It is currently Wed Nov 22, 2017 7:08 am




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 13 posts ] 
 BpW commentary on the June 28th deadline plus excommunicatio 
Author Message

Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 2:31 am
Posts: 76
Location: Overland Park, KS
New post BpW commentary on the June 28th deadline plus excommunicatio
Here is BpW's commentary on the recent "deadline"

http://dinoscopus.blogspot.com/2008/07/ ... again.html

Here is "Rome's" commentary on BpW's excommunication:

http://wdtprs.com/blog/2008/07/guest-co ... acraments/

_________________
Stephen Heiner
www.stephenheiner.com


Sun Jul 06, 2008 12:04 am
Profile

Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 4:46 pm
Posts: 269
New post Re: BpW commentary on the June 28th deadline plus excommunicatio
Matrimony and Penance from an SSPX priest are 'invalid' sacraments? Does lack of faculties from the local bishop invalidate a sacrament ... supposing normal times?

_________________
In the Holy Family,
Teresa


Sun Jul 06, 2008 1:07 am
Profile

Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 4:46 pm
Posts: 269
New post Re: BpW commentary on the June 28th deadline plus excommunicatio
The following from the Catholic Encyclopedia on the Sacrament of Penance:

Catholic Encyclopedia, Sacrament of Penance wrote:
For valid administration, a twofold power is necessary: the power of order and the power of jurisdiction. The former is conferred by ordination, the latter by ecclesiastical authority (see JURISDICTION). At his ordination a priest receives the power to consecrate the Holy Eucharist, and for valid consecration he needs no jurisdiction. As regards penance, the case is different: "because the nature and character of a judgment requires that sentence be pronounced only on those who are subjects (of the judge) the Church of God has always held, and this Council affirms it to be most true, that the absolution which a priest pronounces upon one over whom he has not either ordinary or delegated jurisdiction, is of no effect" (Council of Trent, Sess. XIV, c. 7). Ordinary jurisdiction is that which one has by reason of his office as involving the care of souls; the pope has it over the whole Church, the bishop within his diocese, the pastor within his parish. Delegated jurisdiction is that which is granted by an ecclesiastical superior to one who does not possess it by virtue of his office. The need of jurisdiction for administering this sacrament is usually expressed by saying that a priest must have "faculties" to hear confession (see FACULTIES). Hence it is that a priest visiting in a diocese other than his own cannot hear confession without special authorization from the bishop. Every priest, however, can absolve anyone who is at the point of death, because under those circumstances the Church gives all priests jurisdiction. As the bishop grants jurisdiction, he can also limit it by "reserving" certain cases (see RESERVATION) and he can even withdraw it entirely.


So, it looks as if the PCED answer regarding valid administration of Penance is correct; in normal circumstances, that is.

_________________
In the Holy Family,
Teresa


Sun Jul 06, 2008 2:36 am
Profile

Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 3:42 am
Posts: 740
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: BpW commentary on the June 28th deadline plus excommunicatio
Teresa Ginardi wrote:
So, it looks as if the PCED answer regarding valid administration of Penance is correct; in normal circumstances, that is.

Quite.

However, most of what passed on "Fr." Zuhldorf's blog presupposes that those who are presently usurping the Holy See are validly in power.

They are not. They are all, without exception, Precursors of Anti-Christ, wolves in sheep's clothing, and whited sepulchers. Thus anything they decide on matters such as these is null and void.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon CinC
Moscow, Idaho
U.S.A.


Sun Jul 06, 2008 5:03 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: BpW commentary on the June 28th deadline plus excommunicatio
Hmmm, I've never seen that blog before. Fr. Z (TM) has an opinion on everything, it seems. I don't particularly care what he thinks, but this comment might be worth noting for possible future deployment against neo-catholic apologetics:

Fr. Z wrote:
Card. Castrillon is not just anyone. He is President of the Commission which enjoys competence and authority from the Supreme Pontiff is act in all these matters. He has made certain statements about the statues of the SSPX - repeatedly. If what he were saying was not appreciated by the Holy Father, he would have been asked not to keep saying it.


That's a big principle right there, Fr. Z. It leads to all manner of places people like you don't usually like to go...

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sun Jul 06, 2008 6:03 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 1:24 pm
Posts: 75
New post Re: BpW commentary on the June 28th deadline plus excommunicatio
Interesting thread on AQ right now where TradPGH stated
about Fr Domenico "I can't believe I'm sitting here reading a post by a priest saying that the pope is an enemy of Our Lord."

BpW postgame commentary on June 28th
http://angelqueen.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=20425

Some of the more interesting posts so far...
--------------------------------------------------------------
fr.domenico
Priest
Quote:
et cum spirit 220 wrote:
Quote:
Bsp. Williamson wrote:
The leader of the Traditional Redemptorists based in the Orkney Islands north of Scotland, who has just led as many of them as will follow him back into the embrace of Conciliar Rome, writes ecstatically of how “sweet” it “tastes” to be once more in “peaceful and undisputed communion” with the Vicar of Christ. Good luck, dear Father, with avoiding the leprosy! But at least you must be giving some consolation to Cardinal Castrillón! What confusion!


If it should come to pass that the Transalpine Redemptorists find a structure that allows them to continue to do what they have been doing all along without interference, this is going to sound pretty silly. Smells a bit like sour grapes to me. We shall see what we shall see.


The Bishop is saying no more than what Archbishop Lefebvre himself had said about Dom Gerard. Rather the Archbishop was much harsher in fact: he stated that the Benedictines who had made a deal were "henceforth in the hands of our enemies, the enemies of Our Lord and His Universal Kingship".

This is what no one wants to admit, that is, that despite whatever nice feelings the Pope and Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos might have for the trappings of tradition, they are, in fact "the enemies of Our Lord and His Universal Kingship". They, and especially the Pope, are absolutely fixed on the way of ecumenism, that is to say, the way of denying that the Catholic Church and the Mystical Body of Christ are identical, and further that the other religions are ways of salvation and instruments of God. This makes him, unfortunately, an enemy of the truth. Objectively he is leading souls astray. The Pope further is a "true liberal" in the sense that he, like all liberals, has rejected the Kingship of Christ over the social and political order, contrary to the teaching of the Church in the past. The Pope is the enemy of Christendom objectively speaking. A vision of the pluralistic state in which the Church stands with other religions to build some kind of utopic civilization of love is a dream which has it's origin in hell, not heaven. And then there is the question of the doctrinal aberrations of Vatican II.

It is, to my way of thinking, incredible that there are actually Catholics who deliberately become amnesiacs, forgetting the entire line of thinking and acting by these people, and somehow thinking that these liberals have rejected their errors and returned to Tradition. Pretty mitres are not the essence of the Faith! No, the poor Redemptorists at best will be silent in order to join the rainbow coalition of Conciliar pluralism. The words of Pope Felix III have not lost their truth:

"Not to oppose error is to approve it, and not to defend truth is to suppress it, and indeed to neglect to confound evil men, when we can do it, is no less a sin than to encourage them."

Do you think the Redemptorists are going to tell Rome or the local bishops that the errors of the Council are leading to the damnation of souls? I rather doubt it.


--------------------------------------------------------------
MariaGratiaPlena
Quote:
fr.domenico wrote:
The Bishop is saying no more than what Archbishop Lefebvre himself had said


Indeed, Bishop Williamson says, "On the one hand the Society of St. Pius X did not comply with the June 5 “ultimatum” of Cardinal Castrillón as the Cardinal might have wished, replying instead with a letter of Archbishop Lefebvre to Pope Paul VI in which in 1975 the Archbishop explained why he was defending Tradition, yet with no disrespect intended towards the Church authorities in Rome."

And I wonder if this is the letter that he refers to:
Quote:
We hold firmly with all our heart and with all our mind to Catholic Rome, Guardian of the Catholic Faith and of the traditions necessary to the maintenance of this faith, to the eternal Rome, mistress of wisdom and truth.

We refuse on the other hand, and have always refused, to follow the Rome of Neo-Modernist and Neo-Protestant tendencies, which became clearly manifest during the Second Vatican Council, and after the Council, in all the reforms which issued from it.

In effect, all these reforms have contributed and continue to contribute to the destruction of the Church, to the ruin of the priesthood, to the abolition of the Sacrifice of the Mass and the Sacraments, to the disappearance of the religious life, and to a naturalistic and Teilhardian education in the universities, in the seminaries, in catechetics: an education deriving from Liberalism and Protestantism which had been condemned many times by the solemn Magisterium of the Church.

No authority, not even the highest in the hierarchy, can compel us to abandon or to diminish our Catholic Faith, so clearly expressed and professed by the Church's Magisterium for nineteen centuries.

"Friends," said St. Paul, "though it were we ourselves, though it were an angel from heaven that should preach to you a gospel other than the gospel we have preached to you, a curse upon him" (Gal. 1:8).

Is it not this that the Holy Father is repeating to us today? And if there is a certain contradiction manifest in his words and deeds as well as in the acts of the dicasteries,* then we cleave to what has always been taught and we turn a deaf ear to the novelties which destroy the Church.

It is impossible to profoundly modify the Lex Orandi without modifying the Lex Credendi. To the New Mass there corresponds the new catechism, the new priesthood, the new seminaries, the new universities, the "Charismatic" Church, Pentecostalism: all of them opposed to orthodoxy and the never-changing Magisterium.

This reformation, deriving as it does from Liberalism and Modernism, is entirely corrupted; it derives from heresy and results in heresy, even if all its acts are not formally heretical.

It is therefore impossible for any conscientious and faithful Catholic to espouse this reformation and to submit to it in any way whatsoever.

The only attitude of fidelity to the Church and to Catholic doctrine appropriate for our salvation is a categorical refusal to accept this reformation.

That is why, without any rebellion, bitterness, or resentment, we pursue our work of priestly formation under the guidance of the never-changing Magisterium, convinced as we are that we cannot possibly render a greater service to the Holy Catholic Church, to the Sovereign Pontiff, and to posterity.

That is why we hold firmly to everything that has been consistently taught and practiced by the Church (and codified in books published before the Modernist influence of the Council) concerning faith, morals, divine worship, catechetics, priestly formation, and the institution of the Church, until such time as the true light of tradition dissipates the gloom which obscures the sky of the eternal Rome.

Doing this, with the grace of God, the help of the Virgin Mary, St. Joseph, and St. Pius X, we are certain that we are being faithful to the Catholic and Roman Church, to all of Peter's successors, and of being the Fideles Dispensatores Mysteriorum Domini Nostri Jesu Christi In Spiritu Sancto.

+ Marcel Lefebvre


--------------------------------------------------------------
fr.domenico
Priest


Quote:
et cum spirit 220 wrote:
Quote:
fr.domenico wrote:
Do you think the Redemptorists are going to tell Rome or the local bishops that the errors of the Council are leading to the damnation of souls? I rather doubt it.


I've looked back at the posts on their blog for the past few years, presumably written while the TAR were affiliated with the SSPX. I don't see where they are trying to tell Rome or the "local bishops" (how many local bishops are there on Papa Stronsay?) anything at all. They seem to be going about their business quietly trying to save souls in a Traditional way. I suspect that they will go on doing exactly what they have been doing in exactly the same way they have been doing it, despite the naysayers.


The difference actually is much more than you are admitting. While the Redemptorists stood publicly with the SSPX it was not necessary for them to be writing letters to their local bishops. The very fact that they stood with the SSPX against the errors was enough. Everyone in Rome knows quite well that the SSPX holds to the teachings of the Church which have been watered down or denied since the Council. They were part of the forces of resistance to the errors and to those who continue to spread them. They sent their seminarians to be trained by the SSPX, thus disregarding the official position of the Churchmen now that the SSPX has no right to train seminarians to the priesthood. You seem to ignore that everything that they were doing was in disregard to the official line. Now the forces of Tradition are weaker since the Redemptorists have defected.

The SSPX has always, and hopefully will always, stand as a body against the modernist doctrines and those who propogate them, Pope or not. How is one to stand side by side with those who don't even profess the teachings of Tradition? They will now smile and cuddle up to the very men who have dethroned Our Lord Jesus Christ as King of Nations; the men who allow the Body of Christ to be scattered on the floor by the infamous practice of Communion in the hand; the men who pray publicly with heretics and schismatics; men who hand over our consecrated churches to be used for heretical worship or even non-christian forms of worship.

Yes, there is quite a difference. Before, the Redemptorists would not fit into this new pluralistic religion, but held fast with the SSPX to the absolute singularity of Tradition. We have become so used to the presence of heresy in the CHurch that no one even blinks at the idea of having normal relations with these men. It is unthinkable. Just think of the potent image of the Pope having a nice dinner with Hans Kung, which denies dogma after dogma, and this heretic can still point out that he has full faculties as a priest, can say Mass anywhere, and hear confessions (unless he is specificly barred by a local bishop.

We are in a state of war. This is not a mild disagreement between people who are basically on the same page. As long as Rome proposes teachings contrary to the popes of the past, as long as they are the promoters of revolution and the apostasy of the nations, then we must admit that willingly or not, they are the enemies of Our Lord Jesus Christ. It is not possible to treat them as normal Catholics, for they are not in fact Catholic in their thinking. Yet the Redemptorists are going to pretend that Bishop X who denies the inerrancy of Scripture, and Bishop Y who has no problem with contraception, and Cardinal Z who thinks that all religions are good and can save mankind (humankind, that is) are all Catholic and can be treated as such. It is ridiculous. The Archbishop warned of contamination by error if the SSPX was to return to a normal relation with these men. After a little while, he said, the SSPX priests would begin to think that, really after all the New Mass isn't THAT bad, that one shouldn't be so extreme in these matters, etc. He has been proven a prophet over and over,unfortunately.

No one enjoys, hopefully, being in an irregular situation, but it is a necessary price so that the truth can be preached. We must remember that it is not possible to act as if everything is relatively sane in the Church when the Shephereds are infected with heresy. We must pray for them, work for their return to Tradition, but there is no possibility of working with them if we fight for Tradition and they fight against it. That is reality.


--------------------------------------------------------------
TradPGH

I can't believe I'm sitting here reading a post by a priest saying that the pope is an enemy of Our Lord.

Fr Domenico - I don't know your story, so I'm asking this in all seriousness. Are you an "independent" priest?

--------------------------------------------------------------
MariaGratiaPlena
TradPGH wrote:
Quote:
I can't believe I'm sitting here reading a post by a priest saying that the pope is an enemy of Our Lord.


By their fruits ye shall know them.

Archbishop Lefebvre to Cardinal Ratzinger, 1988:
"Eminence, even if you give us everything - a bishop, some autonomy from the bishops, the 1962 liturgy, allow us to continue our seminaries -we cannot work together because we are going in different directions. You are working to dechristianize society and the Church, and we are working to Christianize them.

"For us, our Lord Jesus Christ is everything. He is our life. The Church is our Lord Jesus Christ; the priest is another Christ; the Mass is the triumph of Jesus Christ on the cross; in our seminaries everything tends towards the reign of our Lord Jesus Christ. But you! You are doing the opposite: you have just wanted to prove to me that our Lord Jesus Christ cannot, and must not, reign over society."

That's the truth. Don't shoot the messenger.
--------------------------------------------------------------

Well I wonder if servitum is going to ban Fr Domenico?


Sun Jul 06, 2008 11:13 pm
Profile

Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 3:42 am
Posts: 740
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: BpW commentary on the June 28th deadline plus excommunicatio
oremus wrote:
Interesting thread on AQ right now where TradPGH stated
about Fr Domenico "I can't believe I'm sitting here reading a post by a priest saying that the pope is an enemy of Our Lord."

Much interesting stuff snipped.

oremus wrote:
Well I wonder if servitum is going to ban Fr Domenico?

Most probably. As I have said here once before, if brains were dynamite he wouldn't have enough to blow his nose. And I am not joking. How anyone with even 1/2 ounce of gray matter can do the things he does despite what he reads, written by those with more sense, is beyond my understanding.

I am also VERY curious about who this Fr. Domenico might be...

He sounds like someone with both brains and courage. Refreshing.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon CinC
Moscow, Idaho
U.S.A.


Sun Jul 06, 2008 11:33 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: BpW commentary on the June 28th deadline plus excommunicatio
KenGordon wrote:
I am also VERY curious about who this Fr. Domenico might be...


Fr. Marshall Roberts, ex-SSPX, ex-SSJ, ex-ICK. He is now in Jacksonville, Florida, looking after an "independent" chapel. He is not sedevacantist, as far as I know.

We are NOT going to discuss his past here.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Mon Jul 07, 2008 2:11 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 2:31 am
Posts: 76
Location: Overland Park, KS
New post Re: BpW commentary on the June 28th deadline plus excommunicatio
I think here is the very crux of the matter. Bishop Williamson is saying that Vatican II is heresy - out and out - not mitigated or pseudo - just plain heresy. But what are the consequences of a heretical council? Apparently waiting out in the wilderness for decades until the "authorities" decide to "let you back in."

The hour may be late, but I think at some point it will become very clear to at least 3 of these bishops that they are dealing with antichrists. It is Bishop Fellay who by far wishes for reconciliation the most. The other three think that "Rome" is really in eclipse.

The speak sedevacantist language at time but refuse to accept the implications....

Time. Fr. Cekada has said that to me on numerous occasions - it takes time to work through and think about and pray about these numerous issues.

_________________
Stephen Heiner
www.stephenheiner.com


Mon Jul 07, 2008 3:35 am
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: BpW commentary on the June 28th deadline plus excommunicatio
dedalus wrote:
I think here is the very crux of the matter. Bishop Williamson is saying that Vatican II is heresy - out and out - not mitigated or pseudo - just plain heresy.

Yes, I noted that. As I noted your use of the term "Rome." :)

dedalus wrote:
It is Bishop Fellay who by far wishes for reconciliation the most.

Are you really sure? Or do you think perhaps he feels the need to follow the path beaten by Archbishop Lefebvre? A senior SSPX figure told me that Bp. Fellay is the man most like Archbishop Lefebvre, in character and actions. That makes sense to me.

dedalus wrote:
Time. Fr. Cekada has said that to me on numerous occasions - it takes time to work through and think about and pray about these numerous issues.

Maybe, but I think the other factor is that nobody has presented a cogent "sedevacantist" explanation of the crisis. It is one thing to form the personal judgement that Benedict must not, after all, be pope - it is another thing to adopt that position publicly, with all the associated baggage, without a clear thesis that explains the difficulties etc. That would be like opening fire on the Bismarck from a destroyer. You might be on the right side, but you're going to get sunk.

For those of us who have developed gills, it's tolerable, but it would be folly to criticise those who hesitate to join us.

Fr. Cekada should, in my humble opinion, try and present a complete thesis, instead of spending his considerable talents fiddling around the edges criticising other traditional groups, scandalising people and creating division and distress. But I've said this before. He should be asked, repeatedly, when is he or Bishop Sanborn going to answer that excellent work by Fr. Simoulin and the priests of the Italian District?

Bishop de Castro Mayer apparently thought John Paul II was not pope. But he detested "sedevacantism." I think I understand what he meant.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Mon Jul 07, 2008 4:56 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 3:42 am
Posts: 740
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: BpW commentary on the June 28th deadline plus excommunicatio
John Lane wrote:
Bishop de Castro Mayer apparently thought John Paul II was not pope. But he detested "sedevacantism."

Hmmmm...he sounds like a man after my own heart! :lol: although I think the word "detested" might be just a little too strong...

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon CinC
Moscow, Idaho
U.S.A.


Mon Jul 07, 2008 5:14 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:49 pm
Posts: 552
Location: Argentina
New post Re: BpW commentary on the June 28th deadline plus excommunicatio
Quote:
He should be asked, repeatedly, when is he or Bishop Sanborn going to answer that excellent work by Fr. Simoulin and the priests of the Italian District?


John, are yo referring to that work of wich Fr. Ricossa wrote in his "Sodalitium"? (number 56)

Cristian

_________________
"Il n`y a qu`une tristesse, c`est de n`etre pas des Saints"

Leon Bloy


Mon Jul 07, 2008 12:40 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: BpW commentary on the June 28th deadline plus excommunicatio
Cristian Jacobo wrote:
John, are yo referring to that work of wich Fr. Ricossa wrote in his "Sodalitium"? (number 56)


Yes, I think so. Part I of it is here: http://strobertbellarmine.net/forums/vi ... ?f=2&t=570

And here is an earlier mention of it, along with my take on this new position of Fr. Cekada and Co.

viewtopic.php?p=7288#p7288

Quote:
[No] SSPX-trained cleric (e.g. Bishop Sanborn, Fr. Cekada, et al.) has ever presented publicly a case that Joseph Ratzinger is a heretic. Nor did any of them ever present a case that Wojtyla or Montini were heretics. Instead, they have all of them contented themselves with indirect proofs from the indefectibility of the Church and similar, avoiding any direct assertion of heresy and its requisite proofs. Indeed, the Guerardians insist a priori that no accusation of heresy can be proved directly against these men. I have said several times that I think this is the fruit of Bishop Guerard des Laurier's training of the SSPX seminarians at Econe, and that - irony of ironies - it was precisely his "expertise" on the question of how heresy is identified and proved which wrecked the chances that the products of Econe would become sedevacantists. Instead, it is almost universally held by Econe-trained men that in the absence of an authoritative warning by the Church no conviction of heresy can be arrived at. Fr. Simoulin and the priests of the Italian SSPX District agree on this capital point with Fr. Ricossa, Bishop Sanborn, and the rest of the Guerardians, as their book "Sedevacantism, A False Solution to a Real Problem" states explicitly.

Now, if Fr. Cekada won't so much as present a case that Joseph Ratzinger is a heretic, what on earth is he doing insisting on the conclusion to the degree that we ought to stay home alone instead of assisting at any Mass in which his name is mentioned?

_________________
In Christ our King.


Mon Jul 07, 2008 10:46 pm
Profile E-mail
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 13 posts ] 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forums/DivisionCore.