P
PhanxicoXavier
Guest
What does it need to prove?
- Status
H
HOLYHEARTS
Guest
The SSPX are offering their Masses in St. Peter’s where only Roman Catholic Priests
& Bishops are permitted to offer Mass & living in the Papal Conclave Residence which is part of the Papal Complex.
& Bishops are permitted to offer Mass & living in the Papal Conclave Residence which is part of the Papal Complex.
B
bkovacs
Guest
Don’t even talk rebellion!. That was done in the sixties and seventies with all the post Vatican 2 desecrations of the Roman Rite, closing of seminaries, and the beauty in the churches. Don’t need data to prove that. Just look around. Traditionalists are trying to reverse the rebellion that took place. “To regain the Roman Catholic identity”
B
Bbigam
Guest
I would say, yes, they are disobedient. They are suspended and celebrate the sacraments for the public anyway. That is disobedience.
Diocesan priests who are not suspended but celebrate the Mass with drastic & deliberate violations of the rubrics, or teach things contrary to the teachings of the Church, are also disobedient.
Thankfully there are many holy, obedient priests out there. This includes many diocesan priests, priests from religious orders, and priests from traditional groups such as FSSP and ICRSS. It’s sad that it seems that some people have a hard time finding any holy, obedient priests.
P
pnewton
Guest
We are not talking about Traditionalists. The topic is the SSPX. I said that I understand when someone believes attendence is necessary that they have to do what their conscience dictates, but I will not be deceived or be silent on the topic of obedience to the Holy Father. That is what makes us Catholic more than anything else.
No thank you. I will post what I think best.
P
pnewton
Guest
Well, we have the Church documents linked in a sticky. Photos and anecdotes do not override statements from the Church.How can that be if the Masses are illicit?
P
ProVobis
Guest
You present a good argument and I’m not going to present a counter. The reason I asked is that normally priests answer to their bishops. As do deacons and others in the diocese. If my bishop opposes Rome, I still have to obey my bishop, don’t I?
Now if I break ranks with my bishop or go over him to his superior or the Pope, doesn’t that me worse than disobedient?
I am not questioning their suspensions, mind you. Just questioning the word “disobedience.” Disobedience to Rome, no doubt, but whom do I answer to? (Other than God, of course.
)
B
Bbigam
Guest
Thanks. I would say that in the case of SSPX, since they are suspended as a whole, they don’t lawfully have jurisdiction over anyone anyway. Those priests were illicitly ordained (except some old ones who may still be around from back then) and obedience for them, I think, would be joining a lawful jurisdiction - a diocese, FSSP, ICRSS, etc.You present a good argument and I’m not going to present a counter. The reason I asked is that normally priests answer to their bishops. As do deacons and others in the diocese. If my bishop opposes Rome, I still have to obey my bishop, don’t I?
Now if I break ranks with my bishop or go over him to his superior or the Pope, doesn’t that me worse than disobedient?
I am not questioning their suspensions, mind you. Just questioning the word “disobedience.” Disobedience to Rome, no doubt, but whom do I answer to? (Other than God, of course.
I would think that if your bishop/superior is actually directly opposing the Pope and Magisterium, especially on matters of faith and morals and the Sacraments, you would have the right to appeal that to the Holy See. But I am no expert here and don’t know canon low - anybody know more here that can cite the Code of Canon Law or some such on this?
L
Lamentabili
Guest
Dorian,
Rome, through Her Ecclesia Dei commission, has already stated that one can fulfill the Sunday obligation at an SSPX Mass and it is not a sin unless one intends to break communion with the Pope by doing so (which you obviously do not).
See here:
latin-mass-society.org/perl-011803.htm
and here:
http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/mershon/080711
I would stop assisting at your current Mass immediately as it appears to be a danger to the Faith.
Rome, through Her Ecclesia Dei commission, has already stated that one can fulfill the Sunday obligation at an SSPX Mass and it is not a sin unless one intends to break communion with the Pope by doing so (which you obviously do not).
See here:
latin-mass-society.org/perl-011803.htm
and here:
http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/mershon/080711
I would stop assisting at your current Mass immediately as it appears to be a danger to the Faith.
B
bkovacs
Guest
pnewton would you like to comment on this document. Or do you think it is a forgery and we should go to happy clappy Masses, with altar girls and people in the pews handing out communion in the hands in fear of H1N1 flu, and jump up and down during guitar and gospel music, that are licit instead?. Rather than hearing Gregorian Chant. Or better yet watch liturgical dancers in LA Archdiocese carrying bowls of incense, in there tribal worship outfits.
. They are licit and “obedient”.I love the pictures at the top of these pages. All licit!.
la-archdiocese.org/prayer/worship/index.php
la-archdiocese.org/archbishop/letters/liturgy/index.html
la-archdiocese.org/calendar/index.php
P
pnewton
Guest
I said in a previous post, " I said that I understand when someone believes attendence is necessary that they have to do what their conscience dictates." Then I referred to the documents in the sticky at the top of this forum, one of which references the very document you mention. However, I think you present, as do many, a false dichotomy. That was the point of my first post. The choice is not between the SSPX and “happy clappy Masses, with altar girls and people in the pews handing out communion in the hands in fear of H1N1 flu, and jump up and down during guitar and gospel music, that are licit instead”. Almost all of Catholicism I have seen, no all that I have seen, falls in the middle between this extreme group, the SSPX and these carachature of the Mass that is presented.
The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is not about feelings and what tickes our fancy, be it folk music or Gregorian Chant. The Mass is not about how my neighbor dresses. The Mass is not about the language that is used. To make any decision based on such things is beyond my ken. Faith requires that sometimes we believe without seeing. I have heard Catholics today slammed on about a loss of belief in the Real Presence of the Lord. Sometimes I have to wonder just who has lost their belief, or at least their understanding.
J
JReducation
Guest
One always has an obligation to nurture his soul. This is a basic principle of spiritual theology. However, one must always do so through great charity, never through injustice. If something is within the law, then justice permits it. If that which is within the law does not nurture your soul, justice also permits you to find any parish. What you cannot do is malign the parish that is acting lawfully.
I can say this. The priest had no right to be rude. There is never a justification for rudeness. To ask the communicants to help consume the consecrated hosts because the tabernacle has to be emptied is not an unjust request. The priest’s rudeness has nothing to do with the form of the mass. A rude person can just as well celebrate an EF mass.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
J
JReducation
Guest
Let me try to help.
If a parishioner believes that a priest is acting contrary to law, doctrine or morals, his first stop must always be the pastor. If the priest is the pastor, the next stop is the Chancellor, then the bishop, then the Sacred Congregation on Sacraments and Divine Worship. It is never the pope. The pope does not involve himself in the internal affairs of any diocese or religious order. He has the authority to do so, but for centuries the principal of subsidiarity has been exercised by the popes.
While waiting for a response, one cannot act on a doubtful conscience. Therefore, one must act according to the guidance of one’s spiritual director. If you don’t have one, you can use your confessor as a spiritual guide. The problem is that many people do not have a regular confessor who knows them well enough to guide them. If you choose to take the matter up with any confessor, then you should stick with the one and not jump around until you find one who gives you the answer you want. That will only complicate matters. Again, while waiting, seek guidance and follow it. You are never morally culpable for following the guidance of your spiritual director or your confessor. If they tell you something that is mistaken, the burden is on them, not on you. You acted in good faith.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
J
JReducation
Guest
A suspended deacon, priest or bishop may not celebrate the sacraments. If he does, he is disobeying. When a suspended priest celebrates baptism and mass, it is ilicit. When he absolves, it is invalid. The penitent is not forgiven. When he witnesses a marriage, it is invalid. He does not have the authority to witness a marriage in the name of the Church. The only time when he can act legally and validly is in the case of life and death. Even a laicized priest or an excommunicated priest can grant absolution in a case of life and death. In those situations the Church supplies faculties. In that case, there is no disobedience. The Church wants any priest out there: suspended, laicized, schismatic, heretic, excommunicated, communist, smurf, you name it, to grant absolution to a dying person when no other priest is available.
Not everything is addressed by canon law. There are many other laws that fall into different categories or appear in different documents. Some come from tradition itself and remain in force until they are abrogated.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
L
Lamentabili
Guest
The first rule of Canon Law is the salvation of souls. “In danger of death” is only one provision of Canon Law pertaining to supplied jurisdiction. There are many other provisions stating many other cases where jurisdiction is supplied for confessions and marriages as regards suspended priests making them valid. Even the schismatic Orthodox priests can validly absolve.
There are separate Canons dealing with consequences for priests who perform sacraments illicitly but these canons do not affect validity or the faithful. They deal with the priest’s actions. It would not make sense for the law to punish the faithful by denying them means of salvation because of the actions of the priest.
Rome has not issued an official ruling on the matter of Society priests and supplied jurisdiction so we are left with Canon Law as it stands. That said, Rome did not ask the Traditional faithful of Campos, Good Shepard, Transalpine Redemptorists, nor the faithful of the SSPX priests who joined the FSSP in '88 to make general confessions or to re-confess previously confessed sins made to their suspended priests. If these confessions were in danger of being invalid, Rome would have had a duty to make this very clear as it would be a serious matter affecting salvation.
See apologist John Salza’s analysis of this issue below. Salza has appeared on EWTN and Relevant Radio.
scripturecatholic.xanga.com/703979099/10-do-sspx-priests-have-jurisdiction-to-hear-confessions/
B
bpbasilphx
Guest
\Rome has not issued an official ruling on the matter of Society priests and supplied jurisdiction so we are left with Canon Law as it stands.\
**As a matter of fact, on two separate occasions in 2009 alone, Pope Benedict has said that clergy of the SSPX exercise no legitimate ministry in the Catholic Church.
While no one would claim this falls under infallibility, it IS a strong statement by the highest authority that the faithful should take to heart and be guilded by.**
\That said, Rome did not ask the Traditional faithful of Campos, Good Shepard, Transalpine Redemptorists, nor the faithful of the SSPX priests who joined the FSSP in '88 to make general confessions or to re-confess previously confessed sins made to their suspended priests.\
**Except possibly for teritiaries or associates, SSPX does NOT have “faithful”. It is strictly a clerical society.
I don’t know what the conditions were for regularizing the Transalpine Redemptorists, now Sons of the Most Holy Redeemer.**
**As a matter of fact, on two separate occasions in 2009 alone, Pope Benedict has said that clergy of the SSPX exercise no legitimate ministry in the Catholic Church.
While no one would claim this falls under infallibility, it IS a strong statement by the highest authority that the faithful should take to heart and be guilded by.**
\That said, Rome did not ask the Traditional faithful of Campos, Good Shepard, Transalpine Redemptorists, nor the faithful of the SSPX priests who joined the FSSP in '88 to make general confessions or to re-confess previously confessed sins made to their suspended priests.\
**Except possibly for teritiaries or associates, SSPX does NOT have “faithful”. It is strictly a clerical society.
I don’t know what the conditions were for regularizing the Transalpine Redemptorists, now Sons of the Most Holy Redeemer.**
B
bpbasilphx
Guest
You supplied the photograph along with your own description of SSPX seminarians praying at the tomb of St. Pius X.
Obviously, you had some purpose, were trying to make a point, or attempting to prove something.
What was it?
J
JReducation
Guest
The priests of the Orthodox Churches can validly absolve and witness marriages. They are not bound by canon law. They are exempt from it. Canon law only binds Latin Rite Catholics. Even Eastern Rite Catholics have their own canons.
As to supplied jurisdiction that was denied to the SSPX by Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI has not reinstated it. The pope is the last judge of canon law. There is the law and there is the judge who interprets the law. That highest judge in the Church is the pope. Pope Benedict and John Paul II have sated that there was no emergency; therefore, no supplied jurisdiction.
It may not make sense to you, but that’s the law. No suspended priest can validly absolve, because he does not have faculties to do so, except in a life threatening situation.
Can. 966 The valid absolution of sins requires that the minister have, in addition to the power of orders, the faculty of exercising it for the faithful to whom he imparts absolution.
Pope John Paul had already issued that ruling against the SSPX 20 years ago. The pope can trump the canons. He writes them; therefore, he can interpret, apply, dispense from them, abrogate them, etc.
To those that you mentioned, Rome did ask them to do two thngs: they had to make a profession of allegience to the pope and they did have to go to confession as part of their re-entry. This was reported by the superior general of the Sons of the Holy Redeemer in an interview that he did on EWTN. Rome is not going to paste in on the front page of the New York Times, because it’s an internal matter between Rome and the Institute.
I respect John very much. But I also have my own opinion of equal weight to his, since I too am a theologian.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
J
JReducation
Guest
The point was made that they are allowed to celebrate mass inside St. Peter’s. But the picture does not show a mass. It shows them praying. No one denies that they pray. From my experience, many of them are very prayerful men. I like them. I hope that their situation is cleared up. I just cannot accept covering up the fact that they are suspended.
I don’t see why we have to cover that up and all its consequences, just because we like the priests and seminarians of the SSPX. They are my brothers. I have a biological brother whom I love, but he is divorced and remarried. I can’t cover up the fact that if he were Catholic, he’d be excommuncated.
I have a Franciscan brother, whom I don’t know, who had the child some 20 years ago. I can’t deny that. But he remains my brother and I must love him according to the Rule of St. Francis. I have no choice but to love him more than I love those borthers who are saints.
Sometimes we get into these modes where we believe that because we appreciate or love someone or some group, that we cannot say that they are in a specific situation which is a fact. I’m not talking about situations that we assume or that we interpret or that we even believe. I’m talking about situations where there is a clear law and an infraction of the law.
I believe this happens all too often everytime we bring up the SSPX. Those who love them or feel comfortable with them, feel an obligation to deny that they are suspended and the consequences of that suspension, as if that made the priests of the SSPX some evil monsters. It does not make them evil. It simply says that they are loving and wonderful men who cannot do certain things, because the law will not allow them. If they disobey the law, we can’t call it anything else, except disobedience.
Heck, we do that with our children. I hope we love our children more than we love the SSPX priests. But we call our children disobedient and yet we do not cease loving them.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
B
Bbigam
Guest
Thanks, Br. JR! You’re always informative and charitable, I appreciate your posts.Let me try to help.
If a parishioner believes that a priest is acting contrary to law, doctrine or morals, his first stop must always be the pastor. If the priest is the pastor, the next stop is the Chancellor, then the bishop, then the Sacred Congregation on Sacraments and Divine Worship. It is never the pope. The pope does not involve himself in the internal affairs of any diocese or religious order. He has the authority to do so, but for centuries the principal of subsidiarity has been exercised by the popes.
While waiting for a response, one cannot act on a doubtful conscience. Therefore, one must act according to the guidance of one’s spiritual director. If you don’t have one, you can use your confessor as a spiritual guide. The problem is that many people do not have a regular confessor who knows them well enough to guide them. If you choose to take the matter up with any confessor, then you should stick with the one and not jump around until you find one who gives you the answer you want. That will only complicate matters. Again, while waiting, seek guidance and follow it. You are never morally culpable for following the guidance of your spiritual director or your confessor. If they tell you something that is mistaken, the burden is on them, not on you. You acted in good faith.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
- Status