Jaime Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 Never stated that they weren't friends. I simply said they were not in full communion, they were not in good standing and they weren't obedient. I also said because of that they cannot be called Traditionalists. Tradition does not hold disobedience.If and when they are obedient to Rome, you can call them whatever you want. Otherwise they are just as much traditionalists as liturgical dancers and polka masses Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaime Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 [quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1307848710' post='2252630'] You're quibbling on terminology. You're acting like there's a formal definition of "traditionalist" and "full communion" and "good standing", but you're refusing to define it. The priests, bishops, and faithful attached to the FSSPX are suspended, but they remain Catholics. Why is traditionalist a label completely foreign to them? It's not how [url="http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/mershon/070410"]Cardinal Hoyos[/url] would describe Nanners the Heretic. Edited to add link. Cardinal Hoyos has himself described the FSSPX in the same way as I. It was his business to know. [/quote] I have stated multiple times, my obtuse young friend, that to be considered a Traditionalist, one must adhere to the Tradition of the Church which includes being obedient. If you are not obedient, you are not following Tradition! How is this difficult? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaime Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 [quote]The priests, bishops, and faithful attached to the FSSPX are suspended, but they remain Catholics. Why is traditionalist a label completely foreign to them?[/quote] because Traditional priest, bishops and faithful are not suspended by the Church Lifeteen massers and liturgical dancers are not suspended. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted June 12, 2011 Author Share Posted June 12, 2011 [quote name='jaime (the artist formerly known as hot stuff)' timestamp='1307849604' post='2252637'] because Traditional priest, bishops and faithful are not suspended by the Church Lifeteen massers and liturgical dancers are not suspended. [/quote] No, they're not suspended. So? You're the one saying that the presence or lack of a canonical suspension is relevant to the traditionalist label, not me. Define traditionalism. Define precisely what aspect of the traditionalist label makes the presence of a canonical suspension relevant. Also please clarify, do you consider Bishop Tissier to be a traditionalist, but not Bishop Fellay or Williamson or de Galarreta? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted June 12, 2011 Author Share Posted June 12, 2011 [quote name='jaime (the artist formerly known as hot stuff)' timestamp='1307849485' post='2252636'] I have stated multiple times, my obtuse young friend, that to be considered a Traditionalist, one must adhere to the Tradition of the Church which includes being obedient. If you are not obedient, you are not following Tradition! How is this difficult? [/quote] So one has to be perfect in order to be a traditionalist? Adhering to the Tradition of the Church would extend to every single aspect, which would make one a saint. Are only saints traditionalists? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ice_nine Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 [quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1307802812' post='2252348'] Wouldn't it have been 7th and 68th? [/quote] yes math fail X) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaime Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 [quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1307850709' post='2252639'] No, they're not suspended. So? You're the one saying that the presence or lack of a canonical suspension is relevant to the traditionalist label, not me. Define traditionalism. Define precisely what aspect of the traditionalist label makes the presence of a canonical suspension relevant. Also please clarify, do you consider Bishop Tissier to be a traditionalist, but not Bishop Fellay or Williamson or de Galarreta? [/quote] a traditionalist is one who adheres 100% to the teachings of the Church. that's it. No ifs ands or buts. That's it. You adhere 100% to the teachings of the Church, you can consider yourself a Traditionalist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted June 12, 2011 Author Share Posted June 12, 2011 Obedience to Tradition is a far wider thing that obedience to a single Pope. Yes, their act of disobedience was wrong, however, it was not as simple as "the Pope said X and Archbishop Lefebvre did Y." If that's all there was to it, this situation wouldn't exist. Archbishop Lefebvre wasn't an idiot. The heresy of Modernism does exist within the episcopate. I won't get into specifics because it would seem to be against the rules of this site, however the fact remains that it is there. It is easily established. When he saw the presence of Modernism within the hierarchy, Archbishop Lefebvre reacted according to his conscience. I think he was rash and incorrect in his actions, but I think at the end of the day he was obeying Tradition as closely as he knew how. Again, we should think of the Arian crisis. St. Athanasius saw heresy all around him, and he called it out. He was relentless. He acted according to Tradition. As it turns out, the Arian heresy was widespread. The Modernist heresy, I don't think we quite know yet. However, it is easy to see how Archbishop Lefebvre might have regarded the whole thing. He certainly was a lightning rod for the chaos after the Second Vatican Council. Maybe he overreacted. Maybe he saw more Modernism than there actually was. I think that is true. Who knows. Only God can judge his heart. However, I think he acted according to his conscience. He saw his consecrations as emergency measures. I'm sure he hoped that those emergency measures would later be sorted out and found to be reasonable. As it happens, that wasn't the case. It's too bad; he died in a very unhappy situation, and my heart goes out to him. I hope history will look more kindly upon him once this Modernist heresy is over and done with, if that ever happens. I was passed along information from a canon lawyer named Tim through an intermediary. I don't know him or anything about him, and since I'm not a canon lawyer I can make no comment on the truth or falsity of what he says, so I will simply copy and paste verbatim: "Now that the excommunications of the bishops have been revoked, all the Society’s adherents, both clergy and laity, must be presumed to be in “communion with the Universal Church.” The Code of Canon law does not recognize any such thing as “a group of Catholics in an irregular state.” The Society’s adherents are either Catholics, pure and simple, or they are not. Indubitably, they are Catholics. The suggestion that the physical chapels in which the Society celebrates Mass are not “in communion with the Universal Church” is pettifoggery. Ecclesial communion involves persons, not real estate. The exact canonical status of the chapels as places of Catholic worship is merely a matter for technical canonical resolution." Essentially, the 1983 CIC doesn't have a provision for irregular states. So, either Catholics are or are not in communion. The idea of irregular states only applies to the 1917 CIC, which doesn't hold any weight any longer, because of the promulgation of the 1983 CIC. "[...]the only bishop of the Society ever declared “suspended” was Archbishop Lefebvre, by a decree of the Sacred Congregation for Bishops dated July 22, 1976 imposing said penalty on account of the Archbishop’s ordination of seminarians in that year. The penalty became moot with the Archbishop’s death in 1991, and no such penalty was ever imposed on any of the surviving bishops, who were subjected only to the penalty of excommunication in 1988."[quote name='jaime (the artist formerly known as hot stuff)' timestamp='1307851432' post='2252645'] a traditionalist is one who adheres 100% to the teachings of the Church. that's it. No ifs ands or buts. That's it. You adhere 100% to the teachings of the Church, you can consider yourself a Traditionalist. [/quote] So then only saints are traditionalists? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaime Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 [quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1307851726' post='2252647'] Obedience to Tradition is a far wider thing that obedience to a single Pope. Yes, their act of disobedience was wrong, however, it was not as simple as "the Pope said X and Archbishop Lefebvre did Y." If that's all there was to it, this situation wouldn't exist. Archbishop Lefebvre wasn't an idiot. The heresy of Modernism does exist within the episcopate. I won't get into specifics because it would seem to be against the rules of this site, however the fact remains that it is there. It is easily established. When he saw the presence of Modernism within the hierarchy, Archbishop Lefebvre reacted according to his conscience. I think he was rash and incorrect in his actions, but I think at the end of the day he was obeying Tradition as closely as he knew how. Again, we should think of the Arian crisis. St. Athanasius saw heresy all around him, and he called it out. He was relentless. He acted according to Tradition. As it turns out, the Arian heresy was widespread. The Modernist heresy, I don't think we quite know yet. However, it is easy to see how Archbishop Lefebvre might have regarded the whole thing. He certainly was a lightning rod for the chaos after the Second Vatican Council. Maybe he overreacted. Maybe he saw more Modernism than there actually was. I think that is true. Who knows. Only God can judge his heart. However, I think he acted according to his conscience. He saw his consecrations as emergency measures. I'm sure he hoped that those emergency measures would later be sorted out and found to be reasonable. As it happens, that wasn't the case. It's too bad; he died in a very unhappy situation, and my heart goes out to him. I hope history will look more kindly upon him once this Modernist heresy is over and done with, if that ever happens. I was passed along information from a canon lawyer named Tim through an intermediary. I don't know him or anything about him, and since I'm not a canon lawyer I can make no comment on the truth or falsity of what he says, so I will simply copy and paste verbatim: "Now that the excommunications of the bishops have been revoked, all the Society's adherents, both clergy and laity, must be presumed to be in "communion with the Universal Church." The Code of Canon law does not recognize any such thing as "a group of Catholics in an irregular state." The Society's adherents are either Catholics, pure and simple, or they are not. Indubitably, they are Catholics. The suggestion that the physical chapels in which the Society celebrates Mass are not "in communion with the Universal Church" is pettifoggery. Ecclesial communion involves persons, not real estate. The exact canonical status of the chapels as places of Catholic worship is merely a matter for technical canonical resolution." Essentially, the 1983 CIC doesn't have a provision for irregular states. So, either Catholics are or are not in communion. The idea of irregular states only applies to the 1917 CIC, which doesn't hold any weight any longer, because of the promulgation of the 1983 CIC. "[...]the only bishop of the Society ever declared "suspended" was Archbishop Lefebvre, by a decree of the Sacred Congregation for Bishops dated July 22, 1976 imposing said penalty on account of the Archbishop's ordination of seminarians in that year. The penalty became moot with the Archbishop's death in 1991, and no such penalty was ever imposed on any of the surviving bishops, who were subjected only to the penalty of excommunication in 1988." So then only saints are traditionalists? [/quote] Sorry to your intermediary and his all night canon lawyer staff but he's wrong. Lefebvre was not the only bishop suspended. That's just common knowledge. the rest of his argument falls apart in light of that don't believe me? here's a close personal friend of your intermediary [url="http://wdtprs.com/blog/author/fatherz/"]Fr. John Zuhlsdorf[/url] [quote]Whenever I post something about the SSPX, and I mention that the priests and bishops of that Fraternity are suspended, I get loads of email protesting that they aren't. They are. Sorry. [/quote] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightofChrist Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 [quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1307809839' post='2252370'] [s]In my most humble opinion this is a time not to be focused on divisions, the negativity or the bad news. Rather it is time to pray for and focus on unity, positivity and the good news. Let's not make this another debate please. Because questions about the SSPX or what about this negative or that negative about the SSPX always seem to devolve into debate. Let us pray, trust God, and trust the wisdom of the Holy Pontiff.[/s] [/quote] What a bunch of stupid non-sense to think that was every possible [i]here.[/i] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lil Red Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 [quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1307852929' post='2252659'] What a bunch of stupid non-sense to think that was every possible [i]here.[/i] [/quote] no poo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaime Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 [quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1307852929' post='2252659'] What a bunch of stupid non-sense to think that was every possible [i]here.[/i] [/quote] That would make me want to leave forever and never come back for at least 10 minutes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BG45 Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 [quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1307852929' post='2252659'] What a bunch of stupid non-sense to think that was every possible [i]here.[/i] [/quote] I don't know. Vee8's been posting gorgeous pictures of a Traditional Latin Mass and an FSSP vocations video. Nihil and Jamie are debating theological points. And no one has mentioned a certain bird being eaten yet. And a number of people have echoed your sentiment I think that we should pray for unity in the Church and not divisiveness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted June 12, 2011 Author Share Posted June 12, 2011 [quote name='jaime (the artist formerly known as hot stuff)' timestamp='1307852612' post='2252652'] Sorry to your intermediary and his all night canon lawyer staff but he's wrong. Lefebvre was not the only bishop suspended. That's just common knowledge. the rest of his argument falls apart in light of that don't believe me? here's a close personal friend of your intermediary [url="http://wdtprs.com/blog/author/fatherz/"]Fr. John Zuhlsdorf[/url] [/quote] As I said, I am not a canon lawyer and cannot comment on the veracity of those comments. If you have studied canon law, do show us the relevant sections. [quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1307852929' post='2252659'] What a bunch of stupid non-sense to think that was every possible [i]here.[/i] [/quote] No kidding. The FSSPX is the whipping boy of some Phatmassers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaime Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 [quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1307853984' post='2252667'] As I said, I am not a canon lawyer and cannot comment on the veracity of those comments. If you have studied canon law, do show us the relevant sections. No kidding. The FSSPX is the whipping boy of some Phatmassers. [/quote] Showed you Fr Z. If he's not good enough for you, talk to your learned friend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts