Posted on 10/16/2006 8:27:21 AM PDT by NYer
2. Excommunicated schismatics who nonetheless have thieved the privilege of apostolic succession to illicitly consecrate as bishops the embarrassing likes of Fellay, de Mallerais, Williamson, et al., are ummmm, irregular as to their canonical status. The recipients of the stolen goods are bishops because dead excommunicated Marcel was legitimately consecrated as a bishop, had apostolic succession and was willing to abuse those gifts for massive sin.
3. The SSPX priests DO receive Holy Orders. That is precisely the problem. If Emmett Kelly purported to ordain Bozo the Clown, we would very likely ignore the false pretense. These excommunicated bishops actually have the power but not the legitimate authority to ordain priests which is a much more serious matter. You might want in on the profits of selling McDonald's hamburgers but you cannot do it without the franchisor's permission. Marcel was not the franchisor. If a rogue franchisee of McDonald's gave you the trade secrets and logos and advice and approval and even declared that you had as much right as he to sell McDonald's, that would not make it so. No bishop with territorial jurisdiction (a diocesan ordinary) has given these priests faculties to hear confessions as one little deficiency among so many of the schism. I suppose they would claim "emergency" because the Novus Ordo priests are disqualified as whatever.... And, besides, who is some or any pope to imagine that he has authority to disagree with, much less excommunicate the great Marcel. As usual, SSPX is wrong and has not even a colorable argument.
4. Since the Vatican recognizes the VALIDITY but NOT the LAWFULNESS of the consecrations of SSPX bishops and of the ordinations of the schismatic excommunicates, it DOES (I think I have conceded this point about a thousand times here) mean that the Masses of the schism, like the Masses of the Eastern Orthodox (although the Orthodox are better people and usually born into Orthodoxy rather than apostasizing into it by free will) are quite valid. Hence minor Vatican functionaries and even Dario Cardinal Castrillon de Hoyos, have reminded the Faithful of the validity of the schismatic Masses. Actual Catholics are not and never have been Donatist heretics who imagine that the Masses and consecrations are somehow rendered invalid by the sins of the priests presiding. Even Padre Pio was a sinner. So are our parish priests who are loyal to the Church. Likewise the SSPX clergy, to say the least. The excommunicated SSPX priests (how CAN one accept Holy Orders from the schism without adhering to it, to say nothing of continuing to act for the schism?) receive the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ at Mass but, excommunicated as they are, St. Paul warned them long in advance of the consequences of unworthy receipt. As Catholics, we are entitled to rely on the Eucharist and other sacraments without fretting over the subjective state of the soul of ANY priest, however scandalously sinful, in or out of the Church who has been validly ordained even if illicitly. The actual Catholic Faithful are additionally allowed to contribute their individual shares of the costs of the schismatics' Masses they attend and no more (no one is calculating precisely so this is not a precise amount but is a general admonition to be modest in contributing).
5. Unless you have something PAPAL that says otherwise, the unrepentant bishops are certainly excommunicated. One cannot very well persist as an unrepentant SSPX priest without adhering to the schism. As to the laity, God knows and JP the Great knew along with Benedict XVI, but does it not seem likely to be those who side with the schism against the Church itself and who are subjectively unable to make a legitimate claim of invincible ignorance and who refuse to repent their sins of schism and scandal? God's decision and God's plan has got to be better than yours or mine but until we get to ask Him and receive His answer, it seems prudent to reflexively obey His Vicar on Earth, day by day, month, by month, year by year, trusting in the promises of Jesus Christ.
6. If you claim the right to sit in judgment upon the pope on matters of who is and who is not schismatic, you necessarily defend the schism because that is of the essence of the schism. Furthermore, defense of the popes from your (or anyone's) claimed right to sit in judgment on the pope is not best described as a knee-jerk reaction but rather as a Roman Catholic response in defense of the Faith and of the leadership given us by God.
7. As usual, I am now bored with the SSPX subject in which the SSPX seeks to advertise its iniquitous attacks on the Church and to scandalize the Faithful because the SSPX misery loves the attempt to seduce the Catholic Faithful into keeping company with the excommunicated schismatics. This Catholic says: absolutely not! Not in my lifetime! Not in God's lifetime! The schismatics can confess and do penance or not. God gave them free will to use or abuse as much as he gave free will to the rest of us. If any pope reverses Ecclesia Dei, so be it. If not, not! The babblings of minor bureaucrats, amended by the usual suspects in the anti-Catholic Lamestream Media or not, do not overcome specific disciplines applied by papal authority.
8. Ubi Petrus, Ibi Ecclesia.
9. Roma Locuta, Causa Finita.
10. If you disagree with 8 or 9, we belong to different churches and ought not to be wasting time on this conversation.
11. In less than three weeks, our nation is at stake in polling places all over America. Benedict XVI is firmly in charge of the Roman Catholic Church which is not in jeopardy in any event thanks to the promises of Jesus Christ. I have no desire to encourage Catholic FReepers and schismatic FReepers claiming Catholicism despite Ecclesia Dei to be arguing past one another when we all have necessary work to do on what looms as a potentially disastrous secular election.
12. I suspect that ownership here established this site at least partially to facilitate cooperation among conservatives of whatever religious persuasions or none in such crises as the present one in politics. If one were George Soros, one would be delighted to see us distracting ourselves publicly squabbling over Marcel vs. the papacy for the entertainment of our mutual enemies.
You forgot Mohamet--another anti-Christ.
Having said that, I second the opinion of SiteTest. It is impossible to read the letter in any other way than to read that one (or perhaps TWO) Pope(s) is "an anti-Christ."
I think we all concede that there are Curial problem-children and certainly staff-level problems. But JPII? B-16?
Really?
There certainly is a right way and a wrong way.
CHAPTER XV. No one shall hear confessions, unless he be approved of by the Ordinary.
Although priests receive in their ordination the power of absolving from sins; nevertheless, the holy Synod ordains, that no one, even though he be a Regular, is able to hear the confessions of Seculars, not even of priests, and that he is not to be reputed fit thereunto, unless he either holds a parochial benefice, or is, by the bishops, after an examination if they shall think it necessary, or in some other manner, judged capable; and has obtained their approval, which shall be granted gratuitously; any privileges, and custom whatsoever, though immemorial, to the contrary notwithstanding.
CHAPTER XVI.
Those who are ordained shall be assigned to a particular church.
Whereas no one ought to be ordained, who, in the judgment of his own bishop, is not useful or necessary for his churches, the holy Synod, adhering to the traces of the sixth canon of the council of Chalcedon, ordains, that no one shall for the future be ordained without being attached to that church, or pious place, for the need, or utility of which he is promoted; there to discharge his duties, and not wander about without any certain abode. And if he shall quit that place without consulting the bishop, he shall be interdicted from the exercise of his sacred (orders). Furthermore, no cleric, who is a stranger, shall, without letters commendatory from his own Ordinary, be admitted by any bishop to celebrate the divine mysteries, and to administer the sacraments.
*Now, all that is necessary to oppose Tradtion is for one man, lefevbrfe, to declare "emergency" and that one man can overthrow EVERYTHING. Ecumenical Councils cannot compete with his authority and omnipotence
Lefevbre, uber ecclesia.
We witness Fellay calling the mass evil.
Trent...CANON VII.--If any one saith, that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs, which the Catholic Church makes use of in the celebration of masses, are incentives to impiety, rather than offices of piety; let him be anathema.
More Trent? OK...."In the next place, that irreverence may be avoided, each, in his own diocese, shall forbid that any wandering or unknown priest be allowed to celebrate mass."
*Of course, any and all Tradition which lefevbre wished to oppose is merely sloughed-off as the sspx schism slithers down into Hell
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.