PC name

[PC name @senzman54]

@RalphyHeraldSun Bont will never win a Brownlow

[PC name @senzman54]

@ausgov Traitor

[PC name @senzman54]

@cleary_mitch Waste of time. Don't go anywhere near India.

[PC name @senzman54]

@JacintaAllanMP @narendramodi Thats why Victoria sucks

[PC name @senzman54]

@AngusTaylorMP @narendramodi Traitor

[PC name @senzman54]

@cleary_mitch @7NewsMelbourne @7AFL Can I have a pisstake job too?

[PC name @senzman54]

Deport Indians from Australia

[Dr. J Walter Sparkey ☀️ @hogsbreathvip82]

Did Australia make it through to the Round of 16?

No.

But did Socceroo fans show the world that Australians are laidback, good-looking and have a great sense of humour?

Also no.

[Eva's Brownies @Evabrownies420]

The longer you look at this the better it gets

[Gerónimo María Díaz @vrody_jerome_]

A lot of people have been asking me to comment on the recent consecrations that took place in Écône this past Wednesday.

Before everything, everyone who knows me and knows what my positions on the crisis of the Church and the relationship between the hierarchy and the SSPX were knows that I am deeply sorrowful that this has taken place. We have lost all the progress that we made over the past 30+ years, and we are, quite literally, back to square one. Back to 1988.

I think very few people who follow me need me to fill them in with all the background of why what took place on Wednesday took place. Thus, I will skip all the context and history. If you are unaware of why the consecrations happened, there is plenty of information on the internet about it from both sides. Just please, read and consider both sides of the issue before issuing a rash judgment on the Society.

What is very clear is that my previous conciliatory position with Rome, after yesterday, is utterly untenable. It is obvious that I have to make a decision. My personal opinion on the excommunications themselves is that they are at least doubtful, and cannot be treated as certainly binding in conscience.

There is no doubt that canon 1387 says: “Both the Bishop who, without a pontifical mandate, consecrates a person a Bishop, and the one who receives the consecration from him, incur a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See.” There is also no doubt that Pope Pius XII teaches, in Ad Apostolorum Principis, that no one may lawfully confer episcopal consecration without the mandate of the Apostolic See, and that episcopal acts requiring Orders may remain valid, but are illicit, and that they carry the penalty of an automatic excommunication.

There is, as well, no doubt that knowingly consecrating bishops against the Pope’s explicit prohibition is a public act manifesting refusal of submission in a matter that is central to the Church’s hierarchical constitution, and that it must therefore fit the definition of schism under canon law, as “the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.” Pope Leo XIV is a canon lawyer, and thus is extremely familiar with how all of this works. There is absolutely no doubt that the SSPX is excommunicated in Rome’s external forum, and that the decree is legally operative.

The central quid of the question is not that; the question is whether canon law, as positive Church law, is being applied at the wrong level. Because, having said all this, canon 1323 also says that no one is liable to penalty who acted “by reason of necessity or grave inconvenience.” And it also excuses one who, without personal fault, thought such circumstances existed. Canon 1324 further adds that even where necessity does not fully excuse, the penalty must be diminished or substituted; most importantly, in those circumstances, “the offender is not bound by a latae sententiae penalty.” So the heart of the question, therefore, becomes: “Is there a state of necessity that allows canons 1323 and 1324 to overrule the penalties that canon 1387 imposes?” I think yes.

First of all, what even is a state of necessity?
A state of necessity means that grave spiritual harm would probably follow if one obeyed the ordinary rule, and that an extraordinary act is required to preserve a higher good. It reminds me of a phenomenon that happens with service animals called “intelligent disobedience,” which, according to Wikipedia, is “when a service animal trained to help a disabled person goes directly against the owner's instructions in an effort to make a better decision. This behavior is a part of the dog's training and is central to a service animal's success on the job.” This concept is also applied to other fields, like crews of aircraft and children’s education, and a state of necessity is essentially the same principle applied to the Church. Canon law mitigates the selfsame penalties it imposes if this state of necessity indeed exists, and this intelligent disobedience has been utilized.

Now, if we ask if this state of necessity is there, the real question is: Is there really no crisis in the Church, which has been contaminated with the errors that came out of Vatican II? Even if you think that it is just about the interpretation, is there really no crisis that came out of it?

The SSPX must survive, because it must carry out its mission to preserve the Catholic faith as it was before it got contaminated by all these modern errors, so that the Church may, one day, return to its traditions. The SSPX must have bishops because it must continue forming priests without being absorbed into the conciliar system, where it could easily be corralled and suppressed. We have all seen what happened to the permission to say the TLM, and the declarations by Pope Francis that the stated goal of the Church is to eventually phase out the TLM to have only one liturgical norm. So there is no doubt that there is an institutional necessity to maintain the independence of the Society, lest the strongest remnant of Catholic tradition be suppressed, which is Rome’s STATED goal.

There can be discussions about 1988 and how the details mattered. If the archbishop was deceived by his advisors, if Ratzinger was going to stay true to his word or not. @maistrehispano has an interesting discussion about that here:

https://t.co/p799BqEDdz

But at the end of the day, these details do not matter anymore. 1988 happened, and so did 2026. The argument is the same: that we are not founding a parallel Church, nor are we separating ourselves from the Church. We are consecrating auxiliary bishops as necessary for the conferral of Holy Orders, to maintain the Society’s mission of preserving — not the only one, but definitely the strongest — remnant of Catholic Tradition.

Now, to be absolutely fair to Rome, we hold, and in fact still hold, that the Catholic Church is indefectible. And Christ did not give private groups within the Church authority to decide that Rome has failed so badly that they may create bishops against the Pope’s will. In fact, Pius XII explicitly rejected the argument that unauthorized episcopal consecrations could be excused by pastoral need in Ad Apostolorum, teaching that no one can lawfully consecrate without apostolic mandate and that such acts attack unity. And this makes perfect sense, because if every group can claim “necessity” whenever it distrusts Rome, the Church’s visible unity would collapse.

Moreover, and this is more on a personal matter of opinion before the consecrations happened, I believe 2026 lacks the same acute urgency as 1988. There were still two SSPX bishops, both under 70. I saw no reason why dialogue could not have been tried for longer. Rome had already shown a willingness to talk, and granted some pastoral concessions in the past — for free, in exchange for nothing, by the way — granting SSPX priests universal faculties for confession and providing a way for local ordinaries to grant faculties for SSPX marriages. I strongly believe that the SSPX should have waited, negotiated longer, and possibly been granted one bishop. But alas, none of this matters anymore.

However, if one accepts the traditional critique of Vatican II and all the changes that it brought with it, we have to acknowledge that the general state of necessity still exists as a whole, and the consecration of the bishops, even if imprudent at this current time, was still justifiable under the aforementioned rules of a state of necessity. The crisis itself is very acute. And it really does not seem to be getting any better. After TC, the SSPX has every right to believe Rome wants to phase out Catholic traditionalism, and that it sees it as a threat. And this simply cannot be allowed to happen, for the reasons that @espanyolatzaros very well pointed out here:

https://t.co/ahP9m5vmUI

The argument we are making is not simply pastoral. Rome itself is promoting theological novelties that threaten the Faith. This DOES create a state of necessity that excuses what would otherwise be a gravely unlawful act. And just like in 1988, the bishops have been given no jurisdiction precisely to avoid schism, as Archbishop Lefebvre clearly stated here:

https://t.co/77LOvuiUzX

The SSPX must continue to exist as a guardian of Catholic tradition, for it is this tradition that the Church must return to in order for the crisis in the Church to end. There is no other way. This really is operation survival of the tradition 2.0. And preserving an independent traditional episcopate is indispensable. So therefore, even if I believe that the state of necessity is less immediate than in 1988, that state of necessity still exists due to the continuation of the crisis in the Church, so we must invoke canon 1324 and claim that the excommunication as it is imposed in canon 1387 must not apply. The necessity for bishops is not just a pastoral concern, but one concerning the survival of the necessary traditions to resolve the crisis in the Church, so therefore the limitations Pius XII sets must also not apply.

This is my final position.

[Gunnery Sergeant Kabar @GnySgtKabar]

hands down my favorite Jackass bit

[PC name @senzman54]

@tom_davoren Stuff the Indians. I dont want them supporting the dogs.

[PC name @senzman54]

@tom_davoren I don't want to be the Indian club.

[PC name @senzman54]

@TheSaltyBulldog @RalphyHeraldSun No thanks. I will stop supporting them.

[PC name @senzman54]

@SteveWoosnam Not conflicted mate. Aus would win the world cup if it was white.

[PC name @senzman54]

@FootscraysFine1 A white Australia would win the world cup

[PC name @senzman54]

@Gatty54 A white Australia would win the world cup

[PC name @senzman54]

@AntipodeEmpire Same surname as the bloke killed by the shark off rotto

[PC name @senzman54]

@ClareONeilMP Shut up B. WEVE HAD ENOUGH.

[PC name @senzman54]

@RalphyHeraldSun How about least not get serious about this non issue.