Posted on 07/15/2004 6:17:56 PM PDT by AskStPhilomena
The sacrament of marriage conferred by the SSPX as I said in my other post is illergaulr, but valid. Those who have been married by an SSPX priest but returns to t he diocean structure do not need to get re married, but only need to get their marriage regularized.
Canon 1108: "Only those marriages are valid which are contracted in the presence of the local Ordinary or parish priest...."
SSPXr's are NOT validly married.
As to Hawaii: it's been explained thoroughly elsewhere on FR. Basically, Ratzinger overturned a judicial decision of the Bp of Hawaii which was made in grave error.
HOWEVER, this decision was particular; that is, it did not limit the general excommunication of SSPX priests/Bishops, or of laity who "display an attachment to SSPX."
Can you document the presumptive validity of SSPX marriages? I understand 'regularization,' but that process may also include a de-facto re-marriage either explicit or implicit.
Don't mis-read the posts of those who "bash" SSPXr's.
I'm as sympathetic as anyone to those who seek a rational and integrated spirituality, catechesis, and a liturgy which is reverent, respectful, and displays the elements of 'sacred time, sacred space, sacred language, and sacred music.'
But please recall that those who DEFEND SSPX positions are not the same as those who simply show up for their Masses because their Diocese has nothing but odious N.O. perversions available.
Those who DEFEND sspx are, in fact, schismatics and excommunicandi. IOW, they are no different from Lutherans, except they utilize a particularly disingenuous line: that they 'are Catholic.'
There is a difference between posters on this very thread; some, like you, are sympathetic to SSPX laity; others, who need not be mentioned, are actively promoting their form of schism.
"ur, you are quite simply out of your depth on this one, and don't know what you are talking about."
You went to India once to do some charity work and consider yourself an expert on the Hindu religion? I don't think so.
I admit I know nothing about Hinduism per se. But I did do a google search, there is plenty out there on aarti, including the definition I gave which defines aarti as a hymn to a Hindu god. It's not my definition, I got it from a Hindu site--it's the Hindus who say it's part of the Hindu faith, not I. I also posted the links of several sites that deal with the issue.
Besides, the Pope has done worse than accept a blessing from a Hindu woman. He's allowed heathen Aztec dances--just before the Consecration at a papal Mass. He's prayed with animists, poured out libations to the Great Thumb in the Togo forest, and participated in liturgies of other religions, including praying with rabbis for the coming of the Messiah in a Jewish synagogue--and you know they weren't praying for the Second Coming.
I pray the "Church" will return to God.
There's a difference between inculturation and syncretism. It is one thing to incorporate into Christianity a non-religious cultural element, it's another to accept a religious element per se. In the case of the Pantheon, Christianity was wholly substituted for Pagan worship. Only the building was retained, a religiously neutral artifact. So too with the sites of springs or the dates of feasts, all were religiously neutral. But a PRAYER or HYMN to a false god IS religious--it is syncretic and heretical.
"The Pope likes the UN because he's not sold on GWB's 'preventive strikes' concept. There's a good reason for that: 'preventive strikes' are hard to square with the Just War theory. You may recall that theory--it has to do with morality in war"
Twenty-five million people were rescued from a thirty-year long reign of terror--with very little loss of civilian life. It is ridiculous to interpret this as something immoral. Had Saddam not been a known tyrant, a man who fed people into a giant shredder, a man who tortured children before their parents, a man who cut out tongues and cut off hands, a man who forced husbands to watch wives being raped, a man who used poison gas on scores of thousands of Iraqis, a man who invaded neighboring countries, a man who for twelve years made a mockery of the terms of his surrender following the First Gulf War--then maybe the Pope would have a point in his opposition.
As it is, the just-war principle that a threat must be imminent before a country may act preventively is no longer realistic in the nuclear age. One miscalculation on our part could well cause the loss of hundreds of thousands or even millions of lives. This is especially true when a madman like Saddam opposes us. As Bush insists, we may not have found weapons of mass destruction--but we found the capacity to produce them, and produce them quickly should the time have proved propitious.
More slanderous crap from you. Those who marry in an SSPX ceremony have certainty of the Church's blessings provided by canon law by means of supplied jurisdiction. Your posts have a spitefulness that speaks volumes.
There is no need to regularize anything. They are valid marriages.
Nonsense. No one married at Campos before the recent accord had to get a marriage "regularized." They are perfectly valid, period.
Have you never heard of supplied jurisdiction? Read up and learn something.
With this, and your concluding graph, you simply place more distance between yourself and the Church.
Bush played the war right up to the edge and it is still not very clear how Iraq 'attacked us' first.
While I give Bush the benefit of the doubt, your belief that the USA is the World's Cop is arrogant, puerile, and hubristic in the extreme.
Prove it.
The following is the official SSPX response to scurrilous accusations such as yours:
___________________________________________________
DOCTRINAL FOUNDATION OF THIS SUPPLIED JURISDICTION
1. can. 20 (1917 Code; also can. 19 in 1983 Code) says that if the law does not 'foresee a certain case, the case must be solved according to the norms "a legibus latis in similibus; generalibus juris principiis cum aequitate canonica servatis; jurisprudentia et praxi Curiae Romanae; communi constantique doctorum sententia" ' [taken from laws given in similar cases, from the general principles of law applied with the mildness proper to Canon Law, from the manner and the custom of handling similar cases in the Roman Curia, and from the common and accepted teaching of doctors]. (As Wernz and Vidal say : "jus ergo suppletorium est jus applicandum in particularibus casibus, cum circa illud non habeatur in codice prescriptum quod peculiari illi casui sit applicandum" n. 180). [therefore to supplement the law the law is to be applied in particular cases, when the rule to be applied in an extraordinary case is not found in the law]
2. Application — three things occur:
a) parallel place ie. the "analogia legalis" [analogy of law] (Wernz-Vidal n. 181): "per quam juris dispositio pro aliis casibus applicatur simili de quo lex non disponit" [through which the disposition of the law for other cases is applied in a similar way concerning what the law does not dispose]. Here the parallel place is the case when it is impossible to have recourse to the local bishop for the dispensation of a diriment impediment of ecclesiastical law: "in danger of death" or "quando omnia sunt parata ad nuptias" [when all is prepared for the wedding] the parish priest or confessor can dispense (can. 1044 -1045). This means the Church gives them supplied jurisdiction ad casum [for particular cases].
b) Practice (jurisprudence) of the Roman Curia: an answer from the Commission for the interpretation of the Code of July 29 1942 (AAS 34, 241) allows the extension of the dispositions of can. 1045 to the case of urgent necessity where there is "periculum in mora" [danger to morals] (cf. Can. 81)
c) Epikeia and the opinion of doctors concerning canon 1043 sq., but which also applies elsewhere: (Cappello, Tractatus de Sacramentis III ii. 199: "Si finis legis cesset contrarie pro communitate, ie si damnum commune inde sequatur, lex non urget, quia merito censetur suspendi ex benigna mentis legislatoris interpretatione" [If the object of the law remains in a way contrary to the community, that is if a damage would commonly follow from it, the law does not oblige, because it is thought to have ceased out of the kindly interpretation of the mind of the legislator].) This is the case of being obliged to have recourse to modernist tribunals. But if the obligation of recurring to modernist tribunals ceases, the obligation of recurring to some tribunal remains.
3. By joining all these elements we can infer that our canonical commission in the actual case of impossibility of having recourse to the official tribunals, has the power to judge matrimonial cases (we can say that the Holy See, if it were not as modernist as the tribunals, would give us this jurisdiction).
It is graver to dispense from a diriment impediment (which change the condition of the person who from incapable becomes capable of contracting marriage) than it is to declare a marriage invalid (which does not change the condition of the person, but merely states a fact existing from the beginning). It is only a declarative power of jurisdiction. So if supplied jurisdiction is given to us to dispense, a fortiori it is given to us to judge.
4. The institution of marriage tribunals in the orb of Tradition is especially justified by the fact that:
a) their authority will be more easily accepted than a private opinion,
b) thus it will not be necessary to reject doubtful or contrary private opinions,
c) many judges and instances are necessary in order to proceed prudently and according to the spirit and letter of the law,
d) in the present case of necessity, a priest receives supplied jurisdiction for what a priest can normally do by himself and not for what he cannot normally do. But judging matrimonial cases is not normally done by a priest but by the bishop or the authorities he has delegated.
In all this the rule "in as much as and no more than" applies: The Church supplies jurisdiction in favour of the faithful in as much as it is necessary and no more than is necessary.
IV EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT OF JUDGING MATRIMONIAL CASES by the canonical commission and the priests designated by it
As we have said our jurisdiction is supplied. Here are its properties:
a) It is not habitual, but only ad casum per modum actus [for individual cases and means of action]. Consequently we do not have standing tribunals, nor are their members named ad universas causas [for every reason], but on the contrary each time ad hoc, appointed by the canonical commission, even if for practical reasons and because experienced and competent persons are needed, the judges and defender of the bond are always the same.
b) The jurisdiction is not territorial but personal.
c) It depends on the necessity of the faithful ie., it lasts as long as the state of common necessity lasts, even if, per impossibile [through impossible circumstances], an official tribunal judging according to traditional norms could be found.
d) It is a true jurisdiction and not an exemption from the law and the obligation the faithful have of receiving a judgement. Therefore we have the power and the duty of handing down true sentences having potestatem ligandi vet solvendi [the power of binding and loosing]. Our sentences are therefore binding. The proximate reason is that we must be able to tell the faithful what they must follow, quod debent servare. [what they must obey]
Our sentences are not mere private opinions because such an opinion do not suffice when the common good is at stake; and the common good is at stake in every case where the matrimonial bond is discussed. To resolve the doubt authority in the external forum is necessary.
e) This jurisdiction does not usurp any of the powers the Pope has of divine right. It is true that our sentences in the third instance replace the sentences of the Roman Rota which acts in the Pope’s name as third instance tribunals. But this is not an usurpation of divine right of the Pope because the fact that this third instance is reserved to the Pope is of ecclesiastical law.
f) Finally our sentences like all our acts of supplied jurisdiction and the episcopal consecrations of 1988 and 1991 etc., will ultimately need to be confirmed by the Holy See:
"With this, and your concluding graph, you simply place more distance between yourself and the Church."
Oh, so now the Pope is infallible on American foreign policy as well? We should all agree with the UN, the most corrupt institution on earth, the one that siphoned off three-quarters of the billions directed to the Iraqi people and kicked-back most of it so Saddam could build his palaces and buy more guns--the one that puts Sudan and Lybia in charge of its Human Rights Commission? Yeah, sure. More papal wisdom--of the kind we've grown accustomed to.
As for playing the world's cop, millions of people right now in Sudan wish we did. They are being killed and enslaved with impunity because people like you tie our hands and cry "foul!" every time we posit actions to rescue millions of the oppressed--the same people who have done nothing for the millions dying of AIDS in Africa, but who now are clamoring to be put in charge of the billions we have authorized to be spent to alleviate suffering in Africa. What hypocrisy!
It's becoming a lot easier to ignore your grotesque Straw Man constructions--this time about Papal infallibility on foreign policy.
Maybe I'll get more than a 500-year deal on this watch.
As to my position on military ventures: let's make it simple. YOU join the Army and rescue the world--but don't you DARE take my children along for the ride.
While you're in BCT, by the way, think a little more deeply on the topic of Losing the Vietnam War. You might actually understand the wisdom of the Founders: 'no foreign entanglements.'
Then again, you might not. You certainly haven't learned much about validity of attempted SSPX marriages, have you?
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.