SSPX' Chooses "Non Response"

[Catholic777]

Technically, none of these sacraments is valid, but do you think God will just ignore it, not give the people grace, and let them go to Hell because of a technicality?

Privately, I of course have good hope He would not ignore it.

But we can't PRESUME extraordinary interventions or exceptions, certainly not publicly. That's the whole problem with the new ecumenism that the SSPX (rightly) hate. For example, most protestants these days are only material heretics. They may not be culpably ignorant. So God might use, for example, their baptisms as a means of salvation. But the key word is might. It is a private hope, not the certainty of faith that public revelation obliges us with. It is presumptuous to say that God will certainly do so, or to act in a way that seems to just assume that He will. That leads to indifferentism and lessens the urgency of evangelization and baptism. That's the problem with the new ecumenism.

But so too, in the public forum, positively counting on (read: presuming) the idea that God is going to make such extraordinary interventions...is as audacious as not repreforming those hypothetically invalid sacraments once the mistake is found out. Counting on an exception to the rule, presuming extraordinary means...is exactly what we cannot do exactly because that is what makes them extraordinary. They are a matter of hope after-the-fact, and if they occur (and I have good hope they do) a mercy of God...but certainly not something to be presumed as if certain like a rule. If you start to think of exceptions to the rule as consistent parts of the system of rules...then you are no longer viewing them as exceptions, and that is what presumption is. If you start to assume God's mercy and so sin just because you know He will give it...that's an abuse of the system and is the very essence of presumption. You can't presume mercy, and you can't presume extraordinary means, even though God does give both.

God's grace is not restricted by the ordinary means when good will and accidental circumstances come together. No one is damned except by their own bad will.

But presumption is one of the sins against the Holy Spirit.

Also, if real schismatics and heretics like the Orthodox have valid sacraments, what makes anyone think fake schismatics would not have it?

The conclusion seems to be that it is because they had pre-existing jurisdictions that broke off corporately. But the SSPX only ever derived their jurisdiction from the Pope, as an apostolic society.

If they had been a personal prelature before the schism...I could see the argument. But they werent. They had no jurisdiction of their own beforehand. 

[QuisUtDeus]

[Edit by Quis - remove idiotic comment made without thinking]

Am I reading this right? Are you calling for[whatever the idiotic comment said]?

Because that's not even OK to joke about.   

Agreed.

PeterII, though I know you were being sarcastic, that kind of comment can't be tolerated here at all.  First, it's offensive to the Throne of Peter, and second, all we need is someone claiming that trads want to do what you stated.  They already call us anti-semitic, etc.

Please show prudence when you post.

[PeterII]

But we can't PRESUME extraordinary interventions or exceptions, certainly not publicly.

And I would agree, in ordinary circumstances.  Unfortunately, we are dealing with a different deck of cards.  We would ordinarily presume that the Apostolic See, acting in accordance with its divine mission, is working in the best interest of our souls.  However, we have proof of the modern hierarchy contradicting the Magisterium, so now we are in extraordinary circumstances.

One is not guilty of presumption by accepting the "exceptions to the rules," so long as they have in their minds a legitimate reason for it.  The faithful are the ones giving extraordinary jurisdiction to the SSPX priests because of their perceived needs and grievances.  So unlike the Orthodox, who retain their jurisdiction on a technicality, the SSPX gets jurisdiction due to the extraordinary circumstances the faithful find themselves in.  When the extraordinary circumstances are gone, we can presume the sin of Presumption on the part of the faithful.      

Now, what could be more evident of extraordinary circumstances than a Pope going on an excommunication tirade, casting out of the Church people who want to obey the Magisterium, while at the same time publically praying with an unrepentant schismatic, Bartholomew I. 

[Catholic777]

But that's not what we were talking about. We were talking about what the situation would be if the Pope explicitly canonically revoked any supplied jurisdiction they might have. And, in such a case, they wouldnt have any.

[Robb]

What would happen if all the faithful of the SSPX were excommunicated?  Would there be a massive defection to Rome (or did the defection occur already 20 years ago)?

Bob

[PeterII]

But that's not what we were talking about. We were talking about what the situation would be if the Pope explicitly canonically revoked any supplied jurisdiction they might have. And, in such a case, they wouldnt have any.

You would be implying then that "the salvation of souls, which must always be the Supreme Law of the Church" is no longer binding.  The Pope can't stop people from being practicing Catholics for something they are not guilty of.  

[Catholic777]

You would be implying then that "the salvation of souls, which must always be the Supreme Law of the Church" is no longer binding. The Pope can't stop people from being practicing Catholics for something they are not guilty of.

No. That's the very "conscience" argument that, again, the SSPX objects to in other circumstances. It's utter subjectivism.

Under your argument, all priests always have faculties...because what could be wrong with someone accessing the sacraments who wanted them?

The Pope can remove faculties from a priest. Even supplied. Canon Law is merciful in that it allows it in the case of danger of death, etc. But even that could be taken away.

Now, do I think God would punish an innocent dying person who confessed to a priest who really didnt have faculties? No. But that's a question of individuals, in the private forum. It certainly cant be publicly presumed, as a general principle, as the justification of a whole group's claim to general sacramental validity.

[PeterII]

You would be implying then that "the salvation of souls, which must always be the Supreme Law of the Church" is no longer binding. The Pope can't stop people from being practicing Catholics for something they are not guilty of.

No. That's the very "conscience" argument that, again, the SSPX objects to in other circumstances. It's utter subjectivism.

Under your argument, all priests always have faculties...because what could be wrong with someone accessing the sacraments who wanted them?

The Pope can remove faculties from a priest. Even supplied. Canon Law is merciful in that it allows it in the case of danger of death, etc. But even that could be taken away.

Now, do I think God would punish an innocent dying person who confessed to a priest who really didnt have faculties? No. But that's a question of individuals, in the private forum. It certainly cant be publicly presumed, as a general principle, as the justification of a whole group's claim to general sacramental validity.

No one in the SSPX has objected to a conscience argument. The basis for the 1988 consecrations was a state of necessity that in conscience had to be addressed.  The SSPX use the conscience argument to defend Magisterial teaching.  The modernists use the conscience argument to attack Magisterial teaching, and that is the major difference.  
 
 The only person whom I am aware of overstepping their bounds and making a judgment on someone's private conscience was JP II on Archbishop Lefebvre. JP II personally judged the Archbishop by declaring him excommunicated, presuming that the Archbishop intended to contradict the foundation of the authority of the Holy See. That was never the intent, as Lefebvre made clear.  JP II, to his discredit, did not go back to redress the issue in light of Lefebvre's explanation.  

Quote:

Under your argument, all priests always have faculties...because what could be wrong with someone accessing the sacraments who wanted them?

Not exactly. I agree that the priest may not have any legal faculties at all. But he doesn't need them, because it is the faithful person in need of the sacrament who supplies them through the Church. The faithful can't go to a censured priest just for the fun of it either; they must have a just reason.   People go to the SSPX priests for confession because they can't trust the salvation of their soul to people they deem to be in theological error in the Novus Ordo or wherever.  

If the Pope decided to suddenly legislate against all supplied jurisdiction, it would not have any effect on people in the state of necessity, for to do so in practice would cause them to be damned, which is not what the Church is here for. Canon law acts for the good of salvation of souls, so a bad law that does not somehow serve that end is no law.    

[Miserere_Nobis]

But you're studying for its neo-priesthood...

The New Church is full of heresy, blasphemy, idolatry, masonry, etc.

[StevusMagnus]

Quote:

Under your argument, all priests always have faculties...because what could be wrong with someone accessing the sacraments who wanted them?

Not exactly. I agree that the priest may not have any legal faculties at all. But he doesn't need them, because it is the faithful person in need of the sacrament who supplies them through the Church. The faithful can't go to a censured priest just for the fun of it either; they must have a just reason.   People go to the SSPX priests for confession because they can't trust the salvation of their soul to people they deem to be in theological error in the Novus Ordo or wherever.  

If the Pope decided to suddenly legislate against all supplied jurisdiction, it would not have any effect on people in the state of necessity, for to do so in practice would cause them to be damned, which is not what the Church is here for. Canon law acts for the good of salvation of souls, so a bad law that does not somehow serve that end is no law.    

Well stated!