SSPX Update - Redux

[JReducation]

Then a group who has attended SSPX Masses for several years would not be able to approach the Bishop and ask for the Extraordinary Form of the Mass? Why not? That would seem on the face of it to permanently cut off an entire group of people from ever being able to have a Church approved Extraordinary Form of the Mass. What if they had subscribed tothe SSPX view for years but due to the current Popes more lenient stance on the Extraordinary Form have revised their opinion and feel that the Church as a whole is starting a return to orthodoxy and wish to return. That I would think is a distinct posssibilty in at least some cases. What would they have to do in order to get one?

My friend Boulder explains how the statement was intended. The Holy Father did exclude anyone who subscribes to their mindset. Basically, that would be anyone who came to the bishop and said what Bishop Fellay says. “We want the EF, because the OF mass is evil.” It’s game over before you got onto the playing field. No bishop is authorized to entertain your request, because your request is tainted with error. If the bishop grants your request, before you recant the error, he’s reinforcing you.

It’s a little more than just attending mass at the SSPX. The current pope’s stance on the EF is quite lenient. His position on the beliefs of the SSPX is not lenient at all. It has never been lenient even when he was the Prefect of the CDF speaking for Bl. John Paul. There are letters that John Paul asked him to write in which he blasted Archbishop Lefebvre out of the water, not over the Tridentine mass, but over the theology being taught that the new mass was evil.

Afther the Archbishop’s death, other things have been said, which I believe even the Archbishop would have problems with, such as the Jews are enemies of the Church or the denial of Pope John Paul’s beatification, calling into question the canonizations by Bl. John Paul. The Archbishop never called those things into question.

People who adopt these beliefs have gone beyond just loving the EF and being nurtured by it. They have separated themselves in such a way that their reasons for wanting the EF are not valid. You can’t say that you want the EF, because everything about the Conciliar Church is wrong. That would send Pope Benedict through the roof. Those are the people who need not apply for the EF, because the pope says that they cannot have it. But it’s because of the beliefs that come with that request.

That is now what he said. Here is what he said, “Everyone, including the leadership of the SSPX, understood that he was referring to the laity that SUBSCRIBES to the SSPX way of thinking.”

Just because you are attending an SSPX Mass does not mean that you subscribe to the SSPX way of thinking or support the SSPX goals. However, as Br. JR also mentioned, one runs the risk of being persuaded by what they preach.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Justin_Swanton]

Let’s begin with this point. Canon Law is not concerned with the effects of the mass on the faithful. The word “love” and “grace” are not part of Canon Law, because you can’t legislate this. Canon Law is concerned with justice due to God and man. In justice to God, man must worship on the Lord’s Day. Failure to do so, when there is a valid Catholic mass available is a failure in justice to God. That’s how we’re trained.

The point though is that one is obligated to render to God due worship on the Sunday. The simple fact is that some Masses make it impossible for the participant to do precisely that. A law made impossible to execute is no longer binding.

In this case, the Church supplies if Joe does is convinced that the absolution is valid, because he knows nothing about jurisdiction and does not know that a suspended priest cannot absolve.

The absolution is invalid if Joe knows the rules and blows it off, because in his mind, the SSPX is right and the law is wrong. There is an attitude here, that complicates his situation. He is judging the law. As St. Paul says, you can’t be judges of the law. This has been Church tradition for 2,000 years. It began with Clement of Rome.

All I can say here, and I will repeat it ad nauseam, is that the outlook/worldview/mindset an SSPXer has in the SSPX is such that he, without formally looking on the mainstream Church as a false religion, nonetheless avoids any contact with it out of conscience. You have to have been in the SSPX to appreciate this. SSPX faithful are perfectly aware that their priests do not have faculties from their diocesan bishops, but they are equally convinced to the point where bad will is absolutely excluded, that their priests fill a real supernatural need and hence have extraordinary jurisdiction supplied directly by the Church. It is not about attitude.

Joe can certainly be absolved from his sin, but he is absolved because of his contrition. The absolution comes from God, but not through the priest. The law does not say that the person cannot be absolved at all. It only says that the absolution granted by the priest is invalid.

If we believed that only through a priest can one be absolved, there would be no non Catholics or non Orthodox in heaven, since we’re the only ones who have priests with the power to absolve.

The law concerning confession and absolution does not contradict the prime directive, which is the salvation of souls, because there are other means to attain absolution. The Church, in order to make the salvation of souls as extensive as possible, believes and teaches that even without sacramental absolution one can be absolved from sin. The how gets us into the whole area of apologetics, which is not the subject of this thread.

I deliberately made Joe have imperfect contrition because it is the teaching of the Church that imperfect contrition will not obtain forgiveness of sins outside confession. Let me clarify the terms:Imperfect contrition - one is sorry because one doesn’t want to lose heaven, which one perceives is one’s greatest good. it has an element of selfishness hence its imperfection.

Perfect contrition - one is sorry because one has offended God who is so good and loving towards us. It is a pure and unselfish sorrow. This contrition obtains forgiveness of sin outside confession.
For God to forgive Joe directly would be for him to change the fundamental rules by which he forgives sins, but God of course is not bound by his own laws.

 

[JReducation]

The point though is that one is obligated to render to God due worship on the Sunday. The simple fact is that some Masses make it impossible for the participant to do precisely that. A law made impossible to execute is no longer binding.

It is not impossible, because the sacrifice remains valid, regardless of how one feels. The law does not care about our feelings. The law cares about the sacrifice. If it’s valid, then the mass is valid and it’s a valid form of worship. Therefore, no Catholic is justified who skips the mass, because of what he believes or what he feels.

Canon Law could care less about what we think or what we feel. Pope Paul VI deliberately wrote and taught the new code this way. When Pope John Paul came to office, he continued in the same vain. “The law is the law.” This was the answer that he gave to Archbishop Lefebvre.

Archbishop Lefebvre even quoted a canon that says that in a perceived state of emergency a bishop can ordain another bishop. Pope John Paul pulled the rug out from under him and said, “I declare that this law does not apply to you. Therefore your request for an appeal is denied.” This is somewhere in the documents that went back and forth between the pope and the SSPX.

This is an example of how the Code of 1983 was written and how it was meant to be applied, coldly, maintaining distance and limiting all dispensations from the law to the pope. No one else can dispense from the law unless they are delegated to do so by the pope. The SSPX does not have such delegation. Individuals cannot dispense themselves from attending a valid mass, because they feel a certain way or they believe a certain way. They must believe what the Church believes or they are in trouble.

All I can say here, and I will repeat it ad nauseam, is that the outlook/worldview/mindset an SSPXer has in the SSPX is such that he, without formally looking on the mainstream Church as a false religion, nonetheless avoids any contact with it out of conscience. You have to have been in the SSPX to appreciate this. SSPX faithful are perfectly aware that their priests do not have faculties from their diocesan bishops, but they are equally convinced to the point where bad will is absolutely excluded, that their priests fill a real supernatural need and hence have extraordinary jurisdiction supplied directly by the Church. It is not about attitude.

I understand that this is what they believe. But their belief is in error, very serious error. The truth does not change because of what someone believes. The Church does not change her laws to fit beliefs of individuals or groups.

 

[JReducation]

I deliberately made Joe have imperfect contrition because it is the teaching of the Church that imperfect contrition will not obtain forgiveness of sins outside confession. Let me clarify the terms:Imperfect contrition - one is sorry because one doesn’t want to lose heaven, which one perceives is one’s greatest good. it has an element of selfishness hence its imperfection.

Perfect contrition - one is sorry because one has offended God who is so good and loving towards us. It is a pure and unselfish sorrow. This contrition obtains forgiveness of sin outside confession.
For God to forgive Joe directly would be for him to change the fundamental rules by which he forgives sins, but God of course is not bound by his own laws.

These rules need to be understood as the current Magisterium teaches

1452 When it arises from a love by which God is loved above all else, contrition is called “perfect” (contrition of charity). Such contrition remits venial sins; it also obtains forgiveness of mortal sins if it includes the firm resolution to have recourse to sacramental confession as soon as possible.

I think this part is clear

1484 “Individual, integral confession and absolution remain the only ordinary way for the faithful to reconcile themselves with God and the Church, unless physical or moral impossibility excuses from this kind of confession.” There are profound reasons for this. Christ is at work in each of the sacraments. He personally addresses every sinner: “My son, your sins are forgiven.” He is the physician tending each one of the sick who need him to cure them. He raises them up and reintegrates them into fraternal communion. Personal confession is thus the form most expressive of reconciliation with God and with the Church.

Here is where the rubber meets the road. There is no physical or moral impossibility that excuses a Catholic from confessing to a priest with faculties. What he believes does not constitute an impediment that the law can justify. Therefore, the absolution remains invalid if he knows that the priest does not have faculties. In my opinion, such an action may be sinful, because it is encouraging the priest in a sinful act. It is objectively a grave sin for a suspended priest to attempt to absolve.

Here is where the mercy of the Church enters the picture, all of these laws are objective, except the law on absolution. That one is subjective. No priest can absolve without faculties. There are no priests who can be excused.

We have to say that a person who knowingly attends confession at an SSPX chapel remains in a state of sin until he confesses to a pries with faculties. This is objective truth.

Subjectively, we have no idea what happens between the individual soul and God. We cannot speak about individuals. We can only speak about the issue. The issue is, no priest can absolve without faculties. The Church supplies faculties only in a limited set of situations. The SSPX situation is not on that list. Therefore, the SSPX does not have faculties. The absence of faculties is not dependent on subjective conscience and so forth. The priest can believe whatever he wants, but the fact is that he does not absolve even when he thinks he is absolving, with some exceptions. We know those already.

As to the penitent, all we can say is that we commend the person to the mercy of God and we know that God cannot be handcuffed. Even non Catholics who never go to confession can be forgiven and go to heaven under the right conditions. Even there, we can’t say which ones.

To conclude, we have a moral obligation on these threads to teach what the Church teaches, not what the SSPX teaches or what the SSPX believes. We can present their beliefs, but we cannot say that they are correct. On the contrary, we have a duty to the Church to point out the error of those beliefs, just as we point the error in other beliefs that people have. I’ll close with a wonderful example. I know a gay couple that is Catholic and it believes that their relationship is sanctioned by God and that the Church is interpreting the scriptures incorrectly. They are convince of this. I can threaten to burn them or fry them in oil and they honestly believe they are right. Are they right? No. This is the case with many who adhere to the SSPX’s mistaken teachings.

I should say in fairness to the SSPX, they are not heretics and not everything the Society says is in error. To be mistaken does not a heretic make. If that were the case, I should have been boiled in oil a long time ago.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[PaulinVA]

All I can say here, and I will repeat it ad nauseam, is that the outlook/worldview/mindset an SSPXer has in the SSPX is such that he, without formally looking on the mainstream Church as a false religion, nonetheless avoids any contact with it out of conscience. You have to have been in the SSPX to appreciate this. SSPX faithful are perfectly aware that their priests do not have faculties from their diocesan bishops, but they are equally convinced to the point where bad will is absolutely excluded, that their priests fill a real supernatural need and hence have extraordinary jurisdiction supplied directly by the Church. It is not about attitude.

The logic of the SSPX position has always baffled me. They claim that the Church is in crisis, actually off the rails, shouldn’t be followed, needs to repent, and then they turn around and use the Church’s own canon law to try to justify their position of supplied jurisdiction. But they don’t follow the same canon law when it talks about suspended priests. The cafeteria is indeed open…

 

[Mrs_Sally]

All I can say here, and I will repeat it ad nauseam, is that the **outlook/worldview/mindset an SSPXer has **in the SSPX is such that he, without formally looking on the mainstream Church as a false religion, nonetheless avoids any contact with it out of conscience. You have to have been in the SSPX to appreciate this. SSPX faithful are perfectly aware that their priests do not have faculties from their diocesan bishops, but they are equally convinced to the point where bad will is absolutely excluded, that their priests fill a real supernatural need and hence have extraordinary jurisdiction supplied directly by the Church. It is not about attitude.

Red is mine. This is the same thing all cafeteria Catholic say - “My worldview informs me differently than the Church”. A great example is those who want to use contraception and say that all the stodgie old celibate men in the Vatican just don’t get their worldview.

I do understand that you are presenting their point of view to help explain their position. However, we also need to follow that with the disclaimer that their worldview is distorted. No lay person should be approaching a priest without faculties for the sacrament of confession; and no priest without faculties should be offering the sacrament.

 

[JReducation]

If the SSPX became a sui iuris Church as are the Orthodox Christians, then one of their bishops would become the patriarch. A patriarch is an ordinary. He can grant faculties, ordain other bishops and preside over the synod of bishops.

As long as a person or a group insists that he or she is a Catholic, the said person must submit to the law. If the law is sinful, we cannot obey it. But really, what are the chances of Canon Law commanding anything sinful? At best, Canon Law can command something unreasonable or something that does not make much sense. Church law does not have to be reasonable or make much sense to be authoritative, because Church law is not decided democratically.

Canon lawyers are consulted and even asked to help write the law; but they do not promulgate the law. The full responsibility for what’s in the law falls on the shoulders of Peter. In a sense, we have to admit that to disobey the law is to disobey Peter, since he legislates and governs in Christ’s name.

Believe it or not, there is actually more wiggle room in moral law than there is in Canon Law. For culpability there must be grave matter, knowledge and full consent. To the degree that any of these is lesser or greater so is the culpability.

In Canon Law, everything is considered grave. Canon Law only deals with grave issues. The lesser issues are dealt with laws in other sources. In Canon Law the only thing that saves us from culpability is the absence of knowledge or the absence of consent. Here is where this current situation of the SSPX gets really complicated.

Who can honestly say that the leadership of the SSPX does not understand the seriousness of its situation and the seriousness of functioning outside the law?

Their argument can be that the ecumenism, religious freedom, the OF and the CCC are even more serious than the subject of the law. No one will argue that they’re not more serious. It is certainly very serious to have a proper understanding of religious freedom. The correct celebration of the liturgy is certainly more important than getting permission to celebrate mass in a diocese without the permission of the bishop.

However, the trick is that because there is a hierarchy of grave issues, it does not mean that one can address one at the expense of the other. This is what made people like Paul great reformers and very humble men. Paul understood the importance of incorporating the Gentiles into the Church. However, he also understood the significance of the office of Simon. We get this from his speech. He repeatedly called him Cephas, not Simon. He addresses him by the title given to him by Christ himself. He honors Christ by arguing in favor of the Gentiles. He also honors Christ be submitting to the authority of Cephas. At the end of the day, had Cephas decided against Paul, we know that Paul would have submitted. Just look at how strongly Paul argues about authority in his letters.

Every reformer after Paul followed the same pattern of behavior. Not a single one turned their back on a legitimately elected success of Peter.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Cider]

I’m still trying to figure out what supposed informational update is being discussed. I couldn’t find it in the first thread and I don’t see it here. I see basically the same old stuff being said about the SSPX that I’ve seen since I joined CAF.

 

[maltmom]

I’m still trying to figure out what supposed informational update is being discussed. I couldn’t find it in the first thread and I don’t see it here. I see basically the same old stuff being said about the SSPX that I’ve seen since I joined CAF.

Here’s a link to the original thread…

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=711717

 

[curlycool89]

I think some folks (myself included) are getting annoyed that people are passing off SSPX Masses and the like as "oh, it’s only illicit!" Masses being stripped of their legality due to obedience issues and lack of faculties is a huge deal. Especially when people pass it off as no biggie, then rage against either:

1. Other illicit actions.
2. Valid and licit actions they simply don’t like.

Wait, if their Masses are “only illicit” doesn’t that make it legally and functionally equivalent to a circus Mass, which is also valid but illicit?

 

[Mike30]

**If the SSPX became a sui iuris Church as are the Orthodox Christians, then one of their bishops would become the patriarch. A patriarch is an ordinary. He can grant faculties, ordain other bishops and preside over the synod of bishops. **As long as a person or a group insists that he or she is a Catholic, the said person must submit to the law. If the law is sinful, we cannot obey it. But really, what are the chances of Canon Law commanding anything sinful? At best, Canon Law can command something unreasonable or something that does not make much sense. Church law does not have to be reasonable or make much sense to be authoritative, because Church law is not decided democratically.

Canon lawyers are consulted and even asked to help write the law; but they do not promulgate the law. The full responsibility for what’s in the law falls on the shoulders of Peter. In a sense, we have to admit that to disobey the law is to disobey Peter, since he legislates and governs in Christ’s name.

Believe it or not, there is actually more wiggle room in moral law than there is in Canon Law. For culpability there must be grave matter, knowledge and full consent. To the degree that any of these is lesser or greater so is the culpability.

In Canon Law, everything is considered grave. Canon Law only deals with grave issues. The lesser issues are dealt with laws in other sources. In Canon Law the only thing that saves us from culpability is the absence of knowledge or the absence of consent. Here is where this current situation of the SSPX gets really complicated.

Who can honestly say that the leadership of the SSPX does not understand the seriousness of its situation and the seriousness of functioning outside the law?

Their argument can be that the ecumenism, religious freedom, the OF and the CCC are even more serious than the subject of the law. No one will argue that they’re not more serious. It is certainly very serious to have a proper understanding of religious freedom. The correct celebration of the liturgy is certainly more important than getting permission to celebrate mass in a diocese without the permission of the bishop.

However, the trick is that because there is a hierarchy of grave issues, it does not mean that one can address one at the expense of the other. This is what made people like Paul great reformers and very humble men. Paul understood the importance of incorporating the Gentiles into the Church. However, he also understood the significance of the office of Simon. We get this from his speech. He repeatedly called him Cephas, not Simon. He addresses him by the title given to him by Christ himself. He honors Christ by arguing in favor of the Gentiles. He also honors Christ be submitting to the authority of Cephas. At the end of the day, had Cephas decided against Paul, we know that Paul would have submitted. Just look at how strongly Paul argues about authority in his letters.

Every reformer after Paul followed the same pattern of behavior. Not a single one turned their back on a legitimately elected success of Peter.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

Question Brother. If the SSPX does go into schism as happened with the Orthodo, how would the Church view them? As another Churchalong the lines of the Orthodox or simply as a schismatic breakaway group? Since they have valid lines of succession I would assume that they would be viewed as another legitimate Church or am I missing something in the mix?

 

[Mrs_Sally]

I’m still trying to figure out what supposed informational update is being discussed. I couldn’t find it in the first thread and I don’t see it here. I see basically the same old stuff being said about the SSPX that I’ve seen since I joined CAF.

There was quite a bit of updated news when the discussions were going back and forth over the summer and early fall. It has been quieter until recently (and the old thread reflects that). However, when Bishop Fellay came out with his recent statements, that was definately an update!

 

[Mrs_Sally]

Wait, if their Masses are “only illicit” doesn’t that make it legally and functionally equivalent to a circus Mass, which is also valid but illicit?

YES! But a very traditional circus Mass!

 

[JReducation]

I’m still trying to figure out what supposed informational update is being discussed. I couldn’t find it in the first thread and I don’t see it here. I see basically the same old stuff being said about the SSPX that I’ve seen since I joined CAF.

Actually, the discussion was triggered by Bishop Fellay’s latest comment which triggered an strong response from the Holy See.

Wait, if their Masses are “only illicit” doesn’t that make it legally and functionally equivalent to a circus Mass, which is also valid but illicit?

Clown masses are no illicit. Here is the difference. The priest celebrating the “clown mass” has the right to celebrate mass. The suspended priest does not have this right.

He does not have the right to add anything or to delete anything from the text. I’ve never seen a clown mass, I don’t know if the priest is adding anything to the text or deleting. In any case, if he does, the act is illicit, not the mass itself. The mass remains perfectly legal. I think we need to get off this clown mass thing. It’s getting old. There are three videos on YouTube and some people use them every week as if they were the newest thing. There are thousands of masses celebrated around the world. What percentage are we really talking about here? I don’t think it’s significant enough to bring up clown masses every time we want to justify the SSPX or present an apologia for Tridentine masses. We can also bring up abuses and silliness that take place and took place before the change.

But let’s get back to the clown mass. Introducing the clown element for whatever reasons, is pure silliness and inappropriate. However, there is no Canon that prohibits it. Nor is there a law in liturgical law that declares the entire mass to be illicit. The law in liturgical law says that the introduction of anything that distracts from the mass is to be avoided. The clown motiff is to be avoided. It does not make the mass illegal. It is illegal to introduce the clown theme. That’s the big difference.

The mass celebrated by a suspended priest, can be the most reverent mass in the world, but it’s still a sin to celebrate it, because the Church has taken away the priests privilege. We have to remember that celebrating mass is a privilege, not a right. Just because one is ordained one does not have the right. One has the means to celebrate, but he still needs permission to celebrate a public mass.

For a while, the SSPX was celebrating in chapels and conference rooms and so forth. These could be considered private. Public would be a parish mass. Now, I’ve seen them use the term parish. I don’t know if it’s official on their part or if it’s just that people get confused between parish and chapel. It happens.

Question Brother. If the SSPX does go into schism as happened with the Orthodo, how would the Church view them? As another Churchalong the lines of the Orthodox or simply as a schismatic breakaway group? Since they have valid lines of succession I would assume that they would be viewed as another legitimate Church or am I missing something in the mix?

There are some different factors here. The Orthodox were always sui iuris Churches. Remember, they were Eastern Catholics. The Eastern Catholic Churches have never been part of the Latin Church. They’re self-governing. This is different between the Orthodox and the SSPX. They were really Churches that got a divorce from the Latin Church and eventually they split into twos such as Greek Catholics and Greek Orthodox. It’s a complex history.

Another issue here is time. The Orthodox can legitimately claim to be Churches, because they are stable. They have been around for 2,000 years and have survived independent of Rome for about 1,000 years. They’re not yesterdays’ renegades.

The same situation applies to Protestants. We no longer consider them heretic. They have survived 500 years and they have handed their faith through generations. They deserve to be recognized as ecclesial communities, not as renegade Catholics.

The SSPX would have to undergo the test of time before the Church recognizes them as a Church. They would have to maintain the line of succession, otherwise, they’re like the Protestants. They’re Christians descended from Catholics, but they don’t have an Apostolic Line.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[JReducation]

There was quite a bit of updated news when the discussions were going back and forth over the summer and early fall. It has been quieter until recently (and the old thread reflects that). However, when Bishop Fellay came out with his recent statements, that was definately an update!

Just look at how long it took Rome to respond to the comment about the Jews. It was four or five days, at least. I know that it’s not because Rome didn’t hear the news. It’s because everyone needed time to pick their jaws up from the floor. I’m sure tempers had to be brought down below boiling point.

When Bishop Williamson denied the Holocaust, the Pope said that had he known a day before, he would not have lifted his excommunication for that reason alone. Which a pope can do. He gets to decide who is excommunicated and for what reasons.

This comment was more egregious than saying that no Jews died in the gas chambers, even though we have a saint who did. Go figure. To declare a group that is working closely with the Vatican an enemy of the Church is no small thing.

I’m sure this has turned many heads at the Vatican.

At the parish level it has had no impact, because most people don’t know about the SSPX or Bishop Fellay. I imagine that this may be true of Jewish people as well.

But at the higher levels this must have heads reeling. It creates a new tension. How to keep relations going with the Jews and the SSPX at the same time when they are now officially enemies. Archbishop Mueller must feel like Ronald Reagan at Camp David.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[pnewton]

I’m still trying to figure out what supposed informational update is being discussed. I couldn’t find it in the first thread and I don’t see it here. I see basically the same old stuff being said about the SSPX that I’ve seen since I joined CAF.

That’s the “redux” part!

 

[TimothyH]

Blog Update: January 2, 2013

"Remember, he has never seen her face, but he knows her heart."

Breathtaking. Thank you.

-Tim-

 

[gentle_atheist]

I don’t know if this has been posted before, but here is a press release from the SSPX USA District dated January 5, 2013 regarding Bishop Fellay’s comments about Jews being enemies of the Church:

During a 2-hour conference given in Ontario, Canada on December 28th, 2012, Bishop Bernard Fellay, Superior General of the Society St. Pius X, commented on the relations between the Holy See and the SSPX during the last two years.

During the conference Bishop Fellay stated “Who, during that time, was the most opposed that the Church would recognize the Society? The enemies of the Church. The Jews, the Masons, the Modernists…”

The word “enemies” used here by Bishop Fellay is of course a religious concept and refers to any group or religious sect which opposes the mission of the Catholic Church and her efforts to fulfill it: the salvation of souls.

This religious context is based upon the words of Our Lord Jesus Christ as recorded in the Holy Gospels: “He that is not with me, is against me: and he that gathereth not with me, scattereth.” (Matthew 12:30)

By referring to the Jews, Bishop Fellay’s comment was aimed at the leaders of Jewish organizations, and not the Jewish people, as is being implied by journalists.

Accordingly the Society of St. Pius X denounces the repeated false accusations of anti-Semitism or hate speech made in an attempt to silence its message.

Sounds reasonable to me.

There is so much fear about being labeled anti-Semitic that Catholics cannot even pray for the conversion of the Jews anymore. The Good Friday prayer for the Jews is so ambiguous – praying for Jews to “more closely follow the covenant” – edited by moderator

 

[Faithdancer]

SSPX faithful are perfectly aware that their priests do not have faculties from their diocesan bishops, but they are equally convinced to the point where bad will is absolutely excluded, that their priests fill a real supernatural need and hence have extraordinary jurisdiction supplied directly by the Church. It is not about attitude.

Not disagreeing with you Justin, but I wonder, if those in the pews at the SSPX chapel are fully aware that their priests do not have faculties, how they came to know this? On the two occasions I have assisted at an SSPX Mass I haven’t had occasion to hold a conversation with anyone, but if the SSPX faithful aren’t in regular contact with anyone from the diocese, how could they be convinced that the priests lack faculties? There were a couple of SSPX-goers on the old thread, perhaps they will show up here and expound.

I was particularly fascinated by your suggestion that the SSPX faithful might be convinced that their priests have “extraordinary jurisdiction supplied directly by the Church.” This begs the question, the Church in what era? Perhaps this extraordinary jurisdiction is supplied by St. Pius X himself…after all, as a saint he is most definitely part of the Church.
Again, you raise fascinating points!

 

[pnewton]

You have to have been in the SSPX to appreciate this. SSPX faithful are perfectly aware that their priests do not have faculties from their diocesan bishops, but they are equally convinced to the point where bad will is absolutely excluded, that their priests fill a real supernatural need and hence have extraordinary jurisdiction supplied directly by the Church. It is not about attitude.

I deliberately made Joe have imperfect contrition because it is the teaching of the Church that imperfect contrition will not obtain forgiveness of sins outside confession. Let me clarify the terms:

I fear Joe in this case does not have a case for invincible ignorance. The thing is about Sacraments is that they are a known vehicle for God’s grace. Of course God can operate outside his own rules. But with out faculties, a priest has no more ability to give absolution than an actor pretending to be a priest in a confessional. If the penitent is unaware of the ruse, then the Church supplies. You are talking about deliberately seeking an invalid Sacrament hoping for this clause to kick in, when it is not Church teaching that it applies in this case. I don’t believe it does. JR does not believe it does. Canon lawyer Edward Peters said it does not. Jimmy Akin has shown why he believes it does not. The Holy Father said these priest have no role as Catholic ministers. They do not have the connection with the keys of the Peter to bind sin.

Sure, God can operate outside the Sacraments. But why would a Catholic use extra ecclesia means, especially a traditional Catholic? Ironically, he is relying on a rather liberal understanding of salvation.