"For many, no longer does Roma Locuta est, Causa finita est exist."
Nice snappy phrases you have. However, Rome has not spoken FINALLY on this issue obviously--nor on many issues actually. Otherwise, there would NEVER be a new need to issue new documents.
And BlackElk, regarding the "excommunicated," the "excommumications" within Ecclesia Dei Adflicta were supposed self imposed. They could be "material" and not "formal" and therefore, NOT valid. COULD be, I said. The new Code of Canon law (Ask Canon lawyers, NOT me!!!) with its emphasis on the subject rather than the object, makes it very difficult to declare anyone "excommunicated" except for the variety declared in Ecclesia Dei Adflicta.
Yes, in 1988, they were disobedient to the request of Pope John Paul II. No, no other documents have been issued AUTHORITATIVELY yet to replace it. However, both Campos and the Institute of Good Shepherd priests were required to recant NONE of their doctrinal views in order to reconcile canonically. NONE. As far as I know, the SSPX's official position on doctrine contains no errors nor heresy. I would be interested for Bornacatholic to point me toward specific words Bishop Felly used that were allegedly "anti-Semitic" as he claims.
*That isn't my phrase. That is an axiom from tradition. Do you know its origins?
However, Rome has not spoken FINALLY on this issue obviously--
*And you know this because...
I know what it has said authoritatively re the schism. I follow that. When the Living Magisterium promulgates another decision I will folow that and not war against that decision. You appear to be claiming you can war against Rome if you think the final words has not been spoken. Is that your idea of what Tradition consists of?
Please read and review Ratzinger's The Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian
Is Roma locuta est...that difficult an axiom to understand and follow for soi disant traditionalists?
I would be interested for Bornacatholic to point me toward specific words Bishop Felly used that were allegedly "anti-Semitic" as he claims.
*Apparently, you do not keep up with Fellay's heretical Doctrines about the Mass being evil, about the Ecumenical Council being hereical (how could it be heretical when lefevbrfe himself signed all the documents?) and the jews being cursed.
I will provide the info
In January, Cardinal Castrillon had incorrectly written that with some conditions I would accept Vatican II. Since I wanted him to know exactly what I think about the Council, I handed him Catholicism and Modernity, a booklet in French by Fr. Jean-Marc Rulleau in which he studies the Council and shows how the spirit of the Council is radically opposed to Catholicism. It is, we may say, a total demolition of the Council.
*More to follow, brother. Your ignorance about what the SSPX and Fellay Teaches is surprising. I thought everyone knew of his heresies
The Cardinal's position is evident from his interviews such as in 30 Days: "It'?s fine to celebrate either Mass, but please don't pit one against the other. Don't make use of one against the other." Well, the Society is definitely against the New Mass. We even say that it is "intrinsically evil." That's a delicate label that needs a little explanation. By this we mean that the New Mass in itself the New Mass as the New Mass, as it is written is evil, because as such you find in it the definition of evil. The definition of evil is "the privation of a due good." Something that should be in the New Mass is not there and that's evil. What is really Catholic has been taken out of the New Mass. The Catholic specification of the Mass has been taken away. Thats enough to say that it is evil.
Trent
Canon 7. If anyone says that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs which the Catholic Church uses in the celebration of masses, are incentives to impiety rather than stimulants to piety,[26] let him be anathema
*Glad you like them. Here is another one...
Cooperatio materialis immediata illicita est
While, as I think I and sitetest and bornacatholic have never denied, the pope (this one or any successor) may revise, reverse, lift or modify the punishments justly visited upon Lefebvre (query: How does one unexcommunicate those who die apparently unrepentant of their excommunicating offenses? One may have a grace of final repentance and so we cannot KNOW that anyone, even Judas, is in hell, although we are assured that many, unidentified to us, are in hell) and his co-conspirators in ecclesiastical grand theft, for any reason or none, the pope is the Supreme Legislator of Canon Law. The Americanism in these controversies would seem to be practiced by the schismatics who somehow feel that they may interpret (not unlike SCOTUS) Canon Law (as an Anglo-American style "Rule of Law") to bind the pope (indeed the very pope who promulgated the entire new code). Actually, possession of the keys means that what the pope binds on earth is bound in heaven and what the pope looses on earth is loosed in heaven. If he said (and he did) that they are excommunicated schismatics, they thereby became (objectively, subjectively or whatever), ummmm, excommunicated schismatics. The SSPX, its founder and its adherents appear to believe otherwise which is why they have found themselves justly anathematized until a pope says otherwise.
BTW, Marcel was not disobedient to the "request" of John Paul the Great but abusively disobedient of the ORDER of John Paul the Great (to which Marcel had apparently agreed in writing). Likewise, the consecrated fellow excommunicant priests intended by Marcel for consecration and consecrated by him, having received Marcel's little billet doux claiming the pope to be antichrist, should have suspected that being consecrated by Marcel was not a prudent spiritual move.
It would seem in order when considering Campos, The Institute of the Good Shepherd and FSSP (for that matter) the parable of the workers and the vineyard. Also, it goes without saying that each and every priest has taken a vow of obedience that seems necessarily to require submission to the doctrinal authority of the papacy.
I personally have no knowledge of anti-Semitic remarks by Fellay. I understand that SSPX's Williamson has denied the Holocaust and said a lot of other silly things. I don't admire him but I don't suggest that his ignorance of history constitutes heresy. It is his willing receipt of the proceeds of grand theft ecclesiastical that has put him and his fellow Marcellian illicit bishops in boiling water. In and of themselves, these curious views denying the Holocaust or being anti-Semitic (if indeed that is the case) are not the ecclesiastical problems. Many darned fools have been bishops remaining in communion with Rome and have submitted in all things to dogma nonetheless. Obedience to the pope is NOT optional, however, particularly in such matters as deciding who will be consecrated a bishop.
Also, the mere opinions of Canon Lawyers have no authority to trump the judgments of popes.
I also wish to observe that the direction in which the Wanderer is drifting is a severe disappointment. First, when I rashly considered becoming Eastern Orthodox in my own anger over the abuses often introduced into Novus Ordo Masses and my general lack of admiration for Paul VI, a good friend told me to subscribe to the Wanderer for one year and then decide. I did as he asked and, because of the Wanderer, I remained Catholic.
Nonetheless, no other respectable publication would be caught dead publishing Sobran. Buchanan opines not on theology but on his moonbat isolationist and border obsessive views. I voted for him at least twice and my shame over that knows few bounds. At least he is still prolife. Now, Tom Roeser is heaping praise upon the utterly discredited pre-Pearl Harbor isolationist paleo-ostriches. If I wanted to be instructed by paleowussies, I would subcribe to Buchanan's magazine or to Mother Jones or the Nation. Now, it begins to look like there was no cause for the Matt family to divide if the Wanderer is going to mimic the "Remnant" in support of the schismatics without any papal document as a reason. Also the late Brent Bozell's Triumph magazine became an embarrassment and failed when it went anti-American over war.