|
Post by Didymus on Dec 2, 2023 7:27:55 GMT -5
I have read this comment from an assistant of the SSPX, I clarify that I do not share the way in which this person has expressed himself about some of the Bishops mentioned here, the reason why I attach the complete response is to read his opinions on this and not to promote a lack of charity in the name of some of the people mentioned here. -------------------------------------------------- ---------- QUOTE:
The bishops of the SSPX They have supplementary jurisdiction, they do not have ordinary jurisdiction. They cannot consecrate new bishops on a whim, as Bishop Williamson so wrongly does. To do so would be a schism, I have had the opportunity to discuss this issue personally with the current Superior General of the SSPX and with some of its bishops, and I even prepared a detailed canonical report on the state of necessity that justifies the jurisdiction supplied, and unless circumstances change, for now they share my thesis that there is not yet enough need to proceed to new consecrations, although the more time passes the closer we are to there being some. Currently there are 3 bishops consecrated by Bishop Lefebvre at an appropriate age and in good health (Monsignor Tissier is in more fragile health, but he seems to be healthier now than a few years ago).
And Bishop Hounder long ago abandoned modernism and sincerely embraced Tradition (as Bishop Lazo did years ago in the Philippines), submitting himself entirely to the provisions of the SSPX, which has very carefully studied and evaluated his ordination and consecration, making whatever is needed It is necessary to ensure that he is validly exercising his office as bishop. There are things that cannot be published, but I know that the SSPX has done what it has to do so that there is no doubt about it. Therefore, there is no urgency in consecrating new bishops. The prudent thing is to wait a little longer, until we can speak rigorously of a new state of necessity that really forces us to do so in the event that the Pope does not agree to the necessary prior request (a prerequisite for anyone who is not a sedevacantist, although Bishop Williamson no longer cares about this...).
Sooner or later there will be new consecrations in the SSPX, but there has to be a sufficient need (which there is not yet), permission must be asked from the Pope, and, if he does not grant it, in case of true need the necessary consecrations will be carried out. just like in 1988. That is very clear in the SSPX. The most difficult thing to determine is the exact moment in which the need is of sufficient magnitude to justify them (in case of opposition from the Pope, of course). And simple convenience is not enough (because to be agreement, of course it would be advisable to have more bishops), but it must be an authentic real necessity (in the event that, otherwise, a disobedience to canon law would not be sufficiently justified. is only admissible due to real need). As for Bishop Hunder, I have it on good authority that what needs to be done has been done to ensure the certainty of the validity of her position. Another thing is that the necessary prudence requires discretion to avoid unnecessary scandals (every priest and bishop who joins the SSPX knows that he has to go through a process of, let's put it that way, "recycling").
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Dec 2, 2023 17:46:49 GMT -5
I removed the rash and uncharitable detraction of the Good Bishop...criticise away...but detractions are not allowed.
|
|
John Lewis
Full Member
Reviewing the Knowledge
Posts: 373
|
Post by John Lewis on Dec 2, 2023 22:49:05 GMT -5
All I have to say at this point is that I'm not satisfied with Bp Hounder's consecration being valid without proof he has been conditionally consecrated (and ordained if that was under the Paul VI rite or by a new rite Bishop). I'm confused as to why he is being referred to as "her" in parts.
|
|
|
Post by Didymus on Dec 3, 2023 9:50:18 GMT -5
I removed the rash and uncharitable detraction of the Good Bishop...criticise away...but detractions are not allowed.
I have corrected my post, let me know if I should correct anything and if the translator I used has done the job well, this comment was made in Spanish and there may be some words that have been translated wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Didymus on Dec 4, 2023 7:37:58 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Dec 4, 2023 17:29:30 GMT -5
I wrote out a post yesterday, almost completed, giving you my opinion, but got sidetracked, and when I went back to it, when I opened it, everything I wrote was gone. I will come back to this tomorrow or Wednesday. There is a lot to unpack here.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Dec 7, 2023 10:38:16 GMT -5
Hello Didymus, Sorry for the delay in getting to this, I've been bogged down with things lately with the practicalities of life and haven't been able to get to many other matters. There are so many assertions that this person has made, and each one needs to be addressed individually, that responding to this will take some time. I will say this from the get-go as a general observation is that this entire text is just made up of unsupported assertions based on the author's opinion. There are no sourced arguments here.
The person explaining his SSPX canonical ideas wrote: I agree that the bishops of the SSPX do not have ordinary jurisdiction, but it is false to say that they have "supplementary jurisdiction," as that implies they have a habitual state of supplied jurisdiction. In order to argue that an act has attracted jurisdiction to it, one must look at each and every act individually to see if the conditions are met. If the conditions are not met, then jurisdiction is not supplied.
Regarding the SSPX bishops, no one incorrectly believes they are the ordinary of a diocese, so I don't see how one can argue common error as to their status. I also do not see how a doubt of law, as understood by the canonists, supports this either. Everyone knows they were consecrated to provide for the continuation of the sacraments due to the emergency, not to assume any office in the Church, and this has been an unambiguously agreed upon fact since 1988 when it all began. There is no common error about their status as non-office-holders in the Church.
The person explaining his SSPX canonical ideas wrote: The first question I have is "why"? The theological and canonical justification of these consecrations is all based on an opinion that this action is licit to do in the first place. You will not find any Catholic source which specifically states that a bishop can do this, consecrate bishops to act as "sacramental bishops" during an emergency. So, in this novel situation to which the response is all based on opinions, who gets to make the rules? The rules are not found in any approved book, they are only found in one place, more private opinions of what the rules must be. This argument sounds to me like "I say it, therefore it must be true."
The person explaining his SSPX canonical ideas wrote:
His canonical report is only as good as the arguments that are made in it. Regardless, his report is just his opinion, nothing more. I can't comment on the report itself as I haven't read it.
The person explaining his SSPX canonical ideas wrote: Since one is subjectively deciding if more bishops are needed and using criteria based on their opinion, in this case seeing age and health as deciding factors, then it all comes down to the private judgment of someone. Bishop Williamson, obviously doesn't share that judgment and is apparently basing his opinion that we need more bishops on other factors. Since all of this is based on a novel opinion to begin with, if one accepts the foundational opinion that if a bishop judges that there is a state of emergency and Catholics are sacramentally deprived, and it is necessary to consecrate more bishops to sacramentally feed the sheep, what's the basis of one's opinion that Bishop Williamson is wrong to do so?
Traditionalist theology and interpretation of canon law argues that if an emergency exists, such as we are witnessing in the Church, as judged by a bishop, states that the bishop may respond to the emergency by consecrating bishops to provide for the sacraments for laypeople, as the "supreme law is the salvation if souls." As stated above, you won't find any of this in approved sources, so it's all based on opinion. Since it's all based on a novel opinion to begin with, you won't find age and health criteria, as part of what must be verified prior to consecrating new bishops either. This is just a classic case of making things up as one goes. The Church hasn't even yet settled whether the initial thesis is permissible, never mind the made up rules that apply to it.
more later
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Dec 7, 2023 18:52:02 GMT -5
Dr Father Hess argued Lefebvres actions were necessary...he was no slouch
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Dec 8, 2023 10:30:51 GMT -5
Dr Father Hess argued Lefebvres actions were necessary...he was no slouch He and many others have argued it, but none have ever provided a single Catholic source which states that the action of consecrating bishops in this situation is lawful, and secondly, since there are no Catholic sources supporting this, even if they are right that these actions are licit, there are no governing rules on how this to be done. It's all based on the opinions of some that God would permit this this. None of this is settled by the Church, and if anything, all of the sources that we do have, including even the Council of Trent, have indicated the contrary position.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Dec 8, 2023 13:15:57 GMT -5
The person explaining his SSPX canonical ideas wrote:
In my opinion, the SSPX in recent years has too hastily concluded that the novel ordination and sacramental rites are certainly valid. The fact is that these novel rites use forms that have never been judged by the Church, and raise serious questions as to their validity due to questionable forms being used. I think the SSPX is not following the safer course on this matter and should be waiting for Rome to judge these rites, rather than presuming validity.
If they are too concerned about conditionally ordaining men whose orders come from Paul VI rites, the easiest solution is just to have these men not function as priests in the SSPX. SSPX could have in charity allowed Bp. Huonder a sanctuary for his old age without having him use his questionable orders that affect the laity.
The SSPX justifies its emergency necessity of consecrating bishops and ordaining priests in order to sacramentally feed the sheep. They do this by rejecting the rites approved by Paul VI for the mass and confirmation, and orders, most notably. Clearly they have such grave concerns about these rites to not use them, so it makes no sense to stop with just the mass and confirmation, when the ordination rites of Paul VI are also novel, not found in Church history, and contain problems which affect their validity which can only be judged by Rome.
It's inconsistent to say these ordination rites are certainly valid, and the bishops and priests ordained/consecrated through these rites are valid so long as they are said correctly, and then at the same time ordain priests for the SSPX using the former rite abrogated by Paul VI, and in 1988 when the bishops were consecrated, the old rite was used as well. Why use the old rite, when this rite is certainly valid and approved by the "pope." What is the reason for this disobedience?
Don't get me wrong on this, I am happy all SSPX ordinations are old rite by bishops consecrated in the old rite, and therefore certainly valid, as it provides more and more validly ordained priests, but let's face it, they undercut their own justification to exist by professing moral certainty in the validity of the new rites and at the same time refusing to use them for their own ordinations.
The person explaining his SSPX canonical ideas wrote: He has no office as bishop and he would even most likely even agree that this is true as he is retired from his diocese. What office does a bishop have who has no office?
The person explaining his SSPX canonical ideas wrote: In this paragraph he brings up prudence, which is fine, as things can be prudent or not prudent, but that is very different from right and wrong. In the first paragraph he states that the consecration of Bp. Williamson are something that he "so wrongly does." It could be a translation issue here, I'm not sure, so I am not sure if he means that what Bp. Williamson did is a violation of the law, or immoral, or just imprudent.
As to the rest, I ask the reader to read my comments on the first paragraph.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Dec 9, 2023 10:02:36 GMT -5
Dr Father Hess argued Lefebvres actions were necessary...he was no slouch He and many others have argued it, but none have ever provided a single Catholic source which states that the action of consecrating bishops in this situation is lawful, and secondly, since there are no Catholic sources supporting this, even if they are right that these actions are licit, there are no governing rules on how this to be done. It's all based on the opinions of some that God would permit this this. None of this is settled by the Church, and if anything, all of the sources that we do have, including even the Council of Trent, have indicated the contrary position. The video I recently watched he didnt say it was licit....but it was necessary and valid. The video is too long to view through again because he touched on many subjects. But he did use past historical precident of what was allowed in the past during crisis...and it cannot reasonably be asserted imo that B Lefebvres action on balance was a positive evil. Think about even semi trads and such wouldve had zero recourse outside of the false NO sect. Jesus said By the fruits we are to judge. Because it has abusers appearing and it has elements spinning out into error should be no suprise.( we have no Pope after all) but nor can it be laid at the feet of BLefbrve original actions. Nobody else did anything to stem the heretical landslide.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Dec 9, 2023 10:06:11 GMT -5
Let us not forget we are in the midst of a bombed out waste land In terms of the Church. I dont expect nice clean edges and paved roads. We must be humble and do the best we can with what we have. again IMHO
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Dec 9, 2023 10:53:51 GMT -5
Let us not forget we are in the midst of a bombed out waste land In terms of the Church. I dont expect nice clean edges and paved roads. We must be humble and do the best we can with what we have. again IMHO I do not disagree with you, we must be humble, and I agree with your analogy to the bombed waste land we find ourselves in, and that is ironically what I am saying, that people must stop pretending that their opinions settle any of this. If something is not found in teaching of the Church, which is very easy to find in our times, as we have thousands of good books with either the teaching itself, or approved explanations of it, then that means it's in the realm of opinion. Regarding consecrating new bishops in our situation, the Church had always not permitted the consecrating of new bishops without the direct or tacit will of the Pope for very good reasons, none of which are ever brought up by those who exclusively focus on the importance of access to the sacraments. I'm not saying the latter is not of critical importance, but so is the former, as it is very evident to me that one problematic effect of these consecrations, the harm to the unity of the Church, is now an easily identifiable fact. Many Catholics no longer see themselves as united and in communion with each other based upon the Faith, rather they see the bishop-led groups who promote unsettled opinions as a reason to sever communion with other Catholics and refuse to worship with them in the approved Catholic rites. Some of these bishop-led groups even bind Catholics into obeying them as to their unsettled opinions, under pain of being denied the sacraments. One should ask themselves, should these bishops even exist in the first place? Is it even possible to just have sacramental bishops, as was argued in the old days, when we see in practice that this is highly unstable as many of these bishops either explicitly or through their actions pretend they can authoritatively teach Catholics or bind them to their opinions, thereby either claiming, or at a minimum, acting like successors of the Apostles, thereby being usurpers? Many of these bishops are openly leading Catholics into error and schism, and their status as "bishop" gives them the appearance of authority, and the laity who don't know any better and who are not good at critically thinking fall for it. Whether or not one wishes to see the benefits of these consecrations or the harm of such acts, I think at a minimum, it is very important to always keep in mind that the justification of these acts, right from the beginning, when this all began, is based only on an opinion that this is licit to do, and it seems to me that those who defend this opinion, are wearing rose colored glasses, and only see the sacramental accessibility benefits, but do not see the multiple spiritual dangers that come with such acts, many of which are now, and have been for some time, playing out very visibly for all to see, so we're well beyond just academic discussions on this.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Dec 9, 2023 11:36:11 GMT -5
Im not wearing rose colored glasses. I just see that in wartorn and burned out cities consessions right ir wrong get made to survive. God will sort this when and if He blesses us with a True Shepherd in Rome. And I agree with you...these actions are starting to become unhinged ( literaly) its getting shakier and shakier every day. God must act soon it would seem.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Dec 9, 2023 12:00:56 GMT -5
Im not wearing rose colored glasses. I just see that in wartorn and burned out cities consessions right ir wrong get made to survive. God will sort this when and if He blesses us with a True Shepherd in Rome. And I agree with you...these actions are starting to become unhinged ( literaly) its getting shakier and shakier every day. God must act soon it would seem. I wasn't referring to you, about wearing the rose colored glasses, only those who have defended the lawfulness and good benefits of these acts and will not see the other side. While the unity of the Church is visibly being harmed by many bishops who have descended from this practice, causing spiritual harm to countless Catholics, all they appear to see is the benefits of sacramental accessibility. There are many unquestioned assumptions that are foundational to the beliefs of many who refer to themselves as traditionalists, and this is one of them. (As a side note, even the idea that we should qualify the term, "Catholic" with the term "Traditional" or "Sedevacantist" is an unquestioned assumption among many, yet its explicitly forbidden by the Pope to add qualifiers to "Catholic.") These ideas are untested and have developed over time, as they seemed reasonable to do or to accept, but at the same time, do not have explicit support from the teaching of the Church or approved explanations of the theologians or canonists.
|
|