SSPX Info, updates and interviews - Page 33

numealinesimpet · #**481** May 25, '12, 2:49 am

I believe that, when this has finally all settled down, the Church as a whole will have learned valuable lessons on the resolution of issues of Faith and Authority, just as in the past, certain other issues ere clarified through long debate, usually after a crisis (such as the nature of the Holy Trinity, which was thrashed out in the 5th Century).

Lupe Lu · #**482** May 25, '12, 9:57 am

Regarding all of the above.

There is not one canon that could not be applied equally well to the Protestant Reformers.
I'm quite sure that all of them believed in the "necessity" of what they were doing and believed they were quite justified "in their hearts."

That does not mean they were not excomminicated. It doesn't mean that they were not heretics. And it does not mean they were not schismatics.

These canons are not be be used as a loop hole for any sort of bad behavior.

There is quite a difference between culpable and incupable ignorance.

This is the central issue here.

Lupe Lu · #**483** May 25, '12, 10:18 am

Canon 1323, however, stipulates that no one can be excommunicated who:

Has not turned 17;
Was, without fault, ignorant of violating the law;
Acted under physical force, or under a chance occurrence that could not be foreseen or avoided;
Acted under compulsion of grave fear;
Lacked the use of reason.

In paragraph three of the very same canon the committee cites, we read: "Where there has been an external violation, imputability is presumed, unless it appears otherwise."

There is no doubt this applies to SSPX.

JReducation · #**484** May 25, '12, 12:19 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lupe Lu

Canon 1323, however, stipulates that no one can be excommunicated who:

Has not turned 17;
Was, without fault, ignorant of violating the law;
Acted under physical force, or under a chance occurrence that could not be foreseen or avoided;
Acted under compulsion of grave fear;
Lacked the use of reason.

In paragraph three of the very same canon the committee cites, we read: "Where there has been an external violation, imputability is presumed, unless it appears otherwise."

There is no doubt this applies to SSPX.

This canon does not apply to the SSPX, if that's what you're trying to apply it to. Bl. John Paul's had Cardinal Ratatzinger write to Archbishop Lefrebvre as much. In fact, it was Archbishop Lefebvre who let the cat out of the bag when he responded with his statement. Rome did not intend to make it a public statement.

I don't know if the Archbishop did either. In any case, his letter reached the public.

The pope is the highest judge in the Church. He gets to decide when and to whom laws apply. This is the argument that is being made by laity, not by the clergy of the society. That the pope had to comply with this canon.

Bishop Fellay dropped this argument years ago. Instead, he came back to Rome and asked that the excommunication be rescinded, which is an admission that they were valid in the first place. He then confirms this admission with a thank you letter to Pope Benedict.

So I don't understand why the laity doesn't back off, when the Superior General of the affected group backed off a long time ago, realizing that he had no case, because the pope had ruled that they had no case.

It seems that it is laymen, not SSPX leadership, who keep this argument going and for what reason?

At times, the most holy thing to do is to let something go, especially when the affected people have accepted their fate and dealt with it.

If we keep bringing it up, when they no longer do so, then it is we who are guilty of the sin of division and insubordination to papal authority. Not the four bishops who were the only ones excommunicated. Therefore, they're the only ones who had a right to question the validity of the excommunications and they yielded that point a long time ago. Again, why bother bringing up a law that the pope already said did not apply in this situation?

How are you going to argue against that level of authority?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

Lupe Lu · #**485** May 26, '12, 1:19 pm

I was responding to this from numealinesimpet:

Mgr Lefebvre invoked Canons 1321, 1323 & 1324. Here is a paraphrase: the canons are in any published New Code of Canon Law or on the Vatican Website. Here is a paraphrase:
Canon 1323, §4: A person who violates a law out of necessity is not subject to a penalty (1983 Code of Canon Law,), even if there is no state of necessity:
canon 1323: If one inculpably thought there was, he would not incur the penalty,

Clearly, that is NOT what Canon 1323 states.

It states what I said that it states.

I completely agree that SSPX was excommunicated, and that the Pope has an absolute and final right given to him by Christ to do whatever he wants in these matters.

I am simply trying to correct the misinformation above, and point out that Canon 1323, in fact, would condemn SSPX, not exonerate it.

The sentence in bold means, more or less: "Where there has been an external violation, the party is PRESUMED GUILTY....."

I hope that clears up any confusion.

Khalid · #**486** May 27, '12, 5:48 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by TrueLight

What do the initials STD stand for? Those are not good initials, LOL.

Doctor of Sacred Theology (there's also the STB, which is equivalent to a secular doctoral degree, and the STL, the Licentiate, which is above any secular degree; the STD is far above any secular degree, as the Bachelor's of Sacred Theology is granted only after 2-4 years of study after a 4-year undergraduate degree).