Author Topic: The Splinters of Trad Groups Thread  (Read 9561 times)

Offline Philip G.

  • Hellebardier
  • *
  • Posts: 72
  • Thanked: 34 times
  • Ordinary Cultus
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: The Splinters of Trad Groups Thread
« Reply #120 on: September 13, 2018, 01:17:06 PM »
Are people confusing/conflating the nine priests who sued the SSPX with the Hawaii Six who were laity who went to an SSPX chapel in Hawaii? They were excommunicated by their bishop but Cardinal Ratzinger instructed the United State's Apostolic Nuncio, Archbishop Agostino Cacciavillan, to inform the Bishop of Honolulu, Joseph Ferrario, that his decree of excommunication against the six Catholics was invalid.

No, I am conflating the argument of the video review of servi that Fr. Ward was incardinated into the diocese of fribourg as(for lack of better words) a "free agent" to travel at will and operate in other diocieses with the sentiment of the nine that the sspx was not a religious order with defined superior(s) and ownership of property by superior(s).  The Fr. Ward Fribourg argument smells of that sentiment, despite the fact that Fr. Ward left the sspx.

Now, is it my opinion that Fr. Ward uses that argument to legitimize his operation?  No.  I have no idea what goes on in Fr. Ward's head.  And, that is a problem.  But, Fr. Ward as an individual priest has no authority from Fribourg despite the lack of explicit reversal by the diocese of fribourg.  And, such a fribourg decree doesn't give you authority in another diocese.  Fr. Ward has got to use a different argument for that.  But, it is all speculation.  And, it is speculation that I do not care much about.  Because, it is all hearsay even from my standpoint.  There are no official positions of servi on their website.  In sum, it is a personality cult.  But, that is what has come to define tradition.  Personal prelature is another manifestation of it, and only hardly superior. 
« Last Edit: September 13, 2018, 01:20:58 PM by Philip G. »
For the stone shall cry out of the wall; and the timber that is between the joints of the building, shall answer.  Woe to him that buildeth a town with blood, and prepareth a city by iniquity. - habacuc 2,11-12
 

Offline St.Justin

  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 1665
  • Thanked: 607 times
  • Religion: Roman Catholic
Re: The Splinters of Trad Groups Thread
« Reply #121 on: September 13, 2018, 03:10:26 PM »
Are people confusing/conflating the nine priests who sued the SSPX with the Hawaii Six who were laity who went to an SSPX chapel in Hawaii? They were excommunicated by their bishop but Cardinal Ratzinger instructed the United State's Apostolic Nuncio, Archbishop Agostino Cacciavillan, to inform the Bishop of Honolulu, Joseph Ferrario, that his decree of excommunication against the six Catholics was invalid.

No, I am conflating the argument of the video review of servi that Fr. Ward was incardinated into the diocese of fribourg as(for lack of better words) a "free agent" to travel at will and operate in other diocieses with the sentiment of the nine that the sspx was not a religious order with defined superior(s) and ownership of property by superior(s).  The Fr. Ward Fribourg argument smells of that sentiment, despite the fact that Fr. Ward left the sspx.

Now, is it my opinion that Fr. Ward uses that argument to legitimize his operation?  No.  I have no idea what goes on in Fr. Ward's head.  And, that is a problem.  But, Fr. Ward as an individual priest has no authority from Fribourg despite the lack of explicit reversal by the diocese of fribourg.  And, such a fribourg decree doesn't give you authority in another diocese.  Fr. Ward has got to use a different argument for that.  But, it is all speculation.  And, it is speculation that I do not care much about.  Because, it is all hearsay even from my standpoint.  There are no official positions of servi on their website.  In sum, it is a personality cult.  But, that is what has come to define tradition.  Personal prelature is another manifestation of it, and only hardly superior.

"Personal prelature " Do you have any idea what a Personal prelature is?
 

Offline Philip G.

  • Hellebardier
  • *
  • Posts: 72
  • Thanked: 34 times
  • Ordinary Cultus
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: The Splinters of Trad Groups Thread
« Reply #122 on: September 13, 2018, 03:28:01 PM »

[/quote]

"Personal prelature " Do you have any idea what a Personal prelature is?
[/quote]

You are a negative person.
For the stone shall cry out of the wall; and the timber that is between the joints of the building, shall answer.  Woe to him that buildeth a town with blood, and prepareth a city by iniquity. - habacuc 2,11-12
 

Offline Gardener

  • Drink the poison yourself.
  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Hauptmann
  • ****
  • Posts: 7317
  • Thanked: 4249 times
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: The Splinters of Trad Groups Thread
« Reply #123 on: September 13, 2018, 07:04:22 PM »


"Personal prelature " Do you have any idea what a Personal prelature is?
[/quote]

You are a negative person.
[/quote]

Is he wrong?
"And what use are the victories on the battlefield if we are ourselves are defeated in our innermost personal selves?" - St. Maximilian Kolbe
 

Offline Gardener

  • Drink the poison yourself.
  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Hauptmann
  • ****
  • Posts: 7317
  • Thanked: 4249 times
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: The Splinters of Trad Groups Thread
« Reply #124 on: September 13, 2018, 07:04:34 PM »
There's some problems with the sandlot/pick-up-league theology and canon law (including 1917 which would have been in effect when Fr. Ward moved to COS) understanding of the northeasterner(?) in the video.

I'm at work and cannot view youtube videos here to go through and pick it apart by minute/seconds, but for example, the illicit establishment of the community: priests and/or religious do not just get to pick up, go wherever, and start publicly ministering and/or forming religious communities (or private/diocesan[canon law term]/secular communities) without permission from the Ordinary of the new location. Hence, the use of the term illicit. Further, a Bishop cannot tell a priest he can just go wherever and have faculties "until revoked" when that priest is then providing Sacraments to the public in another Bishop's diocese. Only a group of Pontifical Right, or individuals as declared by the Pope, can do such a thing and even then I'm not sure how far that actually extends. In other words, your dad has absolutely 0 authority to tell you that you can come into my house and jump on the couch with muddy shoes; he also has 0 authority to tell you that you can come in my house and clean the thing to anal-retentive military standards. It's MY house. Same with a Bishop, as it's HIS diocese and HE is the only one who can do that. Fr. Ward and crew did not just move there and keep to themselves, so the comment about being told/getting permission where to live is just... idiotic. The diocesan declaration was in no way factually wrong in this regard. Whether or not there is a state of necessity which nullifies the letter in order to cater to the true spirit of the law as a whole is another thing entirely. Further, Fr. Ward was ordained by Abp. Lefebvre for the SSPX, not to go rogue.

He also makes a pretty stupidly disguised attempt at a red herring with bringing in Bp. Sheridan's comments on the original interview with Peter Howard, STL. Bishop Sheridan had two full articles on that and what true ecumenism should be (according to his understanding post-Vatican 2), but they are no longer available. It's my belief that the main problem was Mr. Howard was publicly commenting in a capacity which made him seem as if a Diocesan representative in that capacity without approval. The bottom line is the Bishop has legal authority and his good/bad actions in other instances, whether prudential or not, have zero effect on this reality unless by the action in question he is ipso facto deposed, or subsequent post-action tribunals, etc., render named actions null and void (perhaps due to insanity, etc.).

Regardless of all this, and that rather boring and incorrect video, Heinrich and I both know people who used to go there. There are some serious issues at the location.

Servants of the Holy Family (SHF) considers themselves a Religious community(http://servi.org/about-us-2/). Pay attention to that, as it has a canonical meaning and cannot be ignored. This differs from the SSPX, which does not consider itself a religious community per se.

As such, SHF were and are subject to particular codes of canon law in both 1917 and 1983 as will be demonstrated. Because they would have been under the 1917 code in 1977, they are subject to 1917 Code #497 which required either papal approval (certain conditions)+Ordinary or at least the permission of the Ordinary. Nuns always require papal permission (and thus the "community" of "nuns" there do not meet the requirement of recognition as such from a canonical perspective).

I cannot copy the English but you can view it here @ #342 (canon 497):
http://www.archive.org/stream/newcanonlaw00woywuoft#page/88

Or in Latin here:

Quote
Can 609 1. Si ecclesia, apud quam residet communitas religiosa, sit simul paroecialis, servetur, congrua congruis referendo, praescriptum can. 415.
  2. In ecclesia religiosarum a votis sive sollemnibus sive simplicibus paroecia erigi nequit.
  3. Advigilent Superiores ne divinorum officiorum in propriis ecclesiis celebratio catecheticae instructioni aut Evangelii explanationi in ecclesia paroeciali tradendae nocumentum afferat; iudicium autem utrum nocumentum afferat, necne, ad loci Ordinarium pertinet.
http://www.jgray.org/codes/cic17lat.html


As such, Fr. Ward, in attempting to establish a Religious community, removed himself from the putative provisions set forth with any (supposed) permissions from any Diocesan authority from Fribourg (which is actually undemonstrated as far as I could tell -- I'd like to confirm on the video again before owning that statement); elsewhere it seems he was supposedly incardinated into an unnamed diocese in Northern Spain -- which is it? He moved himself from a secular cleric to an attempted religious status, which has other consequences canonically. One of the things that the video keeps doing is referring to Fr. Ward as if he is just a secular cleric. Yet, he is not. There are very real canonical difference between the two and this is a dangerous omission.

This is why the hullabaloo in the video about the term illicit is, frankly, laughable. It was indeed illicit prima facie. Special plead all you want, but that's a fact. Licity is important to a degree, but if the enforcement of the law is impossible due to having fallen from office, inability to enforce, or lack of contact with the Ordinary it is of no concern. That's the row the video should have attempted to hoe. Should I make the argument for SHF for you? Because I'd do a lot better job than that hack in the video.

Further, because Mass is being offered and other prayers, the SHF would be subject under 1917 code to canons 1259, 1260, and 1261 (http://www.archive.org/stream/newcanonlaw00woywuoft#page/258); 1983 would be [in order of reference to 1917]: 839, null, 838. Therefore, violations of canon law would render the Sacraments illicit in addition to their "founding".

I could go on, but I'd need to be able to view the video again and go bit by bit. I honestly don't see the point since I could give you absolute proof there are some real issues and you'd plug your ears because the easily faked piety of sermons sways you. Tradition by numbers is a simple game and it easily sways simple people. Simply put, I don't trust singular priests who just go do whatever they want.

But your video tried to play the legal card (by hand waving it away with a definition about Sacraments, attempting to act like people can just live wherever they want, and ignoring the reality of the SHF in light of canon law), and then engage in a red herring about the Bishop which has literally nothing to do with the reality of the argument as concerns an Ordinary's authority, and whatever other road the video went down. If it weren't 30 minutes of a grating yankee accent, I might watch it entirely just for the fun of ripping it to shreds.

As an aside, elsewhere it seems to be claimed that the Bishop who supposedly ordained the other priests was actually consecrated Bishop in the new rite. Doesn't this concern the typical Indie/Sede crowd? Where are their orders coming from? Why be secretive?

Let one say what they want about the SSPX, but at least we know where their holy orders came from and we know they operate within a structure that has a definable history and some level of accountability. Aside from Fr. Ward (ordained by Abp. Lefebvre), we have literally no idea. Why did Fr. Ward actually leave the Society? I understand the reason for the Society, but not SHF which started by a priest stomping off with his seminarians in tow. Under what sort of intellectual hubris did the event occur, and if not hubris, why is he not shouting the problems with the SSPX from the rooftops? They're religious, so what rule do they follow and what is their spirituality? I'd take my family to the SSPX in a heartbeat if necessary. I'd never set foot at SHF unless every other priest in a 30 mile radius were to disappear.



"And what use are the victories on the battlefield if we are ourselves are defeated in our innermost personal selves?" - St. Maximilian Kolbe
 

Offline Philip G.

  • Hellebardier
  • *
  • Posts: 72
  • Thanked: 34 times
  • Ordinary Cultus
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: The Splinters of Trad Groups Thread
« Reply #125 on: September 13, 2018, 09:26:53 PM »
Gardener - Do you know much about Fr. Perez and his fellow priests in california?  They also make use of the 1945 liturgy, and are friendly with the novus ordo structure, while at the same time defying it.  Would you attend their masses?  What about Fr. ringrose?  He is 1945 sedeplenist friendly.  Would you attend his mass? 

From reading you post, you seem quite savvy as to traditions complications, particularly in your mention of the seeming possibility as a sedeplenist that a novus ordo ordinary can be ipso facto deposed.  Do you believe in the possibility that a novus ordo ordinary is ipso facto deposed as a result of material heresy? 
For the stone shall cry out of the wall; and the timber that is between the joints of the building, shall answer.  Woe to him that buildeth a town with blood, and prepareth a city by iniquity. - habacuc 2,11-12
 

Offline Gardener

  • Drink the poison yourself.
  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Hauptmann
  • ****
  • Posts: 7317
  • Thanked: 4249 times
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: The Splinters of Trad Groups Thread
« Reply #126 on: September 13, 2018, 10:02:20 PM »
Never heard of Fr. Perez until your post. Heard the name of Fr. Ringrose, but I have no idea who he is.

Savvy? Hardly. It's just an easily parroted position as regards the issue of a Bishop losing competency (either of himself, i.e., insanity, etc.) or juridically.

Material heresy deposing a Bishop would be problematic, as material simply means that the heresy is not formal, which has a character that necessitates the declaration of the Church or otherwise the holder of said heresy is truly aware it is heresy. But that would get into the issue of public or occult heresy. I would defer to St. Augustine's Letters #43 on the issue as applicable, even if obliquely since it is actually dealing with persons outside the Church. Such a thing would be highly problematic if they were not educated on that particular point of doctrine, or innocently misunderstood the doctrine. It seems to place a very high level onus on a person as if necessitating that they hold, understand, and can properly convey the entire magisterial reality of Catholic doctrine. Eek. Even St. Thomas couldn't do that, and he was likely one of the smartest and holiest people in the history of the Church.

If the Bishop would be deposed by the very fact of holding materially heretical positions, it would be due to excommunication correct?

That brings in a very problematic thing for priests, deacons, and laity too, since such a thing should apply to them as well.

It's also contra the history of the Church in dealing with such matters.
"And what use are the victories on the battlefield if we are ourselves are defeated in our innermost personal selves?" - St. Maximilian Kolbe
 

Offline St.Justin

  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 1665
  • Thanked: 607 times
  • Religion: Roman Catholic
Re: The Splinters of Trad Groups Thread
« Reply #127 on: September 13, 2018, 10:26:40 PM »
Philip G.,

The Mass I go to at present is said by a Novus Ordo Priest. One of my good friends is a SedeVacante Priest and I attend his Masses when I can. My preference is the SSPX but unfortunately not one nearby. I have no problem attending any valid Traditional Mass as long as it is valid (matter, form and intention). Do not go to any NO except for funerals etc. The issues you keep bringing up have nothing to do with any of that. That group has serious issues which warrant people staying away from them period.

There are several Priest in California name Perez. You need to be more specific.
Fr. Ringrose is a whole other discussion.
 

Offline Philip G.

  • Hellebardier
  • *
  • Posts: 72
  • Thanked: 34 times
  • Ordinary Cultus
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: The Splinters of Trad Groups Thread
« Reply #128 on: September 13, 2018, 11:25:44 PM »
Gardener - Perhaps I shouldn't say as a result of material heresy, but I do not know how it could be formal in our situation.  There are enough trads who believe that the pope cannot be judged.  And, for me, that translates into the fact that a pope cannot be a formal heretic.  And, that is something that I do believe.  However, if you have a situation like ours, where our popes are material heretics, and nearly all of the novus ordo bishops are material heretics, how exactly can a NO ordinary ever even become a "formal heretic".  A materially heretical papacy and collective council are not going to judge.  It is not conclusive or even directly believed by trads that a NO ordinary is similar to the pope in that he can never be a "formal heretic".  That would be placing every single bishop of the church by association with the pope under Christs promise to peter.  And, I am not willing to extend ordinaries such a privilege.  The old code of canon law did address how an ordinary can be deposed as a result of heresy, but I do not know if or how the new code addresses it. But, it did not favor execution of ipso facto deposition for material heresy.

This theory is a bit of a patch job at the moment.  But, if there is any truth to the ipso facto-ism of the sedevacantists, it seems it would only be able to be applied to the novus ordo local bishops.  Because, it certainly does not apply to the papacy.  If there is not anything to the ipso facto-ism of the sedevacantists, why exactly are they so successful?  They have to have some argument, and I think it regards ipso facto deposition.  I mean, even this forum states that sedevacantism is reasonable enough position.  If it is not ipso facto deposition for the vacantists, what is it?  That is the only savory thing idea about them(for the papacy not included).  I think there is something to it, just not regarding the pope.  And, me being a layman, I am not going to spear-head that movement.  I might act as tailwind.  But, so far sspx and even +Williamson resistance want to consider the local ordinaries as legitimate, as indicated by their inclusion in the una cum and other initiatives. 

I just found it interesting that you mentioned the idea in an isolated manner.  Because, in its isolated form, which is when it only regards local ordinaries, it is as I see it the only way to bridge the gap between plenists and vacantists, if that is what one wants to do.  However, there are obviously other consequences to adopting such a theory.  It is either that(to bring in vacantists), or the liturgy of econe(to unite the NO church) if you ask me(bye bye 1945).  Take your pick.   
« Last Edit: September 13, 2018, 11:29:07 PM by Philip G. »
For the stone shall cry out of the wall; and the timber that is between the joints of the building, shall answer.  Woe to him that buildeth a town with blood, and prepareth a city by iniquity. - habacuc 2,11-12
 

Offline Sophia3

  • Mary Garden
  • Korporal
  • **
  • Posts: 266
  • Thanked: 174 times
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: The Splinters of Trad Groups Thread
« Reply #129 on: September 18, 2018, 04:09:08 PM »
There's some problems with the sandlot/pick-up-league theology and canon law (including 1917 which would have been in effect when Fr. Ward moved to COS) understanding of the northeasterner(?) in the video.

I'm at work and cannot view youtube videos here to go through and pick it apart by minute/seconds, but for example, the illicit establishment of the community: priests and/or religious do not just get to pick up, go wherever, and start publicly ministering and/or forming religious communities (or private/diocesan[canon law term]/secular communities) without permission from the Ordinary of the new location. Hence, the use of the term illicit. Further, a Bishop cannot tell a priest he can just go wherever and have faculties "until revoked" when that priest is then providing Sacraments to the public in another Bishop's diocese. Only a group of Pontifical Right, or individuals as declared by the Pope, can do such a thing and even then I'm not sure how far that actually extends. In other words, your dad has absolutely 0 authority to tell you that you can come into my house and jump on the couch with muddy shoes; he also has 0 authority to tell you that you can come in my house and clean the thing to anal-retentive military standards. It's MY house. Same with a Bishop, as it's HIS diocese and HE is the only one who can do that. Fr. Ward and crew did not just move there and keep to themselves, so the comment about being told/getting permission where to live is just... idiotic. The diocesan declaration was in no way factually wrong in this regard. Whether or not there is a state of necessity which nullifies the letter in order to cater to the true spirit of the law as a whole is another thing entirely. Further, Fr. Ward was ordained by Abp. Lefebvre for the SSPX, not to go rogue.

He also makes a pretty stupidly disguised attempt at a red herring with bringing in Bp. Sheridan's comments on the original interview with Peter Howard, STL. Bishop Sheridan had two full articles on that and what true ecumenism should be (according to his understanding post-Vatican 2), but they are no longer available. It's my belief that the main problem was Mr. Howard was publicly commenting in a capacity which made him seem as if a Diocesan representative in that capacity without approval. The bottom line is the Bishop has legal authority and his good/bad actions in other instances, whether prudential or not, have zero effect on this reality unless by the action in question he is ipso facto deposed, or subsequent post-action tribunals, etc., render named actions null and void (perhaps due to insanity, etc.).

Regardless of all this, and that rather boring and incorrect video, Heinrich and I both know people who used to go there. There are some serious issues at the location.

Servants of the Holy Family (SHF) considers themselves a Religious community(http://servi.org/about-us-2/). Pay attention to that, as it has a canonical meaning and cannot be ignored. This differs from the SSPX, which does not consider itself a religious community per se.

As such, SHF were and are subject to particular codes of canon law in both 1917 and 1983 as will be demonstrated. Because they would have been under the 1917 code in 1977, they are subject to 1917 Code #497 which required either papal approval (certain conditions)+Ordinary or at least the permission of the Ordinary. Nuns always require papal permission (and thus the "community" of "nuns" there do not meet the requirement of recognition as such from a canonical perspective).

I cannot copy the English but you can view it here @ #342 (canon 497):
http://www.archive.org/stream/newcanonlaw00woywuoft#page/88

Or in Latin here:

Quote
Can 609 1. Si ecclesia, apud quam residet communitas religiosa, sit simul paroecialis, servetur, congrua congruis referendo, praescriptum can. 415.
  2. In ecclesia religiosarum a votis sive sollemnibus sive simplicibus paroecia erigi nequit.
  3. Advigilent Superiores ne divinorum officiorum in propriis ecclesiis celebratio catecheticae instructioni aut Evangelii explanationi in ecclesia paroeciali tradendae nocumentum afferat; iudicium autem utrum nocumentum afferat, necne, ad loci Ordinarium pertinet.
http://www.jgray.org/codes/cic17lat.html


As such, Fr. Ward, in attempting to establish a Religious community, removed himself from the putative provisions set forth with any (supposed) permissions from any Diocesan authority from Fribourg (which is actually undemonstrated as far as I could tell -- I'd like to confirm on the video again before owning that statement); elsewhere it seems he was supposedly incardinated into an unnamed diocese in Northern Spain -- which is it? He moved himself from a secular cleric to an attempted religious status, which has other consequences canonically. One of the things that the video keeps doing is referring to Fr. Ward as if he is just a secular cleric. Yet, he is not. There are very real canonical difference between the two and this is a dangerous omission.

This is why the hullabaloo in the video about the term illicit is, frankly, laughable. It was indeed illicit prima facie. Special plead all you want, but that's a fact. Licity is important to a degree, but if the enforcement of the law is impossible due to having fallen from office, inability to enforce, or lack of contact with the Ordinary it is of no concern. That's the row the video should have attempted to hoe. Should I make the argument for SHF for you? Because I'd do a lot better job than that hack in the video.

Further, because Mass is being offered and other prayers, the SHF would be subject under 1917 code to canons 1259, 1260, and 1261 (http://www.archive.org/stream/newcanonlaw00woywuoft#page/258); 1983 would be [in order of reference to 1917]: 839, null, 838. Therefore, violations of canon law would render the Sacraments illicit in addition to their "founding".

I could go on, but I'd need to be able to view the video again and go bit by bit. I honestly don't see the point since I could give you absolute proof there are some real issues and you'd plug your ears because the easily faked piety of sermons sways you. Tradition by numbers is a simple game and it easily sways simple people. Simply put, I don't trust singular priests who just go do whatever they want.

But your video tried to play the legal card (by hand waving it away with a definition about Sacraments, attempting to act like people can just live wherever they want, and ignoring the reality of the SHF in light of canon law), and then engage in a red herring about the Bishop which has literally nothing to do with the reality of the argument as concerns an Ordinary's authority, and whatever other road the video went down. If it weren't 30 minutes of a grating yankee accent, I might watch it entirely just for the fun of ripping it to shreds.

As an aside, elsewhere it seems to be claimed that the Bishop who supposedly ordained the other priests was actually consecrated Bishop in the new rite. Doesn't this concern the typical Indie/Sede crowd? Where are their orders coming from? Why be secretive?

Let one say what they want about the SSPX, but at least we know where their holy orders came from and we know they operate within a structure that has a definable history and some level of accountability. Aside from Fr. Ward (ordained by Abp. Lefebvre), we have literally no idea. Why did Fr. Ward actually leave the Society? I understand the reason for the Society, but not SHF which started by a priest stomping off with his seminarians in tow. Under what sort of intellectual hubris did the event occur, and if not hubris, why is he not shouting the problems with the SSPX from the rooftops? They're religious, so what rule do they follow and what is their spirituality? I'd take my family to the SSPX in a heartbeat if necessary. I'd never set foot at SHF unless every other priest in a 30 mile radius were to disappear.
And yet you applaud the same bishop who is described in this video:
 

Offline Heinrich

  • Der hat einen Rosenkranz und steht jetzt als Arbeiter bei
  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Hauptmann
  • ****
  • Posts: 6403
  • Thanked: 1715 times
  • "Hebst du doch, Geck?" Schlank und eisig.
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: The Splinters of Trad Groups Thread
« Reply #130 on: September 18, 2018, 05:44:47 PM »
Is this group in any way affiliated with Servants? I mean, it is like a car dealership sponsoring an awards ceremony for excellence in car dealing, and then awarding the sponsor first place. Or is this guy part of an established, independent group of concerned Catholics who adhere to canonical and diocesan structures as their most stringent criteria?
Pray for the Consecration.                           
Lex Orandi, lex credendi, lex vivendi.
"Bear in mind that the more the enemy assaults you, God is closer to your soul." --St. Padre Pio
 

Offline Sophia3

  • Mary Garden
  • Korporal
  • **
  • Posts: 266
  • Thanked: 174 times
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: The Splinters of Trad Groups Thread
« Reply #131 on: September 18, 2018, 11:11:26 PM »

Now that is just downright insulting, you cantankerous rattlesnake.
Dear Heinrich, 
  ;D
brilliant comeback

Sorry Heinrich,
I just can't take any of your criticisms seriously when you like comments like the above and when you talk about priests with such disgust all while not even knowing who they are or what group they belong to.
 

Offline Prayerful

  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Hauptmann
  • ****
  • Posts: 5989
  • Thanked: 2458 times
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: The Splinters of Trad Groups Thread
« Reply #132 on: September 19, 2018, 12:21:14 PM »
There's some problems with the sandlot/pick-up-league theology and canon law (including 1917 which would have been in effect when Fr. Ward moved to COS) understanding of the northeasterner(?) in the video.

I'm at work and cannot view youtube videos here to go through and pick it apart by minute/seconds, but for example, the illicit establishment of the community: priests and/or religious do not just get to pick up, go wherever, and start publicly ministering and/or forming religious communities (or private/diocesan[canon law term]/secular communities) without permission from the Ordinary of the new location. Hence, the use of the term illicit. Further, a Bishop cannot tell a priest he can just go wherever and have faculties "until revoked" when that priest is then providing Sacraments to the public in another Bishop's diocese. Only a group of Pontifical Right, or individuals as declared by the Pope, can do such a thing and even then I'm not sure how far that actually extends. In other words, your dad has absolutely 0 authority to tell you that you can come into my house and jump on the couch with muddy shoes; he also has 0 authority to tell you that you can come in my house and clean the thing to anal-retentive military standards. It's MY house. Same with a Bishop, as it's HIS diocese and HE is the only one who can do that. Fr. Ward and crew did not just move there and keep to themselves, so the comment about being told/getting permission where to live is just... idiotic. The diocesan declaration was in no way factually wrong in this regard. Whether or not there is a state of necessity which nullifies the letter in order to cater to the true spirit of the law as a whole is another thing entirely. Further, Fr. Ward was ordained by Abp. Lefebvre for the SSPX, not to go rogue.

He also makes a pretty stupidly disguised attempt at a red herring with bringing in Bp. Sheridan's comments on the original interview with Peter Howard, STL. Bishop Sheridan had two full articles on that and what true ecumenism should be (according to his understanding post-Vatican 2), but they are no longer available. It's my belief that the main problem was Mr. Howard was publicly commenting in a capacity which made him seem as if a Diocesan representative in that capacity without approval. The bottom line is the Bishop has legal authority and his good/bad actions in other instances, whether prudential or not, have zero effect on this reality unless by the action in question he is ipso facto deposed, or subsequent post-action tribunals, etc., render named actions null and void (perhaps due to insanity, etc.).

Regardless of all this, and that rather boring and incorrect video, Heinrich and I both know people who used to go there. There are some serious issues at the location.

Servants of the Holy Family (SHF) considers themselves a Religious community(http://servi.org/about-us-2/). Pay attention to that, as it has a canonical meaning and cannot be ignored. This differs from the SSPX, which does not consider itself a religious community per se.

As such, SHF were and are subject to particular codes of canon law in both 1917 and 1983 as will be demonstrated. Because they would have been under the 1917 code in 1977, they are subject to 1917 Code #497 which required either papal approval (certain conditions)+Ordinary or at least the permission of the Ordinary. Nuns always require papal permission (and thus the "community" of "nuns" there do not meet the requirement of recognition as such from a canonical perspective).

I cannot copy the English but you can view it here @ #342 (canon 497):
http://www.archive.org/stream/newcanonlaw00woywuoft#page/88

Or in Latin here:

Quote
Can 609 1. Si ecclesia, apud quam residet communitas religiosa, sit simul paroecialis, servetur, congrua congruis referendo, praescriptum can. 415.
  2. In ecclesia religiosarum a votis sive sollemnibus sive simplicibus paroecia erigi nequit.
  3. Advigilent Superiores ne divinorum officiorum in propriis ecclesiis celebratio catecheticae instructioni aut Evangelii explanationi in ecclesia paroeciali tradendae nocumentum afferat; iudicium autem utrum nocumentum afferat, necne, ad loci Ordinarium pertinet.
http://www.jgray.org/codes/cic17lat.html


As such, Fr. Ward, in attempting to establish a Religious community, removed himself from the putative provisions set forth with any (supposed) permissions from any Diocesan authority from Fribourg (which is actually undemonstrated as far as I could tell -- I'd like to confirm on the video again before owning that statement); elsewhere it seems he was supposedly incardinated into an unnamed diocese in Northern Spain -- which is it? He moved himself from a secular cleric to an attempted religious status, which has other consequences canonically. One of the things that the video keeps doing is referring to Fr. Ward as if he is just a secular cleric. Yet, he is not. There are very real canonical difference between the two and this is a dangerous omission.

This is why the hullabaloo in the video about the term illicit is, frankly, laughable. It was indeed illicit prima facie. Special plead all you want, but that's a fact. Licity is important to a degree, but if the enforcement of the law is impossible due to having fallen from office, inability to enforce, or lack of contact with the Ordinary it is of no concern. That's the row the video should have attempted to hoe. Should I make the argument for SHF for you? Because I'd do a lot better job than that hack in the video.

Further, because Mass is being offered and other prayers, the SHF would be subject under 1917 code to canons 1259, 1260, and 1261 (http://www.archive.org/stream/newcanonlaw00woywuoft#page/258); 1983 would be [in order of reference to 1917]: 839, null, 838. Therefore, violations of canon law would render the Sacraments illicit in addition to their "founding".

I could go on, but I'd need to be able to view the video again and go bit by bit. I honestly don't see the point since I could give you absolute proof there are some real issues and you'd plug your ears because the easily faked piety of sermons sways you. Tradition by numbers is a simple game and it easily sways simple people. Simply put, I don't trust singular priests who just go do whatever they want.

But your video tried to play the legal card (by hand waving it away with a definition about Sacraments, attempting to act like people can just live wherever they want, and ignoring the reality of the SHF in light of canon law), and then engage in a red herring about the Bishop which has literally nothing to do with the reality of the argument as concerns an Ordinary's authority, and whatever other road the video went down. If it weren't 30 minutes of a grating yankee accent, I might watch it entirely just for the fun of ripping it to shreds.

As an aside, elsewhere it seems to be claimed that the Bishop who supposedly ordained the other priests was actually consecrated Bishop in the new rite. Doesn't this concern the typical Indie/Sede crowd? Where are their orders coming from? Why be secretive?

Let one say what they want about the SSPX, but at least we know where their holy orders came from and we know they operate within a structure that has a definable history and some level of accountability. Aside from Fr. Ward (ordained by Abp. Lefebvre), we have literally no idea. Why did Fr. Ward actually leave the Society? I understand the reason for the Society, but not SHF which started by a priest stomping off with his seminarians in tow. Under what sort of intellectual hubris did the event occur, and if not hubris, why is he not shouting the problems with the SSPX from the rooftops? They're religious, so what rule do they follow and what is their spirituality? I'd take my family to the SSPX in a heartbeat if necessary. I'd never set foot at SHF unless every other priest in a 30 mile radius were to disappear.
And yet you applaud the same bishop who is described in this video:

That channel has exactly one video, and some points it makes are either whataboutery or not correct.
But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema.

Galatians I, 4