B
BrendanD
Guest
The Pope can interpret the law of the Church. He can not change its beliefs and teachings. There is no foundation for the claim that the Pope can give absolution to someone not in his physical presence.
- Status
E
elts1956
Guest
From your perspective not any sillier, narrow minded and erroneous than some of your postings.
J
JReducation
Guest
No one said that this has ever happened or will happen. This was a syllogism.
If the priest cannot absolve.
If the Pope were to retroacrively declare the absolutions to be valid.
Who is really doing the absolving, since there is no such thing as a retroactive absolution?
The conclusion would be, the Pope is doing the absolving.
There are only two options left.
- The pope must say that there was a mistake and the priests were never suspended, in which case the absolutions were valid.
- The pope must hold to the previous statement by Ecclesia Dei that the priests were had no faculties to absolve and the absolutions were invalid.
JR
B
BrendanD
Guest
Retroactively declaring a sacrament valid is impossible. It can never be done, not even by the Pope. You give a “what if” while admitting that there’s no such thing. It doesn’t make sense.
You say the Pope can absolve someone not in his physical presence. Can he consecrate a Host from halfway around the world too? Can he baptize a baby from across the street?
I see the possibility that SSPX marriages and confessions are invalid, but let’s at least be reasonable with our arguments.
J
JReducation
Guest
I understand that there is no retroactive absolution. However, the point that I’m trying to make for those who think that once the SSPX comes into communion with the Holy See all of those absolutions will be validated, is that it can only be done in the most unimaginable way. I say unimaginable, because there is not such thing as retroactive absolution.
My other points are the only options: you say it was a misake or you stick to your guns and say that the suspensions were valid. I doubt that the Holy See will say that the suspensions were a mistake based on this statement made by the Ecclesia Dei Commision in a letter to someone who asked this same question.
In a letter from the Ecclesia Dei Commissioin to a lay person who raised the same questions as in this thread.
** While the priests of the Society of St. Pius X are validly ordained, they are also suspended “a divinis,” that is they are forbidden by the Church from celebrating the Mass and the sacraments because of their illicit (or illegal) ordination to the diaconate and the priesthood without proper incardination (cf. canon 265). **
"The Pope is the supreme legislator in the Church." Communion with him is a fundamental, non-negotiable hallmark of Catholicism which is not determined by those who set themselves up to judge him, but by the Pope himself (cf. Second Vatican Council’s Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium #22-25).
**You want to know how authoritative our responses are.
The Holy Father does not ordinarily make detailed statements on very specific questions such as those which you have submitted. He entrusts such responses to the various dicasteries and organisms of the Holy See which have competence in particular areas. With regard to the matters which you have brought up, the competence belongs to this Pontifical Commission.**
sspx.agenda.tripod.com/id61.html
I believe the document speaks for itself.
JR
S
Spiller
Guest
You make so many ridiculous comments on these forums that I thought I would pick just one.
Prove it.
B
BrendanD
Guest
Oh I see, I think I agree with this. There’s just no way the Church can say “your sacraments were invalid, but now that you’ve been regularized, they become valid.”
C
catharina
Guest
By way of analogy - as a remote possibility - if the Holy Father decided to be mercful to all those who made bad confessions to sspx priests - he might say that he is extending a general absolution to those unforgiven sinners - with the usual and typical ESSENTIAL that the sinners must still go to a private confession as soon as possible.
Or not.
(I wasn’t available when he called me tonight.)
J
JReducation
Guest
The validity begins from the moment that the censure is lifted. It is not retroactive.
It’s not the sacrament that is invalid. It that’s the priest involved cannot validly celebrate them because canon law says that a priest must receive faculties either from a Bishop of a diocese or a Major Religious Superior. Bishop Fellay is no longer a Major Religious Superior within the Catholic Church, because he is excommunicated. Therefore, he is no longer an ordinary and cannot grant faculties as the superior of the Jesuits or Dominicans can.
These young priess are stuck in limbo. They are validly ordained priests, but with no one to grant them faculties to hear confessions or witness a marriage and on top of that a prohibition from the Church that forbids that they celebrate any sacrament, even the ones that they can celebrate validly.
The Superior os the SSPX seem to have committed a great act of injustice to these young priests.
Maybe this is what makes the bishop the the Society of St. John Vianney a more credible person. He wanted his priests to have the full benefits of being a priest without ever doubting their status within the Church. He did not want to prolong the separation from the Church.
Nor did he attempt to criticize the Pope and everyrhing the Pope taught. He simply wanted the EF and the opportunity to train priests in the EF.
By submitting with great humility toward the Vatican and great charity toward his priests, he got what he wanted and a little more.
JR
D
Dauphin
Guest
The number seems reasonable to me. If it were much higher than that, I’d be *very *surprised.
You seem to underestimate just how thoroughly Catholic catechesis was decimated during the “new springtime” after Vatican II.
C
catharina
Guest
re “The Superior of the SSPX seem to have committed a great act of injustice to these young priests,” YES INDEED - to put it mildly.The validity begins from the moment that the censure is lifted. It is not retroactive.
It’s not the sacrament that is invalid. It that’s the priest involved cannot validly celebrate them because canon law says that a priest must receive faculties either from a Bishop of a diocese or a Major Religious Superior. Bishop Fellay is no longer a Major Religious Superior within the Catholic Church, because he is excommunicated. Therefore, he is no longer an ordinary and cannot grant faculties as the superior of the Jesuits or Dominicans can.
These young priess are stuck in limbo. They are validly ordained priests, but with no one to grant them faculties to hear confessions or witness a marriage and on top of that a prohibition from the Church that forbids that they celebrate any sacrament, even the ones that they can celebrate validly.
The Superior os the SSPX seem to have committed a great act of injustice to these young priests.
Maybe this is what makes the bishop the the Society of St. John Vianney a more credible person. He wanted his priests to have the full benefits of being a priest without ever doubting their status within the Church. He did not want to prolong the separation from the Church.
Nor did he attempt to criticize the Pope and everyrhing the Pope taught. He simply wanted the EF and the opportunity to train priests in the EF.
By submitting with great humility toward the Vatican and great charity toward his priests, he got what he wanted and a little more.
JR
C
catharina
Guest
Good night, folks.
M
mattkubes
Guest
If people truly believed in the Real Presence, would weekly Mass attendance be what it is?
Although it’s very sad, I wouldn’t be surprised if that number was accurate either. At my “Catholic” high school, it was amazing the lengths that some teachers would go to just to circumvent Church teachings. There are only a handful of teachers in the entire religion department who would feel awkward teaching outright heresy (and I heard it all, from claims that Jesus was a sinful man to the justification of homosexual acts, etc). I also can’t forget to mention the conspicuous void coming from the pulpit on the issue of the Real Presence (although I wouldn’t dream of judging any priest’s intentions).
But to keep things honest, I have to admit that this may just be the case in my area…despite my sneaking suspicion that this is being too optimistic.
D
Dauphin
Guest
I went through the same school system, I believe (Ontario?).
We were definitely failed by people at all levels of the Church - especially by those charged with Catholic education. It was the responsibility clergy and teachers to pass on the deposit of faith and the sacred traditions of the Church, and they failed profoundly. I don’t want to imagine the punishments these people will likely endure.
It was only by the grace of God that I was able to discover the true Catholic and apostolic faith after twelve years in those “Catholic” schools.
M
mattkubes
Guest
That’s the one - but I was lucky enough to get a Gr. 12 teacher who walked us through Humanae Vitae and Gaudium et Spes…that was a bit of a wake up call after all those years of collages and acrostic poems
B
bobzills
Guest
Is it not true that according to the New Code of Canon Law, supplied jurisdiction can be applied to a marriage in the case of common error?
Ea tantum matrimonia valida sunt, quae contrahuntur coram loci Ordinario aut parocho vel diacono ab alterutro delegato qui assistant, necnon coram duobus testibus, secundum tamen regulas expressas in canonibus qui sequuntur, et salvis exceptionibus de quibus in cann. 144, 1112, #1, 1116 et 1127, ## 2-3.(New Code Canon 1108)
S
saint_rafael
Guest
"Recently, a Gallup poll was taken on Catholic attitudes toward Holy Communion. The poll showed serious confusion among Catholics about one of the most basic beliefs of the Church.
Only 30 percent of those surveyed believe they are actually receiving the Body and Blood, soul and divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ under the appearance of bread and wine. "
cfpeople.org/Apologetics/page51a044.html
I could not find an original copy of the famous 1992 Gallup Poll that was conducted by the Gallup organazation at the request of the St. Agustine Center Association.
The Gallup Poll has been famously cited on Catholic websites for years.
Many other polls showed the same number over the years.
P
pnewton
Guest
Back to the topic of logic of the SSPX:
On another thread I found this by our newest SSPX supporter:
There is not only a lack of logic the pervades the SSPX, but also a lack of understanding logic. In this case, the problem is easy for any to see. To put it in simpler terms, I can prefer mayo, and ask that it be used on my burger. This does not make me dead set against mustard.
This is called a strawman. Everytime you see clowns, it is a false argument. No one arguing for the inclusions of clowns. In this post, no one ask Lefebvre to use clowns. It is a false argument.
On another thread I found this by our newest SSPX supporter:
There is not only a lack of logic the pervades the SSPX, but also a lack of understanding logic. In this case, the problem is easy for any to see. To put it in simpler terms, I can prefer mayo, and ask that it be used on my burger. This does not make me dead set against mustard.
B
bobzills
Guest
The quesstion of disobedience was brought up. What did the SSPX find objectionable? I am giving you an example.
C
catharina
Guest
Re disobedience:
at some time, in some place, some people were involved in something termed a “clown” Mass. Not a normative or ordinary abuse by any means.
at another time, an archbishop, despite all due warning, acted in profound disobenience to the Holy Father, to the Holy See, and created a schism that is still in effect twnty years later. Powerful de-construction of Tradition.
at some time, in some place, some people were involved in something termed a “clown” Mass. Not a normative or ordinary abuse by any means.
at another time, an archbishop, despite all due warning, acted in profound disobenience to the Holy Father, to the Holy See, and created a schism that is still in effect twnty years later. Powerful de-construction of Tradition.
- Status