S
surritter
Guest
Supporting a parish or movement that is faithful to the Vatican should take priority over preference.
- Status
P
ProVobis
Guest
The SSPX is not a rite. The SSPX priests just happen to celebrate the Mass of Pope John XXIII, specifically the 1962 Missal, a most Catholic rite.
P
ProVobis
Guest
Abiding by Canon Law is the best way of being faithful to the Vatican.
J
jmcrae
Guest
It doesn’t matter, because if he is on suspension (even if it is for no good reason at all) he still can’t say Mass or hear your Confession, until after the suspension is lifted.
S
surritter
Guest
Correct. I wrote that because RosaryCrusader posted that “Every Catholic is free to go to Mass in any rite of the Church” apparently as a way of promoting the SSPX.
L
Lamentabili
Guest
…which, as I said, is not an official ruling on the matter of Society priests and supplied jurisdiction. The Pope’s statement is nothing new, he is merely saying the Society priests do not have ordinary jurisdiction/ faculties which the Society would agree with.
The SSPX does have faithful in the common sense of the term; namely those faithful Catholics who regularly attend Society Masses. These faithful are not “members” of the Society, true. Thus these faithful did not “join” the FSSP, true, but they then became regular faithful of the FSSP in '88 which consisted of former SSPX priests. Rome never instructed these new FSSP priests to tell their faithful to reconfess their sins. If their previous confessions were in danger of being invalid Rome (and the FSSP) would have had an obligation to do so.
L
Lamentabili
Guest
True. However, my point was that to read Canon Law as denying the validity of SSPX confessions while at the same time allowing Catholics to confess to non-Catholic priests goes against fundamental notions of equity and justice. Thus the more appropriate readings, in light of this, is that the faithful can receive valid absolution from SSPX priests via supplied jurisdiction conditions in Canon Law.
Pope John Paul II never formally denied supplied jurisdiction to the SSPX. The only thing JPII did was to issue a declaration (Ecclesia Dei) recognizing the latate sententiae excommunication of the Bishops involved in the '88 consecrations. If you are asserting that John Paul II issued an authoritative document interpreting Canon Law to deny the Society supplied jurisdiction please reference that document because I’d like to see it. Thanks.
Where have Pope Benedict and John Paul II officially declared that canonically there is no emergency (crisis) in the Church? To the contrary JPII spoke of a “silent apostasy” and Pope Benedict has spoken many times on the crisis in the Church.
In any case, the Society does not argue supplied jurisdiction for confessions from necessity. Thus even if these Popes had done such a thing it would not address the supplied jurisdiction issue. “Necessity” involved the argument against the excommunications and that issue is now moot.
This is the Canon pertaining to ordinary jurisdiction. However there are other Canons, addressed in the Salza article, that provide for supplied jurisdiction. Your analysis is asserting that ordinary jurisdiction is absolutely necessary to validly absolve with one exception: danger of death. Canon Law nowhere states this as the case. To the contrary it gives many Canons whereby jurisdiction is supplied besides danger of death; one of them is common error of law or fact.
The Pope is the final judge of Canon Law, however he has never made any ruling regarding supplied jurisdiction and the SSPX. As I’ve stated JPII merely issued a declaration in 1988 that the 6 bishops involved had been automatically excommunicated by the act of consecration without Papal mandate.
Please give a link to a document where this is stated. What were the Sons of the Holy Redeemer required to confess and why? Nevertheless, even if true, the Sons of the Holy Redeemer never required their faithful to re-confess their sins to my knowledge. If those previous confessions were truly thought to have been invalid then the order and Rome would have a grave obligation to tell them to re-confess their sins.
God bless.
B
Brendan
Guest
The problem is, the MHC who offered him Communion was also being disobedient, and therefore displeasing to God.
Remember that Aquinas defined “obedience” as the virtue by which we conform our wills to the will of one with the authority to command.
The person who said that the OP could not recieve on the tounge did not have the authority to command that, so obedience was not at issue here.
L
Lormar
Guest
There would have been no SSPX if the post Vatican II era in the Church had been kinder and saner. Having lived through it, many were told to leave if they didn’t like the craziness (and there was craziness back then, believe me), so they did.
Just recently, we were told by our pastor that “rules and rituals in the Church are irrelevant.” Priests like him are the reason why people leave Holy Mother Church.
Just recently, we were told by our pastor that “rules and rituals in the Church are irrelevant.” Priests like him are the reason why people leave Holy Mother Church.
S
surritter
Guest
I’ve never seen so many people work so hard to justify a blatant act of division within Christ’s church.
Yes, there were crazy things going on after Vatican II – and they still persist today. Yes, there are disobedient priests within the Church.
But there are numerous other parishes which are in line with the Vatican and are very reverent and orthodox.
Brendan – obedience IS the key. The priests that are disobedient (such as the priest or EMHC mentioned in the OP) should be criticized and even reported.
Recall that St. Pio was prevented from saying Mass publicly for a time. And the devotion to the Divine Mercy was suppressed for many years. But notice that St. Pio and the folks supporting Divine Mercy didn’t separate themselves from Rome, and the SSPX has done.
Yes, there were crazy things going on after Vatican II – and they still persist today. Yes, there are disobedient priests within the Church.
But there are numerous other parishes which are in line with the Vatican and are very reverent and orthodox.
Brendan – obedience IS the key. The priests that are disobedient (such as the priest or EMHC mentioned in the OP) should be criticized and even reported.
Recall that St. Pio was prevented from saying Mass publicly for a time. And the devotion to the Divine Mercy was suppressed for many years. But notice that St. Pio and the folks supporting Divine Mercy didn’t separate themselves from Rome, and the SSPX has done.
P
ProVobis
Guest
Again, this is an empty statement. Disobedience to what or to whom? Their bishops, their parents, church law, civil law? Their bishops ordain them, their salary is from the bishops, and their insurance is paid by the bishops; therefore their first level of obedience should be to their bishops, I would think.
S
surritter
Guest
The OP was discussing the denial of Holy Communion on the tongue. Whoever denied him or her was in disobedience to the universal norm of the Latin rite. The priest of that parish did not have authority to circumvent that universal norm.
And regarding the SSPX, Abp. Lefebvre was disobedient because he did not have the authority to circumvent the pope, who must approve all episcopal ordinations.
Both of these instances of disobedience are wrong and should be corrected. The difference is that Lefebvre’s ordinations spawned an entire movement which was flawed from the start. The first situation regarding Holy Communion being denied was regrettable but does not constitute an entire movement.
B
bpbasilphx
Guest
\
Quote:
Originally Posted by bpbasilphx View Post
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.
[Lamentabili:]…which, as I said, is not an official ruling on the matter of Society priests and supplied jurisdiction. The Pope’s statement is nothing new, he is merely saying the Society priests do not have ordinary jurisdiction/ faculties which the Society would agree with.\
**However, it is an admonition that the faithful should hear and take to heart and follow.
When SSPX is regularlized, I shall rejoice greatly.**
Quote:
Originally Posted by bpbasilphx View Post
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.
[Lamentabili:]…which, as I said, is not an official ruling on the matter of Society priests and supplied jurisdiction. The Pope’s statement is nothing new, he is merely saying the Society priests do not have ordinary jurisdiction/ faculties which the Society would agree with.\
**However, it is an admonition that the faithful should hear and take to heart and follow.
When SSPX is regularlized, I shall rejoice greatly.**
P
ProVobis
Guest
Actually the Archbishop did have the authority (from God) to ordain other bishops (and priests). They are all valid. However, the consecration of the bishops was illicit because Rome did not approve four consecrations, although the Vatican did approve the consecration of one bishop. The necessity clause of Canon Law was cited by the Archbishop to execute the four consecrations, although the Vatican disapproved this as well.
The movement started long before 1988. It started right after Vatican II as chaos and scandals ruled the Church.
S
surritter
Guest
OK – the technicalities are acknowledged. But just for you, I will repeat what I posted in #109:
“I’ve never seen so many people work so hard to justify a blatant act of division within Christ’s church.”
J
JRKH
Guest
This is a good answer.
I would also remind you of what Jesus told the people of His day in Mt 23:2-3.
“all that they tell you, do and observe” because “The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat”.
In this case, you have a priest/parish that is not acting in a proper way to the teachings of the Church. Yet it is important for us to remain obedient.
When you went to receive on the tongue and were denied, you should simply receive in the hand and go on. I’ve never heard of receiving multiple hosts. This one I think I would simply decline, take one host and move on.
If you feel it necessary then speak or write to the pastor with your concerns with the relevent documents referenced.
If you receive no satisfaction in this, then write to the Bishop and if necessary let the Vatican know of your concerns.
In any event, leaving the church for a schizmatic or “irregular” group is not advisable for in this you will be committing the sin. As it now stands it is the priest and those who support this errant action who are committing the sin.
Seeking an indult mass is definately preferable to going SSPX.
Peace
James
G
giuseppeTO
Guest
Everyone is also missing the fact the SSPX was suspended and “had no ministry” for a decade before 1988. The priests who moved to the FSSP in 88 had been operating under the same ‘suspension’ as is still the case. And in 1988, all of the sacraments, marriages, confessions, etc were not ‘rectified’ or conditionally re-administered.
J
jmcrae
Guest
As will I. Meanwhile, I will attend Masses at parishes that are affiliated with my Diocese.
G
giuseppeTO
Guest
You yourself are working very hard at convincing those who assist at SSPX chapels that they should shamefully report to their nearest ‘reverently-performed’ Novus Ordo Mass or Eastern Rite ceremony to atone for blatant disobedience to the Pope…
The current Pope, while reiterating the absence of ordinary jurisdiction, is not urging (to my knowledge) any laity to immediately leave SSPX Mass centers and report to the nearest diocesan church for Confession (Reconciliation). On the contrary, as easy as it would be to say that very clearly and plainly, he has not. In fact, he has not stated that any laymen should do anything different. On the contrary, he has lifted the excommunications and has authorized that doctrinal discussion commence between priests of the Society of St. Pius X and his chosen priests. From all accounts, the first session went well and the next session will be in a couple more weeks. You appear to be much more critical than the Holy father.
If you were interested in finding Catholics who are morally and theologically at odds with the Pope, you might start looking in your own Novus Ordo parish. The number of catholics who support abortion in the case of rape, same-sex marriages, married clergy, and artificial birth control may astound you. If you can believe pollsters, that would account for the majority of modern Catholics, and true-to-form, they certainly showed those colors in the last election. These are obvious folks who “do not follow the Pope or the bishop”, not the faithful assisting at SSPX chapels.
S
surritter
Guest
On the contrary, I have looked for Catholics who are morally and theologically in line with the Pope, as well as liturgically, fraternally, and hierarchically in line with the Pope. It happens to be my parish which is roughly 3.5 miles from my house.
You make the fallacious insinuation that parishioners who practice birth control etc. drive what the Church they belong to professes. It doesn’t matter if I am the only one in a packed church who is in the state of grace (not that this is the case, mind you). I receive the sacraments from a minister who is commissioned by the successor of the Apostles for my diocese. Do you?
I sympathize with the attraction to the reverence you encounter at an SSPX Mass. But why not look for a parish that has all the things you seek: reverent liturgies, like-minded parishioners, and a leadership who is obedient to the successor of the Apostles.
You should strongly consider that before jumping to a group that looks and feels more Catholic, but is already deficient in one of the most important things: the allegiance of the leaders to the one leader chosen by the Holy Spirit to guide the one Church, rather than the leanings of the folks in the pews.
- Status