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

« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8

Author Topic: Just not right........  (Read 13482 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Plenus Venter

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1509
  • Reputation: +1235/-97
  • Gender: Male
Re: Just not right........
« Reply #90 on: November 16, 2023, 06:47:18 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Ladislaus on November 16, 2023, 03:26:33 PM
    So the last part of this wasn't included in the post.  Father Kenneth Novak protested aloud that "we're not in disobedience."  To which, I responded, "Of course we are."  So both Father Novak and I looked at Father Peter Scott to referee our disagreement.  After about 30 seconds of silence, he blurts out loud (in typical Father Peter Scott fashion) "We are." and then he starts in with his very distinct laugh.
    Hilarious! Fr Scott is every caricaturist's dream!
    Logged

    Offline Meg

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6790
    • Reputation: +3467/-2999
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Just not right........
    « Reply #91 on: November 16, 2023, 06:52:05 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Capic on November 16, 2023, 06:45:33 PM
    Well, the Catholic Church before Vatican II is the same organization as the "Conciliar Church" after Vatican II. Same governing structure, same diocese, same parish churches, same seminaries, etc.  If organization that was the true Church before Vatican II became a new false Church after Vatican II, the gates of hell would have prevailed.  The Church is in a crisis, but the organization is still the same Church.  It couldn't be otherwise.

    So you don't believe that there's such a thing as a conciliar church, would that be right? 
    Logged
    "It is licit to resist a Sovereign Pontiff who is trying to destroy the Church. I say it is licit to resist him in not following his orders and in preventing the execution of his will. It is not licit to Judge him, to punish him, or to depose him, for these are acts proper to a superior."

    ~St. Robert Bellarmine
    De Romano Pontifice, Lib.II, c.29

    Offline Capic

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 18
    • Reputation: +4/-2
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Just not right........
    « Reply #92 on: November 16, 2023, 07:14:35 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Plenus Venter on November 16, 2023, 06:40:08 PM
    The SSPX is indeed part of the hierarchical constitution of the Church. It is a "society of the common life without vows". To say that it is essentially a lay organisation, a pious union, is simplistic to say the least. Read the study by the canonist, Fr Glover, here: https://sspx.org/en/legal-existence-sspx

    I've read it.  I could reply to each point he makes, one at a time, but there is really no need. The Society was legally founded as a pious union in the diocese of Fribourg on November 1, 1970, and its legal status was never changed to anything other than a pious union. Here is the decree of establishing it:


    Quote
    Decree of erection for the Priestly Society of St. Pius X (November 1, 1970)

    Given the encouragements expressed by the Second Vatican Council, in the decree Optatum Totius, concerning international seminaries and the distribution of the clergy;
    Given the urgent necessity for the formation of zealous and generous priests conforming to the directives of the cited decree;
    Confirming that the Statutes of the Priestly Society correspond to its goals:

    We, Francois Charriere, Bishop of Lausanne, Geneva and Fribourg, in the Holy Name of God invoked and all canonical prescriptions observed, decree what follows:

    • The “International Priestly Society of Saint Pius X” is erected in our diocese as a “Pia unio.”
    • The seat of the Society is fixed as the Maison St. Pie X (St. Pius X House), 50, rue de la Vignettaz in our episcopal city of Fribourg.
    • We approve and confirm the Statutes, here joined, of the Society for a period of six years ad experimentum, which will be able to be renewed for a similar period by tacit approval; after which, the Society can be erected definitively in our diocese by the competent Roman congregation.
    We implore divine blessings on this Priestly Society that it may attain its principal goal which the formation of holy priests.
    Given at Fribourg, at our episcopal residence.

    November 1, 1970, on the Feast of All Saints,


    [signed] + Francois Charriere,

    Bishop of Lausanne, Geneva and Fribourg

    The Society will sometimes point to a letter that the Archbishop received from Cardinal Wright a few months after the Society was established, congratulating the Archbishop on its founding, which they claim elevated the legal status of the SSPX to a Society of Pontifical right, which gave the Archbishop the authority to incardinate bishops!!!!!  To call that absurd is an understatement.  

     Here is the "letter of praise" from Cardinal Write:



    Quote
    Letter of praise and official approval for the SSPX by the Holy See (February 18, 1971)



    Sacred Congregation for the Clergy
    February 18, 1971
    Prot. N. 133515/I.


    Exc. me Domine [Excellentissime Domine],


    With great joy I received your letter, in which your Excellency informs me of your news and especially of the Statutes of the
    Priestly Society.


    As Your Excellency explains, this Association, which by your action, received on 1 November 1970, the approbation of His Excellency Francois Charriere, Bishop of Fribourg, has already exceeded the frontiers of Switzerland, and     several Ordinaries in different parts of the world have already praise and approve it. All of this and especially the wisdom of the norms which direct and govern this Association give much reason to hope for its success.


    As for the Sacred Congregation, the Priestly Society will certainly be able to conform to the end proposed by the Council [for the formation of seminarians], for the distribution of the clergy in the world.


    I am respectfully, Your Excellency,

    Yours in the Lord.

    addictissimus in Domino,
    J Card. Wright, Praef.
    Exc.mo ac Rev.mo Domino
    D.no Marcello LEFEBVRE
    Archiepiscopo tit.de Synnada in Phrygia
    Via Casalmonferrato, n. 33
    ROMAE

    Since several ordinaries "praised and approved" the association, the Society calls this letter "a letter of praise," which, they claim, legally elevated the SSPX to a Society of Pontifical Right.   First, the letter was not "a letter of praise," and second, even if it was, a "letter of praise" does not change the legal status of a pious union to a Society of Pontifical Right.  





    Logged

    Offline Capic

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 18
    • Reputation: +4/-2
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Just not right........
    « Reply #93 on: November 16, 2023, 07:16:13 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Meg on November 16, 2023, 06:52:05 PM
    So you don't believe that there's such a thing as a conciliar church, would that be right?

    I think the Conciliar Church is a name that is given by some to the Catholic Church after Vatican II.
    Logged

    Offline Meg

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6790
    • Reputation: +3467/-2999
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Just not right........
    « Reply #94 on: November 16, 2023, 07:22:30 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Capic on November 16, 2023, 07:16:13 PM
    I think the Conciliar Church is a name that is given by some to the Catholic Church after Vatican II.

    Okay. Do you believe that the SSPX is schismatic? 
    Logged
    "It is licit to resist a Sovereign Pontiff who is trying to destroy the Church. I say it is licit to resist him in not following his orders and in preventing the execution of his will. It is not licit to Judge him, to punish him, or to depose him, for these are acts proper to a superior."

    ~St. Robert Bellarmine
    De Romano Pontifice, Lib.II, c.29

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 15060
    • Reputation: +10006/-3162
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Just not right........
    « Reply #95 on: November 16, 2023, 07:38:11 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Capic on November 16, 2023, 06:32:27 PM
    My name isn't John.  In the case of Eusebius, he exercised the universal episcopal power in an extraordinary way, not by consecrating bishops (which doesn't require jurisdiction), but by consecrating bishops and then installing them as the bishops of an episcopal see. Appointing bishops to an episcopal see does require jurisdiction - universal jurisdiction - which Eusebius enjoyed as a member of the episcopal college and which he exercised in an extraordinary manner by appointing bishops, with the tacit consent of the pope at the time.

    The SSPX bishops have not been appointed to an episcopal see.

    Curious that you argue that Eusebius retained universal jurisdiction as a member of the episcopal college, but Lefebvre did not.

    "According to the Directory for the Pastoral Ministry Of Bishops "Apostolorum Successores", Chapter IX (https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cbishops/docuмents/rc_con_cbishops_doc_20040222_apostolorum-successores_en.html#Chapter_IX ):

    “The Bishop Emeritus continues to be a member of the episcopal College “by virtue of sacramental consecration and hierarchical communion with the head and members of the college”(Code of Canon Law, c. 336). Therefore, he has the right to assist the Roman Pontiff and to collaborate with him for the good of the whole Church. Furthermore, he has the right to take part in an Ecuмenical Council, exercising a deliberative vote (Cf. Code of Canon Law, c. 339), and to exercise his collegial power within the terms of the law (Cf. Code of Canon Law, c. 337 § 2)”.

    Of course, you might say that Lefebvre was not a member of the College of Bishops because of the canonical censures he suffered. But one could imagine, for the sake of argument, that a future authority would determine that the sanctions Lefebvre had incurred were unjust and invalid. And that he therefore retained his place within the College of Bishops in the same way that an unjustly excommunicated Athanasius did.

    Moreover, the paragraph “Conditions for Such Extraordinary Action No Longer Exist” [in your article here: http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/the-case-of-st.html  ] prove, at best, that in Gréa's time the conditions for the extraordinary exercise of collegiate power no longer existed. But I do not think it can be concluded that such conditions may never arise again in the future.

    Besides, however questionable it may be in other respects, it does not seem to me that Lefebvre's action was in the sense of usurping the jurisdiction of a “brother” bishop, as it would have been if he had explicitly tried to consecrate, say, the bishop of Freiburg." (Ibid).

    Logged
    Rom 5: 20 - "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    Offline Capic

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 18
    • Reputation: +4/-2
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Just not right........
    « Reply #96 on: November 16, 2023, 07:47:01 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: SeanJohnson on November 16, 2023, 07:38:11 PM
    Curious that you argue that Eusebius retained universal jurisdiction as a member of the episcopal college, but Lefebvre did not.

    I never said that.  Lefebvre did retain the universal power as a member of the college.  What I am saying is Lefebvre did not consecrate bishops and appoint them to an episcopal see. He consecrated bishops and explicitly stated that they would not receive jurisdiction.


    Quote
    Besides, however questionable it may be in other respects, it does not seem to me that Lefebvre's action was in the sense of usurping the jurisdiction of a “brother” bishop, as it would have been if he had explicitly tried to consecrate, say, the bishop of Freiburg."

    I agree completely.  Lefebvre only consecrated bishops. He did not attempt to appoint them to a diocese that had jurisdiction attached to it.

    That's the difference between what Lefebvre did and what Eusebius did during the Arian crisis. The other difference is that Eusebius had the tacit consent of the Pope.







    Logged

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 15060
    • Reputation: +10006/-3162
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Just not right........
    « Reply #97 on: November 16, 2023, 08:07:00 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Capic on November 16, 2023, 07:47:01 PM
    The other difference is that Eusebius had the tacit consent of the Pope.

    And so did Lefebvre, despite the "no" of the Pope.

    Why?

    Because in necessity, that consent is owed:

    "Regarding seeking permissions from the superior, Suarez explains (speaking precisely of the pope) that here, “it is not a question of interpreting the will of the superior, but [a question] of his power” in order to know what is not necessary to ask the superior, because it is permitted to make use of “doctrinal rules” or “principles of theology and law,”22 given that “one knows with more certitude the power [of the superior] which is not free, rather than his will, which is free [emphasis added].”23 For that reason the subject, having prudently examined the circuмstances and been informed by the “doctrinal rules” or by the “principles of theology and law” that is “beyond the power of legislator”24 to bind anyone to respect the law when it causes grave harm to so many souls, and that to obey in such a case would be “evil and a sin,”25 he may not - indeed, he must not - submit to the law or to the command“on his own authority,”26 “by his own judgment.”27 Hence, by his own initiative, he refuses submission “without recourse to the superior,”28 that is to say, without any dispensation or approval on the part of the said superior. The reason, writes Suarez, is:

    Quote
    that in such a case the authority of the superior cannot have any effect; indeed, even if he were to will that the subject, after having had recourse to him, should observe the law, the latter would not be able to obey him because he must obey God rather than man and hence in such a case its is out of place (“impertinens”) to ask for permission.29

    https://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/SiSiNoNo/1999_September/The_1988_Consecrations.htm
    Logged
    Rom 5: 20 - "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 15060
    • Reputation: +10006/-3162
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Just not right........
    « Reply #98 on: November 16, 2023, 09:10:43 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Capic on November 16, 2023, 08:52:33 PM
    Why was it necessary to consecrate bishops on June 30th, when Rome had agreed to speed up the process of approving a bishop, which would allow him to do so on August 15th?

    That being said, it is never permitted to consecrate a bishop against the expressed will of the Pope, because choosing bishops, consecrating them, and appointing them, is a privilege that the Pope alone enjoys by virtue of the Primacy. He can permit others to do all three, but neither are permitted without his express or tacit consent.  Hence, the teaching of Suarez does not apply when it comes to consecrating a bishop.

    Rome made it clear that they were only playing games with Lefebvre, waiting for him to die, and had no intention of actually permitting him a bishop.

    Appointing bishops is today the norm, via ecclesiastical law, but not divine, as is proven by history (ie., the reservation of the appointment of bishops by the pope came belatedly in the history of the Church, and even then, only in the Latin rite).  Palazzini explains:

    “By the 11th century..., because of the abuses that arose on the part of the Metropolitans at times, the consecration of bishops gradually began to be reserved in some places to the Supreme Pontiff, and then by the 15th century reservation became universal [and only in the Latin Church].51”

    Consequently, Suarez (et al) do apply, and a pope’s consent is owed in necessity, and he is powerless to withhold it.:

    “Asking if the danger of harm to oneself or to others excuses from obeying, Suarez replies that
    Quote
    …one does not presume in the lawmaker that he has the will to bind in such case and even if he had, it would be without effect. On this point all doctors are agreed who treat of obedience and of laws.30
    For the reason, when it is established for certain that the law in a particular circuмstance has become unjust or contrary to another command or virtue which is more binding, then the law ceases to oblige and on his own initiative he can disregard the law without having recourse to the superior,31given that the law in that case could not be observed without sin nor could the superior bind his subject to respect it without sin.32
    Logged
    Rom 5: 20 - "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    Online Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46343
    • Reputation: +27282/-5038
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Just not right........
    « Reply #99 on: November 17, 2023, 10:05:33 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Plenus Venter on November 16, 2023, 06:47:18 PM
    Hilarious! Fr Scott is every caricaturist's dream!

    Yes, my brother Steve (God rest his soul) was gifted with imitating people, including singing.  So, we were at seminary, and Steve would imitate Father Peter Scott's intonation of "Gloria in exceisis Deo ..." (complete with all of the facial expressions Father Scott would add into the mix).  Quite a few seminarians had never met Father Scott, and so they weren't buying the imitation, since it was so unique.  Shortly thereafter, Father Scott came to the seminary and offered Mass at the main altar.  When he intoned the Gloria exactly as Steve had intoned it, you could see a dozen seminarians fighting laughter, and a couple said that had nearly bitten their own tongues off trying to refrain from laughing out loud.

    Steve also imitated Father Leo Carley's very unique "Exsultet" at the Easter Vigil on the afternoon of Holy Saturday.  We (four brothers) were the altar servers that night, and when Father Carley let loose with the "Exultet ...", it had the same effect, with all 3 of us desperately trying not to laugh.

    We meant no disrespect, since we all love Father Carley and Father Scott.  I spent a year working in the library (my reward for having tested out of Latin class) under Father Scott's direction (when he was there, before Steve entered the seminary, after which he left to become District Superior), so I spent lots of time conversing with him.  Never has there been a more lively, upbeat, cheerful, and happy individual than Father Scott.  Of course, he's been sent off to Nigeria (or somewhere in Africa) where he should be a Superior somewhere or a seminary professor.
    Logged

    Offline trento

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 797
    • Reputation: +219/-143
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Just not right........
    « Reply #100 on: November 18, 2023, 10:39:51 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Matthew on November 16, 2023, 08:56:54 AM
    What was wrong with Thuc's approach, fundamentally? Why not be more specific with the criticism, rather than using "Thuc" as a bad word?

    I recall seeing a photo of +Thuc performing episcopal consecrations on a bed, and read somewhere that +Thuc himself asked "Why does everyone wants to become a bishop?", though I can no longer find either the photo or the article.
    Logged

    Offline Incredulous

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 9244
    • Reputation: +9078/-870
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Just not right........
    « Reply #101 on: November 18, 2023, 05:36:38 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Matthew on November 14, 2023, 04:25:19 PM
    Here's an idea, I could be wrong about, but hear me out.

    Incredulous alleges that +Williamson, using his powerful personality, could have coalesced and spearheaded the Resistance, functioning as a force-multiplier to make the Resistance bigger, better, stronger, even larger than all the independent and other priests in the Resistance combined (as we see it today).

    First of all, you can't thwart God's will. If God meant for an SSPX II, you better believe it would have happened. +Williamson's glory (that God had planned for him) would have been taken from him and given to another. God doesn't need ANY of us -- not even a precious rarity like a Traditional Bishop in 2023. God is fully in control.

    If God had wanted an SSPX II in 2023, there would BE an SSPX II in 2023. Perhaps with Bp. Zendejas, Bp. Faure, Bp. Novak, Bp. Timothy Pfeiffer, or someone else at the helm. God makes His will happen. He can resort to inspirations, miracles if need be. He arranges everything in power and wisdom. Going against His holy will is kicking against the goad. Completely futile.

    Second of all, you assume that countless others both priest and laity "would have" jumped ship and joined the Resistance if +Williamson had acted as a unifying lightning rod, a second coming of +Lefebvre as it were, to create an SSPX II as it were.

    But that is open for debate. The SSPX has powerful propaganda. The world has its claws into MOST of the SSPX faithful. People don't want to abandon their chapels they've donated to for years. Some of them don't understand the Archbishop's fight to begin with. Many of the SSPX Faithful are ignorant about the Crisis, Vatican II, etc. Some are recent converts from the Novus Ordo. The list of reasons is very long.

    And even a 1/10 scale model of the SSPX would pale in comparison to "what they have" by staying in the SSPX. So don't kid yourself. Those who left for principles, the Faith, dogmatic reasons (the current Resistance) would have left either way. And those who stayed for "practical" reasons would still have stayed in the SSPX -- for the same reasons: the priests would say they can help more people in the SSPX, and the Faithful would enjoy more of everything by staying in the SSPX.

    So there you have it.

    I suppose the way your frame the SSPX II scenario, it didn’t happen because God didn’t want it to happen?

    But then, I can turn the table on you and say, Well, we got the Resistance leader we deserved.

    Now in Catholic history, there have been worse odds and Holy Men stepped up to the plate and begged God’s assistance to make things happen… and they did. 

    For example, this weekend, I finished reading the autobiography of Archbishop Thuc. 

    He had led his Catholic faithful of South Vietnam, against all odds for 25 years. He was humble, cunning and motivated to do the best for the honor and glory of God.


    Had he been given the chance to lead an SSPX II, that little Holy man would have taken the challenge on wholeheartedly.

    He had built a thriving Diocese without funds, while the French were abandoning him and communist infiltration was at his door. 

    He didn’t say, Aw.. I can’t do it… it wasn’t meant to be.”
    Logged
    "Some preachers will keep silence about the truth, and others will trample it underfoot and deny it. Sanctity of life will be held in derision even by those who outwardly profess it, for in those days Our Lord Jesus Christ will send them not a true Pastor but a destroyer."  St. Francis of Assisi

    Offline Matthew

    • Mod
    • *****
    • Posts: 32550
    • Reputation: +28766/-569
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Just not right........
    « Reply #102 on: November 18, 2023, 06:19:24 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Incredulous on November 18, 2023, 05:36:38 PM
    Now in Catholic history, there have been worse odds and Holy Men stepped up to the plate and begged God’s assistance to make things happen… and they did. 

    Yes, but exactly zero of those periods of "Catholic history" were the 2020's. We're in a totally different environment now.

    In the first age of the Church, the martyrs were more fervent than anyone, but how many decades did they have to endure? They had to be patient until God intervened and the civil authorities stopped the Persecutions.

    Unless you can show me a Abp. Thuc or Lefebvre (or other great saint) who built up an SSPX II from a handful of priests and dozens of supporters in *this age*, you've proven nothing.

    *Mic drop*
    Logged
    Want to say "thank you"? 
    You can send me a gift from my Amazon wishlist!
    https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

    Paypal donations: matthew@chantcd.com

    Offline TheRealMcCoy

    • Supporter
    • ***
    • Posts: 1333
    • Reputation: +954/-197
    • Gender: Female
    • The Thread Killer
    Re: Just not right........
    « Reply #103 on: November 18, 2023, 06:51:18 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    •  Why does the "resistance" need a leader when so many resistors are still going to sspx chapels?
    Logged

    Offline Seraphina

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3774
    • Reputation: +2762/-245
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Just not right........
    « Reply #104 on: November 18, 2023, 08:59:42 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: trento on November 18, 2023, 10:39:51 AM
    +Thuc himself asked "Why does everyone wants to become a bishop?"
    So they can live in someone’s garage?:incense:
    Logged
    Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8
    « previous next »