P
ProVobis
Guest
Interesting points.
It seems the same goes for independent chapels, as well, where many of the priests are not suspended but don’t have faculties to hear confessions by the local bishop.
- Status
It seems the same goes for independent chapels, as well, where many of the priests are not suspended but don’t have faculties to hear confessions by the local bishop.
J
JReducation
Guest
They’re in two very different situations.
- We Catholics have no right to dictate to the Orthodox. Legally, they are not bound to the Catholic Church. The SSPX professes to be Catholic. Therefore, the Holy See has every right to dictate to them as it would to Opus Dei.
- The Orthodox have never been accused of teaching error. That is not correct. The Orthodox have always rejected the Catholic explanation for purgatory, the Immaculate Conception and papal infallibility. Refusing to accept something is not the same as teaching error. In this, the SSPX and they are in the same boat. The both refuse to accept certain points; but they do not say something to the contrary. John Henry Newman explains this problem very clearly in his writing The Development of Doctrine. I strongly suggest that those who have not read it do so. It would help to understand these differences.
- The fact that a council does not promulgate dogma does not make it any less authoritative or less significant. At the end of the day, pastoral care is the mission of the Church. Vatican II was about pastoral care, something that had not been addressed in council by the Church. In addition, the Council did base many of its positions on doctrines and dogmas. It also made some very important statements about the Church’s place in the modern world, which cannot be swept under the rug. The Church does have a place in the modern world. If the world is changing, the Church’s place is going to have to be redefined so that the world can understand her place. We’re not redefining the Church, but we are redefining her relationship to the world and how she goes about that relationship. These are not light matters. In addition, there were two doctrinal statements that came out of Vatican II. The first is that decree on Sacred Scripture. This had never been stated before, though we have always believed it. The second was quite novel. It was Vatican II that first refers to Mary as Mother of the Church. Again, this was something that was believed, but the Church had never put its stamp of approval on it.
The relationship between the bishops was more clearly defined than ever before, thanks to John Henry Newman’s writings. The principle of collegiality among the bishops comes from his influence.
This was a modest council, but certainly not one that we can simply say was unimportant because it did not define dogma. Dogma is only one part of the faith. Church infrastructure, the Church in the world, internal relations and pastoral care occupy a major part of the life of the Church. Popes and bishops don’t spend their days dwelling on dogma. They do spend their days dealing with these other issues.
I beg to differ. To say that it has no meaning is a hug disrespect toward the authority of the Church. Everything that the Holy See, a diocesan bishop or a major superior of men does has major meaning, because it has ramifications and it sends a message. Where do we get the authority to be so dismissive of suspension imposed by those who have apostolic authority to suspend? When did we become a Magisterium or a hierarchy?
A suspension means that the priest cannot absolve from sin unless the person is in danger of death and there is no one else to absolve him. It means that he cannot witness a marriage. It means that he cannot preach in any parish, teach theology at any Catholic school of theology. It means that he cannot hold any office in the Church. It means that he cannot exercise authority over the faithful. If he’s a bishop, it means that the faithful do not owe him obedience, because he has no canonical place in the Church.
Sounds like a lot of meaning to me. If you wish to argue that the suspension is unfair or that it’s an overkill or whatever, that’s fine. But don’t ever go around telling others, Catholics or non-Catholics that it’s meaningless. Because, what you’re telling them is that they are free to ignore the voice of authority. You would be encouraging dissent, which I don’t think is what you wanted to say. I hope not.
The law of the Church is very simple. The Holy Father, a bishop, and a male religious superior can suspend any clergyman under his jurisdiction for any reason. It need not be a sin. As I always like to say, you can be suspended because the person in authority does not like the color of your toothbrush and the suspension sticks unless you appeal it and the Holy Father lifts it. However, when the Holy Father approves it, there is no appeal beyond him.
J
JReducation
Guest
We have a wonderful example in Franciscan history. We had a General Superior named Brother Elias. He was the canonically elected successor to St. Francis. Francis was already dead. However, in his teachings, Francis had ruled that no one, not even his successors was allowed to disagree with him under penalty of everything short of death.
Elias decided to put it to the test. He authorized changes to the rules on poverty. The Vicar General stepped up and relieved Elias of his command. Elias committed no sin and broke no canon. He simply disagreed with Francis strict interpretation on poverty. Elias would not recant. The same Vicar General pressed charges against Elias and Elias was suspended for disagreeing with Francis. He continued to disagree. The Vicar General, who was now in command, proceeded to push for an excommunication. Elias was excommunicated as a heretic for disagreeing with Francis’ position on poverty. His vows were annulled, he was dismissed from both the religious life and the clerical state. At the end, he recanted. He was allowed to return to the Church. However, the new General Superior refused to lift the suspension and refused to allow him to renew his vows on the grounds that he had disagreed with the founder once. The Church upheld it and Elias died a penitent man, but outside of the order and unable ever to celebrate the sacraments in public. There are other precedents for suspensions that have nothing to do with morals or dogma, but are for purely disciplinary reasons. They stick and they Church takes them very seriously.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF :christmastree1:
Elias decided to put it to the test. He authorized changes to the rules on poverty. The Vicar General stepped up and relieved Elias of his command. Elias committed no sin and broke no canon. He simply disagreed with Francis strict interpretation on poverty. Elias would not recant. The same Vicar General pressed charges against Elias and Elias was suspended for disagreeing with Francis. He continued to disagree. The Vicar General, who was now in command, proceeded to push for an excommunication. Elias was excommunicated as a heretic for disagreeing with Francis’ position on poverty. His vows were annulled, he was dismissed from both the religious life and the clerical state. At the end, he recanted. He was allowed to return to the Church. However, the new General Superior refused to lift the suspension and refused to allow him to renew his vows on the grounds that he had disagreed with the founder once. The Church upheld it and Elias died a penitent man, but outside of the order and unable ever to celebrate the sacraments in public. There are other precedents for suspensions that have nothing to do with morals or dogma, but are for purely disciplinary reasons. They stick and they Church takes them very seriously.
If you are a Catholic priest, you must have faculties from the bishop of the diocese to hear confessions in his diocese. It makes no difference whether your are suspended or not, whether you are regular or secular. There are only two exceptions.
- If said chapel belongs to an exempt religious orders, such as the Jesuits, the major superior can grant any priest faculties to hear confessions in that chapel, but only the confessions of those people who fall under the authority of the major superior.
- If you are a priest of Opus Dei (Society of the Holy Cross), because they are a personal prelature of the pope. The pope grants them universal faculties.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF :christmastree1:
G
giuseppeTO
Guest
Au contrare, the SSPX was not allowed to offer Mass at St. Peter’s prior to 2005.
Thank you for that. You have confirmed something that I had expected but is usually (vehemently) denied by my FSSP friends. I will cut and paste this into many emails.
Tsk, tsk. Brother. In the several years since I’ve known you electronically, you have never compared our Bishops and myself, an SSPX tertiary, to “brats”. You may have some trouble from Santa.
J
JReducation
Guest
That, I have no idea why not.
Don’t go quoting me. I’m not an authoritative source. I can only tell you what friends of these other groups say. If you want to know with 100% accuracy, ask them directly, not their followers, but the institutes themselves.
In any case, what difference does it make if they do concelebrate or just attend with a group of young people from their parish? If they are Catholic priests they can do so. It does not change the situation for the SSPX.
Hey, I’m telling you what it looks like to those in authority. Notice, no one called them heretics or some horrible name. We have to get real here. When a group argues and argues a point over and over again and the pope goes out of his way to hear them out and they keep arguing, others are going to say that they’re ranting.
Whether they see themselves as ranting or not, it’s a whole other story. I may know that I’m screaming because my tummy hurts. My neighbor just knows that I’m disturbing the peace and he can’t sleep. One has to look at both sides of the picture, not just the side of the SSPX. What does it look like to them and what doe is look like to those who are not them. Then you have a complete picture.
Put me back on Santa’s nice list.
I’m not picking on the SSPX.Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF :christmastree1:
B
Boulder257
Guest
As always brother you are a breath of fresh air who continues to promote truth in the fact of misunderstanding, personal preference, and false teaching. I am so glad you are here.That, I have no idea why not.
Don’t go quoting me. I’m not an authoritative source. I can only tell you what friends of these other groups say. If you want to know with 100% accuracy, ask them directly, not their followers, but the institutes themselves.
In any case, what difference does it make if they do concelebrate or just attend with a group of young people from their parish? If they are Catholic priests they can do so. It does not change the situation for the SSPX.
Hey, I’m telling you what it looks like to those in authority. Notice, no one called them heretics or some horrible name. We have to get real here. When a group argues and argues a point over and over again and the pope goes out of his way to hear them out and they keep arguing, others are going to say that they’re ranting.
Whether they see themselves as ranting or not, it’s a whole other story. I may know that I’m screaming because my tummy hurts. My neighbor just knows that I’m disturbing the peace and he can’t sleep. One has to look at both sides of the picture, not just the side of the SSPX. What does it look like to them and what doe is look like to those who are not them. Then you have a complete picture.
Put me back on Santa’s nice list.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF :christmastree1:
G
giuseppeTO
Guest
Apology graciously accepted.Put me back on Santa’s nice list.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF :christmastree1:
Merry Christmas, Bro J
B
Big_Feet
Guest
I don’t believe Br. JR was apologizing for anything, only explaining where he was coming from.
B
Boulder257
Guest
I don’t think he was offering an apology…more like asking for one
M
MartyrForJesus
Guest
M
Mike30
Guest
Normally in a Orthodox Service you would not be allowed to receive. Most Orthodox Priests will withold Holy Communion from non Orthodox. Some will allow it, most will not. They believe that since qwe are not in communion with their Church we cannot receive communion in that Church. Very simple.
J
JReducation
Guest
It’s a mutual agreement between the Orthodox Patriarchs and the Catholic Patriarchs. You must have permission to receive Holy Communion on either side. The priest has the right to make the judgment call for you or against you.
Receiving Holy Communion implies a unity that does not yet exist, even though we do have a communion in sacris.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF :christmastree1:
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
The Pope can always grant faculties to anyone. Remember the story of Blessed Pope John Paul II who heard of a priest who left the priesthood and was now a beggar outside a church in Rome? He had the priest called and asked the priest to hear his confession. The priest said he can’t since he left the priesthood, and Pope JP2 said once a priest, always a priest, and since he’s the Pope he’s granting him faculties to hear his confession. After this he was able to restore the priest back into the priesthood and asked him to minister to the beggars on the streets of Rome.
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
From what I hear from those with experiences in the “old country”, Orthodox in areas they are the majority (Eastern Europe) are more likely to commune Catholics, especially those of Eastern Rites.
I
Irish_Polock
Guest
What was the name of the said priest again? I remember he was from New York … somewhere.
sorry off topic i guess.
J
JReducation
Guest
“Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven and what you unbind shall be unbound.”
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF :christmastree1:
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
When the story was related to me, the name wasn’t given. I never knew his name but I know its a true story.What was the name of the said priest again? I remember he was from New York … somewhere.
sorry off topic i guess.
My point here is if Pope John Paul II can give confession faculties to a laicized priest, why can’t Pope Benedict grant faculties to the SSPX to celebrate one Mass at St. Peter’s? Does one Mass mean that the suspension is lifted? I mean, the Russian Orthodox were allowed to have a Divine Liturgy by the tomb of St. Peter beneath the Vatican, does that mean the Great Schism is over?
P
PrayRosary
Guest
Thats awesome. I never heard that story.
I
Irish_Polock
Guest
Yeah, after searching the web, there seems to be hundreds of different versions of this story - attributed to Scott Hahn, although, I haven’t found any with any further info in regards to said priest. Odd.
Point taken though.
J
JReducation
Guest
You do not need faculties to celebrate mass. You need faculties to preach. However, since you’re celebrating mass in a private setting, such faculties are not required.
As to the Orthodox celebrating Divine Liturgy in St. Peter’s that’s not comparable. The Orthodox are not suspended. Their mass is valid and licit. They have faculties to preach given to them by their Patriarch. The pope has no authority over them.
The simply need to request permission from the administration of the basilica to celebrate Divine Liturgy. They do it quite often, not only at St. Peter’s. They celebrate Divine Liturgy in other Catholic basilicas and churches. In Jerusalem, it is very common for the Orthodox and the Eastern Catholics to take turns at a given church or shrine. The Catholic Patriarch of Jerusalem and the Latin Archbishop have no problems with it, because they are in good standing with the Orthodox and the Catholic Church.
The schism is not over, but the excommunications and anathemas are over and done with. We (Catholics and Orthodox) have to get this through our heads. Our leaders are over this whole nonsense and we the faithful are still dragging this around. In the meantime, our leaders are doing more and more together getting more enthusiastic about reunification.
It would not surprise me if when the resolution to the SSPX crisis came, the laity became the obstacle. That seems to be the case with the Orthodox and the Catholics. The laity is being a pain about this, not the Patriarchs on either side.
It really bothers me that we react to people as if they had small pox.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF :christmastree1:
- Status