I think that many are now realizing that the Synod has crossed the line for many faithful Catholics (the unfaithful ones don't care ...).
So while they are late to the vineyard, I shan't complain.
Welcome to the fight!
Clarify and / or correct Papal statements that are contradicting Doctrine / Church practice with tact and charity.Given his 'turn around', I'm beginning to warm up to Cardinal Mueller. Especially since, I've been told, he has changed his opinion of the SSPX.
“That [the Pope’s visit to the Lutheran church] was a sign of hope, that the day would come when full unity of the visible Church in the profession of faith, of the sacramental signs of salvation and the episcopal constitution with the Pope as her head would be reached. Misunderstandings come up again and again because of a failure to take account of the fact that, unfortunately, there is actually a different understanding of the Church between Catholics and Protestants, and these differences are not only theological-conceptual, but of a confessional nature. But the most important object of ecumenical dialogue, which does not want to stick with the status quo (and use "colorful and nice" talk), is rather to lead the ecumenical movement towards its goal, namely the visible and institutional unity of the Church.”
Quote from: Christus Rex on December 18, 2015, 03:41:26 PMIn answer, Fr. Cekada states:
In the so-called “definitive article,” the priest actually claims that if a person attends a Mass in which the Pope’s name is included in the canon, he will receive no sacramental grace. He and his followers claim that the only way you will fulfill your Sunday obligation and receive grace from the Mass, is by attending a Mass that excludes the legal Pope’s name. Needless to say, they cite no authorities whatsoever to support the absurd position. We can only imagine how these clerics browbeat their congregations with such nonsense. This Sedevacantist bishop and priest will no doubt be surprised to learn that an ecumenical council of the Church explicitly condemned the practice of excluding their Patriarch’s name (or Pope if the Patriarch of the West) from the Church’s liturgies before a formal judgment by the Church.
No surprises here, Rex! The "sedevacantist priest and bishop" have been around for a long time, and have heard just about every counter argument, so:As usual, Fr. Cekada has missed the point. First they are missing the context (read: they have a very strong confirmation bias) of the quotation. Second it is ludicrous to say that the renouncing of the title Patriarch of the West (a synonym for the Pope) equates to the obsolesence of point #1.
(1) Invoking the 10th Canon of Constantinople is a circular argument, because the very question being argued is "Are the post-Conciliar popes true popes (Patriarchs of the West) in the first place?" No pope, no sweat!
(2) In 2006 Benedict XVI renounced the title "Patriarch of the West." The Vatican explained that it "appeared for the first time in the 'Annuario Pontificio' in 1863... the title 'Patriarch of the West,' never very clear, over history has become obsolete and practically unusable." Are Messrs. Siscoe and Salza really crypto-sedes who don't recognize Benedict's authority to renounce the title?
If stuff like this is the best the R&R legal bar can do in 700+ pages, answering them will not only be like shooting ducks in a barrel, but also lots of fun!
... if the person of the Pope were uncertain, it would be uncertain what Bishops were in communion with the Pope; but according to the Catholic faith, as will be proved hereafter, communion with the Pope is a condition for the exercise of the function of teaching by the body of Bishops (n. 208) ; if then the uncertainty could not be cleared up, the power of teaching could not be exercised, and Christ's promise (St. Matt, xxviii. 20; and n. 199, II.) would be falsified, which is impossible. ... it is enough to say that if the Bishops agree in recognizing a certain man as Pope, they are certainly right, for otherwise the body of the Bishops would be separated from their head, and the Divine constitution of the Church would be ruined. (Hunter, 1894) (ref1, ref2,
Dogmatic Facts (facta dogmatica). By these are understood historical facts, which are not revealed, but which are intrinsically connected with revealed truth, for example, the legality of a Pope or of a General Council, or the fact of the Roman episcopate of St. Peter. The fact that a defined text does or does not agree with the doctrine of the Catholic Faith is also, in a narrower sense, a dogmatic fact." In deciding the meaning of a text the Church does not pronounce judgment on the subjective intention of the author, but on the objective sense of the text (D 1350: sensum quem verba prae se ferunt). (p9)
Sed quidquid demum de possibilitate vel impossibilitate praetatae hypothesis adhuc sentias, id saltem veluti penitus inconcussum et extra omnem dubitationem positum firmiter tenendum est: adhaesionem universalis Ecclesiae fore semper ex se sola infallibile signum legitimitatis personae Pontificis, adeoque et exsistentiae omnium conditionum quae ad legitimitatem ipsam sunt requisitae. Neque huius rei a longe repetenda ratio. Immediate enim sumitur ex infallibili Christi promissione atque providentia : Portae inferi non praevalebunt adversus eam, et iterum: Ecce ego vobiscum sum omnibus diebus. Idem namque foret. Ecclesiam adhaerere pontifici falso, ac si adhaereret falsae fidei regulae, cum Papa sit regula vivens quam Ecclesia in credendo sequi debet et semper de facto sequitur, uti ex dicendis in posterum luculentius adhuc apparebit. Equidem permittere potest Deus ut aliquando vacatio sedis diutius protrahatur. Permittere quoque potest ut de legitimitate unius vel alterius electi exoriatur dubium. Permittere autem non potest ut Ecclesia tota eum admittat pontificem qui verus et legitimus non sit. Ex quo igitur receptus est, et Ecclesiae coniunctus ut corpori caput, non est amplius movenda quaestio de possibili vitio electionis vel defectu cuiuscumque conditionis ad legitimitatem necessariae, quia praedicta Ecclesiae adhaesio omne vitium electionis radicitus sanat, et exsistentiam omnium requisitarum conditionum infallibiliter ostendit. (De Eccelsia Christi, third ed., 1909, vol. 1, pp. 620-621.)
Finally, whatever you still think about the possibility or impossibility of the aforementioned hypothesis [of a Pope heretic], at least one point must be considered absolutely incontrovertible and placed firmly above any doubt whatever: the adhesion of the universal Church will be always, in itself, an infallible sign of the legitimacy of a determined Pontiff, and therefore also of the existence of all the conditions required for legitimacy itself. It is not necessary to look far for the proof of this, but we find it immediately in the promise and infallible providence of Christ: “The gates of hell shall not prevail against it”, and “Behold I shall be with you all days”. For the adhesion of the Church to a false Pontiff would be the same as its adhesion to a false rule of faith, seeing that the Pope is the living rule of faith which the Church must follow and which in fact she always follows, as will become even more clear by what we shall say later. God can permit that at times a vacancy in the Apostolic See be prolonged for a long time. He can also permit that doubt arise about the legitimacy of this or that election. He cannot however permit that the whole Church accept as Pontiff him who is not so truly and legitimately. Therefore, from the moment in which the Pope is accepted by the Church and united to her as the head to the body, it is no longer permitted to raise doubts about a possible vice of election or a possible lack of any condition whatsoever necessary for legitimacy. For the aforementioned adhesion of the Church heals in the root all fault in the election and proves infallibly the existence of all the required conditions. Let this be said in passing against those who, trying to justify certain attempts at schism made in the time of Alexander VI, allege that its promoter broadcast that he had most certain proofs, which he would reveal to a General Council, of the heresy of Alexander. Putting aside here other reasons with which one could easily be able to refute such an opinion, it is enough to remember this: it is certain that when Savonarola was writing his letters to the Princes, all of Christendom adhered to Alexander VI and obeyed him as the true Pontiff. For this very reason, Alexander VI was not a false Pope, but a legitimate one. Therefore he was not a heretic at least in that sense in which the fact of being a heretic takes away one’s membership in the Church and in consequence deprives one, by the very nature of things, of the pontifical power and of any other ordinary jurisdiction.”
(nts: I appears that the english translation is greater than the latin)
“It is of no importance that in past centuries some Pontiff was illegitimately elected or took possession of the Pontificate by fraud; it is enough that he was accepted afterwards by the whole Church as Pope, since by such acceptance he would have become the true Pontiff. But if during a certain time he had not been truly and universally accepted by the Church, during that time the Pontifical See would have been vacant, as it is vacant on the death of a Pontiff”.
Since it was established in the volume, Christ’s Church, that the Church’s infallible teaching power extends to matters connected with revelation and that its infallible authority deserves an absolutely firm assent, the only question which remains is what name to give that assent and how to describe its nature. These points will be discussed in just a moment.
Meantime, notice that the Church possesses infallibility not only when she is defining some matter in solemn fashion, but also when she is exercising the full weight of her authority through her ordinary and universal teaching. Consequently, we must hold with an absolute assent, which we call “ecclesiastical faith,” the following theological truths: (a) those which the Magisterium has infallibly defined in solemn fashion; (b) those which the ordinary magisterium dispersed throughout the world unmistakably proposes to its members as something to be held (tenendas). So, for example, one must give an absolute assent to the proposition: “Pius XII is the legitimate successor of St. Peter”; similarly (and as a matter of fact if this following point is something “formally revealed,” it will undoubtedly be a dogma of faith) one must give an absolute assent to the proposition: “Pius XII possesses the primacy of jurisdiction over the entire Church.” For — skipping the question of how it begins to be proven infallibly for the first time that this individual was legitimately elected to take St. Peter’s place — when someone has been constantly acting as pope and has theoretically and practically been recognized as such by the bishops and by the universal Church, it is clear that the ordinary and universal magisterium is giving an utterly clear-cut witness to the legitimacy of his succession.
Building on some of the decisions we made early this year, we have significantly accelerated our campaign against ISIL. We have built out new special operations capabilities in Iraq and Syria, stepped up our air campaign and are working with local, capable, motivated ground forces to pressure ISIL strongholds from multiple directions at once. Following the attacks in Paris, NATO allies Germany, the United Kingdom and France have all brought additional capabilities to coalition. I have personally reached out to nearly 40 allies and partners around the world asking them to step up their contributions. Together, ISIL is an evil that we must and will deliver a lasting defeat.
|SantCompostela25" by Georges Jansoone - Self-photographed. Licensed under CC BY 2.5 via Commons.|
The conclusion invites the PCPCU and the LWF to create a process and timetable for addressing the remaining issues. It also suggests that the expansion of opportunities for Lutherans and Catholics to receive Holy Communion together would be a sign of the agreements already reached. The Declaration also seeks a commitment to deeper connection at the local level for Catholics and Lutherans. (USCCB)
... confers sanctifying grace by which are remitted the mortal sins and also the venial sins which we confess and for which we are sorry; it changes eternal punishment into temporal punishment, of which it even remits more or less according to our dispositions; it revives the merits of the good works done before committing mortal sin; it gives the soul aid in due time against falling into sin again, and it restores peace of conscience. (Catechism of Pope St. Pius X)
... he that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord. (1 Corinthians 11:29)
In this article, what caught my eye was if Russia attacks a Turkish aircraft, NATA is obligated to respond. Sounds like the same recipe that started WW1.
South African cardinal predicts ‘strong reaffirmation of the Church’s teaching’ from Pope : News Headlines | Catholic Culture
Archbishop Lefebvre, Islam and the Media | Catholic Family News
The Truth about Islam | None | Catholic Family News
Just in time for Christmas: Pope Francis Insult Generator
A glance back at a forgotten canonical category | In the Light of the Law
The title says it all ...
Now my inbox is cleaned up ...
However, although he favored the Kasper proposal (according to my assumptions) Pope Francis should also have recognized that he could not take such a dramatic step alone. The power of the Roman Pontiff is extraordinary but it is not unlimited. When he teaches with authority, the Pope must speak for, and in union with, the college of bishops. This year’s Synod meeting demonstrated that the world’s bishops are not united behind the Kasper proposal. By pushing the matter, then, the Pope would violate his duty to serve as the focus of unity within the episcopate. (Source)
From: Thomas Rosica [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]Source - A fellow Canadian blogger - Vox Cantoris
Sent: March 24, 2011 8:18 PM
(…) your vision of the Church will not help you to grow. It simply confirms you where you are. …
You launch arrows and broadcast yourself from a website. You have no theological formation ... Your keyboard and your monitor do not make you a bishop or liturgist.
Fraternally yours in Christ,
The Most Authentically Catholic Analysis of the Synod……comes to us from Bishop Fellay of the SSPX. You know, those guys. The ones who sit aloof in the corner while the cool kids at the dance dish fantastic gossip about.I wonder if CMTV will comment on the SSPX comment on the Synod. Perhaps the SSPX is only saying what they'd like to say ...
“Did you hear that they’re, like, in schism? Whatever that means!”
“They had a really bad breakup with the pope in the 1970s. Totes not even Catholic anymore!”
“My friend’s cousin’s girlfriend’s virtual spiritual director told her that, like, every Mass they say is more offensive to God than, like, a SATANIC MASS!!!”
Chitter away ladies. While you’re busy tearing down others to make yourselves look good, this is what a Catholic bishop (and dare we hope a future pope?) should sound like:
... sspx declaration ...
The funny thing is that there’s an almost universal rule of human experience: the most enthusiastic dirt-dealers at the dance very rarely stay popular after graduation, whereas their victims, for whatever real faults they may have, often go on to be the most successful people in the class.
I, for one, am looking forward to the watching that realization set in when we all get back together for our reunion in a few years.
(1) Pope John-Paul II is so far from being Catholic that one may seriously doubt whether he is Pope at all.... and perhaps this ...
(2) The official Church and its leaders have gone so far in their false “renewal” that they may be ignored by Catholics.... and of course this ...
(3) Present Church superiors have so betrayed the Faith that they can in no way be considered the real churchmen.I admit that the 'resistance', while it has some core common beliefs, also has a flair for diversity and sedevacantism.
Update: The author of the response has indicated that he is not sedevacantist.
Following the same level of doctrinal authority[Concerning Canonizations]:
We can be confident that Pope Francis is validly elected as Pope due to the universal acceptance by the Bishops.
Concerning the canonizations, only the aspect that the person canonized is enjoying the beatific vision is covered by infallibility.
The synod is simply a meeting of invited bishops to provide their thoughts and opinions to the pope Unlike the Second Vatican Council, it has no magisterial authority. Period. (SSPX: How much authority does a Synod have?)
All these synods do is provide a venue for prelates to proclaim their orthodoxy or lack thereof. It simply is an opportunity for the chasm between the good and the bad to be clearer. For the fence sitters like the neo cats ,including cmtv et all, they will be inexorably confronted with any inconsistencies in their principles.
As will we all.
Is a Catholic practicing virtue when they avoid the Sacraments when there is no immediate or proximate danger to the Faith, particularly Sunday Mass - a precept of the Church?
John 13:27. And after the morsel, Satan entered into him. And Jesus said to him: That which thou dost, do quickly. (Source)
... The SSPX even claims the Novus Ordo Mass is intrinsically evil and no one should ever go to a Mass unless it's in the Old Latin Rite — and only then if it's offered by an SSPX priest. This recent video on the Society's website clearly states their long-held position in this regard. It's necessary for them to view the Church crisis this way because only then do they feel justified in going rogue. But what they're describing is actually heretical as it denies the dogma of the indefectibility of the Catholic Church. Truth and grace cannot fail universally from the Pope on down. Christ said of Peter, "On this rock I will build my Church and the gates of Hell will not prevail against it."For someone with an academic background, I had expected better. In fact, I had expected them to research what the SSPX means when it claims that the Novus Oro Missae is evil.
In March 2009, Pope Benedict XVI wrote a letter explaining the SSPX separation is doctrinal in nature and not merely canonical or legal, as the SSPX would have the public believe... ( CMTV Claims SSPX Heretical)
Well, the Society is definitely against the New Mass. We even say that it is 'intrinsically evil.; That’s a delicate label that needs a little explanation. By this we mean that the New Mass in itself –the New Mass as the New Mass, as it is written –is evil, because as such you find in it the definition of evil. The definition of evil is 'the privation of a due good.' Something that should be in the New Mass is not there and that’s evil. What is really Catholic has been taken out of the New Mass. The Catholic specification of the Mass has been taken away. That’s enough to say that it is evil. And look at the terrible fruits." (Bishop Fellay )I also expected them to have a better understanding of what is meant by Indefectibility of the Church. Namely, that the Infallibility of the Church extends to the laws and disciplines that she promulgates because Indefectibility means that:
"The Church is indefectible, that is, she remains and will remain the Institution of Salvation, founded by Christ, until the end of the world. (Sent. certa.) (Ott, 1954)" (Tradicat)
It is the more probable opinion among approved authors that refusal of obedience of a Catholic to the Pope which is not predicated upon a rejection of the principle of his authority as Roman Pontiff as Caput Romanae Ecclesiae constitutes material, not formal schism. However, if those lay faithful receiving the Sacraments from them at any one point in time also severed themselves entirely from, or refused submission in principle to, the Roman Pontiff and per can. 1330 of the Code of Canon Law manifested in word or in deed externally such actions, then they are presumed to have descended into formal schism. (CMTV Interviews a Canon Lawyer)First of all, this is a 'probably opinion' and therefore is simply an agreement in general from those currently within the sphere of influence in the circles of Canon law. I'm sorry, but if the Pope issues an illegitimate command (outside of his scope of authority or proximately or immediately sinful) it is not materially schismatic to disobey. However, it is interesting that no matter how many times it has been tried before, "they' always want to find a way to make the SSPX either schismatic or heretical to support their belief that the SSPX can't possibly be right. Where are they going with this? I believe it is an attempt to make the consecrations without papal mandate a schismatic act. Good luck with that one, that ship has sailed and we know that it is not a schismatic act - it was simply an disobedient act and the censure of schism was not included in the canonical warning.
The Tribunal of the Roman Rota has issued, per my count, five judgments declaring the nullity of marriage of those faithful who exchange vows before an SSPX priest. The legal rationale for such judgments has been the ground of Defect of Canonical Form (cf. can. 1108). ... Whenever these norms have been applied to cases where an SSPX priest witnessed the exchange of vows of two Catholic faithful appearing before him, the Judges of the Roman Rota, the Catholic Church's universal court of appeal, have, to my knowledge, without exception, always declared such marriages to be utterly null and void.Ok, so there are only 5 cases in 40+ years that have reached the Roman Rota? Really? Now I do find something of interest, in that the Canon Lawyer quotes an abstract of the judgement:
An affirmative sentence has recognized the nullity of marriage by reason of defect of delegation in the celebrating priest belonging to the "Society of Saint Pius X" (the so-called Lefebvrians). According to the panel of judges [Turnus], on the part of the faithful who follow schismatic pastors — as an aside, the Lefebvrian community is qualified as dissident but not separated from the Church — one cannot automatically presume the will to defect from the Catholic Church (from the moment that their choice could have been influenced more by liturgical preference than by the refusal of papal authority) and therefore these [individuals] remain bound by canonical form (can. 1117 in the text preceding the reform introduced by the Motu Proprio Omnium in mentem of 26 October 2009; A. 95/09).So what I am wondering is if ever in the last 40 years the Roman Rota has presumed that the marriages were valid. I also find of interest that this contradicts the American Nuncio who wrote:
This has been confirmed by a reply of Cardinal Mayer to a letter written by a troubled Catholic from California asking about the validity of our Sacraments: The principle of "common error” , whether on the part of only one faithful or on the part of the community, can be applied in this case, and such acts are thereby valid (cf. canons 144, 976, 1331, 1333, 1335) (Apostolic Nunciature in U.S.A., letter 1885/89/4, dated May lst,1989).
Fr. Eric Jacqmin is on the verge of being expelled from the Society of St. Pius X. Yesterday he gave a good catechetical conference in Kent, England on the theological virtues, the supernatural life, and the simple love of God exhibited by St. Therese of the Child Jesus. After the conference, he provided constructive criticism on the positions currently held by His Excellency Bishop Richard Williamson on seminarian formation, the loose association structure, authority, liberty, and attendance at the Novus Ordo Rite of Mass, amongst other things. As a result of these positions, Fr. Jacqmin advises the faithful not to attend Masses celebrated by His Excellency.So now Bishop Williamson begins to reap what he has sowed.
Watch and pray lest you to enter into temptation.I would also advocate studying the faith and keeping up with your spiritual reading. Without these elements the risk of falling onto either side of the pinnacle of virtue is great.