against this may one argue that the primacy of jurisdiction established in the Church gives such a Mystical Body two heads. For Peter in view of his primacy is only Christ's Vicar; so that there is only one chief Head of this Body, namely Christ, who never ceases Himself to guide the Church invisibly, though at the same time He rules it visibly, through him who is His representative on earth."

    iii) explain away Drew's comment of:
    "The power belongs essentially (per se) to the Church and only accidently (per accidens) to the Roman Pontiff."
        versus
    "Hence it is that heretics have ever sought to destroy or at least to weaken this legislative power. The following are the chief errors on this head: ... Nicholas de Hontheim suffragan of the Archbishop of Treves, having in 1763 published a book under the assumed name of Febronius, conceded to the Pope but an accidental power to enact or rather propose laws ..." (Elements of Ecclesiastical Law, Sebastian Bach Smith [includes an approbation by Blessed John Henry Newman])

    By the way, I should remind you that the "mission" - according to it's website - considers itself "integrated" and has, on a number of occasions, asked the local Ordinary to come and bless the "Mission" and to administer confirmations. But I think you've just let something slip; it is all lip-service with no real desire for this at all.

    So it remains for Drew to tell us in what capacity he is writing since what he has written does reflect on the "Mission". Would you not agree?


     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16