SSPX

[Ora et Labora]

[quote name='Inquisitor Generalis' date='Feb 15 2006, 01:40 PM']I've read Bp. Rifan say he has misgivings about the NO.  I don't have time to hunt down the article, and it isn't worth it.  As for the FSSP, I gather that from reading the articles on Latin Mass Magazine and from friends who know FSSP priests.  I really don't think it's that controversial of a statement to say that SOME priests in that fraternity have serious misgivings about the NOM.  Why does this need a citation?  If I gave you a citation, what would it prove?  This conversation is ridiculous.  You just want to argue and nitpick every time a trad says *anything*.
[right][snapback]888411[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

thats not true. im a so called "trad" yet DONT stick up for the sspx, which is what YOU are doing.

many of us are 'trads" on this site yet WE quote concrete catholic resources. your only quoting a bunch of bishops and seem to think that we care more about what they say then what the pope himself says.

they are in schism. theres nothing to argue about. you just have to live with that realization.....

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='Ora et Labora' date='Feb 15 2006, 02:48 PM']thats not true. im a so called "trad" yet DONT stick up for the sspx, which is what YOU are doing.
[/quote]
Ora,

From what I have gathered Inquisitor is not defending the SSPX, but is stating that we cannot make blanket statements about people's dislike for the NO making them schismatic. He was pointing out the FSSP as valid example of some solid, orthodox priests that find something defecient in the NO and so choose to celebrate the TLM. He believes that the SSPX is in schism (or so I think he does), but not for choosing the TLM over the NO.

[Ora et Labora]

photosynthesis, you should read "More Catholic then the Pope" by Patrick Madrid and...someone else whom i foget right now. It will probably answer all your questions.

[Ora et Labora]

[quote name='Paphnutius' date='Feb 15 2006, 02:54 PM']Ora,

From what I have gathered Inquisitor is not defending the SSPX, but is stating that we cannot make blanket statements about people's dislike for the NO making them schismatic. He was pointing out the FSSP as valid example of some solid, orthodox priests that find something defecient in the NO and so choose to celebrate the TLM. He believes that the SSPX is in schism (or so I think he does), but not for choosing the TLM over the NO.
[right][snapback]888519[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Personally, I think his statements are going around in circles.

[Inquisitor Generalis]

Regardless of whether or not one regards the SSPX to be in schism, one certainly can defend the SSPX from some of that fraternity's harsher critics. And I really have no problem doing that. With most neo-Catholics, it's as if their brains fall out every time the letters "SSPX" are mentioned. Cardinal Hoyos is the head of the Ecclesia Dei commission. He represents the Church when dealing with trads. He has said specifically that "one cannot say in exact, precise terms" that the SSPX is in schism. So, many of those who go over the top in their criticisms of the SSPX may -- just may -- be guilty of bearing false witness.

[Cam42]

[quote name='Inquisitor Generalis' date='Feb 15 2006, 05:24 PM']Regardless of whether or not one regards the SSPX to be in schism, one certainly can defend the SSPX from some of that fraternity's harsher critics.  And I really have no problem doing that.  With most neo-Catholics, it's as if their brains fall out every time the letters "SSPX" are mentioned.  Cardinal Hoyos is the head of the Ecclesia Dei commission.  He represents the Church when dealing with trads.  He has said specifically that "one cannot say in exact, precise terms" that the SSPX is in schism.  So, many of those who go over the top in their criticisms of the SSPX may -- just may -- be guilty of bearing false witness.
[right][snapback]888554[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Do you understand what [i]latae sententiae[/i] excommunication is? Do you understand what [i]ferendae sententiae[/i] excommunication is?

The first is incurred as soon as the offence is committed and by reason of the offence itself (eo ipso) without intervention of any ecclesiastical judge; it is recognized in the terms used by the legislator, for instance: "the culprit will be excommunicated at once, by the fact itself [statim, ipso facto]."

The second is indeed foreseen by the law as a penalty, but is inflicted on the culprit only by a judicial sentence; in other words, the delinquent is rather threatened than visited with the penalty, and incurs it only when the judge has summoned him before his tribunal, declared him guilty, and punished him according to the terms of the law. It is recognized when the law contains these or similar words: "under pain of excommunication"; "the culprit will be excommunicated."

[quote name='Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei #3']In itself, this act was one of disobedience to the Roman Pontiff in a very grave matter and of supreme importance for the unity of the church, such as is the ordination of bishops whereby the apostolic succession is sacramentally perpetuated. [b]Hence such disobedience - which implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy - constitutes [u]a schismatic act.[/u][/b] In performing such an act, notwithstanding the formal canonical warning sent to them by the Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops on 17 June last, Mons. Lefebvre and the priests Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta, have incurred the grave penalty of excommunication envisaged by ecclesiastical law.[/quote]
[i]cf.[/i] CIC can. 751
[i]cf.[/i] CIC can 1382

As it is, they are excommunicated [i]latae sententiae[/i]. Insofar as this is the case, it is of the public occult because they were formally warned and they proceeded, [i]ipso facto[/i], to fail to submit themselves to the wishes of the Pontiff. That is the definition of schism as defined by the CCC.

You can say what you want about Cardinal Hoyos, but his words are not at odds with the pronunciation of Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei. Why you ask? Because the excommunication is [i]latae sententiae[/i] as opposed to [i]ferenedae sententiae[/i]. The Holy Father didn't have to excommunicate them, because they excommunicated themselves, he simply clarified the action, which the excommunicated bishops [i]ipso facto[/i] did to themselves.

No one can bear false witness by declaring the truth. If I say, the Lefebrites (SSPX) are in schism AND that the bishops are excommunicated and their ordinands are suspended and excommunicated, I am not bearing false witness, I am stating the truth and supporting the Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei, [i]de facto[/i] John Paul II.

[rkwright]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Feb 15 2006, 05:30 PM']You can say what you want about Cardinal Hoyos, but his words are not at odds with the pronunciation of Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei.  Why you ask?  Because the excommunication is [i]latae sententiae[/i] as opposed to [i]ferenedae sententiae[/i].  The Holy Father didn't have to excommunicate them, because they excommunicated themselves, he simply clarified the action, which the excommunicated bishops [i]ipso facto[/i] did to themselves.

No one can bear false witness by declaring the truth.  If I say, the Lefebrites (SSPX) are in schism AND that the bishops are excommunicated and their ordinands are suspended and excommunicated, I am not bearing false witness, I am stating the truth and supporting the Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei, [i]de facto[/i] John Paul II.
[right][snapback]888624[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]



BTW Cam what were you refering to me way back in post #10?? Since this old thread came back up maybe I missed that way back when, but I don't know what or why you're refering to me in that one?

[Aloysius]

For the Inquisitor Generalis, you don't seem to be holding the line on excommunicating people very well

Who is the Inquisitor Generalis nowadays anyway, since Ratzinger became pope? I mean, if we have the Head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on here... don't you think that's a big deal? Which cardinal are you? I don't believe we've as of yet had a cardinal visit our forums...

[Cam42]

[quote name='rkwright' date='Feb 15 2006, 06:40 PM']

BTW Cam what were you refering to me way back in post #10?? Since this old thread came back up maybe I missed that way back when, but I don't know what or why you're refering to me in that one?
[right][snapback]888649[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I think that I was simply offering support for my earlier posts.

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='Inquisitor Generalis' date='Feb 15 2006, 03:24 PM']Regardless of whether or not one regards the SSPX to be in schism, one certainly can defend the SSPX from some of that fraternity's harsher critics.  And I really have no problem doing that.  With most neo-Catholics, it's as if their brains fall out every time the letters "SSPX" are mentioned.  Cardinal Hoyos is the head of the Ecclesia Dei commission.  He represents the Church when dealing with trads.  He has said specifically that "one cannot say in exact, precise terms" that the SSPX is in schism.  So, many of those who go over the top in their criticisms of the SSPX may -- just may -- be guilty of bearing false witness.
[right][snapback]888554[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Others have said it, but excommunication is excommunication.

Once again with the divisive labels.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='Inquisitor Generalis' date='Feb 15 2006, 04:24 PM']Regardless of whether or not one regards the SSPX to be in schism, one certainly can defend the SSPX from some of that fraternity's harsher critics.  And I really have no problem doing that.  With most neo-Catholics, it's as if their brains fall out every time the letters "SSPX" are mentioned.  Cardinal Hoyos is the head of the Ecclesia Dei commission.  He represents the Church when dealing with trads.  He has said specifically that "one cannot say in exact, precise terms" that the SSPX is in schism.  So, many of those who go over the top in their criticisms of the SSPX may -- just may -- be guilty of bearing false witness.
[right][snapback]888554[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

My opinion is that if they haven't been excommunicated themselves, based on what I've read on their site, they probably should split with the Church (or the perceived non-Church) anyways.

Most of my information on them comes from someone who used to support them (information then, not now that he doesn't) and someone who was in the Society. She makes some interesting criticisms herself, especially since she knew a couple of the Bishops anyways. She may be lurking around here, so you should find out.

[Inquisitor Generalis]

[quote name='Paphnutius' date='Feb 15 2006, 09:00 PM']Once again with the divisive labels. 
[right][snapback]888870[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Yes, you neo-Catholics just don't like labels b/c we trads came up w/a better one for you than what you could come up w/for us. Being called a "radical traditionalist" is a Heck of a lot less insulting than being called a "neo-Catholic." :

Edited February 16, 2006 by Inquisitor Generalis

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='Inquisitor Generalis' date='Feb 15 2006, 11:06 PM']Yes, you neo-Catholics just don't like labels b/c we trads came up w/a better one for you than what you could come up w/for us.  Being called a "radical traditionalist" is a Heck of a lot less insulting than being called a "neo-Catholic." :
[right][snapback]888963[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
It is true. We "neo-Catholics" did get the shaft on the name. No one, well I should not say no one, likes to be considered novel in Catholicism. It is a very Traditional faith. Honestly though, you are the first person I have ever heard use it. Can you please tell me how you understand it and what you mean by it? My knee jerk is to take it as a near harmless slander, but I want to know what you mean by it.

[Inquisitor Generalis]

[quote name='Paphnutius' date='Feb 15 2006, 11:09 PM']It is true. We "neo-Catholics" did get the shaft on the name.[/quote]

I'm so glad you admit to this.

[quote name='Paphnutius' date='Feb 15 2006, 11:09 PM']No one, well I should not say no one, likes to be considered novel in Catholicism. It is a very Traditional faith. Honestly though, you are the first person I have ever heard use it. Can you please tell me how you understand it and what you mean by it? My knee jerk is to take it as a near harmless slander, but I want to know what you mean by it.
[right][snapback]888967[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

1. No would *should* like to be considered novel in Catholicism. However, since VII, this is not the case. In any event, ppl who really LIKE to be considered novel are usually called liberalists or progressivists, not neo-Catholics.

2. I like Wikipedia's definition of neo-Catholicism. You may not fit all the examples mentioned, but here goes:

[quote name='Wikipedia']Post-Vatican II

Since Vatican II, Neo-Catholicism has become a mildly derogatory term most often used by traditional Catholics to describe neoconservative Catholics who they believe fully accept typical interpretations of Vatican II documents that prescribe major changes to Catholic practice, liturgical life, and presentations of Catholic teaching. They accuse contemporary Neo-Catholics of having an exaggerated vieiw of Papal authority and of being concerned with politics over liturgical and doctrinal matters. For example, the typical Neo-Catholic might be actively involved in the pro-life movement, but favor contemporary liturgical practices, such as folk guitar Masses, Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion, altar girls, and the blending of Protestant soteriology and eschatology with Catholic teaching. They would also likely be more in favor of ecumenism with conservative evangelical Christians and inter-religious dialogue with Jews.
[edit]

Trivia

Neo-Catholicism is occasionally used to refer to all who might be classified as being on the right of the Catholic theological spectrum, though this is not the generally accepted meaning of the term.[/quote]

3. You fit the criteria of neo-Catholicism b/c you exaggerate Papal authority and you seem to think of the Holy Ghost as some sort of a micromanager.

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='Inquisitor Generalis' date='Feb 15 2006, 11:25 PM']3. You fit the criteria of neo-Catholicism b/c you exaggerate Papal authority and you seem to think of the Holy Ghost as some sort of a micromanager.
[right][snapback]888980[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]I do have a high view of papal authority, but that is a different thread. Thank you for the post regardless.

Edited February 16, 2006 by Paphnutius