Skip to main content

Overcomplicating Simple Things and Oversimplifying Complicated Things

+
JMJ


It occurred to me that sometimes people go and make things really complicated - that should be kept simple.

For example: Dogma.

You can't be Catholic if you deny Catholic Dogma.

It is that simple.

Next example: Doctrine

If you deviate from Catholic Doctrine, then you are almost certainly on the wrong path.

Also simple.

Next example: Is the SSPX is in schism?

Well technically the opinion is that they are "not in full communion"  This however is not a simple situation as you have to look at a number of elements ... such as:


  1. What does 'not in full communion' mean.  Since V2 the Church has used this term to describe the protestants and I believe even the orthodox ... and now the SSPX.
  2. However when asked specifically if they were in a formal state of schism we get "not in full communion".  Meaning that there is a sliding scale of membership in the Catholic Church ... which is as wrong as the thought that there is a grey area between venial and mortal sin.
  3. What constitutes a schismatic act?
  4. What about canon law?
The list goes on ...


So this isn't as simple as in order to answer the question ... you have to determine the answer to a bunch of other questions:
  1. Was the SSPX warned that the canonical consequence of the episcopal consecration would be schism? Answer: Nope
  2. Does an episcopal consecration without papal authority consitute a schismatic act? Answer: Nope
  3. Did Archbishop Lefebvre intend to create a parallel church? Answer: Nope
  4. Did the Pope have a trial and declare that a schism had occurred? Answer: Nope. He said that Archbishop Lefebvre had excommunicated himself via the law.
  5. Are the Bishops of the SSPX excommunicated? Answer:  If they ever were they definitely aren't now . Of course the case can be made that Bishop Williamson is under excommunication etc.
  6. Can priests in schism offer the sacraments licitly?  Well, I don't think so ... but the SSX priests can licitly confess and marry people ...

So where possible, keep things simple if there is a central principle. Otherwise make certain that there aren't more questions that can be investigated.

P^3

Comments

  1. Hi P^3
    Help me straighten out a friend, can you please get me the Vatican documentation saying that the Bishops were not guilty of excommunication, my friend thinks the Vatican still considered all guilty but removed the excommunication of the 4 Bishops as a sign of good will. Thanks
    A.S.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

"Theology of the Body" explained - a Traditional Catholic view - Rorate Caeli

+ JMJ In prep for yet another attack on Catholic Dogma, Doctrine and Morals, I'd like to point out an excellent article posted on Rorate earlier this year:  "Theology of the Body" explained - a Traditional Catholic view - Rorate Caeli . To date my only real reaction the 'Theology of the Body' has been that what little I read doesn't 'feel right'.  The more specific term for this sensation is Cognitive Dissonance or Cultural Dissonance. In short, what I read of the basic tenets of 'Theology of the Body' seemed to contradict I believed about the Catholic Church's teaching on the purpose of marriage.  The explanations that I received from 'modern' Catholics, didn't do anything to allay my concerns. This article goes to the heart of why it didn't feel right.

Can Catholics Pray with Protestants??? Part 2

 + JMJ While I have explicit permission from the Canadian, US and FSSPX.News sites, as a follow-up to Part 1, I am going to post here an article on the FSSPX.UK website to provide a bona-fide resource for other Traditional Catholics looking for the truth as opposed to just belief on this topic. FSSPX.UK: Matters arising – May We Pray with Non-Catholics? P^3 Matters arising : May we pray with non-Catholics? Rev. Nicholas Mary, C.SS.R. Fr. Nicholas Mary answers topical questions in the light of moral theology and canon law. Public prayer As always, before we can answer a question adequately, terms must be defined and distinctions made. The general principle is clear, as Cardinal Newman writes: From time immemorial, from the earliest ages, members of the Church have been forbidden  communicatio in sacris  [i.e. participation in religious rites] with those who were external to it. This prohibition is not intended as the expression of any judgment on this...

SSPX Confessions and Marriages

Courtesy of SSPX.org Valid: SSPX's confessions and marriages January 15, 2014  District of the US The SSPX's priests are often accused of not being able to validly hear confessions or perform marriages. But this false claim falls flat upon a close examination of Canon Law — particularly in light of the crisis in the Church. A frequent accusation made by opponents of the Society of St. Pius X is that the confessions and marriages undertaken in its chapels are invalid because its priests lack jurisdiction. This false assertion not only ignores the Church's jurisprudence on  supplied jurisdiction , but more importantly, the reality that a state of necessity  exists due to the post-conciliar crisis. On the canonical side of things, we re-present here the important and comprehensive 3-part study of Fr. Ramon Angles,  The Validity of Confessions & Marriages in the Chapels of the Society of St. Pius X  which in summary demonstrat...

Regarding Post: Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer no longer ... now Bishop Joseph Pfeiffer (Can't see this being a problem...)

 + JMJ   I've been watching the popularity of the post about Fr. Pfeiffer's attempted episcopal consecration and its continued top listing on the 'popular posts' list at the bottom of posts.  After some thought, I decided that I don't want to be responsible for anyone joining Fr. Pfeiffer's 'group', however unlikely that would be at this time. So I have reverted the article to the draft state. If anyone wants it reinstated, I would ask that they comment on this post with a rationale for reinstatement. P^3