Replies

Excommunications were invalid - read the 1983 Code of Cannon Law.

I’ve read it, it doesn’t say that.

The Pope issued the excommunications under his own authority, not under the Canon law. The Canon law also stems from the Pope’s authority. Canon law can’t trump the Pope, he can abrogate it anytime he likes.

When has the Pope said that our seperated bretheren share the fruits of Christ's redemptive act only through invincible ignornace?

How else could they share it? If they know that the Church is the one true Church and reject it anyway, they are at fault.

The Pope has never said that the faithful cannot attend the SSPX Mass.

He said it was a schism, and his catechism is clear you don’t go to a schismatic Mass unless no other Mass is available.

Cardinal Ratzinger has stated that the SSPX is not in schism.

When, where and what did he say?

Cardinal Strickler says I can attend the SSPX Mass.

When, where, and what did he say?

patent +AMDG

Patent, you appear to be dealing with one not unlike those that Pope Leo was dealing with long ago.

" It is certainly true that no man of good sense will ever believe that some private individuals or some bishops have more at heart the rights and liberty of the Church than has the Holy See itself, the Mother and Mistress of all the Churches. Or that in order to procure this good, the Roman Church needs to be prodded by those who, in order to be and to be held as good Catholics, owe the Roman Church submission and obedience before all else... "Therefore, there can be no legitimate cause for these men, whoever were the first leaders of those concerned today, to be separated from the most holy communion of the Catholic world. Let them not rely on the upright quality of their conduct, not on their fidelity to discipline, not on their zeal in safeguarding teaching and stability in religion. Does not the Apostle say plainly that without charity all this profiteth nothing? (1 Cor. 13:10)... "From this it follows that they cannot promise themselves any of the graces and fruits of the perpetual sacrifice of the sacraments which, although they are sacrilegiously administered, are nonetheless valid and serve in some measure that form and an appearance of piety which St. Paul mentions and which St. Augustine speaks of at greater length: "The form of the branch,’ says the latter with great precision, ‘may still be visible, even apart from the vine, but the invisible life of the root can be preserved only in union with the stock. That is why the corporal sacraments, which some keep and use outside the unity of Christ, can preserve the appearance of piety. But the invisible and spiritual virtue of true piety cannot abide there any more than feeling can remain in an amputated member’"

(Serm. LXXXI). (Pope Leo XIII, Letter Exima nos Laetitia to the Bishop of Poiters, July 19,1893.), The Church (Papal Teachings), St. Paul editions, Boston, 1962, pp. 292-293, as cited in "The Pope, the Council and the Mass", Kenneth Whitehead, James Likoudis, pp. 165-166.

I have read more than once that many in the upper reaches of the Curia feel that the USCCB is de facto in schism. If schism is defined as seperation from Rome, can you not see the validity of the arguments of necessity? Look at Bps. Weakland or Mahoney for examples and what they have done. Look at the ICEL and what they have done. Look at the Holy Father's recent letter with regards to confession, for example. Look at the posts by freepers who report abuses that clearly invalidate the sacraments, honey bread or pita bread used as "hosts" for example. When the priestly formation has degraded to that point, when the teachings of the Church on such essential issues as life itself get changed and massaged, can you truly not see the argument of necessity?