Do you support the SSPX?

[uruviel]

[dspen2005]

Cam, would u recommend a good book that explains the circumstances surrounding VII and the events leading up to it.... i think, for some of us at least, it seems like VII occurred in a vacuum. we are unaware of what was happening in the CHurch that precipitated this Council.... any help?

[Cam42]

[quote name='dspen2005' date='Apr 10 2006, 02:08 PM']Cam, would u recommend a good book that explains the circumstances surrounding VII and the events leading up to it.... i think, for some of us at least, it seems like VII occurred in a vacuum.  we are unaware of what was happening in the CHurch that precipitated this Council....  any help?
[right][snapback]942270[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Probably the best is [u]The Rhine Flows into the Tiber[/u] by Ralph Wiltgen.

Also, one might read [u]Truth And Tolerance: Christian Belief And World Religions[/u] by Pope Benedict XVI.

Another one to read would be [u]Salt of the Earth: The Church at the End of the Millennium: An Interview With Peter Seewald[/u] by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger.

Finally, one might read, [u]The Smoke of Satan : Conservative and Traditionalist Dissent in Contemporary American Catholicism[/u] by Michael W. Cuneo.

[dspen2005]

thanx Cam... this seminarian thanx you very much

[Donna]

Three pages and I believe the exoneration of the "schismatic" Hawaii Six has not once been brought up. Is it here on the fourth? The six who were [b]excommunicated by their bishop not only for having an SSPX Bishop give confirmation, but these people built and had an active non-diocesan church. [/b]

Papa Ratzinger (while Cardinal) is the one who overturned Honolulu Bishop Ferrario's excommunication of SSPX-supporters. [b]His[/b] superior, of course being Pope John Paul II, author of [i]Eclessia Dei Afflicta.[/i]

I love that: "Full" union. "Full" communion. Why didn't Papa John Paul II and Cardinal Ratzinger throw them 5000 SSPX Roman Pilgrimage year 2000 bums out of their city, out of St. Peter's, out of their Vatican catacombs and churches?

Amor Veritas (sorry, son, really bad typo and memory here) is on the money.

And what really smells of elderberries - I intentionally use a vulgar word describing a vulgar anti-charity - is that there is only one Son of Angel and one MC Just for the tenfold public bitterness of the Era Might's.
Yeah, give it all you got in sources and debate, but where is that piece of heart? It's outrageous how you treat the SSPX as lepers. This is a matter of justice. Just remember how disfigured was the face of Christ and many thought He was leper-like Himself.
...............................................................................................................................

[color=red][i]On January 18, 1991, Bishop Joseph Ferrario, Bishop of Honolulu (now retired), served them [six Catholics in Hawaii] a Formal Canonical Warning, threatening them with excommunication. [/i][/color]

[b]On May 1, 1991, they were formally declared to be excommunicated, mainly for this reason contained in the Canonical Warning:[/b] [color=red][i]"Whereas you performed," Bishop Ferrario said, "a schismatic act, not only by procuring the services" of Bishop Williamson to perform Confirmations at Our Lady of Fatima Chapel, "but also by that very association with the aforementioned bishop (you) incurred ipso facto the grave censure of excommunication."[/i][/color]


The "Excommunicated Six" immediately appealed the case to Rome. Finally, in a letter dated June 28, 1993, the USA Apostolic Pro-Nunico, Archbishop Cacciavillan, [b]declared on Cardinal Ratzinger's behalf:[/b]

[color=purple]"[b]From the examination of the case, conducted on the basis of the [color=red]Law of the Church[/color], it did not result that the facts referred to in the above-mentioned decree are formal schismatic acts in the strict sense, as they do not constitute the offense of schism; and therefore the Congregation holds that the Decree of May 1, 1991 lacks foundation and hence validity."[/b][/color]
This is a declaration that the automatic (ipso facto) excommunication claimed by Bishop Ferrario for the followers of Archbishop Lefebvre is in fact totally non-existent.


Though a major milestone to proving that those who follow and support the Society of Saint Pius X are neither schismatic nor excommunicated, reference number 2 of Archbishop Cacciavillan's June 28, 1993 letter, marred the clarity of the decree and the innocence of the petitioners by implying that sufficient guilt remained for them to placed under interdict by Bishop Ferrario. This was to say that while the Hawaii Six were not excommunicated and thereby members of the Catholic Church, they could have imposed upon them the "foreseen punishment of interdict...", an episcopal declaration that none of the Six could receive the sacraments of the Church. [b]Because Archbishop Cacciavillan had opened the letter saying he was writing "upon the instruction of His Eminence, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger," it appeared to all that the punishment of interdict was the recommendation of the Cardinal himself[/b]. Well, it wasn't.

[color=red][b]After nine months' insistence by the Hawaii Six, Cardinal Ratzinger's official, hand-signed Decree of June 4, 1993 nullifying the excommunications was finally released by Archbishop Cacciavillan to the petitioners under his February 28, 1993 cover letter. In this signed cover letter (reproduced in full at immediate right), Archbishop Cacciavillan admits that Cardinal Ratzinger said nothing about imposing interdict and, in fact, all of reference 2 is his idea alone and that Cardinal Ratzinger never said anything about "foreseen punishment of interdict or other penalties, . . ."[/b] [/color]

[i]THE HAWAII SIX[/i]
Mrs. Patricia Morley (RIP)
Housewife, Radio Hostess

Mr. Christopher Morley
Automobile Salesman

Mr. Herber Carlos
Semi-retired Property Manager

Mrs. Shirley Cushnie
Mother of 3, Grandmother of 1

Mr. John O'Connor
Publisher

Mrs. Louis Santos
Mother of 4, Grandmother of 3

(Housewife, Grandmothers...What a denomic bunch of SSPX characters, claiming to be Catholic!)

Edited April 11, 2006 by Donna

[Era Might]

[quote]Three pages and I believe the exoneration of the "schismatic" Hawaii Six has not once been brought up. Is it here on the fourth? The six who were excommunicated by their bishop not only for having an SSPX Bishop give confirmation, but these people built and had an active church.[/quote]

The so-called "Hawaii six" were excommunicated by their Bishop, not for formal membership in the SSPX, but for a loose association with the SSPX, alleged heresy and scandal. Then-Cardinal Ratzinger overturned the excommunications because, quote, "it did not result that the facts referred to in the above-mentioned decree are formal schismatic acts in the strict sense." There was no formal SSPX membership. Pope John Paul II made clear that any formal association with the SSPX schism is itself an act of schism:

[quote]Everyone should be aware that formal adherence to the schism is a grave offence against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church's law.

--Apostolic Letter "Ecclesia Dei"[/quote]

More recent developments also undercut your appeal to the "Hawaii six".

[quote]Papa Ratzinger (while Cardinal) is the one who overturned Honolulu Bishop Ferrario's excommunication of SSPX-supporters.[/quote]

The Holy See last year upheld Bishop Bruskewitz's excommunication of any SSPXer in his diocese. Unlike the Hawaii incident, this excommunication was specifically focused on SSPX membership, and the excommunications were upheld by the Holy See.

[quote]I love that: "Full" union. "Full" communion. Why didn't Papa John Paul II and Cardinal Ratzinger throw them 5000 SSPX Roman Pilgrimage year 2000 bums out of their city, out of St. Peter's, out of their Vatican catacombs and churches?[/quote]

They don't throw anyone out of Vatican City. People of all sorts flock to the Holy See. From atheists to Buddhists, SSPXers to Call to Action folks.

[quote]And what really smells of elderberries - I intentionally use a vulgar word describing a vulgar anti-charity  - is that there is only one Son of Angel and one MC Just for the tenfold public bitterness of the Era Might's.[/quote]

I'll leave it to others to judge whether I am "bitter". Bitter about what? That the SSPX has rebelled against the Church? Why would I be bitter? I have never had any affiliation with the SSPX.

Ironically, if this were a thread for "Call to Action", and I responded as I have, I highly doubt I would be accused of being "bitter".


[quote]Yeah, give it all you got in sources and debate, but where is that piece of heart?  It's outrageous how you treat the SSPX as lepers. This is a matter of justice. Just remember how disfigured was the face of Christ and many thought He was leper-like Himself.[/quote]

When you attack my Church, and attempt to lead others astray into your defiance and schism, you will be treated accordingly. Our Lord himself told us, if they will not listen to the Church, treat them as sinners and tax collectors. "Hold no one as an enemy, but warn them as a brother."

Did you miss my post about ordinary Catholics who have been led astray into the SSPX on the one hand, and those who actively propagate its errors on the other? I have all the "piece of heart" for the sheep. But the wolves must be dealt with.

Edited April 11, 2006 by Era Might

[Era Might]

Here is Bishop Bruskewitz's explanation of the Hawaii incident, and why it is falsely cited in support of the SSPX, as I explained above:

[quote]Cardinal Ratzinger's decision reversing the excommunication of six members of the faithful in Honolulu is used in an attempt to legitimatize the SSPX. As most of you know, the St. Joseph Foundation assisted in defending the "Hawaii Six" and I can say that the status of the Society was not at issue in that case. What was at issue was the conduct of the defendants which, while admittedly blameworthy in some respects, did not constitute schism. The records of the case show that the former Bishop of Honolulu, Most Rev. Joseph Ferrario, tried to use penal law to silence those six Catholics who were calling the attention of the public to what they perceived as the bishop's follies and misdeeds. Cardinal Ratzinger has never explicitly or implicitly approved of the actions of the SSPX. [/quote]

Bruskewitz, by the way, was an eminent canonist in a former life, so he knows a thing or two of what he speaks.

[url="http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=2864"]http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=2864[/url]

Edited April 11, 2006 by Era Might

[Donna]

[quote]The so-called "Hawaii six" were excommunicated by their Bishop, not for formal membership in the SSPX, but for a loose association with the SSPX, alleged heresy and scandal. Then-Cardinal Ratzinger overturned the excommunications because, quote, "it did not result that the facts referred to in the above-mentioned decree are formal schismatic acts in the strict sense." There was no formal SSPX membership. Pope John Paul II made clear that any formal association with the SSPX schism is itself an act of schism:

QUOTEEveryone should be aware that formal adherence to the schism is a grave offence against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church's law.

--Apostolic Letter "Ecclesia Dei"[/quote]

What is your problem? Why refer to them as "so-called"?

They were excommunicated for procurring an illicit but valid/non-jurisdictioned/ sacrament from a schismatic, excommunicated bishop.
The "formal adherence" stuff means you are saying that the Holy See can only excomminicate/schismatize the SSPX clergy. Is that right?

[quote]The Holy See last year upheld Bishop Bruskewitz's excommunication of any SSPXer in his diocese. Unlike the Hawaii incident, this excommunication was specifically focused on SSPX membership, and the excommunications were upheld by the Holy See.
[/quote]

Well, that is something of which I already knew. Ever seen about the Polka Masses and abuses the Lincoln Bishop lets happen? For every Hawaii Six there are many actions or declarations which speak oppositely. But the Hawaii Six category is there, and like Veritatis said, Campos didn't have to make a profession of faith or anything like that to be reconcilled. This is part of the picture.

[quote]They don't throw anyone out of Vatican City. People of all sorts flock to the Holy See. From atheists to Buddhists, SSPXers to Call to Action folks.
[/quote]

If the very SSPX Bishops are excommunicated, their clergy illicitly ordained/suspended and thus forbidden to celebrate the sacraments, why can they do this very thing in public Masses in Rome, with thousands of "sheep" (or is it wolves?) being allowed to be misled in the heart of orthodox country? If you were running public relations for the Holy See - trying to keep things coherent in theory and action - I'm sure you would not do [i]that.[/i]

[quote]I'll leave it to others to judge whether I am "bitter". Bitter about what? That the SSPX has rebelled against the Church? Why would I be bitter? I have no relationship to the SSPX.

Interestingly, if this were a thread for "Call to Action", and I responded as I have, I highly doubt I would be accused of being "bitter".
[/quote]

Well, ya already know what I think - and bitter is bitter whether it's against CTA or SSPX. OTOH, it's dishonest to group CTA and SSPX together. If you've no great love for the Orthodox, at least they've escaped your wrath, and they are dis-believers, period.

[quote]When you attack my Church, and attempt to lead others astray into your defiance and schism, you will be treated appropriately. Our Lord himself told us, if they will not listen to the Church, treat them as sinners and tax collectors. "Hold no one as an enemy, but warn them as a brother."
[/quote]

Are you a bishop holding onto some decree kept from my knowledge?

[Era Might]

[quote]What is your problem? Why refer to them as "so-called"?[/quote]

Because that is what people call them. I could list out all their names, but it's easier to reference the popular title they've been given.

[quote]They were excommunicated for procurring an illicit but valid/non-jurisdictioned/ sacrament from a schismatic, excommunicated bishop.
The "formal adherence" stuff means you are saying that the Holy See can only excomminicate/schismatize the SSPX clergy.[/quote]

The text of the excommunication, as you cited it:

[quote]"Whereas you performed," Bishop Ferrario said, "a schismatic act, not only by procuring the services" of Bishop Williamson to perform Confirmations at Our Lady of Fatima Chapel, "but also by that very association with the aforementioned bishop (you) incurred ipso facto the grave censure of excommunication." [/quote]

Note that they are excommunicated, not for a formal adherence to the schism, but for procuring the services of an SSPX Bishop. The Hawaiian Ordinary also cited heresy and scandal. Cardinal Ratzinger judged (rightly) that, although loose association with the Society can be a sin, it is not schism in a technical sense. This is also reiterated in the public letter of Monsignor Camille Perl. Schism is a very formal concept. Cardinal Ratzinger's judgement that this incident did not constitute schism doesn't imply support for the Society, as Bishop Bruskewitz explained.

Also, formal adherence to the schism is not limited to clergy. Formal adherence is an act of the will, and can be committed by any Catholic, although the clergy undergo a very public manifestation of this act.

[quote]Well, that is something of which I already knew. Ever seen about the Polka Masses and abuses the Lincoln Bishop lets happen? For every Hawaii Six there are many actions or declarations which speak oppositely. But the Hawaii Six category is there, and like Veritatis said, Campos didn't have to make a profession of faith or anything like that to be reconcilled. This is part of the picture.[/quote]

I'm not sure how that's relevant to the discussion. Your point in citing the "Hawaii six" was, I believe, to somehow defend the society against schism or excommunication, or at least to suggest that it's ok to belong to the society. The judgement of the Holy See with respect to the Diocese of Lincoln puts this idea to rest, and it also illustrates the point I made before, that the Hawaii incident was not about formal adherence to the SSPX schism, and thus, was not a technical case of schism.

What does Campos making a profession of faith have to do with excommunication? Schism and heresy are separate sins.

[quote]If the very SSPX Bishops are excommunicated, their clergy illicitly ordained/suspended and thus forbidden to celebrate the sacraments, why can they do this very thing in public Masses in Rome, with thousands of "sheep" (or is it wolves?)  being allowed to be misled in the heart of orthodox country? If you were running public relations for the Holy See - trying to keep things coherent in theory and action - I'm sure you would not do [i]that.[/i] [/quote]

The Holy See is very peaceable, and allows use of its facilities for prudential reasons. If you are seriously arguing that the SSPX Bishops are not excommunicated, I'm sorry, I am going to have to excuse myself from the discussion. This is so evidently contrary to the facts, I just can't stand to go through it all again.

[quote]Well, ya already know what I think - and bitter is bitter whether it's against CTA or SSPX. OTOH, it's dishonest to group CTA and SSPX together. If you've no great love for the Orthodox, at least they've escaped your wrath, and they are dis-believers, period.[/quote]

Eastern Orthodox Christians do not profess to be Catholics obedient to the Holy Father. If the SSPX would do the honest thing, and start its own Church, and find itself where the Orthodox are in a millenia or so, maybe it can earn my respect.

And it is not at all dishonest to link CTA and the SSPX. In fact, both groups were excommunicated by Bishop Bruskewitz, and both excommunications were upheld by the Holy See. The SSPX is a schismatic society, a threat to the faith of many Catholics, and a scandal to the world. And I will not excuse it just because it happens to have a hankering for Latin.

[quote]Are you a bishop holding onto some decree kept from my knowledge? [/quote]

I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean. I am a laymen, and have been commissioned to defend the faith and the Church by virtue of my baptism; and also by Canon Law.

Edited April 11, 2006 by Era Might

[Donna]

[quote]I am by no means equating Archbishop Lefebvre with Adolph Hitler or the SSPX with the National Socialist Party, but the analogy remains an apt one.[/quote]

Oh[i] this [/i]guy has a lot on the ball! Why do people lose their very minds when treating of this situation?

[url="http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=2864"]http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=2864[/url]
.....................................................................................................................

[quote]Bruskewitz, by the way, was an eminent canonist in a former life, so he knows a thing or two of what he speaks.
[/quote]

Well so did Count Neri Capponi, who'd said nay to the SSPX being in schism, and at a diocesan church no less.

[quote]Cardinal Ratzinger's decision reversing the excommunication of six members of the faithful in Honolulu is used in an attempt to legitimatize the SSPX. As most of you know, the St. Joseph Foundation assisted in defending the "Hawaii Six" and I can say that the status of the Society was not at issue in that case. What was at issue was the conduct of the defendants which, while admittedly blameworthy in some respects, did not constitute schism. The records of the case show that the former Bishop of Honolulu, Most Rev. Joseph Ferrario, tried to use penal law to silence those six Catholics who were calling the attention of the public to what they perceived as the bishop's follies and misdeeds. Cardinal Ratzinger has never explicitly or implicitly approved of the actions of the SSPX. [/quote]

Joe Shmoe down the street merely assists at an SSPX Mass (and maybe only sometimes). The Hawii Six get a renagade confirmator, BUILD A CHURCH and "house" it - with [b]sacraments[/b]: illicit, non-approved, defiant, schismatic sacraments.

Back to the Lincoln Bishop's will, supported by the Holy See:

If the schismatics'd been doing black masses, the unjust lumping of even the sede vacantists who're much "more" schismatic - or less fully (?) in communion than the SSPX - with the CTA crowd (and the Masons and Planned Parenthood) would at least make some kind of sense.

Even Rome admits that "those" sacraments are holy - by allowing that pilgrimage, even as they uphold Bishop Bruskewitz.. Both messages are given.

[Era Might]

[quote]Oh[i] this [/i]guy has a lot on the ball! Why do people lose their very minds when treating of this situation?[/quote]

Because the SSPX Bishops are excommunicated schismatics. That means something to the Church, and it isn't good.

[quote]Well so did Count Neri Capponi, who'd said nay to the SSPX being in schism, and at a diocesan church no less.[/quote]

Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI disagree with him. Incidentally, I don't think Count Capponi had excommunications of the SSPX upheld by the Holy See.

[quote]Joe Shmoe down the street merely assists at an SSPX Mass (and maybe only sometimes). The Hawii Six get a renagade confirmator, BUILD A CHURCH and "house" it - with [b]sacraments[/b]: illicit, non-approved, defiant, schismatic sacraments.[/quote]

Getting a Bishop to perform a Sacrament in your Church is not a formal adherence to the schism of that Bishop. A formal adherence to the schism of that Bishop would be saying, "I am joining this Bishop in defying Pope John Paul II's order against Marcel Lefebvre."

[quote]If the schismatics'd been doing black masses, the unjust lumping of even the sede vacantists who're much "more" schismatic - or less fully (?) in communion than the SSPX -  with the CTA crowd (and the Masons and Planned Parenthood) would at least make some kind of sense.

Even Rome admits that "those" sacraments are holy - by allowing that pilgrimage, even as they uphold Bishop Bruskewitz.. Both messages are given.[/quote]

All Sacraments are holy. It doesn't matter who performs them, an SSPX Bishop or a CTA Priest.

Edited April 11, 2006 by Era Might

[Era Might]

That'll be my last reply in this thread. I think I've said all I can say on the topic, and I'm not sure where the rest of the discussion is headed.

God bless. And yes, I mean that sincerely.

Edited April 11, 2006 by Era Might

[Donna]

[quote]Note that they are excommunicated, not for a formal adherence to the schism, but for procuring the services of an SSPX Bishop. The Hawaiian Ordinary also cited heresy and scandal. Cardinal Ratzinger judged (rightly) that, although loose association with the Society can be a sin, it is not schism in a technical sense. This is also reiterated in the public letter of Monsignor Camille Perl. Schism is a very formal concept. Cardinal Ratzinger's judgement that this incident did not constitute schism doesn't imply support for the Society, as Bishop Bruskewitz explained.

Also, formal adherence to the schism is not limited to clergy. Formal adherence is an act of the will, and can be committed by any Catholic, although the clergy undergo a very public manifestation of this act.
[/quote]

Thou sayest it: for procurring services of an SSPX Bishop is not a sin of schism. Completely laughable that the "associating" with the SSPX Bishop is even brought up. Holy cow, they're all praying together at the Vatican, visiting the synagogues and taking the shoes off at the mosques.

So...formal adherence cannot be easily proved then. Thanks for giving me the charity inherent in "a very formal concept" before declaring me schismatic.

[quote]I'm not sure how that's relevant to the discussion. Your point in citing the "Hawaii six" was, I believe, to somehow defend the society against schism or excommunication, or at least to suggest that it's ok to belong to the society. The judgement of the Holy See with respect to the Diocese of Lincoln puts this idea to rest, and it also illustrates the point I made before, that the Hawaii incident was not about formal adherence to the SSPX schism, and thus, was not a technical case of schism.

What does Campos making a profession of faith have to do with excommunication? Schism and heresy are separate sins.
[/quote]

If building your own church and stocking it with schismatic clergy for schismatic sacraments which one schismatically partakes of is not schismatic then is anything?

Campos didn't have to be re-chatichized or re-sacramentalized in Orders, in order to be in "full" communion with Rome. And they were hard core Trads.

[quote]The Holy See is very peaceable, and allows use of its facilities for prudential reasons. If you are seriously arguing that the SSPX Bishops are not excommunicated, I'm sorry, I am going to have to excuse myself from the discussion. This is so evidently contrary to the facts, I just can't stand to go through it all again.
[/quote]

For prudential reasons? That's far from what it appears to I, who am only simple. I am seriously arguing that the Holy See allowed the SSPX to be the SSPX, doing what it does, celebrating the saraments publicly for any to partake of. Either way, it sends a mixed message: if you're OK and I'm OK and the anamists are OK, then what in God's name is the Church for? But I am peaceable, too. Let's call it a day on this.

[quote]Eastern Orthodox Christians do not profess to be Catholics obedient to the Holy Father. If the SSPX would do the honest thing, and start its own Church, and find itself where the Orthodox are in a millenia or so, maybe it can earn my respect.

And it is not at all dishonest to link CTA and the SSPX. In fact, both groups were excommunicated by Bishop Bruskewitz, and both excommunications were upheld by the Holy See. The SSPX is a schismatic society, a threat to the faith of many Catholics, and a scandal to the world. And I will not excuse it just because it happens to have a hankering for Latin.

[/quote]

The truth is that you cannot put baby killers, eugenics worshippers, satanists as the Masons are described in essence by Bl. Emmerich, with a canonically erected Society which in 1940 or even 1962 would stand out in no way from the Church as regards liturgy, catechesis, religious formation, all of it.

[quote]I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean. I am a laymen, and have been commissioned to defend the faith and the Church by virtue of my baptism; and also by Canon Law.
[/quote]

So have I; so I would remind you to not parry about the schism card with a Catholic in good standing.

Good night, Era.

[stbernardLT]

What about the Hawaii 5,0

[dspen2005]

that show is SOOOOO old...