The SSPX has valid priests.  The FSSP does not.  All of their priests today have been ordained bu Novus Ordo Bishops.  They are NOT the same as the SSPX, who have validly ordained priests, for the most part, except the Novus Ordo priests that have joined them and have not been reordained.

SSPX priests are forbidden to say mass in the Novus Ordo churches.

Agreed. It just reminded me of when the FSSP was created. "Don't have anything to do with that nasty SSPX! See, we can offer a Latin Mass, too! We'll even give you a bishop!" It kept dollars in the Conciliar Church, but where's that promised bishop?

Mithrandylan,

Just because a Pope (or priest for that matter) says the words to confect a sacrament, does not always mean that the sacrament takes place.  Not only must the words be correct, but so must be the matter.

I know that canonizations are not sacraments, but they most certainly follow a formula.  Francis may have said the words at the canonizations, but the "Matter" in which they were pronounced over was highly deficient.

Heck, even the New York Times posted an article with the heading "A Saint He Aint".

The "matter" for canonizations is a dead person.  The infallibility of the Church protects a non-saint dead person from being canonized.  What you are arguing is just another procedural argument, which has already been debunked.  Undue process led to deficient matter slipping through the procedural cracks and onto the canonization assembly line.  

It is not so.  Besides the fact that the Church's infallibility in secondary objects covers canonizations, at least in this particular instance you actually have an ex cathedra definition.  If Francis is a true pope, he is exercising his authority as the head of the Church to define/declare a matter and binding the whole Church to it.  Per Vatican I, these pre-requisites guarantee infallibility, which is an impossibility of error-- that is, it is not possible that he could be wrong.  This is dogma, by the way.

This idea has been circulating on another forum.  See here: http://abple febvref orums./t hread/2238/canoniza tions-infalible-judgement -church?page=9

(remove spaces)

Quote from: Ekim

Mithrandylan,

Just because a Pope (or priest for that matter) says the words to confect a sacrament, does not always mean that the sacrament takes place.  Not only must the words be correct, but so must be the matter.

I know that canonizations are not sacraments, but they most certainly follow a formula.  Francis may have said the words at the canonizations, but the "Matter" in which they were pronounced over was highly deficient.

Heck, even the New York Times posted an article with the heading "A Saint He Aint".

The "matter" for canonizations is a dead person.  The infallibility of the Church protects a non-saint dead person from being canonized.  What you are arguing is just another procedural argument, which has already been debunked.  Undue process led to deficient matter slipping through the procedural cracks and onto the canonization assembly line.  

It is not so.  Besides the fact that the Church's infallibility in secondary objects covers canonizations, at least in this particular instance you actually have an ex cathedra definition.  If Francis is a true pope, he is exercising his authority as the head of the Church to define/declare a matter and binding the whole Church to it.  Per Vatican I, these pre-requisites guarantee infallibility, which is an impossibility of error-- that is, it is not possible that he could be wrong.  This is dogma, by the way.

This idea has been circulating on another forum.  See here: http://abple febvref orums./t hread/2238/canoniza tions-infalible-judgement -church?page=9

(remove spaces)

Would sacramental theology even apply in this case?

Quote from: Mithrandylan

Quote from: Ekim

Mithrandylan,

Just because a Pope (or priest for that matter) says the words to confect a sacrament, does not always mean that the sacrament takes place.  Not only must the words be correct, but so must be the matter.

I know that canonizations are not sacraments, but they most certainly follow a formula.  Francis may have said the words at the canonizations, but the "Matter" in which they were pronounced over was highly deficient.

Heck, even the New York Times posted an article with the heading "A Saint He Aint".

The "matter" for canonizations is a dead person.  The infallibility of the Church protects a non-saint dead person from being canonized.  What you are arguing is just another procedural argument, which has already been debunked.  Undue process led to deficient matter slipping through the procedural cracks and onto the canonization assembly line.  

It is not so.  Besides the fact that the Church's infallibility in secondary objects covers canonizations, at least in this particular instance you actually have an ex cathedra definition.  If Francis is a true pope, he is exercising his authority as the head of the Church to define/declare a matter and binding the whole Church to it.  Per Vatican I, these pre-requisites guarantee infallibility, which is an impossibility of error-- that is, it is not possible that he could be wrong.  This is dogma, by the way.

This idea has been circulating on another forum.  See here: http://abple febvref orums./t hread/2238/canoniza tions-infalible-judgement -church?page=9

(remove spaces)

Would sacramental theology even apply in this case?

No, it wouldn't.  The whole "dead person" matter was rather tongue in cheek.  I just simply meant that the only thing theoretically preventing a person from being considered for canonization is that they're still living.  Naturally there are other pre-requisites for a canonized saint, but the case cannot even be presented if the person is still living.

There are seven sacraments-- canonization is not one of them.  Matter, form and intent are used to determine the validity of the sacraments.  Vatican I determined the conditions for papal infallibility, and they are met; end of story.  One cannot argue against this without applying abhorrent and incessant novelty to the very clear dogma of papal infallibility, a dogma which is extraordinarily clear.

It's very ironic, considering how a long-standing charge against sedevacantists is an exaggeration of papal infallibility-- this is manifestly false, since to date, none of the main arguments for sedevacantism have dealt with papal infallibility (rather the focus was on the Church's infallibility, which is the same as the pope's though exercised in a different way).  For years sedevacantists have heard that none of the post-conciliar popes have taught anything that met the criteria for ex cathedra papal infallibility (to this I agree) but now we actually have an instance where those conditions are met, and I suppose we should expect that, as usual, the rebuttals (if you can call them that) rely on either outright denying papal infallibility, or adding conditions to it that simply don't exist.  

Charlemagne,  perhaps you overlooked my comment " I know canonizations are not a sacrament".  

Thanks for your comments Mithrandylan, much appreciated.  I do understand your point.  Whatever a Pope declares in Excathedra must be believed by all.  But there must be room for "Matter".  If Pius XII declared a bologna sandwich a saint, this would not be valid.  What object being declared must weigh into the equation.

Ekim,

The entire point of infallibility is that there is not a possibility of error.

It's not a promise against actual error, but a promise against even the possibility of error.  In other words, with the pre-requisite conditions being met, it is not even possible that the pope could err in such a definition/declaration.

So, as to your question about Pius XII and a bologna sandwhich, the proper answer is simply that such an instance is impossible for a real pope.

Fake popes do not enjoy infallibility, though.  

Quote from: eddiearent

So, Father denies that the notorious public heretic losses all jurisdiction. My question to Father is if you are TRUELY "una cuм," why don't you really become one with the local heretical "bishop" and princess "pope" and submit to him like Bishop Fellay wants to? Because you want you're cardboard pope and eat him too.

Father, do you really believe you are one with Francis'
*Doctrines
*Disciplines
*Liturgies
*Morals

How can you be one with Francis when you don't recognize his canon law, his bad shepherd saints in Roncalli and Wojtyla, etc.

The true answer is that WE ARE NOT ONE WITH UNA cuм these heretics. We are rationally of a different religion. At this point, we can pray for their conversion as we should. But standing in front of the altar of God and claiming that we are of the same faith as these apostates is the true lie coming from hell, Father.

 :applause: :applause:

Perfectly said.  The resistence priests speak more against the sedevacantists than about the Novus Ordo.  They must keep their people in line, and prevent them from coming to the logical conclusion that the sedevacantist  position is the only valid conclusion to tthe crisis.  Many are coming to that conclusion, and will go to the sede masses as well as the resistence.  Less funds will result.  
If the resistence has the same beliefs as the Neo SSPX, what are they accomplishing?

 What are the sedes accomplishing ? Garage chapels - cowboy priests - pseudo theologians ?

Quote from: Emerentiana

Quote from: eddiearent

So, Father denies that the notorious public heretic losses all jurisdiction. My question to Father is if you are TRUELY "una cuм," why don't you really become one with the local heretical "bishop" and princess "pope" and submit to him like Bishop Fellay wants to? Because you want you're cardboard pope and eat him too.

Father, do you really believe you are one with Francis'
*Doctrines
*Disciplines
*Liturgies
*Morals

How can you be one with Francis when you don't recognize his canon law, his bad shepherd saints in Roncalli and Wojtyla, etc.

The true answer is that WE ARE NOT ONE WITH UNA cuм these heretics. We are rationally of a different religion. At this point, we can pray for their conversion as we should. But standing in front of the altar of God and claiming that we are of the same faith as these apostates is the true lie coming from hell, Father.

 :applause: :applause:

Perfectly said.  The resistence priests speak more against the sedevacantists than about the Novus Ordo.  They must keep their people in line, and prevent them from coming to the logical conclusion that the sedevacantist  position is the only valid conclusion to tthe crisis.  Many are coming to that conclusion, and will go to the sede masses as well as the resistence.  Less funds will result.  
If the resistence has the same beliefs as the Neo SSPX, what are they accomplishing?

 What are the sedes accomplishing ? Garage chapels - cowboy priests - pseudo theologians ?

It's strange that you have that image?  Are you familiar with CMRI?  I have witnessed:

A mix of big beautiful churches and smaller chapels.

60 mass centers in the United States alone, with new chapels opening constantly.

Churches and chapels run by CMRI or who work with CMRI all across the world, Australia, Philippines, New Zealand, South America, Russia, Europe, etc.

2 seminaries, a major and a minor.

3 different orders of nuns, operating numerous grade schools and high schools.

Priests who sacrifice themselves for God by traveling all over to say Mass, hear confessions and visit the sick.

I could go on....