Author Topic: SUPPLIED JURISTICTION, PRUDENCE OR PRINCIPLE  (Read 1608 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Machabees

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 826
  • Reputation: +0/-0
SUPPLIED JURISTICTION, PRUDENCE OR PRINCIPLE
« on: November 03, 2012, 03:31:18 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • In these recordings of Fr. Rostand’s Post falls conference, there is a lot of revealing things to write about. However, there is a crucial question that was being asked here about being obliged to following the highest Law in the church –the state of emergency and the Supplied Jurisdiction (at 52:05), and followed up on by another person (at 58:50). YouTube link - SSPX District Superior "Deal with Rome is Prudent" Pt 2:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVn_y10bCo4&feature=youtu.be

    This is a serious question that I think should be brought out to light some more.  This question on the state of emergency, and the fulfillment of the Church Law of Supplied Jurisdiction is really the main argument, the central argument, of the whole SSPX-ROME “practical agreement” issue.  It is the major difference between us (the old SSPX) and FSSP, Campos, and the others.  That is, we are safe from this conciliar apostasy by being safeguarded by the Cannon Law- supplied jurisdiction and they are not!

    As much as Fr. Rostand did not answer the question, and those two people were laboring to stay on track, Fr. Rostand instead kept re-directing it into something else –prudence.

    Listen to the exchange again at those marks.  It is very telling…an insight that is really a 180 degree different position of wanting to go into a conciliar Rome accord, coming from the U.S. District superior himself, than what used to be held in the “old” SSPX.

    For those who do not understand this crucial problem and crises of the SSPX (past and present), about the state of emergency- supplied jurisdiction, there are many articles written of this that you can do a search.  (If anyone has a good link please drop it in.  But let’s stay on this subject; it is important)

    In brief, the state of emergency for a Catholic must be an objective hindrance, obstacle, eclipse, etc.  of the normal means to receive the grace and sacraments from the Church.  From this state of emergency there becomes a “state of need”- the church in her wisdom –God’s will- supplies for this need in Her Cannon Law.  In fact, it is the highest of all Church Law, for the salvation of souls, the Church gives a “supplied Jurisdiction” to overcome this obstacle to the priests, bishops, and the faithful for this emergency to allow you, or a priest, bishop etc., to receive and give the sacraments based on that need.  This is what has been taught (mind you I wrote in brief) from the Society’s pulpits and conferences for years, especially since the 1988 consecrations of the 4-bishops.

    So let’s continue what this Cannon Law really means to every baptized soul and priest in this real state of emergency that exists since the errors and consequences of Vatican II, and why it is a matter of principle and not of prudence that Fr. Rostand wishes us to believe.

    In a normal situation, the fact that anyone received the sacraments from a SSPX priest today, or yesterday, or tomorrow, including the SSPX priests and bishops administering them, is in open and direct “disobedience” to the local bishop in his jurisdiction of dioceses, and in open and direct “disobedience” to the Pope.  Period!  Ah…but a response immediately follows -it is not a normal situation, a state of emergency and supplied jurisdiction (…) -you are absolutely correct!   So then in following the higher Law of the Church, the Law of God, in this “apparent disobedience” it is done out of principle first, it is objective, for the greater good , then it is prudent to decide to follow it –correct!  First the Wisdom of Principle, then the act of prudence.  Not the other way around!

    So what does that mean in this present “practical-agreement” SSPX -crises?  Everything!

    Fr. Rostand in this audio recording (7:04) acknowledged and agreed that Rome is still apostate =state of emergency.  -Correct.

    Fr. Rostand in this audio recording (36:35)acknowledged and agreed that the state of emergency and state of necessity is objective and still remains even if the SSPX signs a practical agreement.  -Correct.

    Fr. Rostand in this audio recording (37:00) said that this practical agreement has nothing to do with a Canonical matter (which contradicts Fr. Pfluger’s interpretation in his “We are back to square one” interview -Dici Oct. 16, 2012).

    Fr. Rostand in this audio recording (52:05) in answering the question, about if the universal supplied jurisdiction of the Church Law would be hindered, from now needing permission from a conciliar bishop to open a chapel in his diocese (in one of the 6-conditions), Fr. Rostand actually affirmed, after stuttering,: “That yes it would definitely affect our growth”.  What is “growth” Fr. Rostand, if it isn’t souls coming in state of need to receive the sacraments?  And you play with this divine commission and obligation to then say: “And it would be for us a question once again of prudence…”.   No Fr. Rostand, it is not a matter of what you will decide to do with the objective Cannon Law, are you going to obey it as Archbishop Lefebvre had?  It is a matter of principle to follow the Law of the Church-especially for the salvation of souls!  If it would definitely affect the growth of souls as you said it would, is that “prudent” in your stewardship to play with these loss of souls?

    So, what is the “practical agreement” for if there is still a state of emergency?

    The SSPX leader’s stated premise to sign a practical agreement is in the General Chapters 6-conditions (Read them.  They are eye opening.), which are very superficial and pragmatic to the real crises we are undergoing of the Faith; and at (30:36) Fr. Rostand’s back peddling wishes us to believe that the agreement is to be what the SSPX always does… and speak out… like modernist Rome will take them in with loving ecumenical arms and will not “touch” them –such was the fantasy of the other groups who said the same thing (…).

    So now the problem.  With the above being true, that when the SSPX signs a “practical/legal” agreement with conciliar Rome, the SSPX “loses for itself”, and all of the faithful under them, the protection of the Cannon Law of “universal” supplied jurisdiction -Regardless of the set-up of agreement.  So, when the SSPX signs a “practical agreement” with conciliar Rome, you cannot say that the SSPX has “supplied jurisdiction” anymore when in fact, it doesn’t?  By a stroke of a pen, the SSPX is now legally absorbed in the conciliar structure.  Like Campos and the others that have been effectively shut down and compromised = modernist’s win.  That’s what conciliar Rome really wants!  Go play chess.  Sometimes for a strategy, you can give something up –so then you can come back to “check-mate” your opponent.  

    Question?  Has anyone ever heard from those groups using the platform of “supplied jurisdiction” anymore?  No!  Because by signing a practical agreement they willfully went into the (new)conciliar structure and implicitly/explicitly gave consent to a “legal normalcy” for themselves under a false premise and left behind the highest law of the church –the salvation of souls!  The NSSPX will no longer be able to go “outside” of their “new legal jurisdiction”.

    Here is the depth of this.  This Cannon Law of State of Necessity-supplied jurisdiction is there to protect you from anyone looking to destroy the faith of our fathers, knowingly or unknowingly, locally or wholesale.  Therefore, every baptized Catholic, including priests, and bishops, all over the world, are commissioned and obliged under obedience to God to follow this Good Law to protect yourselves from harms way.  Further, a baptized Catholic, including priests, and bishops, have no right to hinder themselves, or another person from attaining this protection to receive the sacraments and graces the Church wishes to give.  

    Therefore, whatever practical or pragmatic “deal” with bells and whistles one wants to make with those who endanger the faith –regardless of personages: A). You have no right before God to put yourself in harm’s way.  B). You have no right before God to put others in harm’s way.  C). You have no right to put the True religion of God into another religion (conciliar/novus ordo religion).  D). When you sign you lose the protection of the Cannon Law.  E). No faithful can follow you into that danger.  F). You now no longer can help souls in the “freedom” of that protection without asking “permission” to the conciliar mechanism (…).   And so on…

    Do you get the danger of this new SSPX-crisis yet?  This is not about a pretty badge of prelature, or a pride of recognition, or even fixing an “irregularity” –THIS IS ABOUT THE FAITH.  PLAIN AND SIMPLE!

    If you do follow the NSSPX into the danger of the conciliar mechanisms of the conciliar Rome -then you are in real schism to the true faith.  Bluntly said!  

    So once the NSSPX signs the accord, it cannot “disobey” the orders to relocate hear, go there, shut down there, and all of the rest of the modernist tactics (…).

    So where can the faithful go so as not to be infected by this conciliar/ecumenical religion?  

    This is another entry- into another Catacomb.  Have faith.  God will provide!

    Offline Neil Obstat

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 18160
    • Reputation: +8250/-634
    • Gender: Male
    SUPPLIED JURISTICTION, PRUDENCE OR PRINCIPLE
    « Reply #1 on: November 03, 2012, 03:50:57 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    Here is the depth of this.  This Cannon Law of State of Necessity-supplied jurisdiction is there to protect you from anyone looking to destroy the faith of our fathers, knowingly or unknowingly, locally or wholesale.  Therefore, every baptized Catholic, including priests, and bishops, all over the world, are commissioned and obliged under obedience to God to follow this Good Law to protect yourselves from harms way.  Further, a baptized Catholic, including priests, and bishops, have no right to hinder themselves, or another person from attaining this protection to receive the sacraments and graces the Church wishes to give.  



    So how do you propose that you are the expert who can say with confidence
    what 'the depth of this' is, and what the purpose of a particular provision of
    canon law is?  Did you read this somewhere?  Did someone tell you?  Who was it?
     

    When laymen pretend to be canon law authorities and then run off on a tangent,
    it's a big waste of time, because they probably are blowing hot air, based on their
    ignorance.  



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


    Offline Machabees

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 826
    • Reputation: +0/-0
    SUPPLIED JURISTICTION, PRUDENCE OR PRINCIPLE
    « Reply #2 on: November 03, 2012, 04:16:58 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Good morning Neil.

    I hope you are having a glass of orange juice, and cheers!  I would ask that you read it again.  That is not what this is about.  I'm sorry that you missed the context.  That conference in Postfalls is huge.  Perhaps I should have entitled it: Fr. Rostand - Prudence or Principle.,  and that would get readers to look at more of what he said in the recordings than just on "Cannon Law" itself.

    My prayers...

    Offline Zenith

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 665
    • Reputation: +523/-0
    • Gender: Male
    SUPPLIED JURISTICTION, PRUDENCE OR PRINCIPLE
    « Reply #3 on: November 03, 2012, 05:44:19 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Neil Obstat
    Quote
    Here is the depth of this.  This Cannon Law of State of Necessity-supplied jurisdiction is there to protect you from anyone looking to destroy the faith of our fathers, knowingly or unknowingly, locally or wholesale.  Therefore, every baptized Catholic, including priests, and bishops, all over the world, are commissioned and obliged under obedience to God to follow this Good Law to protect yourselves from harms way.  Further, a baptized Catholic, including priests, and bishops, have no right to hinder themselves, or another person from attaining this protection to receive the sacraments and graces the Church wishes to give.  



    So how do you propose that you are the expert who can say with confidence
    what 'the depth of this' is, and what the purpose of a particular provision of
    canon law is?  Did you read this somewhere?  Did someone tell you?  Who was it?
     

    When laymen pretend to be canon law authorities and then run off on a tangent,
    it's a big waste of time, because they probably are blowing hot air, based on their
    ignorance.  





    The only hot air in thus thread came from you Neil.

    Offline Neil Obstat

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 18160
    • Reputation: +8250/-634
    • Gender: Male
    SUPPLIED JURISTICTION, PRUDENCE OR PRINCIPLE
    « Reply #4 on: November 04, 2012, 12:11:55 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Zenith
    ...
    The only hot air in [this] thread came from you[,] Neil.


    Thank you, Zenith.  I deserved that!




    Quote from: I Machabees
    Good morning Neil.

    I hope you are having a glass of orange juice, and cheers!  I would ask that you read it again.  That is not what this is about.  I'm sorry that you missed the context.  That conference in Postfalls is huge.  

    Perhaps I should have entitled it: Fr. Rostand - Prudence or Principle.,  and that would get readers to look at more of what he said in the recordings than just on "Cannon Law" itself.

    My prayers...


    This would be the second time I've been accused of taking someone, who sounds
    important, out of context.  The last time, Fr. Rostand scolded me via the Internet!

    HAHAHAHAHAHA

    ...........

    ..........Wait a minute.....................   how did you know I like orange juice????    :shocked:

    I've never mentioned that here....................  (it isn't going to work ever
    again
    , Fr. Rostand, so if you're reading this, the cat's out of the bag!)   :judge:



    Okay, back up.  Let's try this again.  

    My apologies for "shooting from the hip."  My excuse is, I used to be a big Chuck
    Connors fan (The Rifleman).  But now I know where he's buried, and I think I'm the
    only one who puts flowers on his grave.. But I digress..................

    And how did you know that I'm a stickler for thread titles? Oh, wait..  I guess
    Matthew could have told you.  HAHAHAHAHAHA  

    But seriously,  you have some excellent observations.  I hope you can be aware
    that there have been a lot of fancy-sounding members around here who start off
    their track record sounding pretty Kosher (pardon the pun) and then later on they
    show their true colors..  BTW: you've already passed your first test..  

    Orange juice, eh?  

    That's one for the record.  I'm sorry.  Tell me, was I wrong when I was so bold as
    to presume that "Dominus tecum" in context may mean something slightly different
    because "tecum" means "with thee," not "with you?"

    There I go, digressing again. Please:  try to have patience with me!



    You say, "That conference in Postfalls is huge." I presume you meant Post
    Falls.  (Does a nit-picker irritate you?  I'm just detail-oriented, to a fault. Is it a
    bad thing?)

    Okay, then, my stock response is, "HOW HUGE IS IT?"  
    (Cf. Johnny Carson show!  -- *rim shot* -- )

    But before you scratch your head and try to answer that one, shall I do as you
    ask, and re-read "it?"  Or should I say, "read it again" ? -But then I'd have to ask,
    "HOW HUGE IS IT" ? Catch my drift?!?!






    Okay, now that I'm warmed up, let's turn on the lights and start the camera,
    because now, I mean action.





    You have asked the open-ended question (which I appreciate BTW):

    Quote
    So, what is the “practical agreement” for, if there is still a state of emergency ?  


    It seems to me that, if they were honest, the Menzingen-denizens would answer,
    that the practical agreement's purpose is for the Society to achieve either ordinary
    jurisdiction, or else some ersatz version of same so as to deceive, if it were
    possible, even the elect
    (!) - only, they would leave out the exclamation point.





    And I would like to thank you for this sentence:

    Quote
    Fr. Rostand’s back peddling wishes us to believe that the agreement is to be what the SSPX always does… and speak out… like modernist Rome will take them in with loving ecumenical arms and will not “touch” them –such was the fantasy of the other groups who said the same thing (…).
    ... because, not only is it spelled correctly, but it contains a lot more than it reads,
    literally.





    If I may be so bold, I would like to offer a mock-up of a gross simplification of this:

    Quote
    With the above being true, that when the SSPX signs a “practical/legal” agreement with conciliar Rome, the SSPX “loses for itself”, and all of the faithful under them, the protection of the Cannon Law of “universal” supplied jurisdiction -Regardless of the set-up of agreement.  So, when the SSPX signs a “practical agreement” with conciliar Rome, you cannot say that the SSPX has “supplied jurisdiction” anymore when in fact, it doesn’t? By a stroke of a pen, the SSPX is now legally absorbed in the conciliar structure  Like Campos and the others that have been effectively shut down and compromised = modernist’s win.  That’s what conciliar Rome really wants!  Go play chess.  Sometimes for a strategy, you can give something up –so then you can come back to “check-mate” your opponent.
     

    Simplified, it says,

    "When the SSPX signs a “practical/legal” agreement
    with conciliar Rome, the SSPX loses “universal” supplied
    jurisdiction.   By a stroke of a pen, the SSPX is then like
    Campos and the others, that have been effectively shut
    down!  That’s what conciliar Rome really wants!!  

    Go play chess.  Sometimes for a strategy, you can
    give something up – so then you can come back to
    check-mate” your opponent.


    Sorry, but the chess example is just too good to delete.  Perfect, I'd say, just
    perfect.  Problem is, too many readers don't play chess, or, if they do, they're not
    proficient enough to understand this most powerful strategic advantage, which
    translates into a mere tactical exercise once your opponent has "taken the bait."

    But I digress.. again..





    Now, I have a problem with this sentence, or, rather - I mean to say, that Fr.
    Rostand is the one who should have a problem with this:

    Quote
     Further, a baptized Catholic, including priests, and bishops, have no right to hinder themselves, or another person from attaining this protection to receive the sacraments and graces the Church wishes to give.  

    .. because, he really, really, really relishes the prospect of refusing
    Communion to anyone who, like me (!),  would dare to present himself at the
    Communion rail after having made Internet posts that question a, b, or c (items
    relating to his presumption of 'authority' in 'prudential matters of discipline').





    After your A, B, C, D, E, F, "And so on,"  (I'd like a few more letters filled in if it
    isn't too much trouble!) you then have this:

    Quote
    If you do follow the NSSPX into the danger of the conciliar mechanisms of the conciliar Rome -then you are in real schism to the true faith.  Bluntly said!  






    NOW,

    ..if we could just get a Nihil Obstat and an Imprimatur on that sentence and the
    "letters" preceding it, I know a few ninnies who I'd like to see cringe when I wave
    it in their faces!    ..................  HAHAHAHAHA    :laugh2:






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


    Offline Neil Obstat

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 18160
    • Reputation: +8250/-634
    • Gender: Male
    SUPPLIED JURISTICTION, PRUDENCE OR PRINCIPLE
    « Reply #5 on: November 04, 2012, 12:30:51 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0


  • I'm probably offensive to some, but it's just in me.  Put me in a church where
    there are vandals desecrating the place, and I will put my life at risk to make
    them stop it.  I have been there and I have done that.  And it works.  They
    are always cowards, and when faced with the zeal of true Catholic manliness,
    they turn on their heels and run away, sometimes screaming.  

    But maybe I'm being a bit too harsh.  Should I take pleasure in waving a text
    in the faces of those who think they are holding fast to their religion?  







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

    Offline Neil Obstat

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 18160
    • Reputation: +8250/-634
    • Gender: Male
    SUPPLIED JURISTICTION, PRUDENCE OR PRINCIPLE
    « Reply #6 on: November 05, 2012, 09:51:25 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Machabees
    ...  Perhaps I should have entitled it: Fr. Rostand - Prudence or Principle.,  and that would get readers to look at more of what he said in the recordings than just on "Cannon Law" itself.

    My prayers...



    Perhaps you should have spelled "JURISDICTION" correctly (JURISTICTION?) in
    the thread title, and then everyone might know what you're talking about.




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

    Offline Machabees

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 826
    • Reputation: +0/-0
    SUPPLIED JURISTICTION, PRUDENCE OR PRINCIPLE
    « Reply #7 on: November 05, 2012, 10:31:34 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Neil,

    Interesting enough both spellings pass through my Words Document spell check.

    I’m sorry that “typos” trip you up so much, and you lose the context of understanding.

    I try to look at substance and thought in things, and always wishing to help my neighbor.

    As you can see, I am not a typist –sorry; and many of us use the spell check feature for our typing.  And you…?

    Can you please be at peace now…?

    My prayers…


    Offline Neil Obstat

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 18160
    • Reputation: +8250/-634
    • Gender: Male
    SUPPLIED JURISTICTION, PRUDENCE OR PRINCIPLE
    « Reply #8 on: November 05, 2012, 11:21:06 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Neil Obstat


    Should I take pleasure in waving a text in the faces of those

    who think they are holding fast to their religion?  





    I guess nobody's willing to answer this question.  They've learned from Fr.
    Rostand how to ignore certain questions, perhaps.



    And Mac, maybe your "Words Document spell check" needs a checkup?

    Don't forget: I was referring to your text!
    .--. .-.-.- ... .-.-.- ..-. --- .-. - .... . -.- .. -. --. -.. --- -- --..-- - .... . .--. --- .-- . .-. .- -. -.. -....- -....- .--- ..- ... - -.- .. -.. -.. .. -. --. .-.-.

    Offline Machabees

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 826
    • Reputation: +0/-0
    SUPPLIED JURISTICTION, PRUDENCE OR PRINCIPLE
    « Reply #9 on: November 06, 2012, 01:35:00 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Neil Obstat
    Quote from: Neil Obstat


    Should I take pleasure in waving a text in the faces of those

    who think they are holding fast to their religion?  





    I guess nobody's willing to answer this question.  They've learned from Fr.
    Rostand how to ignore certain questions, perhaps.



    And Mac, maybe your "Words Document spell check" needs a checkup?

    Don't forget: I was referring to your text!



    Neil, if it will help, then perhaps I will answer your question.  It is self-evident, No!

    Neil, I'm hoping that the exchange of ideas would be done with propriety.
    The crisis of the faith is bigger than these "injections" of divisions you are sowing.  I do not have any interest in continuing this dialog.

    This will be my last offer to reach out to you again, if you think that I need help in my grammatical needs, then please pray a rosary for me, and I will certainly pray a rosary for you.

    My prayers...

     

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