No Sunburst don't worry. This argument has nothing to do with AL or the divorced receiving Holy Communion. The divorced and remarried are not excommunicated at all. They are simply living in a state of sin. That is not a legal state it is a moral state.
Any illicitly ordained bishop can always consecrate validly. If he does so though he merely does so illicitly (illegally). I am sure that before someone is made a bishop they would be baptized. This could all be done at once, for example someone could be baptized, made a deacon, priest and bishop right in a row. If memory serves this was done with some lay people who were elected Pope. They first had to be baptized and ordained, etc. The Church can also perform conditional baptisms and possibly ordinations in case there was some problem or question about the initial sacraments being performed properly. Any valid consecration requires three things. The proper form, matter, and intention. The form is using the correct words, etc. The matter is the proper bread and wine (you can't use fruit juice etc.), and the proper intention means that the minister intends to "do what the Church does" meaning he actually intends to confect the sacrament. This is a tricky matter that theologians disagree on. In the early Church it was assumed that to "do what the Church does" and have the proper intention was purely to perform the Consecration properly. Today though it is the more common thought among theologians that a minister must have an inner intention to consecrate. This is very problematic for the person in the pew because it is very possible that not only the Chinese bishops, but many bishops and priests worldwide have no such intention. Many may not even believe in actual Transubstantiation. So this is a problem that goes far beyond China. If this interpretation of needing an inner intention is correct than many people may not be receiving the Body and Blood of Our Lord.
SG, as I stated in my post I am not stating you (or anyone else) are in schism. You would need to talk with a good priest about that. Schism is one of the most serious states one can be in so if there is any question then we should seek help immediately. I know a lot about this because I thought perhaps I was in schism at one point and so I researched it and went to talk with a good traditional priest about it.
I unfortunately have not taken the time to adequately read up on and understand the current Chinese bishop issue, so I apologize if the question I have has already been covered multiple times over. Do the recent Communist Chinese bishop appointments have apostolic succession? I'm assuming that they don't.
Yes. Any valid bishop must have apostolic succession along with the other requirements. If there are any irregularities among any bishop or priest then they are always rectified before the clergyman is regularized within the Church. This is standard practice and happens whether the person is coming into the Church from Protestantism, Orthodoxy or is in some other schismatic situation as these bishops were.
Yes a Bishop is a Bishop not because he is licit or illicit but simply because he is a Bishop . Al lit requires is the laying on of hands in the Apostolic Succession. As far as obedience goes we have the words of Christ Himself: Matthew 23:2 Woes to Scribes and Pharisees 1Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to His disciples: 2“The scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3So practice and observe everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.… So Jesus was telling the disciples to be obedient to the folks who murdered Him. Of course we are not bound to follow these people when they tell us to do evil, but otherwise , apart from this we are bound to obey the people who are lawfully set over us.
I think in a way what is being tested here is our humility. It is much easier to submit to a bishop or other superior who is likeable and very orthodox. It is very difficult to submit to someone who does not possess those qualities. Still it is like the general in the army. He may be a jerk, he may not follow the regulations, and he may treat us badly, but he is still our lawful authority until he is removed from his post. And if he tells us we need to scrub toilets all day then that is what we have to do. Now if he tells us to put our gun to our temple and kill ourselves that would be an unlawful order and we would not have to follow it. The situation is not that dissimilar here.
Yes, it cuts to the ultimate mystery of our Catholic and Apostolic Faith. That we, like Jesus be Obedient, even unto death as He was. This is very Marian as it was through the Obedience of Mary's , 'Let it be done unto me according to thy will' That was the Great Gateway to our Salvation. Just as it was the disobedience of our first Parents that brought about our fall.
Dolours, I just came across the following article which is a follow up to the one that you posted above. This aritcle is from 2/7/2018 but I don't believe that it has been posted yet and it is worth reading, imho. As you stated, it is like a parallel or alternate universe and it so strange. Don’t look to China for an example of Catholic social teaching by Philip Booth posted Wednesday, 7 Feb 2018 http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/com...a-for-an-example-of-catholic-social-teaching/ President Xi Jinping (AP) China's regime denies freedom of conscience, oppresses religion and disregards the right to life Bishop Marcelo Sorondo is Chancellor of the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences, so we should sit up and take notice when he says: “Right now, those who are best implementing the social doctrine of the Church are the Chinese”. It has to be said that this is a puzzling remark. It is especially puzzling in that he argued that one of the attractions of the Chinese approach is that the economy does not dominate politics – unlike in the US. But, the Bishop himself elevates economic matters over other aspects of the social and political order which are surely far more important. Catholic social teaching demands freedom of conscience, freedom of association and the protection of life from conception until natural death. These are not optional extras and nor are they part of the moral teaching of the Church outside its social teaching. These aspects of the Church’s social teaching are fundamental because they have an impact on education, healthcare and the whole structure of political and civil society as well as on economic and social relationships. It has to be said that China does not score very well in these areas. Aid to the Church in Need’s report on persecution in China begins: “New regulations led to more churches destroyed and crosses pulled down. Threat of more restrictive legislation. Surveillance has grown. House Churches under increased pressure to conform or disband.” The level of persecution is described as “extreme” and the situation “worsening”. If the political structures are not facilitating freedom of conscience and freedom of worship, still less freedom in education choices for parents, the government has turned its back totally on Catholic social teaching. Indeed, there is no sense in which a civil society culture in China is nourished. Furthermore, what Pope John Paul II described as the “culture of death” is more obvious than signs of religious values informing political decision making. Although the one-child policy has been relaxed, there are still limits on the number of pregnancies and significant state intervention in the whole process of childbearing. The consequences of the previous one-child policy, with the mass murder of babies in the womb simply because they were female, will be felt for decades to come as the population ages. The fact is that the government in China requires allegiance to the state rather than creating the conditions in which all can reach fulfilment (including in their relationship with God) as the Church demands. When it comes to Catholic social teaching, it fails at first base. Ironically, given Sorondo’s remarks, it is in the matter of the economy that the government has done better. China has moved from being a country where millions starved and millions more were malnourished to a more liberal economy in which prosperity for most is possible. As normally happens when countries become more prosperous, environmental indicators have also now begun to improve. There is more to the story than this and the state is always in the background, if not the foreground of economic life, but these developments since 1978 are to be welcomed. It is, indeed, the liberalism which Sorondo decries that has led both to the economic and to the environmental improvements. Bishop Sorondo commented: “What people don’t realise is that the central value in China is work, work, work. There’s no other way, fundamentally it is like St Paul said: he who doesn’t work, doesn’t eat.” Fair enough, but it is the liberalisation of the economy that has allowed those who work to eat more. As we have noted, the Bishop would like the economy not to dominate politics. Certainly, we should beware of vested interests using the political system for their own benefit. But it is also not for the political system to dominate economics, still less to be intertwined with it. Unfortunately, this is the way of most South American countries (Sorondo is Argentinian) and of China. It is not surprising given this background that China languishes in indices of transparency and corruption roughly in the same position as South American countries and in an altogether worse position than the US. If China were a football team, it would be in the bottom half of the bottom division of the anti-corruption league: the US would be in the premiership. The problem with Bishop Sorondo is that he seems to have a rather reductionist view of Catholic social teaching. It all boils down to climate change and Sorondo is praising China’s actions in that respect. However, another principle of Catholic social teaching is that actions speak louder than words (though words are important too). Sorondo berates the US for not signing up to climate treaties. Maybe so, but whilst China has increased carbon emissions they have been reduced by 20 per cent per capita in the US between 2005 and 2017, though it should be said that emissions may well be falling in China at the current time. Sorondo seems influenced by what China says it will do in relation to one policy area. This does not surprise me. When I spoke at a conference with him in December 2015, he would brook no opposition to his strong support for and collaboration with Jeffrey Sachs and seemed to be unwilling to engage in any intellectual debate about issues to do with the environment. It is a pity to have to say this, but whatever strand of Catholic social teaching the Chinese government is modelled on, it would not have been recognisable to St Thomas Aquinas, Leo XIII or John Paul II. Indeed, given the emphasis that Pope Francis puts on life issues and on corruption in government, I am not sure it would be recognisable to his boss.
I think most folks here are more concerned with receiving the Truth and valid sacraments than whether or not they might personally be in what some might think is “schism.” If my mom hadn’t gone into emergency surgery Sunday, I was scheduled to attend Mass at an SSPX Chapel with friends followed by lunch, and I would have done so, including receiving Communion, without any concerns about the catcalls of “schism!” the SSPX community continually suffers. As the Church continues to collapse and this regime’s attacks on Tradition and the TLM widen, I suspect I will find myself forced to visit the SSPX Chapel more often. I’ve only ever once attended an SSPX mass but I no longer have any scruples whatsoever about doing so. My scruples now tend towards whether the local Novus Ordo priest accepts this pope’s schismatic/heretical position on Communion for the divorced and remarried and his other documented heresies like the idea there are “exceptions” to what the Church teaches is intrinsically evil in Humanae Vitae.
We all make our own choices. And I was not catcalling "schism" as you put it. In fact in the very post you cited I went out of my way to state that I was NOT stating that any particular person was or is in schism. That is not a call for me to make, though we are all allowed to judge outward actions. My goal was to attempt to enlighten people to the Church's perennial teachings. The teachings don't change because we are in difficult times. By the way I never declared the SSPX are in schism. They are in a canonically irregular state, supposedly working with Rome to clear up any difficulties. In short they are in a mess. My citing the SSPX bishops in my posts was to show that the indeed did have validly ordained bishops.
It's to early to concern ourselves about schism, unless you are going to mass with a priest that is professed within schism. Best follow the lead of holy cardinals, bishops and priests who are not bailing ship at this point. Stay the faith, keep the doctrines and as St. Pio said, pray, trust and don't worry.
It is always too early to talk about schism. Breaking with Rome is never the answer though those who do often feel justified in doing so. The Church has been through many dark nights and surely this is the worst. During the Arian crisis something like 90-95% of the Church hierarchy were heretics preaching a false Gospel. The answer then wasn't to leave the Church and that isn't the answer now.
Honestly, I’m so rushed for time right now, I hadn’t read through all these responses completely. When I made the comment about the SSPX, it was not in reference to you or to anything you had said. I didn’t realize you had even mentioned the SSPX while I was quickly scanning posts, so please don’t assume my comments were directed at you personally. I had to drive home from the Pittsburgh hospital to do laundry and pick up some other things to take back with me today. During my two hour drive, I had a lot of time to think. And I think I need to completely unplug as soon as mom comes home, from the smart phone (frankly, from any cell phone), the internet, everything. I’ll take care of my mom as long as necessary, but when she finally goes home to The Lord, I just want access to a daily and Sunday Traditional Latin Mass and regular Adoration. If it’s with a religious order that celebrates the hours of the Divine Office daily, all the better. I have no roots left anywhere and I’ll move wherever I have to in order to find such a place, even if it’s SSPX. That’s all I desire now.
Maybe we have two different understandings of excommunication Praetorian? Latae sententiae Latae sententiae is a Latin phrase, meaning "sentence (already) passed", used in the canon law of the Catholic Church. A latae sententiae penalty is one that follows ipso facto or automatically, by force of the law itself, when a law is contravened. Latae sententiae - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latae_sententiae It generally means 'automatic excommunication'. Most people conceive of excommunication as something that happens to people, rather than something they do to themselves. That form of excommunication indeed happens (it recently happened when the Pope excommunicated an Australian priest), but is relatively rare. You cannot expect the Pope or the church to look at all our lives and make sure nobody does something naughty. Thus, latae sententiae came to be, which means excommunication that does not need an 'act' excommunicating them. Literally, the term means 'done excommunication' or 'excommunication as it is', as opposed to excommunication that has to be pronounced. A significant difference is that excommunication latae sententiae happens from the moment of the act onwards (meaning that for instance certain ecclesiastical acts become invalid but sometimes licit) while excommunication ferende sententiae takes effect upon pronouncement, regardless of when the offence has been committed. For reference, Canon 1314 describes the difference between the effect of latae sententiae and ferende sententiae. Also, to clarify, it is procuring an abortion (i.e. it includes the person carrying it out and many more) and any use of force against the Pontiff. Also note that latae sententiae is not so much a form of excommunication but rather a general criminal doctrine of Canon law, meaning it applies to other forms of punishment, for instance some acts attract a latae sententiae interdict (Canon 1370§). Other things that incur latae sententiae excommunication include: heresy/schism, as well as the offence generally known as 'profanation of the Host' (throwing away a consecrated Host or retaining it for a sacrilegious purpose), which is regarded as an offence against God directly. Canon 915, one of the canons in the current Code of Canon Law of the Latin Church of the Catholic Church, forbids the administration of Holy Communion to those upon whom the penalty of excommunication or interdict has been imposed or declared or who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin: Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.[1] The corresponding canon in the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, which binds members of the Eastern Catholic Churches, reads, "The publicly unworthy are to be kept from the reception of the Divine Eucharist
I am not out to personally attack you Praetorian, and I am sorry that I made you feel that way. This crisis in our beloved Church needs to be addressed boldly and honestly, with only one aim - to be faithful to Jesus Christ and the Truth as revealed by Him. The scandalous plan of Pope Francis to abandon the faithful Catholics in China to the wolves in the Communist government and in the Patriotic Church has very serious ramifications for the faithful there and for the Catholic Church as a whole. This argument, to me, doesn't hold water. As Padraig said: Imho, the moment is already here. This 'deal' with Communist China and the patriotic church forces the underground Catholics to choose between the real Church and false church. I really feel for them. Is there any doubt that the patriotic church and all those forced to joint them will not submit to the authority of the Holy See but only to the Communist government? They will not have any option when they join the Patriotic church. That church already contradicts Catholic teaching.
