Your comment that "canon law as real law that binds everyone in the Church," reminded me of the Biden years when many bishops and cardinals stated forcefully that they would not obey canon 915 which says that "those who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to communion."
So much for "everyone" and there were no adverse consequences for any of them.
Thank you for sharing the SSPX article. I have been troubled from the beginning with the feeling/wish that they had not consecrated the bishops because "schism" is such a sad and dangerous state for the Church to be in. However, I was very disturbed by the Vatican response, especially the "path back" which included some sort of statement of allegiance to a particular paragraph of a document from a Council that proclaimed itself to be not concerning doctrine, but to be pastoral in nature. They did not articulate exactly what truth that paragraph was supposed to have taught, just that we all must agree with the whole thing, as written. I have yet to hear from anyone what particular doctrine the SSPX has denied and what doctine I must hold so as not to be in schism with them. If I read their statement of faith I find nothing with which I disagree, though I have never attended an SSPX liturgy, nor do I intend to. Does that make me schismatic?
Anyway, after reading the article I have come to think they had no choice. To back off would be to deny the state of necessity which they claim exists, and which is apparent to anyone who looks, AND, as you have said, has not disappeared with their separation. In retrospect, this so-called schism may be what saves the Church in the long run.
Reading the brownstone article reminded me of a GK Chesterton Father Brown story called “The Sign of the Broken Sword”. He asks Flambeau where a wise man hides a leaf (in a forest) or where he hides a pebble (on a beach). Then he asks, what if you don’t have a forest? Then you grow one. It seems that Fauci tried to grow a forest to hide his part in spreading COVID. I was amazed at the length people will go to hide their guilt. So disappointing and revealing reading this article with that story in mind.
Always appreciate your open tabs! You find the best stuff!
Your comment that "canon law as real law that binds everyone in the Church," reminded me of the Biden years when many bishops and cardinals stated forcefully that they would not obey canon 915 which says that "those who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to communion."
So much for "everyone" and there were no adverse consequences for any of them.
This is the first time I’ve seen this connection made. Great point.
Thank you for sharing the SSPX article. I have been troubled from the beginning with the feeling/wish that they had not consecrated the bishops because "schism" is such a sad and dangerous state for the Church to be in. However, I was very disturbed by the Vatican response, especially the "path back" which included some sort of statement of allegiance to a particular paragraph of a document from a Council that proclaimed itself to be not concerning doctrine, but to be pastoral in nature. They did not articulate exactly what truth that paragraph was supposed to have taught, just that we all must agree with the whole thing, as written. I have yet to hear from anyone what particular doctrine the SSPX has denied and what doctine I must hold so as not to be in schism with them. If I read their statement of faith I find nothing with which I disagree, though I have never attended an SSPX liturgy, nor do I intend to. Does that make me schismatic?
Anyway, after reading the article I have come to think they had no choice. To back off would be to deny the state of necessity which they claim exists, and which is apparent to anyone who looks, AND, as you have said, has not disappeared with their separation. In retrospect, this so-called schism may be what saves the Church in the long run.
Reading the brownstone article reminded me of a GK Chesterton Father Brown story called “The Sign of the Broken Sword”. He asks Flambeau where a wise man hides a leaf (in a forest) or where he hides a pebble (on a beach). Then he asks, what if you don’t have a forest? Then you grow one. It seems that Fauci tried to grow a forest to hide his part in spreading COVID. I was amazed at the length people will go to hide their guilt. So disappointing and revealing reading this article with that story in mind.
Always appreciate your open tabs! You find the best stuff!
Thank you! You’re so right about Fauci 😖