Deleted

deleted_user · **Posted:** Fri Mar 08, 2019 2:49 pm

Deleted

Strider · **Posted:** Thu Jun 27, 2019 12:00 am

shorter posts please

Closet Catholic · **Posted:** Thu Jun 27, 2019 4:41 am

Strider wrote:

shorter posts please

Thank you

deleted_user · **Posted:** Thu Jun 27, 2019 10:00 am

Deleted

Obi-Wan Kenobi · **Posted:** Thu Jun 27, 2019 10:07 am

If you want people to read something, it's on you to make it readable. Maybe one point at a time?

Closet Catholic · **Posted:** Thu Jun 27, 2019 2:09 pm

Spes_nostra wrote:

For those of you complaining that the OP is too long, I'd like to see you rewrite it more succinctly...

It's not other people's job to make your posts readable. One of your earlier posts was 14 pages in 12 point, Times New Roman. That's just not something anyone will ever read on a forum.

deleted_user · **Posted:** Thu Jun 27, 2019 9:38 pm

Deleted

Obi-Wan Kenobi · **Posted:** Thu Jun 27, 2019 9:39 pm

Gee. Could the commonality of the responses have something to do with your presentation?

deleted_user · **Posted:** Thu Jun 27, 2019 9:44 pm

Deleted

Jack3 · **Posted:** Thu Jun 27, 2019 11:23 pm

I have plenty of free time now, and I usually don't have a problem with verbose posts. However, I do not know enough canon law to have a take on this.

Bombadil · **Posted:** Fri Jun 28, 2019 7:12 am

It's a myopic argument. That the term canonical irregularity is not in canon law is irrelevant. It's a mess. That the word "mess" is not in canon law doesn't matter. Look, it's just common speech. The SSPX may not be clearly outside canon law, but they aren't clearly within it either. That's the situation, and how it is phrased does not change that.

Peregrinator · **Posted:** Fri Jun 28, 2019 9:38 am

The term "irregular" is certainly in Canon Law, it refers to an impediment or defect.

deleted_user · **Posted:** Fri Jun 28, 2019 10:37 am

Deleted

Peregrinator · **Posted:** Fri Jun 28, 2019 12:57 pm

Spes_nostra wrote:

Irregularities are perpetual defects, while impediments are temporary. However, neither term understood in this sense is relevant, because the status of an institute cannot be "impeded" or "irregular". A group either has canonical status or it doesn't. Regardless of whether the situation of the SSPX-Rome negotiations is irregular (it definitely is), the status of the SSPX either exists, or it doesn't.

We don't hesitate to speak of "irregular marriages" (that are, in fact, not marriages but sometimes can be treated as such) so why can't we speak of irregular status of an association?

What curial dicastery does the SSPX report to, if it has canonical status?

Peregrinator · **Posted:** Fri Jun 28, 2019 1:12 pm

Spes_nostra wrote:

If this were the case, then it would have made no sense for Pope Francis to specify the SSPX as an institute when he granted all the members jurisdiction for hearing confessions, for example. If the suppression were valid, and the SSPX no longer existed as a juridical entity from that point onward, what institute was Pope Francis referring to when he declared he was granting jurisdiction to SSPX priests?

Eastern Orthodox priests who confirm members of their congregations have faculties to do so because of the tacit permission of the Holy See. Yet Orthodox Churches aren't juridical entities in the canonical sense. How can this be?

Quote:

In addition, Rome recognizes that the SSPX has juridic personality; one priest I spoke to recalled a time in his seminary days in which several priests were excardinated from various religious orders and incardinated into the SSPX. One example of this is Fr. Urban Snyder, who was excardinated from the Trappist order and given permission by the Vatican to be incardinated into the SSPX. The institute must possess juridic personality for priests to be incardinated into the SSPX, but an institute which has been suppressed (and which technically no longer exists in the canonical sense), cannot have any juridic personality.

Fr. Urban was allowed to work with the SSPX in 1972 (I don't know that he was ever actually incardinated), before the 1975 suppression, so his example isn't relevant here. Typically, before the suppression, Abp. Lefebvre would work to get priests of the SSPX incardinated into dioceses. One such priest is Fr. Paul Aulagnier, one of the original seminarians to approach Abp. Lefebvre, who was incardinated into the diocese of Clermont and never excardinated.

deleted_user · **Posted:** Fri Jun 28, 2019 3:16 pm

Deleted

Peregrinator · **Posted:** Fri Jun 28, 2019 4:35 pm

Spes_nostra wrote:

To use your analogy, one would have to conclude that the "irregular canonical status" of the SSPX would mean that the institute has no status. Even Rome denies this today by allowing the SSPX to ordain and incardinate priests without dimissorial letters from the local ordinary.

You keep saying "incardinate" but I don't think the SSPX is actually "incardinating" anyone. To the best of my knowledge, they never have - even before the suppression.

Quote:

The incardination occurred in 1971, as reported by then-Fr. Williamson in a letter to "friends and benefactors": "Fr. Snyder's official incardination or entry into the new Society in 1971 is a part of Society history, because it was (and remains) a proof of Rome's recognition at that time of the Society's canonical standing within the Church, denied by many."

Let's see the decree of incardination then. The fact that then-Fr. Williamson made reference to it is not really evidence.

Quote:

It very much is relevant, because this example proves that Rome recognised the SSPX as more than just a "pious union", even before the five ad experimentum years were up. Thus, the 1975 suppression could not have been valid, as the bishop of the diocese where the SSPX's motherhouse was located exceeded his purview.

So you're saying that the SSPX was an association of pontifical right? That doesn't seem correct.

Quote:

Today, SSPX priests can be ordained without dimissorial letters from the diocesan bishop.

What do you mean by "can be" though?

Quote:

If they are not under the authority of that bishop, then who are they under? Ordinary jurisdiction for sacraments cannot exist without a proper relationship to episcopal---and by extension, papal---authority. It can only be concluded that they are incardinated into the SSPX, as there is no such thing as an "independent" priest.

The Pope himself, who has immediate and universal jurisdiction everywhere, gave them faculties. One needn't be incardinated for that to happen.

Again - what dicastery does the SSPX report to?

Deleted

Who is online