SSPX Info, updates and interviews

[Oneofthewomen]

OK, I think I get it. Because AB Lefebvre was a real Bishop, even though he ordained 4 Bishops without Papal permission, they are validly ordained because the AB was validly ordained.

So it follows that if the 4 Bishops are “validly ordained” then they, by the right of their office, can validly ordain priests, therefore, all SSPX priests that were ordained by one of the 4 Bishops since then are validly ordained.

So for me the question of validity is answered. Now on to the question of “illicit”.
All the ordinations, that of the 4 Bishops and all subsequent priests, are “illicit” because the “rules” which you list were not followed. Am I understanding correctly?

Which I guess brings me to another question- if no one is to accept the sacraments from one who they know who are suspended, how can any man who accepted ordination through the SSPX after the excommunications, knowing that their status was outside the Church, be seen as “validly” ordained?

They are validly ordained, because they were ordained by real bishops.

Their ordination is illegal (illicit), because

• those bishops were outside of the Catholic Church. Only a bishop inside the Catholic Church has the right to ordain.
• only the bishop of a diocese can ordain the men in his diocese
• a candidate who is not diocesan must belong to legal society of secular priests or to a religious order and have the permission of his superior, in writing, to be ordained. They did not have that.
• no Catholic may ever accept sacraments from a clergyman who is known to be suspended, except in danger of death. In accepting sacraments from said clergyman, you are aiding and abetting in the violation of the law.

The SSPX clerics who were ordained by Archbishop Lefebvre or any other bishop before the eruption were validly and legally ordained. If the incurred a suspension, it was for some other reason.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[JReducation]

OK, but I’m not talking about the majority of Catholics. I’m talking about theologians, priests, and bishops – people who should know better. Like, for instance, the crazies in Austria and Germany. They aren’t no one, after all, and they report widespread support from priests throughout the world. They may not be a movement, but then, were they ever? (We have an aggravating tendency to impose “isms” on past peoples that they wouldn’t have comprehended).

There is indisputably a mass of people with modernist sentiments. Whether they technically qualify as modernists isn’t my point. My point is that there are still lots and lots and lots of these people, and their sheer size makes their threats of schism very credible. I suspect that’s why the Austrian crazies have been dealt with extremely slowly to not at all. A lot of these crazies think Vatican II represented a doctrinal rupture-event, and are happy about that. They hate Benedict XVI to the extent he hasn’t perpetuated the perceived rupture (e.g., a priest I read of recently who claims to have “excommunicated” the Pope as a heretic for functionally repudiating Vatican II). Are they nothing? Must we all agree to nod our heads and move along because there’s nothing to see here?

Interesting anecdote: a friend of mine with traditionalist-sympathies told me of what he calls the “chemotherapy” interpretation of Vatican II (which he doesn’t believe was doctrinally discontinuous). He argues that it was a fundamentally good thing insofar as it embolded the modernists to overplay their hand and reveal themselves for the silly, sappy, stupid, unholy fools that they are, driving good and sane Catholics to turn away in disgust and engendering a renewed love of tradition. It’s a sentiment I’ve seen more than once at traditionalist forums, including here at CAF and at Rorate Caeli. I can’t say he doesn’t have a point. He also suspects the crash in vocations is due in part to their malign influence and that it’s a self-correcting process – that the crazies have inculcated a love of the world in those inclined to listen to them to such an extent that none will forsake the world to enter the celibate priesthood, and that as the crazies die off they are replaced with orthodox young men. I have no idea how true this interpretation/understanding is, but it seems to accord with reality from what I’ve seen of it.

Before I respond, I have to explain why I’m laughing. I was reading what you wrote and wondering why we were discussing you “Dear Husband.” (DH).

I took me a few minutes to figure out what we were discussing.

I’ll give you the short and concise answer to your many questions. Go with Pope Benedict and forget the Trads. The Trads have the same tendency as the Liberals, to over inflate a problem to the point that it gets undeserved attention. Bishop Fellay said something very true.

The Liberals inflated Vatican II into some super dogma that it is not. The Trads have inflated it into some super heresy, which it also is not. When you get both of these elephants into the room, there is no space for normal people to move. It’s overwhelming to the average person.

I’ve known Joseph Ratzinger for more than 30 years. He was one of my profs. This man is a genius. He’s a holy man. He loves the Church with a passion. He does everything very deliberately, nothing is ever done in a hurry and nothing is ever done without a reason or left undone without a reason. He thinks this way and he taught all of us to think this way.

There are some things that must be addressed. Some things can wait and some are better if they are ignored, because to address them is like exposing cancer to the environment. It only gets worse. In addition, this man has very little tolerance for being pushed. He has never tolerated that. He’s an academic. He understands what’s being said in those documents. As far as he is concerned, there is nothing in there that is a rupture with the past. From his point of view, the problem is that the documents are not as clear as they should be. They have to be explained and properly taught.

He also believes very strongly that to answer questions about the documents will only feed the general Catholic population’s belief that it has a right to sit the pope down and interrogate him. He will not tolerate that. He has always been a great defender of the papacy. He actually kept Pope John Paul from sitting down and talking about his or that. Pope John Paul wanted to speak to this issue and that issue. Cardinal Ratzinger was very prudent. He did not want to set a precedent that has never happened. Popes don’t sit down and answer the faithful’s questions on demand. They have a job to do and there are bodies and committees and systems to answer those questions. That’s not the pope’s job.

If he says, there is nothing wrong in these documents other than poor writing and there are things that no theologian can explain until they happen you can take it to the bank that he’s right and honest. The man has never been theologically wrong or dishonest. His worse mistakes have nothing to do with theology, but with understanding situations. That’s not going to change. He’s German. In his mind, we’re nuts.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[JReducation]

There was a short mention of SSPX and the Vatican at 11:47 on this Catholic News newtwork: youtube.com/watch?v=T_Tl7ESmOwc&feature=g-u-u

I can’t see YouTube under penalty of grave sin. Can you tell me what was said?

OK, I think I get it. Because AB Lefebvre was a real Bishop, even though he ordained 4 Bishops without Papal permission, they are validly ordained because the AB was validly ordained.

So it follows that if the 4 Bishops are “validly ordained” then they, by the right of their office, can validly ordain priests, therefore, all SSPX priests that were ordained by one of the 4 Bishops since then are validly ordained.

So for me the question of validity is answered. Now on to the question of “illicit”.
All the ordinations, that of the 4 Bishops and all subsequent priests, are “illicit” because the “rules” which you list were not followed. Am I understanding correctly?

Which I guess brings me to another question- if no one is to accept the sacraments from one who they know who are suspended, how can any man who accepted ordination through the SSPX after the excommunications, knowing that their status was outside the Church, be seen as “validly” ordained?

Even Martin Luther died a valid priest. You cannot undo the sacraments. Once a person is ordained, he has the power to do whatever he was ordained to do. HE DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY to use that power. That authority must come from either a diocesan bishop or a male religious superior. No one else can give that authority. Not even Mother Angelica or Mother Teresa or even an auxiliary bishop.

Any ordained deacon, priest or bishop can validly celebrate the sacraments that come with his order, even if he’s outside the Church, even Luther. The only two sacraments that no one can validly celebrate without the permission of a diocesan bishop or a religious superior are matrimony and penance.

There is a question on the table about Confirmation. The jury is still out.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[TrueLight]

He also believes very strongly that to answer questions about the documents will only feed the general Catholic population’s belief that it has a right to sit the pope down and interrogate him. He will not tolerate that. He has always been a great defender of the papacy. He actually kept Pope John Paul from sitting down and talking about his or that. Pope John Paul wanted to speak to this issue and that issue.
Br. JR, FFV

Is that what it’s all about?

 

[jam070406]

The Second Vatican Council’s declarations on non-Christian religions and religious freedom do not contain “binding doctrinal content,” Cardinal Walter Brandmuller said at a press conference on May 21.

The retired president of the Pontifical Committee for Historical Sciences, along with Archbishop Agostino Marchetto and Father Nicola Bux, is the coauthor of a newly published book, Le ‘Chiavi’ di Benedetto XVI per interpretare il Vaticano II [Benedict XVI’s ‘Keys’ for Interpreting Vatican II].

Stating that the conciliar documents have differing degrees of authority, Cardinal Brandmuller said that “there is a huge difference between a great constitution and simple declarations.”

“Strangely enough, the two most controversial documents [on religious liberty and relations with non-Christian religions] do not have a binding doctrinal content, so one can dialogue about them," he continued. "So I don’t understand why our friends in the Society of St. Pius X concentrate almost exclusively on these two texts. And I’m sorry that they do so, because these are the two that are most easy to accept if we consider their canonical nature.”

catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=14369

 

[CatholicFireman]

Well they said:

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (hope I got that right) will discuss the issue of the SSPX’s return on Tuesday. They further said, in an official communique, that the positions of three SSPX bishops who oppose reuniting with Rome will be dealt with seperately.

 

[Oneofthewomen]

OK, I get it now!!!
Thank you for helping me to understand this-
it puts a lot of other things into a better light for me.
All this “law” stuff makes my head hurt, and for some reason, I am drawn to it like a moth to a flame!

I can’t see YouTube under penalty of grave sin. Can you tell me what was said?

Even Martin Luther died a valid priest. You cannot undo the sacraments. Once a person is ordained, he has the power to do whatever he was ordained to do. HE DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY to use that power. That authority must come from either a diocesan bishop or a male religious superior. No one else can give that authority. Not even Mother Angelica or Mother Teresa or even an auxiliary bishop.

Any ordained deacon, priest or bishop can validly celebrate the sacraments that come with his order, even if he’s outside the Church, even Luther. The only two sacraments that no one can validly celebrate without the permission of a diocesan bishop or a religious superior are matrimony and penance.

There is a question on the table about Confirmation. The jury is still out.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Mrs_Sally]

My attitude is that the past is past. We always must remember that even out of evil we have a greater good, and so while I do not even attempt to justify the past I say that we got some good out of it. Now we must look at the present conditions and not the past ones, when we are arguing about obedience or lack of it we should only refer to the present or we will never get out of it. I think that it would be highly inappropriate and stupid to assume that we just have to wait centuries like in the case of the Orthodox Churches.

And I agree.

 

[JReducation]

Is that what it’s all about?

You missed the “good old days”.

Popes were so harassed on all sides that they eventually became “prisoners of the Vatican”. If you get a chance, there is a wonderful books on the history of the papacy as well as the issues that the papacy faces today.

SAINT PETER LIVES IN ROME
Dr. Robert Stackpole, STD

and

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
Pope Benedict XVI

As one reads them, one realizes the importance of gaining some sense of control in an era when everyone wants to be in charge. One also realizes the need to answer questions very slowly and very conscientiously, rather than on demand. During the past 2,000 years, when the papacy tried to emulate secular governments, it ended up in serious trouble. The same can be said about the many times that she simply responded to questions and challenges from the crowd without inhibitions. Dissent and aggressive suppression of dissent can be equally damaging to the papacy. It turns the papacy into a political office that anyone can lobby and that if you push hard enough, you’ll get what you want.

I believe that it would be a grave error for the papacy to go back into seclusion and limit itself to that which is spiritual. It is equally dangerous to the Church if the papacy yields to the pressure of the masses. Then we regress to the days when the popes could be bought and sold. We don’t want to go into isolation nor into democratization either.

The papacy has to respond to the needs and questions of the people, while at the same time setting its own rules for doing so, not following the rules of the people as if we were a constituency and the pope were our elected official.

I truly believe that Pope Benedict is going in that direction. He certainly is attentive to the needs of the Church. But he does not yield to any constituency. He’s everyone’s pope and no one’s employee.

I’m not sure if I’m making sense. Please say so, if I’m not and I’ll try harder to clarify.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[TrueLight]

You missed the “good old days”.

Popes were so harassed on all sides that they eventually became “prisoners of the Vatican”. If you get a chance, there is a wonderful books on the history of the papacy as well as the issues that the papacy faces today.

SAINT PETER LIVES IN ROME
Dr. Robert Stackpole, STD

and

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
Pope Benedict XVI

As one reads them, one realizes the importance of gaining some sense of control in an era when everyone wants to be in charge. One also realizes the need to answer questions very slowly and very conscientiously, rather than on demand. During the past 2,000 years, when the papacy tried to emulate secular governments, it ended up in serious trouble. The same can be said about the many times that she simply responded to questions and challenges from the crowd without inhibitions. Dissent and aggressive suppression of dissent can be equally damaging to the papacy. It turns the papacy into a political office that anyone can lobby and that if you push hard enough, you’ll get what you want.

I believe that it would be a grave error for the papacy to go back into seclusion and limit itself to that which is spiritual. It is equally dangerous to the Church if the papacy yields to the pressure of the masses. Then we regress to the days when the popes could be bought and sold. We don’t want to go into isolation nor into democratization either.

The papacy has to respond to the needs and questions of the people, while at the same time setting its own rules for doing so, not following the rules of the people as if we were a constituency and the pope were our elected official.

I truly believe that Pope Benedict is going in that direction. He certainly is attentive to the needs of the Church. But he does not yield to any constituency. He’s everyone’s pope and no one’s employee.

I’m not sure if I’m making sense. Please say so, if I’m not and I’ll try harder to clarify.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

You’re very clear. Thank you.

I actually like the Pope having authority. I prefer that to collegiality, but that is another topic.

I’ll take a look at the books. You always recommend good books.

What do the initials STD stand for? Those are not good initials, LOL.

 

[Oneofthewomen]

What do the initials STD stand for? Those are not good initials, LOL.

S.T.D. Sacrae Theologiae Doctor–Doctor of Sacred Theology.

 

[JReducation]

You’re very clear. Thank you.

I actually like the Pope having authority. I prefer that to collegiality, but that is another topic.

I’ll take a look at the books. You always recommend good books.

What do the initials STD stand for? Those are not good initials, LOL.

What do you mean? I have an STD in Ascetical and Mystical Theology.

Today, they no longer call it that. Now it’s an STD in Spiritual Theology.

You get that after you finish your PhD.

---

Collegiality is not what Traditionalists and Liberals think it is. It comes from the ancient term colegio or “in the company of”. The bishops ruled in the company of each other and in communion with the Bishop of Rome.

The Bishop of Rome was included as one of the bishops, even though he was the successor of Peter. Later, the Church spread so far and wide that bishops were no longer close to each other. The whole sense of a college was watered down and the pope became a monarch and his vocation to be a bishop got buried under all of the external trappings of the papacy.

Bl. John XXIII wanted to recover the place of the pope among the bishops. He was not surrendering the papacy. That’s why it’s rarely mentioned when speaking of collegiality. The papacy was not a problem. The problem was that bishopric of the pope. People had placed such a stress on his role as Pontiff that they had to be constantly reminded that he is also a bishop. He is part of the College of Bishops. He does not govern without them and they do not govern without him. While he is the Pontiff and Vicar of Christ, he is also one of the Apostles. Like the early Apostles, he invites his brother bishops to govern with him, as well and take responsibility for their Churches.

If truth be told, bishops after Vatican II experience more papal involvement in their lives, than bishops before Vatican II. Before Vatican II, the pope was informed of things after the fact. Communications were not what they are today. Bishops did not travel to Rome three and four times a year. That’s how the Ad Limina visits came to be. You had to make the pilgrimage to Rome at least every five years, to let the pope know what was going on in your diocese. Today the Ad Limina visit is really a formality. Not really necessary. It’s more of a retreat. In my diocese the bishop had been in Rome 10 days before and had met with the Holy Father about some things. Then he had to fly back for the Ad Limina visit to turn in his written report on his diocese.
Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[TrueLight]

S.T.D. Sacrae Theologiae Doctor–Doctor of Sacred Theology.

Ah. Is that what it stands for?

 

[choliks]

What do you mean? I have an STD in Ascetical and Mystical Theology.

Today, they no longer call it that. Now it’s an STD in Spiritual Theology.

You get that after you finish your PhD.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

If i’m getting TL right, I think she meant the STD linked with promiscuity. Something that nobody would like to have.

 

[JReducation]

If i’m getting TL right, I think she meant the STD linked with promiscuity. Something that nobody would like to have.

When I first came to work here, I was asked to work with the Archdiocesan Office for Respect Life. I can’t remember what they were doing. All I remember was the secretary calling out to me from her desk, “Brother, what degrees do you have?”

I called from my desk, in another office, “I have an MD, PhD and I recently got an STD.”

The Executive Director was walking in the door and all she heard was, “I recently got an STD.”

She came into my office and closed the door and sat down, very prim and proper. I had no idea what this was about. When she started to speak to me about the need to avoid scandal I was totally confused, until she hit the phrase “Sexually Transmitted Disease” I rolled over laughing so hard that I cried.

The poor woman was totally confused until I explained. why I was laughing . . . after I caught my breadth. That little episode earned me a meal on the floor for laughing. But I couldn’t help it. My superior didn’t agree with me. So I had to eat on the floor that night.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[choliks]

I called from my desk, in another office, “I have an MD, PhD and I recently got an STD.”

I took me a while to realize that MD didn’t mean Medicinae Doctor, but Master of Divinity. Unless you really have a degree in medicine.

The Executive Director was walking in the door and all she heard was, “I recently got an STD.”

She came into my office and closed the door and sat down, very prim and proper. I had no idea what this was about. When she started to speak to me about the need to avoid scandal I was totally confused, until she hit the phrase “Sexually Transmitted Disease” I rolled over laughing so hard that I cried.

The poor woman was totally confused until I explained. why I was laughing . . . after I caught my breadth. That little episode earned me a meal on the floor for laughing. But I couldn’t help it. My superior didn’t agree with me. So I had to eat on the floor that night.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[TrueLight]

When I first came to work here, I was asked to work with the Archdiocesan Office for Respect Life. I can’t remember what they were doing. All I remember was the secretary calling out to me from her desk, “Brother, what degrees do you have?”

I called from my desk, in another office, “I have an MD, PhD and I recently got an STD.”

The Executive Director was walking in the door and all she heard was, “I recently got an STD.”

She came into my office and closed the door and sat down, very prim and proper. I had no idea what this was about. When she started to speak to me about the need to avoid scandal I was totally confused, until she hit the phrase “Sexually Transmitted Disease” I rolled over laughing so hard that I cried.

The poor woman was totally confused until I explained. why I was laughing . . . after I caught my breadth. That little episode earned me a meal on the floor for laughing. But I couldn’t help it. My superior didn’t agree with me. So I had to eat on the floor that night.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

If i’m getting TL right, I think she meant the STD linked with promiscuity. Something that nobody would like to have.

Yeah, that’s what I meant but I am too prim and proper to say it.

 

[JReducation]

I took me a while to realize that MD didn’t mean Medicinae Doctor, but Master of Divinity. Unless you really have a degree in medicine.

A Master of Divinity is an M.Div. I have one of those too. You have to get it before going on for the doctorate.

I have an MD, I was a medical doctor before entering religious life.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[TrueLight]

A Master of Divinity is an M.Div. I have one of those too. You have to get it before going on for the doctorate.

I have an MD, I was a medical doctor before entering religious life.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

Now you’ve done it.

People are going to start posting threads on medical questions with titles like, “Do I have arthritis”, and then PM you and ask you to chime in.

 

[JReducation]

Now you’ve done it.

People are going to start posting threads on medical questions with titles like, “Do I have arthritis”, and then PM you and ask you to chime in.

I was very clear. I said . . . I WAS.

Only God can say I AM.

I do not answer medical questions.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV