How Do Traditionalists Feel about Divine Mercy?

[Church_Militant]

Yes, I agree, her diary is intense.
Pretty much everyone in our parish are very into Divine Mercy.

I’ve always loved His Sacred Heart (signature gives a clue lol), Divine Mercy is ‘more of a great thing’ to me

Thank you very much for the link to the book.

You’re quite welcome!
That Marian.org site also has a place to order a free catalog and a ***free ***sample pack of Divine Mercy materials.

 

[Church_Militant]

How could anyone be against Christ pouring out mercy upon the whole world?

The Eternal Father prayer, “Eternal Father, I offer You the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Your dearly beloved Son, Our Lord Jesus Christ, in atonement for our sins and those of the whole world” is an echo of the Mass itself.

The Divine Mercy prayer, “For the sake of His sorrowful Passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world”, is an echo of the Jesus prayer, “Lord Jesus Christ, Son of the Living God, have mercy on me a sinner” which is one of the oldest prayers in Christianity.

The Trisaigon (Thrice Holy) prayer, “Holy God, Holy Mighty One, Holy Immortal One, have mercy on us and on the whole world” is also an ancient prayer and is used in the Divine Liturgy of almost all of the Eastern Catholic Churches. Add Psalm 51, the Nicean Creed and a repeat “Most Holy Theotokos, save us!” a few times and you practically have the Prayer Rule of St. Pachomius which many Eastern Catholic pray.

Why anyone would be against the prayers themselves or the messages they contain is completely lost on me. To reject prayers involking the name of Jesus and asking for Mercy just because they were combined into a devotion after Vatican II is truly astounding.

-Tim-

I could not agree more!

 

[JReducation]

That may be true canonically. Theologically, however, the mark conferred by ordination is indelible. A validly ordained Catholic priest never stops being a Catholic priest whatever his canonical status.

It is misleading to say that independent Catholic priests do not exist. It would be much clearer to say that “independent” is not the correct technical term to use for priests who are not incardinated.

If you look back, I’m not sure to which post, I did say that the proper term is a “suspended priest”, not an independent priest.

We also have to be very careful not to get hung up on validity and forget liceity. I’ve run into that among some Traditionalists, not many, but some. There are some who could care less if something is illegal as long as it’s valid. That is not the way that the Catholic Church thinks. Therefore, such a person is not thinking with the Church.

There has to be a communion in governance as well as in other things. We can’t decide that the law is not important. That’s very dangerous in any society.

Law is always important. If it’s bad law, it should be changed. If it’s good law, it must be obeyed. But it cannot be ignored.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[mattkubes]

Well said…

Except for the fact that he implied that some trads are “against Christ pouring out mercy upon the whole world.” No one is against that and the arguments against this private devotion are never, ever based on an opposition to Christ’s Mercy (read: strawman). Some people just don’t feel drawn to this particular devotion to His Mercy - for whatever reason. Nothing wrong with that.

 

[Celticnovice]

Except for the fact that he implied that some trads are “against Christ pouring out mercy upon the whole world.” No one is against that and the arguments against this private devotion are never, ever based on an opposition to Christ’s Mercy (read: strawman). Some people just don’t feel drawn to this particular devotion to His Mercy - for whatever reason. Nothing wrong with that./QUOTE

I did not get that impression from his post at all…

 

[mattkubes]

I did not get that impression from his post at all…

That’s how he opened the post that you quoted…:

“How could anyone be against Christ pouring out mercy upon the whole world?”

Some people are “against” certain aspects of this devotion, but that doesn’t mean they are against Christ’s mercy.

 

[floresco]

If you look back, I’m not sure to which post, I did say that the proper term is a “suspended priest”, not an independent priest.

I was objecting to the post by ByzCath which said “There is no such thing as an independent priest in the Catholic Church.” While you were able to explain the statement as an expression of Canon Law, he said nothing to place it in the context of Canon Law. It seemed to me to be a statement about ecclesiology. At any rate, I think it was unclear and problematic.

The phenomenon popularly referred to as “independent priests” certainly does occur among validly ordained Catholic priests. They remain Catholic priests and can offer a valid, though illicit, Catholic Mass. Expressing one’s disapproval of this practice by saying “there is no such thing” struck me as remarkably confusing and unhelpful.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I was objecting to the post by ByzCath which said “There is no such thing as an independent priest in the Catholic Church.” While you were able to explain the statement as an expression of Canon Law, he said nothing to place it in the context of Canon Law. It seemed to me to be a statement about ecclesiology. At any rate, I think it was unclear and problematic.

It is a statement about ecclesiology as well as the Canons.

In the Catholic Church there is no such term as “independent priest”. So, logically, within the Catholic Church there is no such thing as an independent priest".

You may refute this statement by providing any source from the Church that uses this term and I will gladly apologize for the error. If you can not I would ask if you could do the same.

 

[floresco]

It is a statement about ecclesiology as well as the Canons.

In the Catholic Church there is no such term as “independent priest”. So, logically, within the Catholic Church there is no such thing as an independent priest".

You may refute this statement by providing any source from the Church that uses this term and I will gladly apologize for the error. If you can not I would ask if you could do the same.

The phenomenon signified by the expression “independent priest” exists, even if that is not the correct technical term for it. When a person uses that expression, I know just what he is talking about. So the non-existence of the phenomenon does not logically follow from the non-existence of the term.

If you want to comment about terminology, you really ought to be clear you are doing so. If you want to discuss the ecclesiological question of such priests’ relationship to the Catholic Church, that is far more complex. While this would be a fairly straight-forward question using the perspective of Bellermine, post-Vatican II ecclesiology is more nuanced.

At any rate, it is way off topic for this thread. If you wish to explore this question, I suggest starting another thread for it.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

The phenomenon signified by the expression “independent priest” exists, even if that is not the correct technical term for it. When a person uses that expression, I know just what he is talking about. So the non-existence of the phenomenon does not logically follow from the non-existence of the term.

If you want to comment about terminology, you really ought to be clear you are doing so. If you want to discuss the ecclesiological question of such priests’ relationship to the Catholic Church, that is far more complex. While this would be a fairly straight-forward question using the perspective of Bellermine, post-Vatican II ecclesiology is more nuanced.

At any rate, it is way off topic for this thread. If you wish to explore this question, I suggest starting another thread for it.

Just as I thought.

God bless. Please pray for me and I will pray for you.

 

[gator1582]

There is no such thing as an independent priest within the Catholic Church.

All priests are incarnated into a diocese or religious institute.

Retirement does not removed one from a diocese or religious institute.

One must have approval from the local bishop to have a chapel within his diocese.

To be a parish it must be under the local bishop.

Canonically they are under the bishop and have his approval for the chapel.

No so. Priests who walk away from their diocese or religious institute are not “irregular” like the SSPX. They are in a far graver circumstance.

I was trying to explain in a simplified manner to JReducation what traditional Catholics consider as an independent priest. You may not agree with what is said, but everyone I know that is in some manner a Traditional Catholic would agree with my definition.

Furthermore, you cannot lump every independent priest into one group and say that they are all in a worse situation than the SSPX. Some of these priests have faculties from a different diocese or are biritual under and Eastern Eparch, and as I am not an expert in canon law, nor have I thoroughly investigated the claims of any on of the many independent priests I know of, I made a broad generalization saying that they are roughly in the same boat as the SSPX, some maybe worse some better, so that JReducation and I could have a discussion.

If I explained the situation of any one of these priests to someone who is a canon lawyer, I doubt they would return a reply this quickly as each priest has a unique situation and the details would most likely have to be investigated for an accurate decision to be made as to his exact canonical standing.

 

[gator1582]

There really is no such thing as a independent priest. If you’re independent, you’re no longer in communion with the Church, which places you outside the Church. Canon Law calls that a renegade priest, not an independent priest.

I was simply trying to explain what is commonly referred to as an “independent” priest. This may not be the most accurate term to some, but this is a Traditional Catholic subgroup and then term is widely used amongst traditional Catholics. I know of other Traditional Catholics who object to the idea but use the term so they can be understood by others.

As this topic is off thread and I had no intention of getting into a debate about the status of independent priests or any of the other side topics that were brought up, I will end with this quote from Scripture.

2 Timothy 2:14
Remind them of this, and charge them before the Lord to avoid disputing about words, which does no good, but only ruins the hearers.

 

[floresco]

Just as I thought.

God bless. Please pray for me and I will pray for you.

I doubt very much that it is just as you thought. Nevertheless praying for each other is a good idea. I will do so.

 

[JReducation]

I was simply trying to explain what is commonly referred to as an “independent” priest. This may not be the most accurate term to some, but this is a Traditional Catholic subgroup and then term is widely used amongst traditional Catholics. I know of other Traditional Catholics who object to the idea but use the term so they can be understood by others.

As this topic is off thread and I had no intention of getting into a debate about the status of independent priests or any of the other side topics that were brought up, I will end with this quote from Scripture.

If they have faculties from someone, they are not independent. Only an Ordinary can grant faculties. Ordinaries would be bishops (Eastern or Western) and male religious superiors. The religious superior need not be a bishop.

If they have no faculties, their canonical status is suspended priest.

As to the reasons for the suspension, that’s going to be a case by case scenario. Someone may be suspended because he walked from his diocese or his religious order to follow the Traditionalist movement. That would be a renegade priest. There are serious penalties for that.

Another person may be suspended because he got into trouble with his bishop or his superior. Then the penalties depend on the trouble.

A person can loose his faculties because he’s away from his diocese. In that case, he’s not suspended, but he’s not independent either. He’s an extern priest. He has to request faculties from the diocese where he is living. If he exercises the ministry without the faculties, he will be suspended.

Canon law looks at such priests as suspended priests. That’s the proper term, not independent priests. We don’t use that term, because “independent” makes it sound like it’s a positive thing to be out there on your own, which is not the case at all. No priest or religious can be out there without a superior of some kind. It’s seen as a negative and the language that the Church uses is always in the most negative light to impress it upon all of us that this is not acceptable.

Do not confuse an extern priest with an independent priest. An extern is a priest who lives in one jurisdiction, but belongs to another. However, he has faculties from the proper authorities in the host jurisdiciton. You see this a lot with priests who go to school away from their home base or who retire away from their homebase. They ask for faculties from the host diocese. They are called extern priests. Independent does not apply, because they cannot grant themselves faculties and they belong to a larger body, be it a diocese or an institute. They just happen to be away from home.

By the way, Timothy was not talking about Church law, theology or morality. In those areas words are very important. He was talking about squabbles. Just look at the great divide over the Filioque. If we took Timothy literally, we could say that it’s just a word.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[floresco]

If they have no faculties, their canonical status is suspended priest.

Isn’t the term used in Canon Law either wandering priest or acephalous priest?

 

[ProVobis]

Isn’t the term used in Canon Law either wandering priest or acephalous priest?

You mean like this guy?

youtube.com/watch?v=5m6lymJy57E

Sorry, couldn’t resist.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Some of these priests have faculties from a different diocese or are biritual under and Eastern Eparch

Neither of these priests would be “independent” because they are under a bishop.

Though they could not work within a diocese with out that bishops approval. Just because they are under a bishop does not give them faculties within another diocese. They can not go and set up shop, so to speak, with out the bishop whose diocese they are in.

A bi-ritual eastern priest needs faculties to be granted to him in the Latin rite by the bishop whose diocese he is working in.

No priest can just go around doing what they want outside of the Church structure.

“Independent” priests are in a worse case than the SSPX in most cases as their actions have in the least caused them to be suspended (like the SSPX) or excommunicated for their actions.

 

[JReducation]

Isn’t the term used in Canon Law either wandering priest or acephalous priest?

That was the term in the 1917 code, but the essence was the same. These men were suspended. The term wandering caused confusion with mendicants. Mendicants are wanderers, but we have a canonical place. Acephalous was probably more accurate as it means one without a head. Which just takes us back to where we started. No priest, brother or sister can be without a head. If you refuse to submit to a head, then you’re in trouble.

No matter what word we use, it’s not the place where you want any priest to be. We certainly don’t want to encourage any priest or religious who puts himself in such a situation. Giving him some legitimacy is a form of encouragement. I realize that people do it very innocently, but they should not do so. It’s like encouraging the kid who is disobedient by rewarding him.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[ConstantineTG]

Who are the SSPX to “approve” anything. They have no authority.

Not to mention they themselves were once banned (and today are even questionable in stature).

 

[mattkubes]

That was the term in the 1917 code, but the essence was the same. These men were suspended. The term wandering caused confusion with mendicants. Mendicants are wanderers, but we have a canonical place. Acephalous was probably more accurate as it means one without a head. Which just takes us back to where we started. No priest, brother or sister can be without a head. If you refuse to submit to a head, then you’re in trouble.

No, Floresco was quoting the 1983 Code. The terms are the same, but of course they’re being disallowed in both:

1917: “…ita ut clerici vagi nullatenus admittantur.”

1983: “…ita ut clerici acephali seu vagi minime admittantur.”