Posted on 12/30/2004 11:32:39 AM PST by Mershon
There you go again, cutting and pasting. I could do the same, but won't. For instance, there's a whole piece on excommunications in the Catholic Encyclopedia--particularly on the moral nullity of an unjust excommunication. Bishops are not infallible--or is that news to you? They sometimes unjustly excommunicate--Bruskewitz, in particular, is excommunication-happy.
Yes, and there will be false prophets. You will have to judge by their fruits. What have been the fruits of this pontificate--and that of Paul VI? If there are any, it's news to me. Scandals and apostasies abound.
Excommunication is said to be unjust when, though valid, it is wrongfully applied to a person really innocent but believed to be guilty. Here, of course, it is not a question of excommunication latæ sententiæ and in foro interno, but only of one imposed or declared by judicial sentence ... a person unjustly excommunicated is in the same state as the justly excommunicated sinner who has repented and recovered the grace of God; he has not forfeited internal communion with the Church, and God can bestow upon him all necessary spiritual help. However, while seeking to prove his innocence, the censured person is meanwhile bound to obey legitimate authority and to behave as one under the ban of excommunication, until he is rehabilitated or absolved.
Thomas says the same:
If, however, he were to contemn the sentence, he would "ipso facto" sin mortally. (Sup q. 21 a. 4)
The discussion is whether JP II promotes that doctrine (of Jewish salvation by means of a separate covenant). It's clear he doesn't - whether Kasper does is irrelevant and Kasper is clearly twisting the meaning of Dominus Iesus.
Yeah, clear as mud.
Excommunicating Catholics who attend SSPX Masses is manifestly unjust--especially in his proscription against supporting the SSPX intellectually. This is a clear abuse of power. It cannot be justified by any reasonable argument whatsoever.
At risk of jumping into a discussion at this point, there are more than one ways for a Pope to - as you say - "promote that doctrine". One way is to elevate individuals who say such things to prominent positions and assign them to responsibilities to which one has made a focus and key theme of one's pontificate.
I believe that the Pope is trying to "Have it Both Ways" by on one hand, reinforcing Catholic doctrine in official statements, and on the other, hoping to benefit from the activity of personnel who have made a career twisting such statements. The difficulty lies in that the type of ecumenism promoted by Catholics even as prominent as Cardinal Kasper is not compatible with basic Catholic doctrine without some extreme theological gymnastics. The conflict between the two has been downplayed, but something is going to have to give.
The reactions to Dominus Iesus demonstrate that not everyone participating in the ecumenical efforts are on the same page. As does the CDF's oddly combined rejection/celebration of doctrinally unsound ARCIC documents.
You don't even know what the excommunication is for. It's for membership, not for attending their Masses.
All Catholics in and of the Diocese of Lincoln are forbidden to be members of the organizations and groups listed below. Membership in these organizations or groups is always perilous to the Catholic Faith and most often is totally incompatible with the Catholic Faith...
Society of Saint Pius X (Lefebvre Group)...
Saint Michael the Archangel Chapel...
Any Catholics in and of the Diocese of Lincoln who attain or retain membership in any of the above listed organizations or groups after April 15, 1996, are by that very fact (ipso fato latae sententiae) under interdict and are absolutely forbidden to receive Holy Communion. Contumacious persistence in such membership for one month following the interdict on part of any such Catholics will by that very fact (ipso facto latae sententiae) cause them to be excommunicated.
I think excommunication for membership in a schismatic organization which opposes the Catholic Church is quite reasonable.
Thanks for the link. You seem to have the correct information.
If it's for membership, there's no problem. The SSPX is limited to priests and religious--and they don't reside in the Lincoln diocese. I doubt if excommunications carry much weight with them--in view of the current crisis.
Doesn't the SSPX have a Third Order as well?
Yes, but they are fairly few in number.
The USCCB comes to mind. Look who they just elected president: "Bishop" Skylstad who supports giving Holy Communion to pro-abortionists, a man who, on behalf of his diocese, filed Chapter 11 saying: "I am convinced that Chapter 11 provides justice for everyone involved". They elected a man who in response to the discovery of priests in his diocese who are sexual predators, says: "We are sexual people no matter who we are. We need to look at candidates for the priesthood who have well-integrated their sexual identities into their lives".
If this is what constitutes union with Rome, then count me out.
In relation to this particular article, the more relevant question is, "What is the fruit of this action by Bishop Bruskewitz?" Re-posting this article after 8 years reveals most dramatically the ineffectuality of all "conservative" New Mass efforts.
Look at the original article by Charles Wilson, "Finally, Someone has done Something." Bruskewitz's actions were the perfect answer to the prayers of the Wanderer types and the CUF types. They thought that it would only take the actions of a few bishops like Bruskewitz to get the ball rolling. This was supposed to be the start of a new era. Now "JPII's men" were really going to crack down. We were going to see some heads rolling and some changes made.
The only problem is that none of it happened. Eight years have gone by and what have we seen? No heads rolled. No changes were made. JPII installed new and worse heretics at the top of the Vatican hierarchy. New scandals arose. Liturgical anarchy continued to reign. The decline continued unabated, perhaps even accelerated. Just last month at the bishops' meeting we saw that the liberal stranglehold on the US Catholic Church was not lessened by one whit.
The anathema of a New Order bishop like Bruskewitz is just like what Fr. Gabriel Amorth says of the new Rite of Exorcism -- it doesn't work. It's not able to cast out any demons. They're like wizards whose wands are broken. They no longer have any spiritual power -- either for good or for ill.
In the Episcopal Church the lay people continue to go their merry way to the brink of hell completely regardless of whatever their effete, effeminate "leaders" say or don't say, do or don't do. The latest episode of ordaining a gay bishop is nothing more than a rare bout of honesty. The reality is that they've been ordaining gay bishops for decades. And no one, whether they're an Episcopalian or not, is the least bit fooled regarding whether arch-pagan Rowan Williams and his followers have any real spiritual power.
Unfortunately the New Order bishops have now reached the same status. No one cares what they say. No one cares what they do. Catholics continue along their merry way to the brink of hell completely disregarding the words and actions of their bishops whether for good or evil. No one has the least illusions about whether they possess any true spiritual power.
I understand that "St. Michael the Archangel Chapel" was the local SSPX chapel. If that is the case, then contrary to your assertion, Bruskewitz was excommunicating people simply for attending the SSPX chapel. Only a small number of priests officially belong to the Society. Even a large percentage of the priests who offer the Mass at SSPX chapels are "cooperating" with the SSPX but don't officially belong. Lay people don't belong unless they join the Third Order. So membership in the SSPX would have affected at most 1 person in the diocese of Lincoln, and most likely zero people, even if Bruskewitz's excommunication was valid and effective.
But by excommunicating everyone with "membership" in the local chapel, whatever that means, he is at least trying to create the impression that all those who attend the Mass are excommunicated. Yet this was after the Honolulu case, and later the Vatican was to say that it was permissible to attend Mass at an SSPX chapel and to contribute to the support of the parish. What else could "membership" in the St. Michael the Archangel chapel refer to, other than those things that the Vatican expressly permitted?
The great irony in all this is that the only Catholics who really care about authority are traditionalists. This is our weakness. The faith is most vulnerable at the top--which is precisely the means the subversives use to bring the rest of us along towards accepting the new religion. We're forced to hold the line against authority itself, which goes against the grain for most of us.
Well, if you read the article posted here (as the thread starter) he argues that membership in this case means "formal adherence", in which case the excommunication is incurred only by those who also suffer the penalty of excommunication for schism according to "Ecclesia Dei".
I don't think someone who just attends Mass at the chapel could be considered to hold "membership" in it.
This is very true. I have found there is a gut reaction (maybe denial) against criticizing even a corrupt priest. The priesthood is something sacred and to be supported, yet the mind has to balance out the gut when the same priests are dismantling the priesthood and Catholicism. The conflict has to be overcome.
At least that is the reaction for me.
Yes, this is the tragedy of the situation, and I don't believe that there is any way to overcome the conflict. That's the nature of real tragedy -- you are faced only with difficult choices, all of which have undeniable dangers and pitfalls. You are torn not between duty and license, but between 2 real and valid duties.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.