Interesting how this argument was finally determined after this video series by the popes that followed and corrected the mistakes in the improper use of cannon law. The excommunication was lifted and the schism was lifted which makes this settled. Michael Davies’ understanding of canon law proved correct as history has already judged the matter. Neat peak into the arguments from the 90’s on this. Learned a great deal more about the canon law issues surrounding the original unlawful persecution of Lefebve.
@@andersonbush1130 comment made a year ago and just seeing your question. Back into researching this topic came across this debate to watch again. You are correct that by writing of Pope B16 the word schism wasn’t mentioned when excommunication was lifted. At the time, I saw that as a logical connection. I’m very much aware now of those who still hold onto the schism angle despite the lift of excommunication. The crisis in the church series done by the SSPX last year does a fantastic job to make a defense against these accusations. Fr. Z, Canon Lawyers, Pope Francis year of Mercy jurisdictions given are other sources giving additional clarity around this issue. Ultimately this comes down to understanding properly the Catholics official positions on the limits of infallibility defined in V1 1870 and , Thomistic principles on obedience and the use of proper reason according to the natural law and the divine positive law. According to Catholic canon law, infallibility limitations, Thomistic definition of obedience this matter has been settled and the SSPX is not in schism.
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre took the lonely path of doing something to save the Church and for that he has been insulted and ridiculed. But one day he will be exalted. "Blessed are you when they shall revile you and persecute you...untruly for my sake. Rejoice and be glad for your reward is very great in Heaven." Matt: 5
Michael Davies, whom I met several times in St Mary's Ks and also at the blessing of the stained glass windows at OLHC CHURCH in Garden Grove CA. I used to call him "St Thomas Aquinas with 5-kids". He was dying of cancer at the time. Michael Davies was an Anglican in the military, and then got married and had 5-kids. I met his daughter and son-in-law in Garden Grove CA. Michael Davies Cranmer's Godly Order, and Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre. He wrote other great books also. These other guys on the panel are not in the same intellectual class as Michael Davies.
Meh, I feel like I was getting an earful from one of the King's men. Blind obedience in the face of moral uncertainty or even moral ignorance. And then, the silent denial of crisis in the church.
The questions about the Vatican documents, that AB Levebre was supposed to conform to hte church, and submit to the council... the members of the councile were corrupt, and dissident, this whole thing is trying to prove that AB Levebve was schematic, while the council itself was schismatic.
I honestly thought both of them made good points at different parts. But Dr. Jones seemed to get condescending, sarcastic and even hateful towards the audience by the end.
I think he could feel that they were against him, normally very evil men oppose him, so it must have been hard to keep his cool with opponents, who, in this case, are very fine people
@@user-tr8hr3zk7y That is likely the case. I am certain that this is something we all have to watch out for. It too easy to become jaded and let it effect how we treat and see others.
EMJ lost the debate. A little facing at the end. I do not think he will leave the church put on a burlap robe and live as a hermit somewhere in the mountains of Idaho or Montana. He will sharpen his reasons and facts and be back.
False categories on both sides. The question isn't whether the Archbishop commited a legally schismatic act but whether there is a schism and who is in schism. I strongly recommend to make use of the ecclesiological model of the church as the mystical body of Christ to inquire into that problem. The Archbishop himself claimed that legal considerations will not help to settle the differences. He who has or at least proclaims the faith belongs rightfully to the body of Christ.
Wisdom has the ability to understand and articulate well not only one's own position but the positions opposed to it, and such excellence is shown by articulating the opponent's points and thesis according to the satisfaction of the opponent: one man says, "X," the other says, "In other words, you mean X', yes?" which the first either affirms or denies. This hardly ever happened in the whole course of the debate until 46:07 - that is, on the cusp of the end of it all. They just kept talking past one another for most of the rebuttals and panel questions. Blame it on the jet lag, I guess. But unfortunately this lack of wisdom in action has rendered this debate less than conclusive for me because, despite being rapturously engaging (particularly after Traditionis Custodes), the interlocutors were rather disengaged from one another, and thus the main question was also less than adequately engaged.
Interesting how this argument was finally determined after this video series by the popes that followed and corrected the mistakes in the improper use of cannon law. The excommunication was lifted and the schism was lifted which makes this settled. Michael Davies’ understanding of canon law proved correct as history has already judged the matter. Neat peak into the arguments from the 90’s on this. Learned a great deal more about the canon law issues surrounding the original unlawful persecution of Lefebve.
What do you mean by “the schism was lifted?” That’s different than an excommunication.
@@andersonbush1130 comment made a year ago and just seeing your question. Back into researching this topic came across this debate to watch again. You are correct that by writing of Pope B16 the word schism wasn’t mentioned when excommunication was lifted. At the time, I saw that as a logical connection.
I’m very much aware now of those who still hold onto the schism angle despite the lift of excommunication. The crisis in the church series done by the SSPX last year does a fantastic job to make a defense against these accusations. Fr. Z, Canon Lawyers, Pope Francis year of Mercy jurisdictions given are other sources giving additional clarity around this issue. Ultimately this comes down to understanding properly the Catholics official positions on the limits of infallibility defined in V1 1870 and , Thomistic principles on obedience and the use of proper reason according to the natural law and the divine positive law. According to Catholic canon law, infallibility limitations, Thomistic definition of obedience this matter has been settled and the SSPX is not in schism.
Well said, couldn't agree more!
Thank you for posting. EMJ's writings convinced me to return to the Catholuc church, but SSPX will hopefully keep me on track to heaven.
SSPX will bring you to hell
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre took the lonely path of doing something to save the Church and for that he has been insulted and ridiculed. But one day he will be exalted. "Blessed are you when they shall revile you and persecute you...untruly for my sake. Rejoice and be glad for your reward is very great in Heaven." Matt: 5
Michael Davies, whom I met several times in St Mary's Ks and also at the blessing of the stained glass windows at OLHC CHURCH in Garden Grove CA. I used to call him "St Thomas Aquinas with 5-kids". He was dying of cancer at the time. Michael Davies was an Anglican in the military, and then got married and had 5-kids. I met his daughter and son-in-law in Garden Grove CA. Michael Davies Cranmer's Godly Order, and Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre. He wrote other great books also. These other guys on the panel are not in the same intellectual class as Michael Davies.
It's wonderful watching this after then Cardinal Ratzinger became Pope and lifted the excommunications.
EMJ made a good argument in the video of the beginning of this event. But he made a fool of himself here.
indeed. Simply rhetoric without any substance.
Thanks for uploading this. The whole thing is very thoughtful and instructive.
Abp Marcel is a saint to be.
Meh, I feel like I was getting an earful from one of the King's men. Blind obedience in the face of moral uncertainty or even moral ignorance. And then, the silent denial of crisis in the church.
The questions about the Vatican documents, that AB Levebre was supposed to conform to hte church, and submit to the council... the members of the councile were corrupt, and dissident, this whole thing is trying to prove that AB Levebve was schematic, while the council itself was schismatic.
The bishops (and not all of these) were schismatics. The Council was not and cannot be so by definition.
Dr Jones started sounding as annoying as Luke Skywalker in A New Hope.
the third panelist was good. He is right. Dr Jones was vague, imprecise, and convoluted.
Because hes humble.
He's got u by the Truth.
I honestly thought both of them made good points at different parts. But Dr. Jones seemed to get condescending, sarcastic and even hateful towards the audience by the end.
I think he could feel that they were against him, normally very evil men oppose him, so it must have been hard to keep his cool with opponents, who, in this case, are very fine people
@@user-tr8hr3zk7y That is likely the case. I am certain that this is something we all have to watch out for. It too easy to become jaded and let it effect how we treat and see others.
Inspired by the Holy Spirit. Ave Maria.
Ferrara smoked Jones twice.
EMJ lost the debate. A little facing at the end. I do not think he will leave the church put on a burlap robe and live as a hermit somewhere in the mountains of Idaho or Montana. He will sharpen his reasons and facts and be back.
9:30, lmao owned.
Thus appears to be a old recording yes?
I’m assuming 1998 based on clues from the content
1993
Yes, it must be 1993 because that's the year Jones published an article modestly titled "How I Won the Debate."
Dr EM Jones as a young man
What was the ultimate purpose of this debate?
Whether the SSPX is in schism or not
Title of the video.
False categories on both sides. The question isn't whether the Archbishop commited a legally schismatic act but whether there is a schism and who is in schism.
I strongly recommend to make use of the ecclesiological model of the church as the mystical body of Christ to inquire into that problem. The Archbishop himself claimed that legal considerations will not help to settle the differences. He who has or at least proclaims the faith belongs rightfully to the body of Christ.
It's a miracle EMJ had any kind of career after this car crash. If the man had any shame he would've went into exile
Wisdom has the ability to understand and articulate well not only one's own position but the positions opposed to it, and such excellence is shown by articulating the opponent's points and thesis according to the satisfaction of the opponent: one man says, "X," the other says, "In other words, you mean X', yes?" which the first either affirms or denies.
This hardly ever happened in the whole course of the debate until 46:07 - that is, on the cusp of the end of it all. They just kept talking past one another for most of the rebuttals and panel questions. Blame it on the jet lag, I guess.
But unfortunately this lack of wisdom in action has rendered this debate less than conclusive for me because, despite being rapturously engaging (particularly after Traditionis Custodes), the interlocutors were rather disengaged from one another, and thus the main question was also less than adequately engaged.
This is YOUR opinion. Many others including myself didn’t see it that way. There was one that talked past the other and it wasn’t Mr. Davies.
I just wish Michael Davies would shut up and stop interjecting while Michael Jones is talking.