Pushed to the SSPX

[jmcrae]

No. Your statement was “commissioned by a successor of the Apostles” and all SSPX priests are commissioned by valid successor of the Apostles. Bishops Fellay, Williamson, de Galaretta, and Tissier are no less successors to the apostles than my diocesan bishop.

That string was cut when they left the Church. Your priests are in union only with those Bishops; not with the Pope, and not with your local Diocesan Bishop. On a technicality, yes, they are in a kind of union with the Apostles, but it is not full holy communion.

 

[JReducation]

All bishops are successors to the Apostles. Not all bishops have jurisdiction. Look at the auxiliaries in any diocese. They have no jurisdiction.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[spn82756]

That string was cut when they left the Church. Your priests are in union only with those Bishops; not with the Pope, and not with your local Diocesan Bishop. On a technicality, yes, they are in a kind of union with the Apostles, but it is not full holy communion.

The Vatican itself says they have Apostolic Succession.

 

[ProVobis]

That string was cut when they left the Church. Your priests are in union only with those Bishops; not with the Pope, and not with your local Diocesan Bishop. On a technicality, yes, they are in a kind of union with the Apostles, but it is not full holy communion.

The Orthodox bishops follow Apostolic Succession as much as those “in communion” with the Pope. Schism or retirement or reassignment does not revoke the power bestowed on them by Christ. There is no degree of this power to ordain others; either they have it or they don’t.

 

[spn82756]

Thank you. This is my point. The original poster told part of the story. But later, I found out the rest of the story. The original poster is not lying. There are just missing pieces. When you put the pieces together, this has nothing to do with sugar hosts, clown masses or anything like that.

1. 
   *]Communicant wanted communion on tongue.
   *]Priest wanted communicant to help consume multiple hosts.
   *]Communicant told priest he had the right to communion on the tongue. We don’t know how he said it.
   *]Priest was rude, instead of explaining himself better or moving on to the next person.
   
   = no violation of the rules.
   
   Fraternally,
   
   Br. JR, OSF

1. 
   To question receiving extra Hosts doesn’t even seem a reasonable argument. Rude priests…they’re everywhere. And that’s because they’re human. No doubt that some need some lessons on manners…but sometimes you’ve just got to avoid make an issue of things.
   
   Most diocese in southeastern New England are very restricted during the winter as to what we can do. Because of H1N1…no Blood of Christ…no Holy Water in fonts…no sign of peace. My reason to participate in Mass is to participate in the liberation of man by a God that loves us so much that he showed us how to live and how to suffer.
   
   Rude priests…or not having things just as I see correct…have no place in worship.
   
   So…JReducation…YOU ARE CORRECT!
   
   Really everybody…
   
   ***Merry Christmas
   

   ---

   Let’s celebrate all we agree on during this Holy Season!

 

[JReducation]

The Orthodox bishops follow Apostolic Succession as much as those “in communion” with the Pope. Schism or retirement or reassignment does not revoke the power bestowed on them by Christ. There is no degree of this power to ordain others; either they have it or they don’t.

I think that we are confusing succession, power and authority. They are not interchangeable.

Succession: All bishops have apostolic succession.

Power: All the ordained have the power to celebrate the sacraments entrusted to their order.

Authority: Only those with a canonical position in the Church have the authority to use their power.

Exception: The Orthodox–they have succession, power and authority and do not need to have a canonical position in the Church, because they are not part of the Catholic Church. Therefore, canon law does ot apply to them. They do not sin against obedience as long as they are authorized by their own patriarchs to use their power.

Conclusion: The SSPX bishops do not have authority. Therefore, they cannot authorize others. As I stated above, the same rule applies to auxiliary bishops. Auxiliary bishops only have the authority given them by their Ordinary or by their religious superior, if they belong to a religious community.

I hope this clarifies the confusion.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF :christmastree1:

 

[Lamentabili]

I would suggest that you not use the code and commentaries of 1917. It only confuses things. What the code of 1983 tried to do was to streamline, because the code of 1917 had too many contingencies. The idea was to take those away. It also had many exceptions to this or that. What Pope John Paul II wanted to do was to centralize more authority on the papacy and the person of the pope and less on law. This made governing easier. Stick with the 1983 code and commentary. As I said above, the Navarre commentary is a good one. It’s easy to read and it clearly states that the jurisdiction is supplied to the priest, not to the penitent.

The provisions of the 1917 and the 1983 Code regarding supplied jurisdiction for common error are identical. Thus commentaries printed before the Society even existed which use examples almost identical to the Society Chapel situation are very instructive as to the mind of the Church regarding these provisions. These commentaries were pre-Society and thus cannot be biased.

All that being said, there is one point in theology that is not mentioned in canon law. If a person is truly sorry of their sin(s), they are forgiven; just not by the priest who has no jurisdiction to forgive. But God does forgive. Maybe this is what you’re thinking about. God does not need the priest to forgive. He chooses to use the priest. Otherwise, non Catholics could never be forgiven. We know that this is not true.

This has to do with perfect contrition for sins. It is Catholic teaching that one can be forgiven without the sacrament of confession if one is truly sorry for love of God, provided, if one is Catholic, one goes to confession at the first opportunity. Imperfect contrition consists in being sorry due to fear of Hell. One can be absolved sacramentally with imperfect contrition, but not outside the sacrament.

However, this is not what I am talking about. I have presented the argument made by Salza and others that the Society priests in Chapels who meet the criteria under Canon Law for supplied jurisdiction are granted that jurisdiction and thus their absolutions in those cases are valid.

 

[Lamentabili]

No sir, it is something new. It is a direct statement specifically clarifying the status of the SSPX. This would also appear to clarify anything said tangentially by any Commission as well…

To make it even more clear, he reiterates “to make this clear once again” to avoid the kind of personal interpretations and taking things out of context that seem to be occurring here.

Please provide some sort of evidence that this Papal statement in an address made primarily to insubordinate German bishops is some sort of a new harsher clarification of the Society’s status.

If this were the case, surely the SSPX would have been very disturbed by this news especially since it would have come right in the middle of a thawing in Roman-Society relations and right before planned doctrinal discussions were to take place. One would expect to find many animated Society writings discussing this “change” in the Vatican view of its status. Surely Bishop Fellay would have commented negatively on this change.

To the contrary you will find hardly any articles from those on either side acting as if this statement were truly a change in Rome’s position or any sort of new revelation. If the Pope wished to make an official ruling as to the Society’s status different from that previously in existence he would have made the statement in the proper canonical manner, not informally in an address whose main focus was not the Society’s status, but a reprimanding of those Bishops who do not want them reconciled.

When looked at in detail, the March declaration is actually more onerous than Ecclesia Dei. The previous document while stating the ipso facto excommunications of the four bishops, leaves the remainder of the SSPX clergy alone in terms of stating their regularity (or lack thereof).

The current March clarification specifically and definitively places all clergy of the SSPX in the situation where they “do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church”. As I stated previously, that is a very clear, direct, and concise statement for all Catholics.

The SSPX clergy have been in an irregular situation since the 1970’s when Rome “suspended” the faculties of any priests ordained from Econe after Archbishop Lefebvre refused to close down his seminary. I put suspended in quotation marks because there are very compelling reasons to believe this suspension was invalid both on the basis of Canon Law and Natural Justice.

Nevertheless, the Society priests not having a Canonical status in the Church (and thus “legitimate ministry”) is nothing new. The priests have been in this situation since the original 1970’s suspension.

For an outstanding documentary of the events surrounding Archbishop Lefebvre and the Vatican in the 1970’s read Michael Davies’ Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre Volume One. In that book he prints all relevant documents and letters between Rome and Archbishop Lefebvre as well as many newspaper articles at the time discussing the matter.

n.b. While one may cite this or that historical citation from the 1917 Code. it is no longer in force after the promulgation of the 1983 Code. Until a revision is blessed by Rome, the 1983 Code is the only Code actionable within the Latin Catholic Church (the Eastern Catholics have their own Code). This is fact and reality, in spite of how much any individual person loves the 1917 Code.

The Society bases its claims for supplied jurisdiction on the '83 Code, but in this particular case (common error) the distinction is without a difference. The canons on common error are identical in both codes. I mentioned that a commentary written before the Society existed on these very provisions support the Society view. There is also an '83 commentary that describes an example of common error similar to a Society Chapel though I’d have to find it.

 

[Lamentabili]

After the lifting of the excommunication, the SSPX were asked not to ordain and they went ahead and did so a few weeks later.

The Society had been ordaining priests since the 1970’s suspension and Rome had not officially said anything more about it since then. Obviously Rome knew that the Society was continuing to ordain priests well past the 70’s.

After the remitting of the excommunications and the Bishop Williamson fiasco and the news that doctrinal talks were forthcoming, the German Bishops (who previously made pains to say the Society was outside of the Church) then did a 180 and pressured Rome to prevent the Society from ordaining priests under Canon Law (apparently recognizing they were inside the Church). To my knowledge Rome did not instruct them not to ordain and no penalty was forthcoming (much to the German Bishops’ chagrin). I think the Pope saw through their sudden zeal for Canon Law and realized they were simply trying to thwart the reconciliation process. The Pope knew and knows the situation with the Society and that they had been ordaining priests in this manner for 35 years prior.

The situation was not a big deal (except to those Bishops who do not want the Society reconciled) and Rome and the Society proceeded to doctrinal discussions. Far from condemning the Society for the ordinations the Pope reprimanded the German Bishops for insubordination and ill will towards the Society. They were playing politics.

 

[Lamentabili]

SSPX Ordinations and the Reign of “the Vatican”

(Posted 06/19/09 www.RemnantNewspaper.com) Today, June 19, 2009, Bishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerais ordained thirteen priests at the seminary of the Society of Saint Pius X in Winona, MN. On June 27, 2009, Bishop Alfonso de Galaretta will ordain three priests at the Society’s seminary in Zaitzkofen, Germany, and on the same date five more priests will be ordained at the Society’s headquarters in Ecône, Switzerland.

The Society has been ordaining priests since the 1970s, but these twenty-one ordinations are perceived differently because the international media have been in a state of high alert over the growing threat of recrudescent Roman Catholicism since the publication of Summorum Pontificum and the remission of the excommunications of the Society’s four bishops in January of this year—actions widely denounced by the media because they were undertaken without a consensus of the Pope’s advisors in “the Vatican.”
“The Vatican” and the Society’s Ordinations

Hence the media responded to the coming ordinations with a spate of tendentious headlines suggesting what they would like us to believe: that “the Vatican”—not the Pope, mind you—has forbidden the ordinations. Herewith a sampling:

· “Vatican defied over rebel Catholic ordinations” (Guardian.co.uk);

· “SSPX to ordain new priests despite Vatican warning” (Reuters);

· “Vatican throws down gauntlet to ultra-traditionalist SSPX” (Reuters Blogs);

· “Vatican bans breakaway Catholic ordinations” (ABC Online);

· “Vatican Rejects Conservative Group’s Ordinations,” (Huffington Post);

· “Vatican takes stand against rebel order” (Swissinfo);

· “Vatican opposes ordination of breakaway priests” (AFP);

· “Vatican: Conservative group’s ordinations invalid” (Associated Press).

All of these stories cite the same source: not the Pope or anyone specifically authorized by him to speak on the matter, but rather a bulletin from the Vatican Press Office issued on 17 June. That is, by “the Vatican” the media mean a writer of bulletins whose office happens to be located in Vatican City. And who exactly is the author of this bulletin from “the Vatican”? Was it perhaps the Vatican equivalent of Jimmy Olsen, cub reporter? Or was it the Vatican’s version of Perry White, the head of the Vatican Press Office, Father Federico Lombardi, S.J.?

Of course, the ecclesiastical authority of bulletins from the Vatican Press Office is nil, but in any case the headlines are all fiction. The bulletin says absolutely nothing about “the Vatican” opposing, banning, forbidding or even warning against the ordinations. Rather, it merely adverts to the Pope’s letter of 10 March 2009 concerning the lifting of the excommunications, which states that (strictly speaking) the Society “does not have a canonical status in the Church,” and that “its ministers do not exercise legitimate ministries,” to which the author of the bulletin adds the gloss that “the ordinations are, thus, still to be considered illegitimate.” Not invalid or even illicit (the operative canonical term of art), but “illegitimate”—whatever that means, as if anyone cares.

But wait. According to a headline appearing in Le Monde online yesterday, “The Vatican regrets, but does not oppose, the ordination of 24 new integrist priests.” Citing another communiqué of uncertain provenance, the story in Le Monde quotes “the Vatican” as advising that “the Pope could not interdict these ordinations. That would provoke a rupture in the process of rapprochement…” Indeed it would, which is precisely why the Pope did not forbid the ordinations, and why Bishop Fellay reports that the Society has been assured privately that it will enjoy a provisional legal status during its dialogue with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith concerning the problematical texts of Vatican II.

So, once again the hydra of “the Vatican” contradicts itself, which is the inevitable result of the post-conciliar proliferation of utterly fallible bureaucratic agencies in Rome, each with its own talking head. When the Risen Lord issued the divine commission, He empowered the Pope, the bishops and the priests of His hierarchical Church to go forth and “teach all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you…” But He said nothing of press agencies or an entity called “the Vatican,” consisting of a collection of office buildings and apartments located at 41° 54’ 39" North and 12° 27’ 7" East…

 

[pnewton]

Hence the media responded to the coming ordinations with a spate of tendentious headlines suggesting what they would like us to believe: that “the Vatican”—not the Pope, mind you—has forbidden the ordinations. Herewith a sampling:

While The Remnant is about as far from unbiased as possible, there is in this article something that we might need to be reminded of, namely, that we do often get a slanted view from the media. We all at some time fall victim to reporters who dislike the SSPX for their moral stands and their political incorrectness. I know, just like I am quick to point out bias from traditionalist sources, without a doubt secular news media almost always paint the SSPX in the worst possible light. I have seen major media outlets exaggerate and even outright lie about them.

Just something to keep in mind.

 

[JReducation]

While The Remnant is about as far from unbiased as possible, there is in this article something that we might need to be reminded of, namely, that we do often get a slanted view from the media. We all at some time fall victim to reporters who dislike the SSPX for their moral stands and their political incorrectness. I know, just like I am quick to point out bias from traditionalist sources, without a doubt secular news media almost always paint the SSPX in the worst possible light. I have seen major media outlets exaggerate and even outright lie about them.

Just something to keep in mind.

Since when does the media not look for a scapegoat!

That being said, we just got in from Midnight Mass. It was beautiful. There were over 800 people there. I know, because our parish church only sists 800. There was an huge overflow. This was the fifth mass tonight. The brothers have been celebrating mass since 4:00 PM. There will be three more in the morning and one in the evening.

We had to “rent” priests. We have only one friar priest and six non-clerical friars. But one of the auxiliary bishops volunteered to preside at the Midnight Mass. Of course all seven brothers were on the sanctuary, five diocesan deacons who serve in our parish and three diocesan priests who are retired and live in the neighborhood. The music was perfect.

The most awesome thing happened in the middle of the homily. The bishop was in the middle of his homily. He was talking about the baby in the manger and what it was like to have a young infant in the middle of a smelly stable. Suddenly, a baby in the congregation began to cry loudly. The bishop stopped, looked around and walked over to where the baby was crying. He picked up the baby and returned to the pulpit with the baby in arms. Suddenly, the baby was very quiet and the bishop continued his homily. It was as if the Lord himself provided him with a prop. The homily was about preparing a manger for the unborn and how the birth of Jesus proclaims to the world that God loves humanity so deeply that he bestows it on his only begotten Son as his most precious gift. He made a beautiful link between Christmas and Easter by reminding us that Jesus begins his journey to calvary in Bethlehem. He then called the congegation to conversion and to the protection of the vulnerable child in the mangers in their mother’s womb. He reminded the congregation of the many Herods along the way and how Christians are to be like Joseph, to protect the vulnerable life that God has created and shared with us through his son. It was awesome.

Many people liked it, because it was a blend of Latin and English too.

Have a blessed Christmas Day everyone! May the child Jesus who smiled upon our holy Father Francis from the crib at Greccio smile upon you and your families.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF :christmastree1:

 

[TraditionRising]

Going to the SSPX is not the answer, as they are still not in communion with the Pope and don’t believe that he is a valid one.

That is a false statement.

 

[TraditionRising]

Perhaps the problem in Lake Jackson, as well as many other (if not most other) modern parishes is that you consider as acceptable the practices that many consider abusive and disrespectful? If you have “grown up” in the Novus Ordo and never knew otherwise, you may consider normal what others have always considered despicable.

exactly

 

[pnewton]

exactly

No, not exactly. You haven’t been here. You do not know. He even missed how I grew up. Totally off base in his theories and assumptions. I know. I am me. I am here.

 

[utah_rose]

That is a false statement.

I just received my "Catholic Answer: for January and February and it states:

“this group founded by Archbishop Marcel Lefebere contends that Pope Pius X11 was the last legitimate pope; all his successors are merely pretenders to the papal throne”.

“The history of these groups (St Pius V also) clearly illustrates what happens when groups of Christians separate themselves from the divinely appointed center of unity in the Church”

"Regardless of what these groups think of themselves, they are essentially Protestant. They reject the Church’s authority and try to make themselves the final authority in matters of faith and morals. They are bound to fail. Pray for them to come to their senses and come back to their true home.

Also we know they are still in talks with the Vatican over religious dogma, as they don’t believe in some things (ecumenical) that were forthcoming from Vatican 11.

A sad example of this is the Pius X11 bishop who disbelieves the Holocaust.

 

[ProVobis]

“this group founded by Archbishop Marcel Lefebere contends that Pope Pius X11 was the last legitimate pope; all his successors are merely pretenders to the papal throne”.

You’ll find a lot of disagreement here. As far as I know, the party line of the SSPX is that all the Popes since Pius XII are legitimate. The Canon of the Missal specifically refers to the current Pope.

Also we know they are still in talks with the Vatican over religious dogma, as they don’t believe in some things (ecumenical) that were forthcoming from Vatican 11.

A sad example of this is the Pius X11 bishop who disbelieves the Holocaust.

This is completely unrelated, even if ecumenism is the new dogma. Not to mention that it is a gross manipulation by the news media to make the Pope look bad for removing the excommunications.

 

[ProVobis]

Since when does the media not look for a scapegoat!

That being said, we just got in from Midnight Mass. It was beautiful. There were over 800 people there. I know, because our parish church only sists 800. There was an huge overflow. This was the fifth mass tonight. The brothers have been celebrating mass since 4:00 PM. There will be three more in the morning and one in the evening.

I watched the midnight Mass from Holy Name Cathedral last night. They sang Adeste Fidelis (in Latin), the Kyrie, and the Gloria (in Latin). I fell asleep after that.

Packed house there too. So why isn’t it like that every Sunday?

A Blessed Christmas to you.

 

[Bbigam]

Since when does the media not look for a scapegoat!

That being said, we just got in from Midnight Mass. It was beautiful. There were over 800 people there. I know, because our parish church only sists 800. There was an huge overflow. This was the fifth mass tonight. The brothers have been celebrating mass since 4:00 PM. There will be three more in the morning and one in the evening.

We had to “rent” priests. We have only one friar priest and six non-clerical friars. But one of the auxiliary bishops volunteered to preside at the Midnight Mass. Of course all seven brothers were on the sanctuary, five diocesan deacons who serve in our parish and three diocesan priests who are retired and live in the neighborhood. The music was perfect.

The most awesome thing happened in the middle of the homily. The bishop was in the middle of his homily. He was talking about the baby in the manger and what it was like to have a young infant in the middle of a smelly stable. Suddenly, a baby in the congregation began to cry loudly. The bishop stopped, looked around and walked over to where the baby was crying. He picked up the baby and returned to the pulpit with the baby in arms. Suddenly, the baby was very quiet and the bishop continued his homily. It was as if the Lord himself provided him with a prop. The homily was about preparing a manger for the unborn and how the birth of Jesus proclaims to the world that God loves humanity so deeply that he bestows it on his only begotten Son as his most precious gift. He made a beautiful link between Christmas and Easter by reminding us that Jesus begins his journey to calvary in Bethlehem. He then called the congegation to conversion and to the protection of the vulnerable child in the mangers in their mother’s womb. He reminded the congregation of the many Herods along the way and how Christians are to be like Joseph, to protect the vulnerable life that God has created and shared with us through his son. It was awesome.

Many people liked it, because it was a blend of Latin and English too.

Have a blessed Christmas Day everyone! May the child Jesus who smiled upon our holy Father Francis from the crib at Greccio smile upon you and your families.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF :christmastree1:

Wow, that’s amazing! Am I allowed to ask what bishop this was?

We had a truly beautiful Midnight Mass too. Just the one priest and one deacon, but plenty of altar servers and they used shoulder capes, plenty of incense - way more than we ever use except Christmas and Easter - and Greek Kyrie, with Latin Gloria, Sanctus, Pater Noster, Angus Dei, Rite of Peace, and final blessing. The choir was really beautiful too - the best rendition of What Child Is This I have ever heard.

 

[RoryMcKenzie56]

I just received my "Catholic Answer: for January and February and it states:

“this group founded by Archbishop Marcel Lefebere contends that Pope Pius X11 was the last legitimate pope; all his successors are merely pretenders to the papal throne”.

“The history of these groups (St Pius V also) clearly illustrates what happens when groups of Christians separate themselves from the divinely appointed center of unity in the Church”

"Regardless of what these groups think of themselves, they are essentially Protestant. They reject the Church’s authority and try to make themselves the final authority in matters of faith and morals. They are bound to fail. Pray for them to come to their senses and come back to their true home.

Also we know they are still in talks with the Vatican over religious dogma, as they don’t believe in some things (ecumenical) that were forthcoming from Vatican 11.

A sad example of this is the Pius X11 bishop who disbelieves the Holocaust.

Utah Rose,

I admire anti-Protestantism to a point, but in your case, it seems excessive. Here we have a group of Protestants, if we grant your point, who think they are Catholic, who say that Pope Benedict XVI is the Holy Father. I have been to many Protestant churches and one thing that would have confused me, would have been to see two photographs of the current bishop of Rome placed in prominent places in the church. It would have made me think that these Protestants were “essentially Catholic”, and that they believed that the person in the picture is who virtually the entire world accepts that he is, the pope. I never saw this until 2005, long after I thought I had become Catholic and stopped visiting Protestant churches.

So in 2005, I go to what is according to you, another Protestant church, our nearby SSPX chapel, who according to the claim of your sources, “contends that Pope Pius XII was the last legitimate pope” and there they are, pictures of Pope John Paul II. Shortly after his death, there appear photos of Benedict XVI, significantly, not as Cardinal Ratzinger, but in white garments of the pope. How do you explain such behavior? I concluded they believed these men were their popes.

Not only this, but from the pulpit, from books, and news articles there are continuous references to the current pope, not as a pretender, but the Vicar of Christ, the Successor of St. Peter who holds the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven. It isn’t like they explain why he is pope. It is just seems like an assumption. How do you explain such words and actions if your source is reliable? Help me out. Our SSPX parish priest is coming over for Christmas dinner in a few hours. I know He would be astounded to hear me ask him to confirm that he believes that Benedict XVI is the pope. I know I do. Why don’t you believe us?

I think your zeal is admirable, and you love the church, but if you love your neighbor for Christ’s sake, you have to be happy to consider the possibility that these people (and that means me too) are at least closer to the true faith than you have been led to believe. We believe that we have a pope. I appreciate almost every misgiving that is ever expressed about why Catholics won’t go to an SSPX chapel. I am only here to clear up misconceptions, not to convince anyone to go to a Society Mass. Yours is a clear misconception. Surely, you don’t accuse the Society of saying what they do not believe with regard to Pope Benedict? Do you think that an SSPX chapel would put up pictures of an anti-pope?

If we are essentially Protestants as you have said, does it give true Catholics like you the right to exaggerate our sins? Do you think the Catholic Church teaches that if a man is a thief, you should convict him of murder? Even criminals, sinners, and Protestants should be immune to false accusation, don’t you think? Is that what the ecumenism you fault the SSPX for rejecting, teaches? Surely not.

The Society seems more charitable and ecumenical than those who seem to have an almost diabolical opposition to the SSPX with a mission to exaggerate, lie about, and hyperbolize its entire history. It seems to me like you need to know this before you take anyone else’s word about what the Society believes or teaches.