Entropy

The pope should take disciplinary action and mandate a 10 year ban on all Latin Masses. In order to test the loyalty of his people.

@hawiaancovefe @JohnTraddington looks like someone found they can't make a point so they wanted to have the last word

@hawiaancovefe @JohnTraddington Yes, the church taught us what's the ultimate necessity, the salvation of souls and preservation of doctrine. When the SSPX appeals to necessity, they're not creating one, they're simply referring to it and acting accordingly

Why are Groypers so committed to the Novus Ordo?

@hawiaancovefe @JohnTraddington Well now you're just going in circles, you already made that exact point and I showed how it contradicts the very point of canon 1323

@entropyboi @JohnTraddington thats you inserting our very human logic into the matter. the Supreme Authority on this matter is Rome. Rome has already rejected the idea that your consecrations are necessary. therefore you are actively going against the Church.

@hawiaancovefe @JohnTraddington When did I say "nuh uh"? how do I deserve excommunication according to my own logic?

@entropyboi @JohnTraddington your mental gymnastics are utterly astounding. you literally look at the canon law as it is plainly written and say "nuh uh". by your own logic you deserve excommunication.

@hawiaancovefe @JohnTraddington Who else could decide what compels someone to act other than the subject who is being compelled to act? What determines the non-liability of the subject is their subjective understanding of necessity, otherwise it wouldn't clarify that the threat can be relative

@entropyboi @JohnTraddington it doesnt say that you decide the relevance of the situation, thats you inserting into the law.

@hawiaancovefe @JohnTraddington Brother all I did was point out you made an odd interpretation of canon law. Now you're just shifting to a different accusation because you're finding your position (referring to the law) defeats itself

@entropyboi @JohnTraddington no, Excommunication is a inner religious penalty that shows one has made the open choice to go against the Church. you sure are legalistic for being so wrong.

@timelessfaithh As an sspx loyalist, i see this from time to time but focus on not letting the small deviations affect my perception of the good works of the society

I'm definitely not painting them all with the same brush, but in my personal experience, all the SSPX-loyalists I knew acted very pharisee-like, with the exception of one.

@hawiaancovefe @JohnTraddington @RichardJKimblee What? Excommunication is one of the legal sanctions used by canon law. You literally cited the canon law too

@entropyboi @JohnTraddington @RichardJKimblee "well you see they can't excommunicate us because we would only recognize it as a legal issue." Lol enjoy the boot, lad.

@hawiaancovefe @JohnTraddington @RichardJKimblee It literally clarifies that the compulsion that moves the subject to act can be relative, it doesn't get any more clear than that

@entropyboi @JohnTraddington @RichardJKimblee Again, this does not in any shape or form state that YOU or any organization decides what is grave or necessary.

@hawiaancovefe @JohnTraddington @RichardJKimblee Can. 1323/4: "acted under the compulsion of grave fear, even if only relative, or by reason of necessity or grave inconvenience, unless, however, the act is intrinsically evil or tends to be harmful to souls" are you serious?

@entropyboi @JohnTraddington @RichardJKimblee Canon 1323 does not say that you yourself or any individual organ of the church decides what is grave or morally necessary. that you inserting into the law.

@hawiaancovefe @JohnTraddington @RichardJKimblee You seem to be interpreting canon canon 1013 as "pontifical mandate is a condition for the validity of the consecration". If that's the case, you're just making it up, because the article refers to legal procedure, not sacramental validity

@entropyboi @JohnTraddington @RichardJKimblee The Canon Law on the Consecration of Bishops state that the pontifical mandate is the only acceptable path for the consecration of a new bishop. no exception exist within the law, you are just inserting one.

@hawiaancovefe @JohnTraddington @RichardJKimblee Canon 1323 applies to the entirety of canon law. Why would you expect each individual article to clarify it's exceptions? that's obviously not how the law works

@entropyboi @JohnTraddington @RichardJKimblee and the Canon specifically about the consectration of bishops (1013) contains no exceptions for self declared necessity, so as far as im concerned, you're literally just making up a crisis.

@hawiaancovefe @JohnTraddington @RichardJKimblee Ofc they don't decide what the church needs. They just recognize it and act accordingly.

@entropyboi @JohnTraddington @RichardJKimblee again SSPX does not have this authority, they cannot decide what is necessary for the whole church without the Bishop of Rome and they do not get to decide what laws they get to ignore.

@hawiaancovefe @JohnTraddington @RichardJKimblee That claim you just made defeats the whole point of the article I mentioned. If the canon law is accurate, what you said can't be true. So which is it?

@entropyboi @JohnTraddington @RichardJKimblee The Pope alone is the ultimate Judge of Necessity when it comes to mandates and processions. this is literally the long instated trust put within the Papal office. a Tradition you are so willingly throwing away. you need to prove its a grave necessity, and no such proof exists.

@hawiaancovefe @JohnTraddington @RichardJKimblee You're missing the point, i'm not framing it as some sort of debate. Like I said, the canon law article I mentioned considers THE CONSCIENCE of the subject, not their arguments.

@entropyboi @JohnTraddington @RichardJKimblee Well actually the burden of proof is on you since you're claiming that there is a grave necessity in some way. to prove that, you need to show NO is both deviant, and that the TLM is somehow free from those same deviancies.

@hawiaancovefe @JohnTraddington @RichardJKimblee provide the faithful*

@hawiaancovefe @JohnTraddington @RichardJKimblee There is grave necessity to preserve catholic tradition, it's sacraments and doctrine, and to prove the faithful with reverent liturgy. The society can't fulfill this necessity with no new bishops, so they need to consecrate. If you disagree you'll have to convince them, because

@hawiaancovefe @JohnTraddington @RichardJKimblee Bishops have authority to consecrate bishops, I think you're trying to say they need papal approval. But canon law establishes that a person who acts from grave moral necessity suffer no legitimate penalty (can. 1323/4)

@entropyboi @JohnTraddington @RichardJKimblee SSPX has no authority to consecrate Bishops, under Canon law any attempt to do so is an act of schism