Posts by Slugworth

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • Man arrested for public sex acts (Now, I've heard it all) (South Dakota)

    08/02/2007 9:14:18 PM PDT · 16 of 39
    Slugworth to Slugworth


    I bet this isn't one of his conquests.
  • Man arrested for public sex acts (Now, I've heard it all) (South Dakota)

    08/02/2007 9:09:10 PM PDT · 14 of 39
    Slugworth to marsh_of_mists
  • Archbishop of Newark Assigns Priest of Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest to Apostolate

    06/27/2007 9:17:27 PM PDT · 37 of 37
    Slugworth to BlackElk
    It has been reported on this website that Fr. Wickens left his St. Anthony of Padua Chapel to the Archdiocese of Newark at his death.

    http://www.latin-mass.net/latinmass/interview.htm
  • Archbishop of Newark Assigns Priest of Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest to Apostolate

  • Archbishop of Newark Assigns Priest of Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest to Apostolate

    06/27/2007 8:12:07 AM PDT · 22 of 37
    Slugworth to Pyro7480
    With the gracious permission of the Archbishop of Newark, the Most Reverend John Meyers, the Institute of Christ the King will be assigning a priest

    I thought there was a lay Board of Directors who made these decisions independently of the Archdiocese.
  • My eyes, my eyes! (St. Luke's in Graz Austria) (do not attempt to view this with a beverage in hand)

    06/10/2007 11:08:17 AM PDT · 50 of 52
    Slugworth to incredulous joe


    Baptisms once a month by appointment.
  • † Traditional Holy Mass; Dominica in Albis, in Octava Paschæ/Low Sunday, 15 Apr 2007 Anno Domini †

    04/15/2007 8:57:24 AM PDT · 12 of 17
    Slugworth to Robert Drobot

    Fr. Damien has not been canonized.

  • Church to Lure Catholics Back to the Confessional

    03/08/2007 7:35:59 AM PST · 8 of 89
    Slugworth to livius
    I heard an account on EWTN the other day of someone who had gone to confession, and when it came time for absolution, the priest did not use the formula. He simply said "May Jesus forgive you."

    Invalid. No sacrament. Tragedy.
  • The Changing Faces of Parenthood

    11/21/2006 9:12:54 AM PST · 16 of 16
    Slugworth to ClearCase_guy
    The Left needs to destroy Religion...

    The "left" of what?
  • Faithful seek communion, Defiant Catholics create new home

    11/01/2006 10:09:41 AM PST · 50 of 50
    Slugworth to Old_Mil
    So how is a church that gives Lutheran communion a Catholic church, underground or otherwise?

  • Official statement of French bishops concerning the Tridentine Mass

    11/01/2006 7:07:57 AM PST · 11 of 34
    Slugworth to Petrosius
    the bishops are fearful lest the generalization of the use of the Roman Missal of 1962 would relativize the directions of Vatican II.

  • As Speculation Mounts on Pre-Vatican II Mass, So Do Question Marks

    10/22/2006 3:50:23 AM PDT · 3 of 87
    Slugworth to Wonder Warthog
    By this time, two whole generations of Catholics are totally uneducated in what it means to be Catholic.

    Sure. Just take a look around FR.
  • SSPX to send spiritual bouquet and encouragement to Pope

    10/21/2006 10:08:56 PM PDT · 32 of 128
    Slugworth to bornacatholic; Religion Moderator

    Stop pinging me, genius.

  • Catholic schismatics see return to Roman fold soon

    10/18/2006 7:10:39 AM PDT · 169 of 224
    Slugworth to bornacatholic
    Letter from Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre to the future Bishops


    29 August, 1987

    My dear friends,

    The See of Peter and the posts of authority in Rome being occupied by anti-Christs, the destruction of the Kingdom of Our Lord is being rapidly carried out even within His Mystical Body here below, especially through the corruption of the Holy Mass which is both the splendid expression of the triumph of Our Lord on the Cross - Regnavit a Ligno Deus - and the source of the extension of His kingdom over souls and over societies. Hence the absolute need appears obvious of ensuring the permanency and continuation of the adorable Sacrifice of Our Lord in order that "His Kingdom come." The corruption of the Holy Mass has brought the corruption of the priesthood and the universal decadence of Faith in the divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

    God raised up the Priestly Society of St. Pius X for the maintenance and perpetuity of His glorious and expiatory Sacrifice within the Church. He chose Himself some true priests instructed in and convinced of these divine mysteries. God bestowed upon me the grace to prepare these Levites and to confer upon them the grace of the priesthood for the continuation of the true Sacrifice according to the definition of the Council of Trent.

    This is what has brought down upon our heads persecution by the Rome of the anti-Christs. Since this Rome, Modernist and Liberal, is carrying on its work of destruction of the Kingdom of Our Lord, as Assisi and the confirmation of the Liberal theses of Vatican II on Religious Liberty prove, I find myself constrained by Divine Providence to pass on the grace of the Catholic episcopacy which I received, in order that the Church and the Catholic priesthood continue to subsist for the glory of God and for the salvation of souls.

    That is why, convinced that I am only carrying out the holy will of Our Lord, I am writing this letter to ask you to agree to receive the grace of the Catholic episcopacy, just as I have already conferred it on other priests in other circumstances. I will bestow this grace upon you, confident that without too long a delay the See of Peter will be occupied by a successor of Peter who is perfectly Catholic, and into whose hands you will be able to put back the grace of your episcopacy so that he may confirm it.

    The main purpose of my passing on the episcopacy is that the grace of priestly orders be continued, for the true Sacrifice of the Mass to be continued, and that the grace of the Sacrament of Confirmation be bestowed upon children and upon the faithful who will ask you for it.

    I beseech you to remain attached to the See of Peter, to the Roman Church, Mother and Mistress of all Churches, in the integral Catholic Faith, expressed in the various creeds of our Catholic Faith, in the Catechism of the Council of Trent, in conformity with what you were taught in your seminary. Remain faithful in the handing down of this Faith so that the Kingdom of Our Lord may come.

    Finally, I beseech you to remain attached to the Priestly Society of St. Pius X, to remain profoundly united amongst yourselves, in submission to the Society's Superior General, in the Catholic Faith of all time, remembering the words of St. Paul to the Galatians (1:8-9): "But even if we or an angel from heaven were to teach you a different gospel from the one we have taught you, let him be anathema."

    As we have said before, now again I say: "if anyone teaches you a different gospel from what you have received, let him be anathema." My dear friends, be my consolation in Christ Jesus, remain strong in the Faith, faithful to the true Sacrifice of the Mass, to the true and holy priesthood of Our Lord for the triumph and glory of Jesus in heaven and upon earth, for the salvation of souls, for the salvation of my own soul.

    In the hearts of Jesus and Mary I embrace you and bless you. Your father in Christ Jesus,


    + Marcel Lefebvre



    VIVA CRISTO REY!
  • Catholic schismatics see return to Roman fold soon

    10/17/2006 1:14:46 PM PDT · 117 of 224
    Slugworth to Canticle_of_Deborah
    The Latin Mass magazine, Winter 2005 issue. I don't think it's available online.
  • Catholic schismatics see return to Roman fold soon

    10/17/2006 12:38:30 PM PDT · 113 of 224
    Slugworth to bornacatholic

    Are you married?

  • Catholic schismatics see return to Roman fold soon

    10/17/2006 7:56:05 AM PDT · 94 of 224
    Slugworth to mockingbyrd
    I have even been told that it is a heresy to call John Paul "the Great."

    Not heretical, just dumb.
  • Inaccuracy (surprise!) in reporting of SSPX "reconciliation"

    10/17/2006 7:53:49 AM PDT · 1 of 1
    Slugworth
  • Catholic schismatics see return to Roman fold soon

    10/16/2006 12:42:52 PM PDT · 29 of 224
    Slugworth to bornacatholic
  • Catholic schismatics see return to Roman fold soon

    10/16/2006 11:41:54 AM PDT · 24 of 224
    Slugworth to bornacatholic
    And I am nervous Pope Benedict is gonna embrace this insanity? Not at all. He is a holy and intelligent man.

  • Catholic schismatics see return to Roman fold soon

    10/16/2006 11:29:03 AM PDT · 20 of 224
    Slugworth to bornacatholic; murphE
    we are supposed to think the Pope is gong surrender the Keys to these Protestants in Fiddlebacks.





    With a bounce, baby.
  • Archdiocese of Newark clarifies status of North Caldwell 'church'

    10/13/2006 1:00:44 PM PDT · 21 of 42
    Slugworth to Petrosius
    In the last two years have there been any abuses in the celebration of the Mass or questionable preaching to question that the chapel in West Orange is "a truly Roman Catholic parish with complete fidelity to the traditional Mass, dogma, and unchanging Magisterium of the eternal Roman Catholic Church"?

    I honestly wouldn't know.
  • Archdiocese of Newark clarifies status of North Caldwell 'church'

    10/13/2006 12:58:53 PM PDT · 20 of 42
    Slugworth to Petrosius
    Why, then, object if he has assigned a priest to St. Anthony of Padua Chapel in West Orange?

    Mainly because one of the conditions for the granting of the Indult is that its beneficiaries acknowledge the "doctrinal and juridicial value" of the Novus Ordo Mass, which would be impossible for me to do.
  • Archdiocese of Newark clarifies status of North Caldwell 'church'

    10/09/2006 11:48:30 AM PDT · 17 of 42
    Slugworth to Petrosius; murphE; Canticle_of_Deborah
    You will notice that the notice spoke of the members of St. Anthony's, not the priest or SSPX. Is this questioning of the validity of the Novus Order and revised Rite of Ordination truly absent from St. Anthony's?

    If it wasn't, would that equate to "most" of us being sedevacantists? Bottom line: The source lied.

    What was the need to separate from the original chapel in West Orange?

    Also public knowledge, but I've a feeling you knew that already.
  • Archdiocese of Newark clarifies status of North Caldwell 'church'

    10/08/2006 7:33:55 PM PDT · 14 of 42
    Slugworth to Coleus; ELS
    Many, if not most of its members, are sede vacantists who deny the validity of Novus Ordo, the revised Rite of Ordination, and the present pope,"

    False. The official SSPX positions on these matters is well within the reach of anyone with an internet connection & half a brain, and I don't recall answering an Archdiocesan-sponsored poll.
  • Archdiocese of Newark clarifies status of North Caldwell 'church'

    10/07/2006 12:54:53 PM PDT · 13 of 42
    Slugworth to iowamark
  • Jersey archbishop in line to fill vacancy in Detroit

    08/29/2006 11:24:01 AM PDT · 14 of 18
    Slugworth to netmilsmom
    We have some really traditional parishes also. Hopefully we will remain untouched.

    The fact that there is a new SSPX chapel in town makes your being "allowed" to continue more likely, provided you're financially solvent.
  • 'Packed House' Welcomes Latin Mass to Front Royal (Virginia)

    08/10/2006 12:03:01 PM PDT · 13 of 61
    Slugworth to nanetteclaret
    (I must resist the temptation to whine and say, "I feel cheated!")

    Why? You have.
  • Synod on the Eucharist: The Pope Has the Last Word

    07/03/2006 5:30:03 AM PDT · 1 of 33
    Slugworth
  • St. Pius X disagrees with the Vatican over Latin Mass, but Winona seminary still thriving

    06/30/2006 9:38:04 AM PDT · 129 of 136
    Slugworth to bornacatholic
    You misinterpret, or rather, misdirect my analogy.

    It was to point out the utter hilarity of the following statement:

    "I am the most effective opponent of the schism."

    ...particularly when coming from the same person who accuses his opposition of:

    "theological psychopathology and behavioral muliebrity"



    HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
    It's just funny, is all. If you're even a member of the opposition, not to mention its most formidable representative, then I thiiiiiink I can take a look around & know I'm on the right side.
  • St. Pius X disagrees with the Vatican over Latin Mass, but Winona seminary still thriving

    06/30/2006 6:44:50 AM PDT · 126 of 136
    Slugworth to bornacatholic
    The fact you intend to "hit the abuse buton" signals to me I am the most effective opponent of the schism.



    If you're the most effective opponent, I think we can bring in the outfield.
  • Pope Benedict XVI Receives Custom Volvo XC90 (Papa Gets a SUV)

    06/29/2006 1:11:16 PM PDT · 34 of 40
    Slugworth to Pyro7480

    Big friggin' deal.

  • St. Pius X disagrees with the Vatican over Latin Mass, but Winona seminary still thriving

    06/27/2006 11:54:30 AM PDT · 96 of 136
    Slugworth to All


    Huh?


    Oh.
    Yeah. G'job, guys.



    Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
  • Beware Mephistopheles in Lotus Position (hurl alert)

    06/26/2006 1:27:25 PM PDT · 9 of 14
    Slugworth to JohnnyZ
    Let's see, a bigoted hate piece against Christianity, and this is supposed to, what, make Christians comfortable doing yoga?



    Works for me.
  • St. Pius X disagrees with the Vatican over Latin Mass, but Winona seminary still thriving

    06/26/2006 9:04:32 AM PDT · 71 of 136
    Slugworth to bornacatholic
    the nitwit speaking those words a schismatic,heretical, barking moonbat who ought be laughed-off the face of the Earth - after he has been horse-whipped

    My.

    If I can make a suggestion:

    1) Get reeeeal close to the monitor.
    2) Pucker up.
    3) Plant one right here:


    4) Offer prayers of thanksgiving for having such a saintly role model.



    There. Feel better?
  • St. Pius X disagrees with the Vatican over Latin Mass, but Winona seminary still thriving

    06/26/2006 7:56:04 AM PDT · 69 of 136
    Slugworth to bornacatholic
    Johannes Paulus Magnus



    Johnus Paulus magnets.
  • St. Pius X disagrees with the Vatican over Latin Mass, but Winona seminary still thriving

    06/26/2006 6:44:07 AM PDT · 60 of 136
    Slugworth to bornacatholic; murphE
    You didn't know fellay was excomminicated? It was in all the papers

  • St. Pius X disagrees with the Vatican over Latin Mass, but Winona seminary still thriving

    06/26/2006 6:40:28 AM PDT · 59 of 136
    Slugworth to RFT1; murphE
    not even all the parishoners who attend SSPX chapels(and except for a handful of 3rd order SSPX members, the laity are not members of the SSPX, but simpily Catholics

    I'm a SSPX Third Order member. Where does that place me along the continuum of schism?
  • Rome losing interest in reconciliation with SSPX?

    06/21/2006 8:22:25 AM PDT · 102 of 104
    Slugworth to steadfastconservative

    Mmkay.

  • Rome losing interest in reconciliation with SSPX?

    06/20/2006 9:25:37 PM PDT · 100 of 104
    Slugworth to steadfastconservative
    I've read Ecclesia Dei but I wonder if you have. Paragraph 3 is particularly important since it states specifically that Lefebvre and the four bishops committed a schismatic act. You stated earlier that the decree merely implied that their act was schismatic.

    "In itself, this act was one of disobedience to the Roman Pontiff in a very grave matter and of supreme importance for the unity of the church, such as is the ordination of bishops whereby the apostolic succession is sacramentally perpetuated. Hence such disobedience - which implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy - constitutes a schismatic act."

    It says that an act of disobedience implies in practice a rejection of the Roman primacy, which is the definition of schism. Disobedience does not equal schism. If it did:

    "moreover, respect must everywhere be shown for the feelings of all those who are attached to the Latin liturgical tradition, by a wide and generous application of the directives already issued some time ago by the Apostolic See for the use of the Roman Missal according to the typical edition of 1962."

    Not "should," not "could" not "may," but "must".

    Ecclesia Dei is clearly exhorting bishops to be more generous in granting the indult but it is not requiring them to do so.

    How do you define "must"?

    It may be argued that a bishop who does not grant the indult is failing to abide by the spirit of these directives, but it cannot be argued that he is guilty of defying the pope's authority or that he has committed an act of schism.

    Then how do you argue that a bishop who does not say the new Mass is failing to abide by the so-called "spirit of Vatican II" (which, BTW, mentioned nothing about a new Mass) and deserves to be excommunicated for doing so...

    "Lefebvre rejected...the rightful authority of an ecumenical council to change the liturgy.Therefore, he deserved to be excommunicated. "

    ...but Bishops who defy the Pope's authority in telling them they must allow the Tridentine Mass in a "wide and generous way" aren't in fact defying the Pope's authority, and don't deserve to be excommunicated?
  • Divine Office - for daily download to your iPod

    06/19/2006 8:52:46 AM PDT · 22 of 27
    Slugworth to jrny; ELS
    In the SSPX, Prime & Sext are not chanted, they are recited recto tono. Compline is the only office they sing in full chant. On Sundays and major feasts, Lauds are usually recited instead of Prime, and Vespers are sung in full chant.

    Yes, that is more correct. Sorry for the confusion.
  • Rome losing interest in reconciliation with SSPX?

    06/19/2006 8:46:59 AM PDT · 98 of 104
    Slugworth to steadfastconservative
    It definitely benefits the Church to excude from communion those who offend her unity by denying her teachings or her authority.

    Have you read Ecclesia Dei in its entirety, or did you read it the way you read Canon Law? Read paragraph 6c:

    "...respect must everywhere be shown for the feelings of all those who are attached to the Latin liturgical tradition,

    That's me. Respect my feelings.

    by a wide and generous application of the directives already issued some time ago by the Apostolic See for the use of the Roman Missal according to the typical edition of 1962."

    The bishops have, in large part, defied this papal directive - to make the Tridentine Mass widely available. If they are in open defiance of the Pope, they are schismatic & excommunicated, by your own definition.
  • Divine Office - for daily download to your iPod

    06/18/2006 8:20:19 PM PDT · 15 of 27
    Slugworth to ELS
    Do members of the SSPX chant the Divine Office daily?

    Yes, thoe in major Orders are obliged under pain of sin to recite the Office daily. The seminarians (in minor Orders), brothers, sisters, and oblates also recite the Office. The hours of Prime, Sext, & Compline are chanted in common (with the communnity). Third Order members also chant Prime & Compline, though not under pain of sin.
  • Rome losing interest in reconciliation with SSPX?

    06/17/2006 8:58:17 PM PDT · 96 of 104
    Slugworth to steadfastconservative
    Why bother? You have closed your mind to the plain meaning that is found in canon law.

    You have closed your mind to the fact that Canon Law itself allows for exceptions to penalties incurred for ostensibly violating it.

    Schism is punishable by automatic excommunication.

    True. "Implied" schismatic intent, however, is not.

    Somehow, in the parallel universe that you inhabit, automatic excommunication is not real even when it is expressly confirmed by a papal decree.

    Sure it is, provided there's a crime to match the punishment.

    Again, excommunication is pointless if it is nullified by the censured individual's subjective state of mind, something which cannot be determined.

    You seem to have no problem having determined it in the case of the Archbishop. That said; yes, intentions are important, just as in the civil law. The Archbishops intentions, as I've said in this thread, were made public, repeatedly, before the alleged "schismatic" act occurred.

    In that case, the Church has no right to exclude anyone from communion with her, if the individual can rationalize what he did. I didn't realize that the SSPXers were moral relativists. They apparently think that since Lefebvre acted sincerely, he could not have been guilty.

    It's not relativism, it's looking at the situation honestly, according to Canon Law, which you say condemns him simply because you refuse to acknowledge that Canon Law foresaw such situations and allowed for exceptions.

    The problem is that no one can judge this man's subjective state of mind. We can only judge his act. And his act was immoral because he peformed it in defiant disobedience to the Pope. His act was a clear rejection of the authority of Church, an act of schism.

    His act was not immoral, again, because of his intentions. It's a grave moral evil to take someone's life. A man who takes another's life defending his own life or that of another commits no sin at all, evevn though he objectively took a life. Had the same man been judged by your standards, he would have been locked up for life or executed, since those are the penalties for taking a life.

    No souls would have been lost if he had not ordained these four men.

    Who are you to say that souls have been lost as a result?

    Lefebvre and the four bishops offended the unity of the Church and were rightly excommunicated. As long as Bishop Fellay and the other three schismatic bishops pretend that they were not excommunicated, there is no hope of the SSPX returning to the Church. And maybe that is for the best.

    Seems to me that if you're so interested in the unity of the Church, you would not not think it was "for the best" for anyone to be outside of it.
  • Divine Office - for daily download to your iPod

    06/16/2006 9:41:35 PM PDT · 10 of 27
    Slugworth to ELS
    Would this help?
  • Rome losing interest in reconciliation with SSPX?

    06/16/2006 1:30:39 PM PDT · 94 of 104
    Slugworth to steadfastconservative
    What you are saying is that the individual's subjective state of mind is what determines whether or not he incurs the excommunication.

    No, I'm saying the indidual's guilt or innocence determines whether the excummunication is incurred.

    Even though the Pope explicitly pronounced the penalty of excommunication upon Lefebvre,

    For the...what...3rd time?: He only confirmed, rightly or wrongly, that latae sententiae excommunication had been incurred. He didn't "pronounce" anything.

    the latter's alleged belief that he was acting out of "necessity" nullifies the Pope's action. If this were true, then the Church could never excommunicate or punish anyone for doing anything because the individuals could always claim that they were acting out of "necessity." If a woman thinks that she has to have an abortion even though she knows it is wrong, then she could not be excommunicated. If a priest thinks that he has to violate the secrecy of the confessional, then he can't be punished. The Church could not excommunicate any heretic or schismatic, regardless of how much scandal that person caused.

    Err, no. Canon 1324 stipulates that the state of necessity cannot be invoked if "the act is intrinsically evil or verges on harm to souls." There go your hypotheticals. Keep trying, though.

    Your logic and your understanding of canon law are seriously flawed.

    Let's hear your logical analysis of the situation based on your understanding of Canon Law.
  • Rome losing interest in reconciliation with SSPX?

    06/16/2006 9:31:27 AM PDT · 92 of 104
    Slugworth to rrstar96
    Right. I believe the Church is wasting time trying to reason with the SSPX. I would rather see her dedicate more time to confronting those who are trying to do damage from within.

    Like who?
  • Rome losing interest in reconciliation with SSPX?

    06/16/2006 9:28:13 AM PDT · 91 of 104
    Slugworth to rrstar96
    With these folks, you just can't win.

    Ever stop to consider why not?

    Remember that classic "Saturday Night Live" skit where William Shatner told a group of Trekkies to "get a life"? That is my cordial suggestion to the SSPX, to get a life...within the Barque of Peter.

    I've offered a Canonically based, historically precedented perspective. You've offered accusation and insult, which doesn't serve to shore up your opposing view to anyone who might be reading.
  • Rome losing interest in reconciliation with SSPX?

    06/16/2006 7:31:49 AM PDT · 86 of 104
    Slugworth to steadfastconservative; reductio; murphE
    You are hair-splitting at this point.

    I knew you were going to say that, that's why I said in post #84: "Seems like I'm splitting hairs, I know, but it's an important distinction to make, as most I've met believe it happened the way you say it happened."

    The real hairsplitting here is to gleefully wrap one's self in one Canon perceived to consign the Archbishop to the fires of Gehenna, while completely ignoring the very next Canon, which does, in fact, exonerate him.

    The fact of the matter is that John Paul II excommunicated Lefebvre after the latter ordained four bishops in open defiance of the Pope's order not to do so.

    That's not a fact, just your version of an event based on your ignorant understanding of Canon law. The intentions; the mind and heart of an individual are subjective - known only to the individual and to God. The Canons are what they are. Even the supposed "decree" itself stated that the schismatic intent was "implied." Not evident. Not manifest. Not explicit. "Implied." Is it "valid and just" to charge someone with a crime based on the mindset implied by their actions? You're a "steadfast conservative," you tell me. The truth of the Archbishop's intentions is out there for anyone who really wants to know. He wrote and spoke about it publicly, over and over, often and at length, before and leading up to the consecrations.

    I don't see how you can justify Lefebvre's illegal ordination of these men as a matter of "necessity" or of "incupable ignorance." He had been warned not to do what he did and he did it anyway.

    Whether or not there was/is an actual state of necessity is actually completely irrelevant to this specific issue. If the Archbishop thought there was a state of necessity, regardless of whether he was correct or incorrect in thinking so, no penalty is incurred. So says Canon Law, in black and white. If no penalty is incurred, then there is no schism, and no excommunication.

    Look, suppose you woke up one Sunday morning and felt like you were going to hurl, so you stayed home from Mass. As the morning went on, you felt better. You never did blow chunks and as time passed you realized that you could have made it to Mass if you had gone as you wanted to do. Have you sinned? Of course not. Why? Because you believed that you were going to honk and didn't want to do it in your own lap in the car or in front of a couple hundred people. You did not commit a sin, not even a venial sin. Why? Because you sincerely believed that you were too ill. In hindsight, you weren't actually too ill, but you thought you were. Even though you were wrong in your assessment of your health, no penalty is incurred.

    Finally, although another pope could lift the excommunication, that does not mean that the excommunication is invalid or unjust

    If another Pope nullified the excommunications, it would in fact mean that they were unjust and invalid. I'm not saying this is going to happen anytime soon, maybe never, but it could happen. That possibility was at least being considered by Rome based on the negotiation discussions which continued after the lifting of the decree was set forth by the SSPX as a prerequisite to continue discussions.

    --for example if these men repent of their sin. Indeed, unless these four schismatic bishops show some glimmer of repentance, which they have not done, it is doubtful that the excommunication will ever be lifted.

    If there's no schism, then there's no excommunication. If there's no excommuncation, then there's no sin. If there's no sin, there's no need for repentance.
  • Rome losing interest in reconciliation with SSPX?

    06/15/2006 7:18:13 AM PDT · 84 of 104
    Slugworth to steadfastconservative
    Since Christ gave Peter and all succeeding popes the power to bind and to loose, John Paul II's excommunication of Lefebvre was valid and just.

    As has been pointed out, there is historical precedent for decrees of excummunication being nullified. The power of the keys does not preclude the Pope from error in matters of discipline. The same power allows the possibility of JP2's sucessors modifying or nullifying something he did as it applies to disciplinary matters.

    If the Pope witnessed a marriage, let's say, and it was later found that there was some defect that would be grounds for nullity, the marriage would still be null and void, regardless of who pronounced the couple married. It is, in fact, an error to believe that the Holy Ghost protects the Pope from error in everything that he says or does.

    John Paul II formally excommuncated Lefebvre and the four bishops with his decree "Ecclesia Dei." Lefebvre did not merely incur an automatic excommuncation as you claim (although he may have incurred it in addition to the formal excommunication!).

    What does the document say, exactly?

    Hence such disobedience - which implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy - constitutes a schismatic act. In performing such an act, notwithstanding the formal canonical warning sent to them by the Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops on 17 June last, Mons. Lefebvre and the priests Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta, have incurred the grave penalty of excommunication envisaged by ecclesiastical law.

    The law referenced, Canon 1382, states that a bishop who consecrates another without a Papal mandate incurs excommunication latae sententiae ("automatic"). The other type of excommunication, ferendae sententiae, is imposed by a superior. This, I presume, is the "formal" excommunication you claim JP2 imposed. Well, clearly, he didn't. He only confirms, rightly or wrongly, that latae sententiae excummunication had been incurred. Seems like I'm splitting hairs, I know, but it's an important distinction to make, as most I've met believe it happened the way you say it happened.

    Further, Canon 1323.4 states that even where an offence carrying a penalty has been committed, the penalty is not incurred if the act was performed out of necessity unless it be something intrinsically evil or damaging to souls. This applies even if the state of necessity did not actually exist except in the mind of the person committing the act:

    "If one inculpably thought there was [a state of nesessity], he would not incur the penalty." (Canon 1323, 70)

    But wait. The Canon goes even further:

    "If one culpably thought there was[a state of necessity], he would still incur no automatic penalties." (Canon 1324, §3; §1, 80).

    In sum, then, even if Archbishop Lefebvre was knowingly in error thinking that a state of necessity existed, there's still no automatic penalty is incurred, and if that's true, the excommunications never happened.

    There's more to the case of "that ungrateful schismatic" than most people realize.