“Traditionis Custodes” as latent schism; Bishop Michael Martin Luther and Cupich; the SSPX option; “litniks” bite the dust; hints of racism in Vatican II; how to fight back against AI; dancing
I am very pro-SSPX, but I am slightly confused on one aspect. I once heard someone say that SSPX weddings are not valid unless they are in union with the bishop. Since the Society comes into dioceses without the bishop's permission, I suppose it is safe to assume that they do not generally ask permission to officiate weddings. Would that mean their weddings are invalid? I know of a lot of good Catholics who attend Mass with, and support, the SSPX. I don't believe they would promote anything that is wrong, which is why I've been troubled by this for a long time.
The standard line is that you cannot have a valid marriage without an approved minister of the Church witnessing it. Usually this is the pastor, or, if someone else, delegated by the pastor or bishop. Hence, since the SSPX clergy are not, as such, recognized ministers, the conventional line is that the weddings over which they preside are invalid.
Pope Francis, in one of his many surprises, said that the SSPX clergy could validly witness marriages if they asked and received permission so to do from the local ordinary. Interestingly, this has indeed happened in more than a few dioceses. It's not splashed on the front page of the diocesan newspaper but the permission is sought and granted. However, in other dioceses, bishops have stalwartly refused. (How's that for a "synodal church"?)
The SSPX counterargument, of course, is that the Church is in a state of grave crisis, in which faculties are supplied by the Church to do what the Church has always done, that is, impart sacramental life and doctrine in accord with tradition. I can't go into this further here except to say that I am deeply sympathetic to this argument, because it is past obvious to me that the Church on earth is going through something frightfully reminiscent of an autoimmune disorder that leaves nothing and nobody untouched, and that if we're not seeing a calamitous breakdown in normal structures, we're not using our eyeballs.
Nevertheless, I remain conflicted because I recognize - as does the SSPX itself - that the pope is the pope and the bishops are the bishops, and therefore, normally, there should be this delegation of the minister for matrimony. Hence, if I were getting married again (as opposed to 26 years ago!), I would seek out an Ecclesia Dei institute or a diocesan priest who could do a TLM wedding, OR I would make sure that the SSPX chapel I'm attending has asked and received the delegation from the local ordinary.
" “It would not be an exaggeration to view the liturgical renewal of the Second Vatican Council as a vindication of Worship.” And this sums up the tenor of the journal as a whole, which insists on treating the calamitous failure of the post-Conciliar liturgical reform as an amazingly successful renewal. "
Once again, "success" is defined in the devil's aim - total effective eradication. As in "the doors are open but Nobody is home".
I do not know if this is outright formal schism, it seems to me that it is something like material schism or schismatic in tendency. Therefore, I do not assert that Francis lost the papacy on July 16, 2021, but I do assert that anyone who takes seriously the initial premise of that document will end up having to espouse schism. This is why, interestingly, the same document walks back the claim and the entire implementation has been half-hearted, because at the end of the day, I'm not sure anyone really believes in the idea that the Novus Ordo is the "only expression of the lex orandi of the Roman Rite." Certainly, almost no one is behaving that way.
I’m not trying to go back and forth. So, I’ll minimize the responses.
If a person, using previous Doctors and holy opinion, holds that heretical teaching leads to an ipso facto loss of the Papacy how can they be in schism - if by schism it means they are holding to the faith, and not setting up a new Church, per se.
I hold that Pope Francis was at least materially heretical; it is somewhat difficult to know if he was a formal heretic, given that full definition of that term. For one thing, he contradicted himself regularly; for another, he spoke ambiguously; for a third, no one ever challenged him in a way that prompted him to respond with evidence of pertinacity. It's a huge mess.
I've begun adding the following tag to the end of my articles: "Human work product, not AI generated."
I am very pro-SSPX, but I am slightly confused on one aspect. I once heard someone say that SSPX weddings are not valid unless they are in union with the bishop. Since the Society comes into dioceses without the bishop's permission, I suppose it is safe to assume that they do not generally ask permission to officiate weddings. Would that mean their weddings are invalid? I know of a lot of good Catholics who attend Mass with, and support, the SSPX. I don't believe they would promote anything that is wrong, which is why I've been troubled by this for a long time.
The standard line is that you cannot have a valid marriage without an approved minister of the Church witnessing it. Usually this is the pastor, or, if someone else, delegated by the pastor or bishop. Hence, since the SSPX clergy are not, as such, recognized ministers, the conventional line is that the weddings over which they preside are invalid.
Pope Francis, in one of his many surprises, said that the SSPX clergy could validly witness marriages if they asked and received permission so to do from the local ordinary. Interestingly, this has indeed happened in more than a few dioceses. It's not splashed on the front page of the diocesan newspaper but the permission is sought and granted. However, in other dioceses, bishops have stalwartly refused. (How's that for a "synodal church"?)
The SSPX counterargument, of course, is that the Church is in a state of grave crisis, in which faculties are supplied by the Church to do what the Church has always done, that is, impart sacramental life and doctrine in accord with tradition. I can't go into this further here except to say that I am deeply sympathetic to this argument, because it is past obvious to me that the Church on earth is going through something frightfully reminiscent of an autoimmune disorder that leaves nothing and nobody untouched, and that if we're not seeing a calamitous breakdown in normal structures, we're not using our eyeballs.
Nevertheless, I remain conflicted because I recognize - as does the SSPX itself - that the pope is the pope and the bishops are the bishops, and therefore, normally, there should be this delegation of the minister for matrimony. Hence, if I were getting married again (as opposed to 26 years ago!), I would seek out an Ecclesia Dei institute or a diocesan priest who could do a TLM wedding, OR I would make sure that the SSPX chapel I'm attending has asked and received the delegation from the local ordinary.
Is August 5 a typo ?
(face-palm)
Yes. I just fixed it online.
" “It would not be an exaggeration to view the liturgical renewal of the Second Vatican Council as a vindication of Worship.” And this sums up the tenor of the journal as a whole, which insists on treating the calamitous failure of the post-Conciliar liturgical reform as an amazingly successful renewal. "
Once again, "success" is defined in the devil's aim - total effective eradication. As in "the doors are open but Nobody is home".
Considering the idea that a Pope has entered schism with the Church, do you still consider sedevacantists to be in schism?
I do not know if this is outright formal schism, it seems to me that it is something like material schism or schismatic in tendency. Therefore, I do not assert that Francis lost the papacy on July 16, 2021, but I do assert that anyone who takes seriously the initial premise of that document will end up having to espouse schism. This is why, interestingly, the same document walks back the claim and the entire implementation has been half-hearted, because at the end of the day, I'm not sure anyone really believes in the idea that the Novus Ordo is the "only expression of the lex orandi of the Roman Rite." Certainly, almost no one is behaving that way.
I’m not trying to go back and forth. So, I’ll minimize the responses.
If a person, using previous Doctors and holy opinion, holds that heretical teaching leads to an ipso facto loss of the Papacy how can they be in schism - if by schism it means they are holding to the faith, and not setting up a new Church, per se.
I am thinking primarily in the terms laid out by Fr. Thomas Weinandy:
https://www.thecatholicthing.org/2019/10/08/pope-francis-and-schism/
https://www.thecatholicthing.org/2023/10/02/pope-francis-and-schism-re-visited/
This commentary by Pater Edmund Waldstein is apropos:
https://sancrucensis.wordpress.com/2019/10/28/the-popes-two-bodies-the-the-weinandy-farrow-thesis-as-lancastrian-ecclesiology/
I hold that Pope Francis was at least materially heretical; it is somewhat difficult to know if he was a formal heretic, given that full definition of that term. For one thing, he contradicted himself regularly; for another, he spoke ambiguously; for a third, no one ever challenged him in a way that prompted him to respond with evidence of pertinacity. It's a huge mess.