Saturday, September 24, 2022

What About the SSPX?

Reason & Theology Reviews a Debate · Who Erased My Comment? · What About the SSPX?

The SSPX Debate is Over: Tradition is Rising
22nd of Sept. 2022 | The Kennedy Report

Hans-Georg Lundahl
6:13 Scenario 2, "the pope giving sacraments to schismatics" ... what about the real answer to the emergency being Pope Michael?

The Kennedy Report

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@The Kennedy Report 1988. Consecration of bishops without an actual canonically regular Apostolic Mandate.

1990. Conclave convoked without a Camerlengo. Or Papal election of not strictly conclave type.

The analysis David Bawden, later known as Pope Michael, gave was : when the virtue of epikeia allows going beyond what is foreseen by the legislator, it should be done in such a way as to end the emergency.

8:13 Pope Michael assessed both SSPX and Sedes content to remain such as schismatics.

Staying with a Pope you can't obey is not Catholic.

Staying without a Pope is not Catholic.

By the way, settled issue.

On that logic "Masses in Novus Ordo are invalid" would also go against a "settled issue" - insofar as those settling it were real Popes.

10:15 Would you agree, if Cristina Pedotti or Christine Pedotti is correct (not sure whether she's Italian or French of Italian heritage) that Ottaviani planned dogmatising the Biblical creation account, that, if so, this would have been one change in the right direction?

Btw, §3 of Dei Verbum kind of still follows the programme of what according to this journalist was the discarded schema.

13:20 If Pope Michael was (up to his death on Aug. 2) the true Pope, if he was right that "Paul VI" was an Antipope, then the Catholic Church never did promulgate the New Mass.

14:44 One of the items pointed to when it comes to precedents for Marcel Lefebvre (I ceased to attend Holy Mass at St. Nicolas du Chardonnet only one year or so before recognising Pope Michael, I have in Sweden been a "living martyr" if that's no oxymoron for upholding "Lefebvrian theology" and been treated like an outcast, one could say like dirt, by quite a few Lefebvrians since that led me to homelessness in exile) is the case of St. Paschalis something (not Baylon, he was later) and Pope John XXII.

The latter for a time said no one (except the Blessed Virgin who's resurrected) even of the canonised saints as yet enjoys the beatific vision, they are in a kind of soul sleep (also the position of Mark of Ephesus). The saint said hereto the equivalent of "take it back or I'll withdraw my obedience" ...

The salient question, for or against SSPX is what exactly does withdrawing one's obedience mean?

Continuing to consider him Pope, but saying one has no longer to obey the Pope?
Or, significant other alternative:
ceasing to consider John XXII as Pope?

As John XXII actually changed his mind, the actions of the saint won't tell us.

But I think the latter is sounder theology.

No comments: