Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: Fr. Kevin Robinson (SSPX) sues New Jersey governor  (Read 8339 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Fr. Kevin Robinson (SSPX) sues New Jersey governor
« Reply #110 on: May 05, 2020, 12:03:58 PM »
The sound and true teachings of the Catholic Church show who is right. We don't have to wait until judgment day. We know our Catholic Faith.

You are obnoxious when you are challenged. Charity is not your strong suit.
Yes, you do know your Protestant faith very well. For our purposes though, Protestantism has no bearing on our discussion so we will indeed have to wait until judgement day.

As for your second, self righteous, sneering, and hubristic, snorting of the snout remark then please take it and shove it back from whence it came; up your culus.

Re: Fr. Kevin Robinson (SSPX) sues New Jersey governor
« Reply #111 on: May 05, 2020, 01:05:04 PM »
I knew him at seminary.  While I applaud the effort, what the heck is he doing by saying that he hopes to be classified as an “essential service”.  That is to basically concede the state’s position that they can violate constitutional rights if you’re not an “essential service”?
I see where he's coming from though.  Its ludicrous to suggest that mass is *not* essential.  And while I think the lockdowns are wrong generally I'm not sure its a priest's job to fight against economic shutdown


Re: Fr. Kevin Robinson (SSPX) sues New Jersey governor
« Reply #112 on: May 06, 2020, 10:11:29 AM »
The deposit of faith is not always clear hence why general councils were necessary to combaf misunderstandings and heresies. Revelation ended with the Apostles, but the transmission and understanding of the faith has developed over time. Cardinal Newman's "Development of Christian Doctine" outlines this point rather succinctly. But once again we are to ask ourselves, who is to interpret the deposit of faith that has already been transmitted and developed if not the authority of the Church? What has already been settled cannot be changed obviously, but only authority can clarify matters for us that people until this day continue to dispute amongst themselves.

No.. please, not the kosher Brit, St. Newman again  :facepalm:  

Can’t we just leave him out of this dogfight?

Re: Fr. Kevin Robinson (SSPX) sues New Jersey governor
« Reply #113 on: May 06, 2020, 10:27:48 AM »
You do have a point here that's been lost.  Whether or not the secular authority has any right to restrict Mass attendance, the hierarchy most certainly does.  One can argue argue about whether they should have done so, but one cannot, short of being a sedevacantist who considers them illegitimate, dispute that they have this right.

Now, I'm not sure if the Pope himself forbade Mass attendance around the world, but I'm sure that he backs the decisions of the local episcopate.  So, since the U.S. bishops have shut down Masses, those who do not consider these illegitimate are in fact bound by their decree.

Now, I know I've disagreed with Sean about this before based on his thinking regarding just law principles.  Archbishop Vigano agrees in this case.  But his argument is about receiving the Sacraments, and people can still receive the Sacraments if they request them on an individual basis (apart from the cases of Novus Ordo presiders who are too scared to administer them).  In fact, some of the Eastern Rite bishops in the U.S. have been encouraging people to make individual appointments to receive the Sacraments.  I would imagine that the logistics of the Novus Ordo would make this impossible (there are many more of them than Eastern Rite Catholics).  Yet I bet that most NO "Catholics" are thrilled that the don't have to go to Mass on Sunday and won't go out of their way for the Sacraments.

In many states, such as here in Ohio, the directive is merely that there not be groups of more than 10.  So what if the SSPX (and others) assigned 15-minute timeslots for groups of 10 at a time (spread out by at least 6 feet along the Communion rail) to receive Holy Communion.  In an 8 hour day, 320 people could receive Holy Communion, and most Traditional chapels don't have anywhere near that many people.  Then also make some arrangements for people who wish to go to Confession beforehand.  I'm not seeing the SSPX make that extra effort to find creative ways to get the Sacraments to people.
I'm definitely not certain this is the case.  And its not even just some SSPX people who question this.  Bishop Schneider has argued that priests don't have to obey these orders, and I've seen a Novus Ordo canon lawyer argue the shutdowns are invalid as well.  I'd think most people here would be more strict than Schneider/an NO canon lawyer, not less, hence I do cite them here despite the fact that most people here wouldn't think that much of either.

One other thing that bothers me here, bishops don't seem to usually be making this decision "on their own."  They seem to be reasoning, like Sean pointed out, on "well the government said it so we don't have a choice."  I wouldn't really see an issue with an SSPX or Resistance chapel ignoring the local bishop here.  I don't think this has to be exclusively a sede thing, it can just be disobedience to unjust authority.

Re: Fr. Kevin Robinson (SSPX) sues New Jersey governor
« Reply #114 on: May 11, 2020, 12:23:55 PM »
… in cases involving mixed matters/mutual interests, the power of the Church prevails, because spiritual matters are more important than temporal … The contrary proposition is condemned in the Syllabus.

This quote serves as a wonderful exemplar as to why laymen should make use of secondary sources rather than going to the primary source; you have completely misunderstood Pius IX’s Syllabus of Errors. It is doubtful you have given any thought as to why each thesis is contained in the contradictory proposition (“no opposition is so sharply determined as by the contradictory”), and so you proceed to assume, wrongly, that the negation of the proposition always holds true. Had you consulted with the Catholic Encyclopedia, for example, you would have realised your own error and also read:

“If, as for instance in thesis 42, the proposition, that in a conflict between civil and ecclesiastical laws the rights of the State should prevail, be condemned, then it does not follow from this thesis, that, in every conceivable case of conflicting laws the greater right is with the Church.