Posted on 07/15/2004 6:17:56 PM PDT by AskStPhilomena
This is what bothers me. Yes, I do think that SSPX is, at minimum, in an irregular relationship to the Holy See. I do not attend their Masses, although I recognize their validity (but not licitness). I attend the Missa Normativa most of the time, and the indult Mass occasionally.
But, as far as priorities go, the kind of disobedience we're talking about should be way down on the list, compared to so many outrageous things that are allowed to go on.
I'd like to know if this bishop is enforcing other rules with equal zeal. For instance, is he denying Holy Communion to publicly pro-abortion politicians and voters? Is he suspending priests that promote the idea of ordaining women? Is he ordering parishes to forgo the habitual use of EMHCs? Is he clearing active homosexuals, heretics and apostates out of the chancery offices?
It does seem that many, if not most, bishops see disobedient traditionalists as the greatest threat, for some reason that I cannot understand, or at least agree with.
You had it coming. If you can't stand the heat....
Ninenot is not the poster in question. He's a guy, anyway.
"You are arguing hypotheticals, and I'm arguing reality."
No Deacon you are living in a fantasy land. The ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH is being prosecuted civilly and perhaps criminally for the way it violated US laws. One Diocese is BANKRUPT, others will be soon. Review the satanic Paul Shandley case and see how much that case alone cost the Universal Church.
No Deacon, you are so wrong it is unreal.
Now about your claims that I am engaged in a flame war here. Any retraction or explanation? You claim I am breaking the rules. Please be specific in your claims or withdraw them.
Amen.
"Name me one instance where a church of any denomination has ever been prosecuted for violating its own internal canons?"
The LDS Church Deacon, many times. Just one example -- free -- they had a Church Law that forbade the ordination of blacks. They were prosecuted. Through that process, they found a divine revelation that changed their faith. Now blacks are allowed. Polygamy isn't though. Why?
If what you say is true, then the Federal Government could demand that the Catholic Church ordain women.
And, of course, it can't do that. So, I want something that indicates the government took the LDS to court.
Can the same be said of your recent comments toward Polycarp IV?
Certainly. As were his toward me. We both got out of control on that thread. I regret that it happened, but I didn't start the war.
Ah, now you're changing the argument. We were discussing the internal canons of a Church, not any violation of US statutes.
The US government cannot, for instance, take the Catholic Church to court because it ordains celibate men to the priesthood. That is an internal Church regulation that the US government has absolutely no jurisdiction over.
I disagree with the law they had, but the federal government has no business whatsoever interfering in their beliefs, no matter how kooky they are.
Uhhhnnnh...limited agreement here.
If the Church is using a qualified 401(k), or fixed-benefit, or fixed-contribution pension plan, then certain protections are given individuals who are the beneficiaries of the plan. (Weakland tried threatening priests by telling them that he could "cut off their pension."--On consult with attorneys, Weakie was laughed out of the room.)
It is less clear that 'other' US laws apply, such as EEO; in fact, the 'separation' clause argument would likely prevail in questions such as 'female priests,' or (we should hope for the day!!) 'queer' priest-ordinations.
IOW, if it's not strictly a secular transaction, the courts will most likely keep their hands off. That's why you brought up the UCC provisions of corporations--those are strictly secular transactions/actions (eg, Chapter 11/7.)
We are in agreement. Fiorino has it all backwards; but recall that Bp Bruskewitz flat out excommunicated SSPX'rs, as well--along with the Call to Action types. All in the same document. BOOM! Your OUTTA here!
Any members of the Diocese of Galveston-Houston out there willing to pursue this???
If that's true, it would go a long ways toward explaining Orrin Hatch's meandering and pandering.
1) St. Athanasius didn't disobey the Pope.
2) Pope St. Liberius never signed any semi-Arian creeds.
3) Pope St. Liberius never excommunicated St. Athanasius except in some Arian inspired interpolations to some books.
4) Pope St. Liberius was universally praised as completely Orthodox by his contemporaries and sucessors - St. Basil, St. Ambrose, Pope St. Damasus, etc.
5) 80% of the Bishops did not apostasize - that is a complete exaggeration, rather like St. Jerome's rhetorical flourish that the "whole world awoke and groaned to find itself Arian".
6) Pope St. Liberius is considered a Saint by the Catholic Church.
But why let the historical facts stand in the way of a good yarn to support modern day disobedience?
Take it up with Trent and Pius VI who said that although the Church has the right to change how the sacraments are dispensed it doesn’t have the right to create a New Rite newer than 200 years old. This is found in Trent Session 7 Canon 13 on the "Sacraments in General:""If anyone says that the received and approved rites customarily used in the Catholic Church for the solemn administration of the Sacraments can be changed into other new rites by any pastor in the Church whosoever, let him be anathema."
Your quotation is extraordinarily faulty, not surprisingly, so much as to change its meaning.
CANON XIII.-If any one saith, that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church, wont to be used in the solemn administration of the sacraments, may be contemned, or without sin be omitted at pleasure by the ministers, or be changed, by every pastor of the churches, into other new ones; let him be anathema.
The canon condemns the "laissez faire" attitude towards Sacramental administration, where everyone goes and does his own thing as he sees fit (rather what the SSPX advocates). It has nothing to do with the power of the Pope to reorder the sacramental rites. Especially considering that the Pope proceeded to do just that in the years subsequent to Trent by imposing the Curial Roman Missal, Breviary, and Ritual on the entire Church, while abolishing all the medieval rites.
Study the history of Utah, it is fascinating. The US Army was used to force the LDS to change it's stated theology before Utah was allowed into the Union. They had to make polygamy forbidden by state constitution. Think about that for a moment. The law and the LDS has an interesting history.
This is a very good question, and notice, it hasn't been answered yet.
Google Deacon, Google. Or if you can access WestLaw, go for it.
"If what you say is true, then the Federal Government could demand that the Catholic Church ordain women."
Yep.
"And, of course, it can't do that."
Who says?
"So, I want something that indicates the government took the LDS to court."
Google Deacon, google.
Now about your claims that I am engaged in a flame war here. Any retraction or explanation? You claim I am breaking the rules. Please be specific in your claims or withdraw them.
No and NO. Those are my words excerpted and mishandled by you over the course of several posts where you accuse me of things that are simply not true. Your tactics are in overdrive and are manifestly exposed.
And for the record, I don't spin. I knit.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.