John Lewis
Full Member
Reviewing the Knowledge
Posts: 373
|
Post by John Lewis on Apr 17, 2023 1:56:32 GMT -5
Pacelli If he were to become a real cleric would he be capable of ascending to the office he'd already resigned or is it moot because of his public modernism?
|
|
|
Post by Didymus on Apr 24, 2023 21:13:25 GMT -5
Here he tells his story and support for the FSSPX
|
|
John Lewis
Full Member
Reviewing the Knowledge
Posts: 373
|
Post by John Lewis on Apr 25, 2023 3:16:42 GMT -5
It was an interesting video. I think someone who knows German should write to him about his orders. He seems of good will and may agree to be conditionally ordained and consecrated.
|
|
|
Post by Didymus on Apr 25, 2023 7:26:42 GMT -5
Yes , this has something to do with your previous question , I remember reading an article by John Lane about the request that Monsignor Lefebvre made to Monsignor Castro Mayer to consecrate a Bishop for the Diocese of Campos and thus leave a Successor legitimate of the Apostles, so following your question Juan, is this equivalent to the request that Monsignor Lefebvre made to Castro Mayer? It could be done ? Could he claim such a position by being conditionally enshrined? ... I will try to find John Lane's article that talks about it, although it is possible, he thought at that time that Campos' failure was a clear sign that it is not a viable option, but God can fix crooked rules and get good greater over evil. When I have a time attached what John Lane said in the Bellarmine forum.
|
|
|
Post by Didymus on Apr 25, 2023 15:22:43 GMT -5
John lane in BELARMINE FORUMS in the section "Successors of the Apostles - Jurisdiction" web.archive.org/web/20150304225512/http://strobertbellarmine.net/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1244(...) The next point that might be raised is the pre-Code notion of a colored title arising from the election by local clergy (Novus Ordo) of their bishops. Archbishop Lefebvre raised a possibility related to Campos: the choice of a successor to Castro Mayer by his clergy. This did not happen. Instead, they then selected a bishop who would not claim the title of Bishop of Campos. But if one considers the situation in which a true Catholic clergy remains among the "clergy" of some dioceses throughout the world, including or especially in the East, then the bishop (provided that he himself is a Catholic), even if his appointment was ratified by, say, JP2 or B16, he has gone through essentially the same process of naming and claiming the title that Monsignor Lefebvre proposed for Campos. The argument would be that he has what used to be called a colored title and the intervention of the false Pope can be dismissed as irrelevant. Wouldn't the supplied jurisdiction step in and validate such a claim before an office? Of course, all of this touches on the idea that it is possible to remain Catholic while offering the Novus Ordo Missae. You will notice that this is not a question that any sedevacantist wants to debate, I think because they feel they have no arguments. Instead, if they comment on it, it's usually nothing more than a mockery of the very idea. But of course, since the Novus Ordo Missae is just a perversion of the Latin Rite, the situation in the Eastern Rites is substantially different anyway. Perhaps we can get someone to address that possibility at least. This is the letter that John Lane refers to from Mons Lefebvre: "Écone of December 1990 Dear Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer, Rumors reach me from Brazil about your health, which they say is getting worse! Is the call of God coming? The mere thought fills me with deep pain. How lonely I will feel without my older brother in the episcopate, without the model fighter for the honor of Jesus Christ, without my only faithful friend in the terrible wasteland of the Conciliar Church! On the other hand, all the singing of the traditional liturgy of the Office of Pontifical Confessors resounds in my ears... Heaven welcome the good and faithful servant! if such is the will of the good Lord. In these circumstances, I am more than ever by your bedside, close to you, and my prayer incessantly ascends to God for your intentions, entrusting you to Mary and Joseph. I would like to take this opportunity to put in writing, for you and for your dear priests, my opinion, because it is only an opinion, on the eventual consecration of a bishop to succeed him in the transmission of the Catholic faith. and in the administration of the sacraments reserved for bishops. Why contemplate such a successor outside the usual norms of canon law? In the first place, because priests and faithful have a strict right to have pastors who profess the Catholic faith in its entirety, essential for the salvation of their souls, and to have priests who are true Catholic priests. Secondly, because the Conciliar Church, having now spread everywhere, is spreading errors contrary to the Catholic faith and, as a result of these errors, has corrupted the sources of grace, which are the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the Sacraments. This false Church is in a deepening state of rupture with the Catholic Church. From these principles and facts results the absolute necessity to continue the Catholic episcopate in order to continue the Catholic Church. The case of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X is presented differently from the case of the Diocese of Campos. It seems to me that the case of the Diocese of Campos is simpler, more classic, because what we have here is the majority of diocesan priests and faithful, on the advice of their former bishop, appointing his successor and asking the Catholic bishops to consecrate to him. This is how the succession of bishops occurred in the first centuries of the Church, in union with Rome, since we are also in union with Catholic Rome and not with modernist Rome. For this reason, in my opinion, the case of Campos should not be linked to the Society of Saint Pius X. The bishops of the Society would be called upon for eventual consecration, not in their role as bishops of the Society but as Catholic bishops. . The two cases must be kept clearly separate. This is not without importance for public opinion and for present-day Rome. The Society should not get involved as such, and it hands over all the responsibility -totally legitimate- to the priests and faithful of Campos. For this distinction to be clear, it would be preferable for the ceremony to take place in Campos, at least outside the diocese. It is the clergy and the Catholic people of Campos who are taking for themselves a Successor of the Apostles, a Roman Catholic bishop as they can no longer obtain through Modernist Rome. That's my opinion. I believe it is based on the fundamental principles of Church Law and Tradition. Very dear Monsignor, I submit my thoughts to you with all simplicity, but you are the judge and I bow to his judgment. May God be pleased to grant you strong enough health to carry out this episcopal consecration! Believe, dear Monsignor, in my deep and respectful friendship in Jesus and Mary. +Marcel Lefebvre" I'm not sure if it's the same case with this "bishop" Huonder, but it reminded me a bit of that situation explained by Mons lefebvre, I don't know at what point it can be connected or separated , ¿what happens if this "Bishop" is ordained and consecrated by the Bishops of the SSPX, could he reclaim his previous hierarchical position as Bishop of Chur given by an Anti-Pope (Benedict XVI)? Would there be jurisdiction provided or ordinary in this case? Maybe other members much smarter than me know how to answer this.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Apr 26, 2023 9:23:06 GMT -5
Pacelli If he were to become a real cleric would he be capable of ascending to the office he'd already resigned or is it moot because of his public modernism? He certainly could not assume an office that he never had. The question first is to understand whether he ever had it to begin with, and then one can to determine if the resignation was valid or not. It is also an open question whether a bishop who is knowingly being consecrated in a defective rite that appears to be invalid could assume an office while being permanently in a state without episcopal consecration, with no intention of being consecrated in the Catholic rite. Theologians state that one could assume the office, and later be consecrated as bishop, but could this be permanent, in which the ruler of the diocese is and remains not a bishop? Regarding the modernism, it must be a direct denial of a Catholic dogma. One may do things that are very liberal, and even do things which make one suspect of heresy, but if the modernism is to be used as a basis of an accusation that a man has defected from the Faith, it must be specific. What dogma did he deny in his words or actions? A common way this is done by modernists is that they assert that Catholic teaching evolves with the times, and that is certainly heretical, but I don't know if Huonder actually said or believes that.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Apr 26, 2023 9:29:58 GMT -5
It was an interesting video. I think someone who knows German should write to him about his orders. He seems of good will and may agree to be conditionally ordained and consecrated. If he comes to realize the problem with his orders, I am doubtful SSPX would conditionally ordain and consecrate him, unless they rethink their conclusion that it is valid. Everything on this matter always comes back to Fr. Pierre Marie's 2006 study, in my opinion. So long as that study is giving moral certainty to the SSPX leadership that this rite is valid, they won't change course. Bishop Williamson may do it, as he as assisted many priests with doubtful orders in being conditionally ordained. But, as this would be very high profile, I am not sure how he would react if asked.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Apr 26, 2023 9:44:01 GMT -5
John lane in BELARMINE FORUMS in the section "Successors of the Apostles - Jurisdiction" web.archive.org/web/20150304225512/http://strobertbellarmine.net/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1244(...) The next point that might be raised is the pre-Code notion of a colored title arising from the election by local clergy (Novus Ordo) of their bishops. Archbishop Lefebvre raised a possibility related to Campos: the choice of a successor to Castro Mayer by his clergy. This did not happen. Instead, they then selected a bishop who would not claim the title of Bishop of Campos. But if one considers the situation in which a true Catholic clergy remains among the "clergy" of some dioceses throughout the world, including or especially in the East, then the bishop (provided that he himself is a Catholic), even if his appointment was ratified by, say, JP2 or B16, he has gone through essentially the same process of naming and claiming the title that Monsignor Lefebvre proposed for Campos. The argument would be that he has what used to be called a colored title and the intervention of the false Pope can be dismissed as irrelevant. Wouldn't the supplied jurisdiction step in and validate such a claim before an office? Of course, all of this touches on the idea that it is possible to remain Catholic while offering the Novus Ordo Missae. You will notice that this is not a question that any sedevacantist wants to debate, I think because they feel they have no arguments. Instead, if they comment on it, it's usually nothing more than a mockery of the very idea. But of course, since the Novus Ordo Missae is just a perversion of the Latin Rite, the situation in the Eastern Rites is substantially different anyway. Perhaps we can get someone to address that possibility at least. This is the letter that John Lane refers to from Mons Lefebvre: "Écone of December 1990 Dear Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer, Rumors reach me from Brazil about your health, which they say is getting worse! Is the call of God coming? The mere thought fills me with deep pain. How lonely I will feel without my older brother in the episcopate, without the model fighter for the honor of Jesus Christ, without my only faithful friend in the terrible wasteland of the Conciliar Church! On the other hand, all the singing of the traditional liturgy of the Office of Pontifical Confessors resounds in my ears... Heaven welcome the good and faithful servant! if such is the will of the good Lord. In these circumstances, I am more than ever by your bedside, close to you, and my prayer incessantly ascends to God for your intentions, entrusting you to Mary and Joseph. I would like to take this opportunity to put in writing, for you and for your dear priests, my opinion, because it is only an opinion, on the eventual consecration of a bishop to succeed him in the transmission of the Catholic faith. and in the administration of the sacraments reserved for bishops. Why contemplate such a successor outside the usual norms of canon law? In the first place, because priests and faithful have a strict right to have pastors who profess the Catholic faith in its entirety, essential for the salvation of their souls, and to have priests who are true Catholic priests. Secondly, because the Conciliar Church, having now spread everywhere, is spreading errors contrary to the Catholic faith and, as a result of these errors, has corrupted the sources of grace, which are the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the Sacraments. This false Church is in a deepening state of rupture with the Catholic Church. From these principles and facts results the absolute necessity to continue the Catholic episcopate in order to continue the Catholic Church. The case of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X is presented differently from the case of the Diocese of Campos. It seems to me that the case of the Diocese of Campos is simpler, more classic, because what we have here is the majority of diocesan priests and faithful, on the advice of their former bishop, appointing his successor and asking the Catholic bishops to consecrate to him. This is how the succession of bishops occurred in the first centuries of the Church, in union with Rome, since we are also in union with Catholic Rome and not with modernist Rome. For this reason, in my opinion, the case of Campos should not be linked to the Society of Saint Pius X. The bishops of the Society would be called upon for eventual consecration, not in their role as bishops of the Society but as Catholic bishops. . The two cases must be kept clearly separate. This is not without importance for public opinion and for present-day Rome. The Society should not get involved as such, and it hands over all the responsibility -totally legitimate- to the priests and faithful of Campos. For this distinction to be clear, it would be preferable for the ceremony to take place in Campos, at least outside the diocese. It is the clergy and the Catholic people of Campos who are taking for themselves a Successor of the Apostles, a Roman Catholic bishop as they can no longer obtain through Modernist Rome. That's my opinion. I believe it is based on the fundamental principles of Church Law and Tradition. Very dear Monsignor, I submit my thoughts to you with all simplicity, but you are the judge and I bow to his judgment. May God be pleased to grant you strong enough health to carry out this episcopal consecration! Believe, dear Monsignor, in my deep and respectful friendship in Jesus and Mary. +Marcel Lefebvre" I'm not sure if it's the same case with this "bishop" Huonder, but it reminded me a bit of that situation explained by Mons lefebvre, I don't know at what point it can be connected or separated , ¿what happens if this "Bishop" is ordained and consecrated by the Bishops of the SSPX, could he reclaim his previous hierarchical position as Bishop of Chur given by an Anti-Pope (Benedict XVI)? Would there be jurisdiction provided or ordinary in this case? Maybe other members much smarter than me know how to answer this. Didymus, I am far from certain that I am smarter than you, but I'm happy to give you my thoughts. 1. I am not sure that Bp. de Castro Mayer agreed with Archbishop Lefebvre on this, as he did not take the action that was being suggested. He may have based this on the fact that if John Paul was pope, then how could a bishop do this against the law of the Church and the express will of a reigning pope? I realize that the bishop later believed in the state of sedevacante, but it seems clear that at the time of his "resignation," he accepted John Paul II as Pope as he submitted his resignation to him, and believed he was no longer the ordinary of Campos based on the resignation to John Paul II. 2. I think it may have been theologically arguable, if Bp. de Castro Mayer was certain of the state of sedevacante, and using as the basis to form moral certainty on this matter that the law that bishops must be approved directly by the Pope has ceased as it is harming souls, could have concluded that previous practice in the Church could be permissible in this situation. Either way, the point is moot now as the bishop has passed, and the time for an action such as this is now far behind us.
|
|
John Lewis
Full Member
Reviewing the Knowledge
Posts: 373
|
Post by John Lewis on Apr 27, 2023 2:39:12 GMT -5
It was an interesting video. I think someone who knows German should write to him about his orders. He seems of good will and may agree to be conditionally ordained and consecrated. If he comes to realize the problem with his orders, I am doubtful SSPX would conditionally ordain and consecrate him, unless they rethink their conclusion that it is valid. Everything on this matter always comes back to Fr. Pierre Marie's 2006 study, in my opinion. So long as that study is giving moral certainty to the SSPX leadership that this rite is valid, they won't change course. Bishop Williamson may do it, as he as assisted many priests with doubtful orders in being conditionally ordained. But, as this would be very high profile, I am not sure how he would react if asked. We really need that retraction of Fr Pierre Marie spoken of by an infrequent member of this forum whose username I have forgotten.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Apr 27, 2023 6:36:48 GMT -5
His username is Michael Wilson. He a frequent poster on Suscipe Domine. It is on that forum that he made the assertion that Pierre Marie made a statement that effectually was a retraction, and I posted it here, as he is a member here as well, asking him to provide the source. The source according to him is in Sel de la Terre. He did not provide the issue number. You cannot see the sedevacantist subforum unless you are a member of that forum. It is hidden from public view. The thread that he made the assertion on is on that forum, but I did not link it, because of that reason, that it is hidden. Michael Wilson is a serious Catholic and a gentleman. I don't know why he never responded, and I am hoping that he will at some point provide a scan of what he read so this can finally be resolved. For now, all we have is his assertion. Here is a link to the thread: tradcath.proboards.com/thread/2236/pierre-marie-admits-study-mistaken?page=1&scrollTo=14204I cannot speak French but if someone could write Sel de La Terre directly, corresponding with them in French, asking for the issue number of Pierre Marie's statement as described by Michael Wilson, obtaining the issue, and scanning it for us, that may resolve this as well: www.seldelaterre.fr/CT-1145-revue-sel-de-la-terre-P5.aspx
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Apr 27, 2023 7:16:04 GMT -5
One other point on this: it is an observation of mine that when a book, or a study, or a thesis, or some opinion of a bishop or priest, seems to stick in the mind of a Catholic, then it's very hard to get the person to take a second look at their judgment on the matter.
All one has to do is look at the Feeneyites, the "thesis," SSPX ideas on resistance, Bishop Sanborn and Fr. Cekada's ideas on NUCism, the teachings of the Dimonds on BoD, BoB, and the lawful use of the rhythm, the necessity of obeying and trusting the laws of the Church, the validity of the 1968 consecration rite of bishops, so called Home-Alonism, etc., and one can see that once the reader/listener is convinced by these ideas, that it's very difficult to get them to take a step back, and go through it all again with a critical eye, to see if what they believe is actually true.
Many times, in my experience, when these and other ideas are challenged, the person being challenged gets emotional and belligerent and is often not eager to see the problems with his idea that he has in many cases uncritically and carelessly adopted.
The problem with convincing SSPX that Fr. Pierre Marie was wrong is going to be an uphill battle. I did start a subforum on here, collecting documents to that end, and I hope to collect more soon, but let's face it, it's one thing to know the truth, followed by presenting the truth, but the biggest problem in my opinion, is to get people to look at it, and challenge their assumptions.
This problem highlights that we need authority, because all we can do is appeal to the intellect, but the Pope and the bishops of the Church can force the matter with their authority and compel the will of one in error to submit to their judgment, something that we cannot do.
|
|
|
Post by Didymus on Apr 30, 2023 19:42:28 GMT -5
If I totally agree, the root is because deep down all of us Catholics are looking for solid ground in this crisis and having to completely empty oneself of the previous arguments, one feels vulnerable to losing the Faith. This has also led many of us (I I include) to become scrupulous in certain matters, since we do not have the authority or the pastors guiding us, it is a great internal struggle.
It will be even more so, since today all the traditional groups have forgotten that these groups in canonical rigor are not the Catholic Church and that breaks anyone emotionally.
I pray for an end to this dreadful crisis.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on May 1, 2023 7:19:45 GMT -5
If I totally agree, the root is because deep down all of us Catholics are looking for solid ground in this crisis and having to completely empty oneself of the previous arguments, one feels vulnerable to losing the Faith. This has also led many of us (I I include) to become scrupulous in certain matters, since we do not have the authority or the pastors guiding us, it is a great internal struggle. It will be even more so, since today all the traditional groups have forgotten that these groups in canonical rigor are not the Catholic Church and that breaks anyone emotionally. I pray for an end to this dreadful crisis. Well said! It's worth saying though that the various traditional groups, for the most part, did used to understand their role and limitations, but that seems to be changing more and more,
|
|
|
Post by Didymus on May 1, 2023 12:53:38 GMT -5
If I totally agree, the root is because deep down all of us Catholics are looking for solid ground in this crisis and having to completely empty oneself of the previous arguments, one feels vulnerable to losing the Faith. This has also led many of us (I I include) to become scrupulous in certain matters, since we do not have the authority or the pastors guiding us, it is a great internal struggle. It will be even more so, since today all the traditional groups have forgotten that these groups in canonical rigor are not the Catholic Church and that breaks anyone emotionally. I pray for an end to this dreadful crisis. Well said! It's worth saying though that the various traditional groups, for the most part, did used to understand their role and limitations, but that seems to be changing more and more, I suppose that the pressure of the faithful has led them to have to "soften" the matter.
|
|
John Lewis
Full Member
Reviewing the Knowledge
Posts: 373
|
Post by John Lewis on May 1, 2023 18:56:04 GMT -5
Well said! It's worth saying though that the various traditional groups, for the most part, did used to understand their role and limitations, but that seems to be changing more and more, I suppose that the pressure of the faithful has led them to have to "soften" the matter. Most people want a King, it seems to be part of our human nature.
|
|