Replies

Dear Zviadist,

"'In formal terms, innocent until proven guilty, but schismatics nonetheless.'

"Do you realize the arrogance and disobedience in this statement? You alone, even above the Vatican, are fit to judge these? Incredible! Pride goes before the fall."

To observe and describe is neither arrogant nor disobedient.

If one observes a man robbing a bank, one may describe him as a bank robber. This is a reasonable action, even prior to his conviction in court for the crime of bank robbery.

If one observes a man walking, talking, and otherwise acting schismatically, then one may describe him as a schismatic. This is a reasonable action, even prior to his adjudication as such by appropriate and legitimate Church authority.

Of course, BlackElk is neither a police officer nor a Church hierarch. Thus, he may observe the bank robber, and rightfully call the bank robber a bank robber. But he may not try the robber in a court of his own making, and impose his own sentence. He may not imprison him to serve a sentence as punishment (though he may rightfully detain the robber until the police officers arrive). Similiarly, he may observe that someone is a schismatic, but he may not try to impose ecclesiastical sanction (though he may rightfully try to alert appropriate and legitimate Church authorities to the situation, and ask that they enforce a punishment against such a person).

So, it isn't a binding ecclesiastical judgement that BlackElk and others make, it is an observation and a description of what was observed.

That you have difficulty making this distinction goes to the heart of the schism. We Catholics believe that we may not invent our own interpretations of Tradition, we may not invent our own interpretations of obedience, we may not create our own hierarchical structures, we may not make it up as we go along. We must submit in obedience to the Magisterium of the Holy Catholic Church, which is authentically interpreted, in the final analysis, by the Supreme Pontiff of the Holy Catholic Church.

You believe that you may offer your own interpretation of Tradition opposed to the pope's. You believe that you may disobey at will, and create your own episcopal structure. The SSPX believes that it can establish a tribunal to judge the validity of marriages.

So, you confuse BlackElk's observation with your own disobedience.

sitetest

"'In formal terms, innocent until proven guilty, but schismatics nonetheless.'
"Do you realize the arrogance and disobedience in this statement? You alone, even above the Vatican, are fit to judge these? Incredible! Pride goes before the fall."
To observe and describe is neither arrogant nor disobedient.
If one observes a man robbing a bank, one may describe him as a bank robber. This is a reasonable action, even prior to his conviction in court for the crime of bank robbery.

It is funny. They do not object to calling the Pope an apostate pig, an apostate, an idolater, etc. But they claim we cannot judge them schismatic.

patent +AMDG