Do you support the SSPX?

[Era Might]

[quote name='goldenchild17' date='Apr 9 2006, 01:50 AM']That's odd.  I thought they were trying their darndest to come back into communion with this pope and these bishops and this church.  Why on earth would they want in union with something they hate?  Makes no sense to me.
[right][snapback]940570[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

A month or so ago in Denver, Fellay told a parish "The new Mass is evil". I heard it with my own ears. Doesn't sound like someone trying his darndest to come back to the Holy See in all humility.

[Cam42]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Apr 9 2006, 10:47 AM']A month or so ago in Denver, Fellay told a parish "The new Mass is evil". I heard it with my own ears. Doesn't sound like someone trying his darndest to come back to the Holy See in all humility.
[right][snapback]940665[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I believe that the conference you are speaking of was at St. Isidore, Watkins, CO. [url="http://www.sspx-denver.com/conference_home_files/Page520.htm"]HERE[/url] is a link to that talk. It is amazingly sad to hear this conference, but it speaks to the truth of what Bishop Fellay is trying to promote.....and it is NOT orthodoxy.

[Era Might]

Ah, they finally put the text up. I was waiting for that. Thanks.

Of particular note:

[quote]And now you have probably heard that last Monday (Feb. 13) there was a meeting in Rome of the Pope with the Cardinals speaking about us. I don't know more about it than you; the only thing I know is that that very morning the secretary of Cardinal Castrillon telephoned Menzingen to ask for prayers for this meeting. That is as much as I know. I know that Cardinal Arinze did attack us, or attack the Mass. And that's all; I don't know more than you, and I have nothing to do with it. I am not involved. It is pure reflection from the Vatican. [b]And as things are, we have to count on probably one day Rome will come to us with a proposal, and in the package will be a stipulation that you will have to accept the Council, and we will say no[/b]. And we will be back to the present state. That is the situation. Probably they will try to make us again the bad guys, those who don't want to agree and so on, but, okay, we will make our stand. Every day we take it as it comes.[/quote]

[Era Might]

And the particular quote I was referring to before:

[quote]I used this definition when I spoke to Cardinal Castrillon about the Mass. I said to him that the New Mass is bad, is evil. [/quote]

[Cam42]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Apr 9 2006, 12:55 PM']And the particular quote I was referring to before:
[quote]I used this definition when I spoke to Cardinal Castrillon about the Mass. I said to him that the New Mass is bad, is evil.[/quote]
[right][snapback]940735[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Bishop Fellay goes on to say later in that paragraph, speaking of the Missa Normativa:
[quote name='Bishop Fellay']You can see how important it is, then, to have the right definition of things. This is also why, when we speak of the definition of evil, we must remember that sin is the great evil. If you look at Scripture, who can tell what a sin is? How can we say what is sinful? Sin is a failing; something good which is due that is failing. And it's in relation with God Who is infinite. In fact, those who understand the most what sin is are the ones who understand most clearly Who God is. Because a sin or an evil will always be something negative, and to understand something negative, you must first understand what is positive. Otherwise, it is like to trying to explain vision to a blind man. A blind man by birth will never understand his misfortune. On the other hand, a man who loses his vision at some point will understand fully the evil of being blind.[/quote]

Clearly, Bishop Fellay is calling the Missa Normativa sinful. That is unacceptable. How can any SSPX adherent/supporter defend this position and continue to say that there is a genuine want to return to full communion with Rome? He goes on to say:
[quote name='Bishop Fellay']Is the Pope gone? The Church is gone, which is why this is not an easy question, and hence you have this crisis in the Church. The famous marks of Holiness and Unity are a nightmare right now. The situation of the Church in general is a nightmare. But that does not mean that everything has disappeared. That is why we stick to the Pope.[/quote]

He also admits that the Church is gone. With that, I now openly wonder if his intent is to do what the Church wants. If the Church is gone, whose intent is he following? Surely it is not the Pope. He says:
[quote name='Bishop Fellay']That's why we pray for the Pope; we recognize that there are still bishops around, even if we don't follow them in everything.....On the one hand, we are bound to recognize that there is still someone in Rome who has the authority granted by God to lead the Church. But on the other hand, many times, we try to listen and it doesn't seem like it's Jesus Who is speaking through his mouth.[/quote]

It is becoming increasingly clear that a schismatic attitude is there. What else could you call it? It isn't one of looking to reconcile. If it were, then he would not state that the Church is gone.

Finally, I wonder if he would follow his own words, or is he too blinded by pride to realize that he has stated the only solution, IF he applies it to himself and his organization:
[quote name='Bishop Fellay']Now, of course, we don't follow failures. It's obvious; it's strictly forbidden to do any kind of sin or error. God has given us an intelligence for the truth and a will for the good. Whenever we do something wrong, we sin. And when we sin, we engage our own responsibility, also in obedience.....And if we obey wrongly, we sin. It's something which not everybody understands.[/quote]

The paradox of the SSPX position is there....I wonder when they will break free from that and come back to Rome. This is not a matter of "universality" but rather it is a matter obedience to the Holy See, which I assure everyone, still exists. It is not gone.

[stbernardLT]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Apr 8 2006, 07:00 PM']Except people accused of being "liberals"
[right][snapback]940384[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

And LIFE TEEN. :

[Cam42]

[quote name='stbernardLT' date='Apr 9 2006, 02:58 PM']And LIFE TEEN. :
[right][snapback]940845[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Well, if Life Teen would stop doing phishy things......ya know, Life Teen can be as extreme as the SSPX.

It has been said that the Church is like a streetcar. You get off on the right, you get left behind; you get off on the left, you get left behind. So, isn't it just better to stay on the streetcar?

[stbernardLT]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Apr 9 2006, 01:27 PM']Well, if Life Teen would stop doing phishy things......ya know, Life Teen can be as extreme as the SSPX.

It has been said that the Church is like a streetcar.  You get off on the right, you get left behind; you get off on the left, you get left behind.  So, isn't it just better to stay on the streetcar?
[right][snapback]940941[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Extreme mmmmmmmm maybe. Excommunicated NO.

[Cam42]

[quote name='stbernardLT' date='Apr 9 2006, 04:43 PM']Extreme mmmmmmmm maybe.  Excommunicated NO.
[right][snapback]940965[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Did I say anything about excommunicated? No. But they are just as unfaithful, in certain instances. Both organizations lack obedience to the Holy See. The SSPX by illicit consecrations and promoting a schismatic attitiude; Life Teen, by illicit liturgical abuse. Neither action can be defended, if one is not on the streetcar, it doesn't matter; one will have to run to catch up after jumping off.....good thing the streetcar doesn't move so fast.

Getting back on topic though.....what is your view on the SSPX stbernardLT? How about making a statement, and giving your reasoning as to why.

[stbernardLT]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Apr 9 2006, 02:09 PM']Did I say anything about excommunicated?  No.  But they are just as unfaithful, in certain instances.  Both organizations lack obedience to the Holy See.  The SSPX by illicit consecrations and promoting a schismatic attitiude; Life Teen, by illicit liturgical abuse.  Neither action can be defended, if one is not on the streetcar, it doesn't matter; one will have to run to catch up after jumping off.....good thing the streetcar doesn't move so fast.

Getting back on topic though.....what is your view on the SSPX stbernardLT?  How about making a statement, and giving your reasoning as to why.
[right][snapback]941021[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I'm definitley opposed to anything schismatic (I don't thnk LT is), especially the SSPX . I know many people who may not be part of this organization but have the same attitude about Vatican II and none of them are any good at evagelizing. In fact I've seen them chase more people away than they bring to Christ and the Church. The people I know seem to condemn everyone but themselves and their "group". Their holier than thou attitude is very unwelcoming to others. Again this is my own experience and I am not saying they are all like this.

And I agree with most here that the Vatican should not take the first step but the SSPX should be humble enough to accept the changes they are to make to be fully reconciled. Like LT did a couple years ago when they made their presentation to the Vatican and made all the changes to their program (internationaly ) that the Vatican said to.

I'm not posting another post about LIFE TEEN on this thread because It would be wrong for people to put LIFE TEEN in the same schismatic category as the SSPX.

Nobody better lay a schism on my cathecism.

[uruviel]

[dspen2005]

Cam, would u recommend a good book that explains the circumstances surrounding VII and the events leading up to it.... i think, for some of us at least, it seems like VII occurred in a vacuum. we are unaware of what was happening in the CHurch that precipitated this Council.... any help?

[Cam42]

[quote name='dspen2005' date='Apr 10 2006, 02:08 PM']Cam, would u recommend a good book that explains the circumstances surrounding VII and the events leading up to it.... i think, for some of us at least, it seems like VII occurred in a vacuum.  we are unaware of what was happening in the CHurch that precipitated this Council....  any help?
[right][snapback]942270[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Probably the best is [u]The Rhine Flows into the Tiber[/u] by Ralph Wiltgen.

Also, one might read [u]Truth And Tolerance: Christian Belief And World Religions[/u] by Pope Benedict XVI.

Another one to read would be [u]Salt of the Earth: The Church at the End of the Millennium: An Interview With Peter Seewald[/u] by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger.

Finally, one might read, [u]The Smoke of Satan : Conservative and Traditionalist Dissent in Contemporary American Catholicism[/u] by Michael W. Cuneo.

[dspen2005]

thanx Cam... this seminarian thanx you very much

[Donna]

Three pages and I believe the exoneration of the "schismatic" Hawaii Six has not once been brought up. Is it here on the fourth? The six who were [b]excommunicated by their bishop not only for having an SSPX Bishop give confirmation, but these people built and had an active non-diocesan church. [/b]

Papa Ratzinger (while Cardinal) is the one who overturned Honolulu Bishop Ferrario's excommunication of SSPX-supporters. [b]His[/b] superior, of course being Pope John Paul II, author of [i]Eclessia Dei Afflicta.[/i]

I love that: "Full" union. "Full" communion. Why didn't Papa John Paul II and Cardinal Ratzinger throw them 5000 SSPX Roman Pilgrimage year 2000 bums out of their city, out of St. Peter's, out of their Vatican catacombs and churches?

Amor Veritas (sorry, son, really bad typo and memory here) is on the money.

And what really smells of elderberries - I intentionally use a vulgar word describing a vulgar anti-charity - is that there is only one Son of Angel and one MC Just for the tenfold public bitterness of the Era Might's.
Yeah, give it all you got in sources and debate, but where is that piece of heart? It's outrageous how you treat the SSPX as lepers. This is a matter of justice. Just remember how disfigured was the face of Christ and many thought He was leper-like Himself.
...............................................................................................................................

[color=red][i]On January 18, 1991, Bishop Joseph Ferrario, Bishop of Honolulu (now retired), served them [six Catholics in Hawaii] a Formal Canonical Warning, threatening them with excommunication. [/i][/color]

[b]On May 1, 1991, they were formally declared to be excommunicated, mainly for this reason contained in the Canonical Warning:[/b] [color=red][i]"Whereas you performed," Bishop Ferrario said, "a schismatic act, not only by procuring the services" of Bishop Williamson to perform Confirmations at Our Lady of Fatima Chapel, "but also by that very association with the aforementioned bishop (you) incurred ipso facto the grave censure of excommunication."[/i][/color]


The "Excommunicated Six" immediately appealed the case to Rome. Finally, in a letter dated June 28, 1993, the USA Apostolic Pro-Nunico, Archbishop Cacciavillan, [b]declared on Cardinal Ratzinger's behalf:[/b]

[color=purple]"[b]From the examination of the case, conducted on the basis of the [color=red]Law of the Church[/color], it did not result that the facts referred to in the above-mentioned decree are formal schismatic acts in the strict sense, as they do not constitute the offense of schism; and therefore the Congregation holds that the Decree of May 1, 1991 lacks foundation and hence validity."[/b][/color]
This is a declaration that the automatic (ipso facto) excommunication claimed by Bishop Ferrario for the followers of Archbishop Lefebvre is in fact totally non-existent.


Though a major milestone to proving that those who follow and support the Society of Saint Pius X are neither schismatic nor excommunicated, reference number 2 of Archbishop Cacciavillan's June 28, 1993 letter, marred the clarity of the decree and the innocence of the petitioners by implying that sufficient guilt remained for them to placed under interdict by Bishop Ferrario. This was to say that while the Hawaii Six were not excommunicated and thereby members of the Catholic Church, they could have imposed upon them the "foreseen punishment of interdict...", an episcopal declaration that none of the Six could receive the sacraments of the Church. [b]Because Archbishop Cacciavillan had opened the letter saying he was writing "upon the instruction of His Eminence, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger," it appeared to all that the punishment of interdict was the recommendation of the Cardinal himself[/b]. Well, it wasn't.

[color=red][b]After nine months' insistence by the Hawaii Six, Cardinal Ratzinger's official, hand-signed Decree of June 4, 1993 nullifying the excommunications was finally released by Archbishop Cacciavillan to the petitioners under his February 28, 1993 cover letter. In this signed cover letter (reproduced in full at immediate right), Archbishop Cacciavillan admits that Cardinal Ratzinger said nothing about imposing interdict and, in fact, all of reference 2 is his idea alone and that Cardinal Ratzinger never said anything about "foreseen punishment of interdict or other penalties, . . ."[/b] [/color]

[i]THE HAWAII SIX[/i]
Mrs. Patricia Morley (RIP)
Housewife, Radio Hostess

Mr. Christopher Morley
Automobile Salesman

Mr. Herber Carlos
Semi-retired Property Manager

Mrs. Shirley Cushnie
Mother of 3, Grandmother of 1

Mr. John O'Connor
Publisher

Mrs. Louis Santos
Mother of 4, Grandmother of 3

(Housewife, Grandmothers...What a denomic bunch of SSPX characters, claiming to be Catholic!)

Edited April 11, 2006 by Donna

[Era Might]

[quote]Three pages and I believe the exoneration of the "schismatic" Hawaii Six has not once been brought up. Is it here on the fourth? The six who were excommunicated by their bishop not only for having an SSPX Bishop give confirmation, but these people built and had an active church.[/quote]

The so-called "Hawaii six" were excommunicated by their Bishop, not for formal membership in the SSPX, but for a loose association with the SSPX, alleged heresy and scandal. Then-Cardinal Ratzinger overturned the excommunications because, quote, "it did not result that the facts referred to in the above-mentioned decree are formal schismatic acts in the strict sense." There was no formal SSPX membership. Pope John Paul II made clear that any formal association with the SSPX schism is itself an act of schism:

[quote]Everyone should be aware that formal adherence to the schism is a grave offence against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church's law.

--Apostolic Letter "Ecclesia Dei"[/quote]

More recent developments also undercut your appeal to the "Hawaii six".

[quote]Papa Ratzinger (while Cardinal) is the one who overturned Honolulu Bishop Ferrario's excommunication of SSPX-supporters.[/quote]

The Holy See last year upheld Bishop Bruskewitz's excommunication of any SSPXer in his diocese. Unlike the Hawaii incident, this excommunication was specifically focused on SSPX membership, and the excommunications were upheld by the Holy See.

[quote]I love that: "Full" union. "Full" communion. Why didn't Papa John Paul II and Cardinal Ratzinger throw them 5000 SSPX Roman Pilgrimage year 2000 bums out of their city, out of St. Peter's, out of their Vatican catacombs and churches?[/quote]

They don't throw anyone out of Vatican City. People of all sorts flock to the Holy See. From atheists to Buddhists, SSPXers to Call to Action folks.

[quote]And what really smells of elderberries - I intentionally use a vulgar word describing a vulgar anti-charity  - is that there is only one Son of Angel and one MC Just for the tenfold public bitterness of the Era Might's.[/quote]

I'll leave it to others to judge whether I am "bitter". Bitter about what? That the SSPX has rebelled against the Church? Why would I be bitter? I have never had any affiliation with the SSPX.

Ironically, if this were a thread for "Call to Action", and I responded as I have, I highly doubt I would be accused of being "bitter".


[quote]Yeah, give it all you got in sources and debate, but where is that piece of heart?  It's outrageous how you treat the SSPX as lepers. This is a matter of justice. Just remember how disfigured was the face of Christ and many thought He was leper-like Himself.[/quote]

When you attack my Church, and attempt to lead others astray into your defiance and schism, you will be treated accordingly. Our Lord himself told us, if they will not listen to the Church, treat them as sinners and tax collectors. "Hold no one as an enemy, but warn them as a brother."

Did you miss my post about ordinary Catholics who have been led astray into the SSPX on the one hand, and those who actively propagate its errors on the other? I have all the "piece of heart" for the sheep. But the wolves must be dealt with.

Edited April 11, 2006 by Era Might

[Era Might]

Here is Bishop Bruskewitz's explanation of the Hawaii incident, and why it is falsely cited in support of the SSPX, as I explained above:

[quote]Cardinal Ratzinger's decision reversing the excommunication of six members of the faithful in Honolulu is used in an attempt to legitimatize the SSPX. As most of you know, the St. Joseph Foundation assisted in defending the "Hawaii Six" and I can say that the status of the Society was not at issue in that case. What was at issue was the conduct of the defendants which, while admittedly blameworthy in some respects, did not constitute schism. The records of the case show that the former Bishop of Honolulu, Most Rev. Joseph Ferrario, tried to use penal law to silence those six Catholics who were calling the attention of the public to what they perceived as the bishop's follies and misdeeds. Cardinal Ratzinger has never explicitly or implicitly approved of the actions of the SSPX. [/quote]

Bruskewitz, by the way, was an eminent canonist in a former life, so he knows a thing or two of what he speaks.

[url="http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=2864"]http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=2864[/url]

Edited April 11, 2006 by Era Might

[Donna]

[quote]The so-called "Hawaii six" were excommunicated by their Bishop, not for formal membership in the SSPX, but for a loose association with the SSPX, alleged heresy and scandal. Then-Cardinal Ratzinger overturned the excommunications because, quote, "it did not result that the facts referred to in the above-mentioned decree are formal schismatic acts in the strict sense." There was no formal SSPX membership. Pope John Paul II made clear that any formal association with the SSPX schism is itself an act of schism:

QUOTEEveryone should be aware that formal adherence to the schism is a grave offence against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church's law.

--Apostolic Letter "Ecclesia Dei"[/quote]

What is your problem? Why refer to them as "so-called"?

They were excommunicated for procurring an illicit but valid/non-jurisdictioned/ sacrament from a schismatic, excommunicated bishop.
The "formal adherence" stuff means you are saying that the Holy See can only excomminicate/schismatize the SSPX clergy. Is that right?

[quote]The Holy See last year upheld Bishop Bruskewitz's excommunication of any SSPXer in his diocese. Unlike the Hawaii incident, this excommunication was specifically focused on SSPX membership, and the excommunications were upheld by the Holy See.
[/quote]

Well, that is something of which I already knew. Ever seen about the Polka Masses and abuses the Lincoln Bishop lets happen? For every Hawaii Six there are many actions or declarations which speak oppositely. But the Hawaii Six category is there, and like Veritatis said, Campos didn't have to make a profession of faith or anything like that to be reconcilled. This is part of the picture.

[quote]They don't throw anyone out of Vatican City. People of all sorts flock to the Holy See. From atheists to Buddhists, SSPXers to Call to Action folks.
[/quote]

If the very SSPX Bishops are excommunicated, their clergy illicitly ordained/suspended and thus forbidden to celebrate the sacraments, why can they do this very thing in public Masses in Rome, with thousands of "sheep" (or is it wolves?) being allowed to be misled in the heart of orthodox country? If you were running public relations for the Holy See - trying to keep things coherent in theory and action - I'm sure you would not do [i]that.[/i]

[quote]I'll leave it to others to judge whether I am "bitter". Bitter about what? That the SSPX has rebelled against the Church? Why would I be bitter? I have no relationship to the SSPX.

Interestingly, if this were a thread for "Call to Action", and I responded as I have, I highly doubt I would be accused of being "bitter".
[/quote]

Well, ya already know what I think - and bitter is bitter whether it's against CTA or SSPX. OTOH, it's dishonest to group CTA and SSPX together. If you've no great love for the Orthodox, at least they've escaped your wrath, and they are dis-believers, period.

[quote]When you attack my Church, and attempt to lead others astray into your defiance and schism, you will be treated appropriately. Our Lord himself told us, if they will not listen to the Church, treat them as sinners and tax collectors. "Hold no one as an enemy, but warn them as a brother."
[/quote]

Are you a bishop holding onto some decree kept from my knowledge?

[Era Might]

[quote]What is your problem? Why refer to them as "so-called"?[/quote]

Because that is what people call them. I could list out all their names, but it's easier to reference the popular title they've been given.

[quote]They were excommunicated for procurring an illicit but valid/non-jurisdictioned/ sacrament from a schismatic, excommunicated bishop.
The "formal adherence" stuff means you are saying that the Holy See can only excomminicate/schismatize the SSPX clergy.[/quote]

The text of the excommunication, as you cited it:

[quote]"Whereas you performed," Bishop Ferrario said, "a schismatic act, not only by procuring the services" of Bishop Williamson to perform Confirmations at Our Lady of Fatima Chapel, "but also by that very association with the aforementioned bishop (you) incurred ipso facto the grave censure of excommunication." [/quote]

Note that they are excommunicated, not for a formal adherence to the schism, but for procuring the services of an SSPX Bishop. The Hawaiian Ordinary also cited heresy and scandal. Cardinal Ratzinger judged (rightly) that, although loose association with the Society can be a sin, it is not schism in a technical sense. This is also reiterated in the public letter of Monsignor Camille Perl. Schism is a very formal concept. Cardinal Ratzinger's judgement that this incident did not constitute schism doesn't imply support for the Society, as Bishop Bruskewitz explained.

Also, formal adherence to the schism is not limited to clergy. Formal adherence is an act of the will, and can be committed by any Catholic, although the clergy undergo a very public manifestation of this act.

[quote]Well, that is something of which I already knew. Ever seen about the Polka Masses and abuses the Lincoln Bishop lets happen? For every Hawaii Six there are many actions or declarations which speak oppositely. But the Hawaii Six category is there, and like Veritatis said, Campos didn't have to make a profession of faith or anything like that to be reconcilled. This is part of the picture.[/quote]

I'm not sure how that's relevant to the discussion. Your point in citing the "Hawaii six" was, I believe, to somehow defend the society against schism or excommunication, or at least to suggest that it's ok to belong to the society. The judgement of the Holy See with respect to the Diocese of Lincoln puts this idea to rest, and it also illustrates the point I made before, that the Hawaii incident was not about formal adherence to the SSPX schism, and thus, was not a technical case of schism.

What does Campos making a profession of faith have to do with excommunication? Schism and heresy are separate sins.

[quote]If the very SSPX Bishops are excommunicated, their clergy illicitly ordained/suspended and thus forbidden to celebrate the sacraments, why can they do this very thing in public Masses in Rome, with thousands of "sheep" (or is it wolves?)  being allowed to be misled in the heart of orthodox country? If you were running public relations for the Holy See - trying to keep things coherent in theory and action - I'm sure you would not do [i]that.[/i] [/quote]

The Holy See is very peaceable, and allows use of its facilities for prudential reasons. If you are seriously arguing that the SSPX Bishops are not excommunicated, I'm sorry, I am going to have to excuse myself from the discussion. This is so evidently contrary to the facts, I just can't stand to go through it all again.

[quote]Well, ya already know what I think - and bitter is bitter whether it's against CTA or SSPX. OTOH, it's dishonest to group CTA and SSPX together. If you've no great love for the Orthodox, at least they've escaped your wrath, and they are dis-believers, period.[/quote]

Eastern Orthodox Christians do not profess to be Catholics obedient to the Holy Father. If the SSPX would do the honest thing, and start its own Church, and find itself where the Orthodox are in a millenia or so, maybe it can earn my respect.

And it is not at all dishonest to link CTA and the SSPX. In fact, both groups were excommunicated by Bishop Bruskewitz, and both excommunications were upheld by the Holy See. The SSPX is a schismatic society, a threat to the faith of many Catholics, and a scandal to the world. And I will not excuse it just because it happens to have a hankering for Latin.

[quote]Are you a bishop holding onto some decree kept from my knowledge? [/quote]

I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean. I am a laymen, and have been commissioned to defend the faith and the Church by virtue of my baptism; and also by Canon Law.

Edited April 11, 2006 by Era Might

[Donna]

[quote]I am by no means equating Archbishop Lefebvre with Adolph Hitler or the SSPX with the National Socialist Party, but the analogy remains an apt one.[/quote]

Oh[i] this [/i]guy has a lot on the ball! Why do people lose their very minds when treating of this situation?

[url="http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=2864"]http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=2864[/url]
.....................................................................................................................

[quote]Bruskewitz, by the way, was an eminent canonist in a former life, so he knows a thing or two of what he speaks.
[/quote]

Well so did Count Neri Capponi, who'd said nay to the SSPX being in schism, and at a diocesan church no less.

[quote]Cardinal Ratzinger's decision reversing the excommunication of six members of the faithful in Honolulu is used in an attempt to legitimatize the SSPX. As most of you know, the St. Joseph Foundation assisted in defending the "Hawaii Six" and I can say that the status of the Society was not at issue in that case. What was at issue was the conduct of the defendants which, while admittedly blameworthy in some respects, did not constitute schism. The records of the case show that the former Bishop of Honolulu, Most Rev. Joseph Ferrario, tried to use penal law to silence those six Catholics who were calling the attention of the public to what they perceived as the bishop's follies and misdeeds. Cardinal Ratzinger has never explicitly or implicitly approved of the actions of the SSPX. [/quote]

Joe Shmoe down the street merely assists at an SSPX Mass (and maybe only sometimes). The Hawii Six get a renagade confirmator, BUILD A CHURCH and "house" it - with [b]sacraments[/b]: illicit, non-approved, defiant, schismatic sacraments.

Back to the Lincoln Bishop's will, supported by the Holy See:

If the schismatics'd been doing black masses, the unjust lumping of even the sede vacantists who're much "more" schismatic - or less fully (?) in communion than the SSPX - with the CTA crowd (and the Masons and Planned Parenthood) would at least make some kind of sense.

Even Rome admits that "those" sacraments are holy - by allowing that pilgrimage, even as they uphold Bishop Bruskewitz.. Both messages are given.