fc2112 said:
747Ag said:
Vox Clamantis said:
PabloSerna said:
Why would they openly defy Pope on this after a clear warning from the Vatican?
The same reason Cdl Wojtyla did. The supreme law.
And Cardinal Slipyj too
Y'all keep pointing that out as if it's a "gotcha". But equating the "emergency" of a suppressed Church behind the Iron Curtain to the "emergency" of an Order that has its panties in a wad because a visitor to the Vatican pretended to be an ordained minister is laughable.
Actually, it's illustrative that disobeying the Pope with respect to episcopal consecrations is sometimes appropriate and doesn't result in excommunications. In fact, the penalty of excommunication is new to the 1983 Code of Canon Law (intended to address the situation in the Chinese church and the parallel hierarchy of the communist church). The 1917 code has the penalty at suspension.
With respect to the claimed state of emergency... you don't have to accept it. Rome doesn't. And that doesn't actually matter if anyone believes the SSPX's claim here.
Most of y'all stop at Canon 1013 and Canon 1387. SSPX logic also cites Canons 1323 & 1324. Taking that all in, one who breaks Church law commits no punishable offense provided that he is driven to it by a necessity that is not only real but even wrongly assumed due to a subjective error, provided that this error is not culpable but accompanies the most complete good faith.
It's similar to the criteria to make a sin mortal, especially with respect to knowledge of the gravity of said sin. It's related to following one's conscience provided it's not formed in bad faith (i.e. malicious intent).
The interesting thing in this controversy is how it draws out condemnation after condemnation wherein with others further away from communion with Rome (seeing that Rome views communion as sort of a spectrum these days) are welcomed and accompanied and dialoged with. The difference is the sacred cow of the Council that has become a sort of super-dogma in the minds of some.
