Sspx Goes Ahead With Ordinations

[Nihil Obstat]

Gee, now I know how it feels.

From Ad Apostolorum Principis
"[ B ]ishops who have been neither named nor confirmed by the Apostolic See, but who, on the contrary, have been elected and consecrated in defiance of its express orders, enjoy no powers of teaching or of jurisdiction since jurisdiction passes to bishops only through the Roman Pontiff[...]
Acts requiring the power of Holy Orders which are performed by ecclesiastics of this kind, though they are valid as long as the consecration conferred on them was valid, are yet [b]gravely illicit[/b], that is, [b]criminal[/b] and [b]sacrilegious[/b]."


Vatican Council, session IV, chap. 3; Coll. Lac., Vll, p.484.
"We teach, . . . We declare that the Roman Church by the Providence of God holds the primacy of ordinary power over all others, and that this power of jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff, which is truly episcopal, is immediate. Toward it, the pastors and the faithful of whatever rite and dignity, both individually and collectively, are bound by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, not only in matters which pertain to faith and morals, but [b]also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church spread throughout the whole world[/b], in such a way that once the unity of communion and the profession of the same Faith has been preserved with the Roman Pontiff, there is one flock of the Church of Christ under one supreme shepherd. This is the teaching of the Catholic truth [b][/b][b]from which no one can depart without loss of faith and salvation[/b]."

Edited June 29, 2009 by Nihil Obstat

[CatherineM]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1904752' date='Jun 28 2009, 09:44 PM']Luckily, Mass in Latin is more popular today than it's been in forty years, and it doesn't show any signs of decreasing in popularity. [/quote]

That may be where you are, but here, we are struggling to have enough priests to say mass at all, let alone to throw a bunch of effort into pushing for Latin masses at every parish.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' post='1904762' date='Jun 28 2009, 09:54 PM']Gee, now I know how it feels.

From Ad Apostolorum Principis
"[ B ]ishops who have been neither named nor confirmed by the Apostolic See, but who, on the contrary, have been elected and consecrated in defiance of its express orders, enjoy no powers of teaching or of jurisdiction since jurisdiction passes to bishops only through the Roman Pontiff[...]
Acts requiring the power of Holy Orders which are performed by ecclesiastics of this kind, though they are valid as long as the consecration conferred on them was valid, are yet [b]gravely illicit[/b], that is, [b]criminal[/b] and [b]sacrilegious[/b]."


Vatican Council, session IV, chap. 3; Coll. Lac., Vll, p.484.
"We teach, . . . We declare that the Roman Church by the Providence of God holds the primacy of ordinary power over all others, and that this power of jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff, which is truly episcopal, is immediate. Toward it, the pastors and the faithful of whatever rite and dignity, both individually and collectively, are bound by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, not only in matters which pertain to faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church spread throughout the whole world, in such a way that once the unity of communion and the profession of the same Faith has been preserved with the Roman Pontiff, there is one flock of the Church of Christ under one supreme shepherd. This is the teaching of the Catholic truth from which no one can depart without loss of faith and salvation."[/quote]

When did I deny or contradict any of these things?

[Nihil Obstat]

Accepting that the ordination of these men was "gravely illicit, that is, criminal and sacrilegious", it follows that it should, under no circumstances, have been allowed. There should be no question about it.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' post='1904774' date='Jun 28 2009, 10:01 PM']Accepting that the ordination of these men was "gravely illicit, that is, criminal and sacrilegious", it follows that it should, under no circumstances, have been allowed. There should be no question about it.[/quote]

Committing sins against the sixth commandment with a priest is sacrilegious, too, yet priests, just like all other men, were allowed by civil law in Medieval Italy (including the Papal States) to seek out a prostitute.

Edited June 29, 2009 by Resurrexi

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1904782' date='Jun 28 2009, 11:05 PM']Committing sins against the sixth commandment with a priest is sacrilegious, too, yet priests were allowed by law in Medieval Italy (including the Papal States) to seek out a prostitute.[/quote]

I still must know very little about the Church, cause I have no idea how this fits in to the discussion.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' post='1904786' date='Jun 28 2009, 10:07 PM']
I still must know very little about the Church, cause I have no idea how this fits in to the discussion.[/quote]

[cappie]

"Committing sins against the sixth commandment with a priest is sacrilegious, too, yet priests, just like all other men, were allowed by civil law in Medieval Italy (including the Papal States) to seek out a prostitute."

Something tells me 2 wrongs do not make a right

Edited June 29, 2009 by cappie

[The Bus Station]

[quote name='cappie' post='1904790' date='Jun 28 2009, 11:12 PM']"Committing sins against the sixth commandment with a priest is sacrilegious, too, yet priests, just like all other men, were allowed by civil law in Medieval Italy (including the Papal States) to seek out a prostitute."

Something tells me 2 wrongs do not make a right [/quote]

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1904782' date='Jun 28 2009, 10:05 PM']Committing sins against the sixth commandment with a priest is sacrilegious, too, yet priests, just like all other men, were allowed by civil law in Medieval Italy (including the Papal States) to seek out a prostitute.[/quote]
I'm not making excuses for Medieval Italian priests either. I don't think it's a valid conparison, to be honest.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' post='1904798' date='Jun 28 2009, 10:18 PM']I'm not making excuses for Medieval Italian priests either. I don't think it's a valid conparison, to be honest.[/quote]

It is a valid comparison. Both actions are sins of grave matter. Both actions went unpunished by the the Pope.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1904803' date='Jun 28 2009, 10:20 PM']It is a valid comparison. Both actions are sins of grave matter. Both actions went unpunished by the the Pope.[/quote]
Is that even what we're talking about?

Nobody will deny that priests visiting prostitutes in Medieval Italy was gravely immoral, and should not have been done. In the same way, SSPX bishops ordaining new priests is gravely immoral and should not be done. As far as I'm concerned, that's where the similarities start and end.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' post='1904809' date='Jun 28 2009, 10:23 PM']Is that even what we're talking about?

Nobody will deny that priests visiting prostitutes in Medieval Italy was gravely immoral, and should not have been done. In the same way, SSPX bishops ordaining new priests is gravely immoral and should not be done. As far as I'm concerned, that's where the similarities start and end.[/quote]

The Pope has not imposed any penalty on the SSPX bishops, yet you think he should, is what you seem to be implying.

[goldenchild17]

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1904813' date='Jun 28 2009, 10:24 PM']The Pope has not imposed any penalty on the SSPX bishops, yet you think he should, is what you seem to be implying.[/quote]
All I believe is that the actions of the SSPX should not in any way be excused or minimized. I also believe that whether or not these ordinations should or should not have taken place is not an open subject for debate.