J
JReducation
Guest
If you ever see my coat of arms, you will see why I was made the superior.
“Deus eligit stultus”
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
- Status
“Deus eligit stultus”
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
M
Mike30
Guest
Brother, while I respect and applaud your humility, you are nobody’s fool.If you ever see my coat of arms, you will see why I was made the superior.
“Deus eligit stultus”
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
P
poche
Guest
I think that a reconciliation is something that we have to pray for.
C
choliks
Guest
R
ringil
Guest
Benedict Is the most patient and gentle shepherd.
It seems unreal to me how much latitude he is giving the SSPX. I just pray they aren’t taking advantage of it.
I guess that’s why I’m not the Pope.
It seems unreal to me how much latitude he is giving the SSPX. I just pray they aren’t taking advantage of it.
I guess that’s why I’m not the Pope.
M
missadeangelis
Guest
What I dislike so much about the discourse from those on both sides of the fence on this issue is the negativity and horrifying lack of charity. Again, this pertains to both sides. When we start talking about a group not in communion with Rome as being sinfully “contagious” to Catholics who are in communion with the Holy See we have entered the same negative realm as the contemptuous SSPX folks. There are Christian denominations who view the Catholic Church and our Faith with grave contempt who are treated with much more respect than the SSPX receives by some in-communion Catholics and that’s shameful. Of course the intense and fiery rhetoric from some SSPX members is also shameful, but two wrongs do not make a right.
The in communion OF camp has its problems too, including outright disobedience from the pulpit or elsewhere by some priests and religious who openly support gay “marriage” and other such intrinsically sinful things, or those who think they know better than the Magisterium in Sacramental matters, not to mention the litany of liturgical abuses that continue to take place without rebuke.
My point is that reconciliation is best fostered by mutual respect on both sides - even if that means an agreement to disagree - rather than harsh criticisms and the exchange of bitter comments and attacks.
mda
The in communion OF camp has its problems too, including outright disobedience from the pulpit or elsewhere by some priests and religious who openly support gay “marriage” and other such intrinsically sinful things, or those who think they know better than the Magisterium in Sacramental matters, not to mention the litany of liturgical abuses that continue to take place without rebuke.
My point is that reconciliation is best fostered by mutual respect on both sides - even if that means an agreement to disagree - rather than harsh criticisms and the exchange of bitter comments and attacks.
mda
M
Melchior_1
Guest
This has nothing to do with the Ordinary Form though. Contrary to what some think, the Form isn’t what causes the abuse or heterodoxy, it’s the people who use it that do.
T
TimothyH
Guest
There is no such thing as an “in communion OF camp.”
There is only the Church and the Mass (or Masses) which she says we should participate in. One is either in communion with the Church or one is not, and one either accepts the Mass which she says is to be celebrated or one does not.
Priests who openly support homosexuality and think they know better than the magisterium - priests who are openly disobedient - are an infinitesimally small portion of the Church, as are the SSPX. 99.999% of the 1.2 billion Catholics in the world have never met either. If you want to use the label “in communion OF camp” then it is to be applied to 99.999% of Catholics in the world, including the Holy Father himself and just about every consecrated religious person - monks, nuns, friars and sisters - in the world. The vast majority of the 1.2 billion people in the “in communion OF camp” have never heard of the SSPX, will never experience the Extrordinary Form of the Mass, don’t even know that this website exists, and wouldn’t have a clue what you are talking about if you told them they were a member of the “in communion OF camp.”
They wouldn’t know what you are talking about because there is no such thing. There is only The Church. There is only Christ. That’s all there is.
-Tim-
J
JReducation
Guest
Remember, the Vatican has said that it has not received a response. It can’t force them to give a response, if they’re not ready. If you truly want a reconciliation, you patiently wait for the response.Benedict Is the most patient and gentle shepherd.
It seems unreal to me how much latitude he is giving the SSPX. I just pray they aren’t taking advantage of it.
I guess that’s why I’m not the Pope.
There is a big difference here. First of all, non-Catholics are not in Communion with the Holy See because of a break that took place over 500 years ago. They are not disobedient, not heretics, not bound to obey the Holy See. Church law applies only to Catholics. It’s not that Catholics are more charitable to non Catholics, it’s that we can’t expect the same of someone who is a non citizen as we should expect of a citizen. There are not the same rights and obligations.
The second issue, regarding the communion of the SSPX has nothing to do with heterodox positions. A dissenting voice on some such subject as contraception or same sex marriage does not place you out of communion with the Holy See. This is not the way that Canon Law defines communion. Communion is a legal status. It has nothing to do with agreement or disagreement. There are laws that say that if you do X you are suspended, excommunicated, under interdict or some other canonical state that places you outside of full communion. There are no such laws regarding dissent.
Father Bozo can dissent on contraception and still be in full communion with the Holy See, because there is no law that says that such dissent renders him suspended, excommunicated or under interdict. There is a break between him and the Church, but not one that the Church considers serious enough to impose a penalty.
In the case of the SSPX, there is a break that has a suspension as an automatic penalty. An illegally ordained deacon, priest or bishop automatically has no faculties. Without faculties he operates outside of communion with the Church. It is faculties that unite him to the local bishop and through that bishop to the See of Peter. This is laid out very clearly in Pastore Dado Vobis by Bl. John Paul II.
A priest must function in union with his bishop and he receives his priestly rights from his bishop. Unless he’s a religious, no one can take those away or grant them either.
When a priest proceeds to function without a bond to his diocesan bishop, he is proceeding on his own authority. This is a schismatic attitude. Such an attitude is very dangerous and is often highly contagious.
For this reason, people are warned not to get too close to such individuals. It has nothing to do with the validity of the mass, but with the attitude of the person celebrating the mass who has become a law unto himself. At the end of the day, even if the bishops of the SSPX say to their priests that they can celebrate the sacraments, the bishops of the SSPX do not have the canonical authority to give such permission. The priests know this. They cannot blame the bishops of the SSPX for their choice to proceed. They have to assume full responsibility for that choice.
What we cannot and MUST NEVER do is to judge the person’s conscience or heart. We cannot see this. Only God and the spiritual director are privy to this. We can only look at the externals and call them as we see them. This is objective reasoning. Objectively, these are schismatic acts.
When a non Catholic does such things it is not schismatic, because he has no legal obligation to a diocesan bishop. When another Catholic breaks with orthodoxy and teaches something that’s unorthodox, he’s definitely wrong. However, the law does not remove his right to celebrate the sacraments. There is no such law. Only the bishop or the religious superior can make such a judgment call. In that case, the person has the right to a hearing, because the case is not as black and white, since there is no law that says that if you preach contraception you are suspended. The case has to be approached from a different angle. That’s really so complicated that it’s best left to canon lawyers and jurists to figure it out.
J
JReducation
Guest
The best case is the leadership of the LCWR. They are not suspended from active ministry, however they have been told that they must take certain actions to align themselves with the Church’s teachings. In other words, there are other systems in place for those cases. They remain in full communion with the Church, while they cooperate with the process to fix the problem. If they refuse to do so, then the Church can take other measures. But there is nothing in the law that says that they must be suspended form active ministry.
For different situations there are different laws. It’s not so much that everyone is being uncharitable to the SSPX, but that many of us, including me, are saying, “This is the law and these are the consequences of breaking the law. When one takes the law and ignores it, interprets it contrary to the interpretation of the Church that attitude is schismatic. Schismatic attitudes are usually grounded in anger. Anger is a very contagious passion to be regulated or it can lead to division. The best advice to those who don’t think that they can avoid being sucked into the emotion of the environment or the moment is to avoid the situation.”
That’s not an attack on the SSPX, but a statement about the danger to the individual who is not strong enough to resist the emotional pull. For example, the same statement would not be made to a person who attends mass at one of the Ecclesia Dei institutes. They are in full communion and they are not involved in a conflict with the Holy See.
I hope this helps.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
For different situations there are different laws. It’s not so much that everyone is being uncharitable to the SSPX, but that many of us, including me, are saying, “This is the law and these are the consequences of breaking the law. When one takes the law and ignores it, interprets it contrary to the interpretation of the Church that attitude is schismatic. Schismatic attitudes are usually grounded in anger. Anger is a very contagious passion to be regulated or it can lead to division. The best advice to those who don’t think that they can avoid being sucked into the emotion of the environment or the moment is to avoid the situation.”
That’s not an attack on the SSPX, but a statement about the danger to the individual who is not strong enough to resist the emotional pull. For example, the same statement would not be made to a person who attends mass at one of the Ecclesia Dei institutes. They are in full communion and they are not involved in a conflict with the Holy See.
I hope this helps.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
T
TrueLight
Guest
Did anyone post this yet?
J
JReducation
Guest
Yes, I spoke about it at the top of post 68. Someone before me posted it and someone else said that the Holy Father is being extremely patient. I agree. I also feel that if the Holy See wants to promote a reconciliation, it can’t push the SSPX to respond the day before yesterday.
The SSPX has said that it will respond and that it needs time. We have to trust their good faith that they will respond. I think things would be a little different if the SSPX said that they’re finished talking. In that case, the ball is back in the Vatican’s court. But that’s not what it has said.
To be fair to the SSPX, right now it seems to be dealing with some serious internal issues. The superior general and the general council’s minds are probably more focused on those problems. The Vatican is not going to shred the Society apart, but the dissenting voices from within the Society can do so if they are not dealt with charitably, but sternly.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
L
Lormar
Guest
That’s putting it mildly.
E
Elizium23
Guest
That is an exaggeration and a distortion of the actual current state of the Church. I can speak confidently that there are places, especially in the USA with which I am most familiar, that the Mass is celebrated reverently and faithfully, with orthodox homilies and congregations who accept and believe what the Church teaches. There are good pastors and good bishops out there who care earnestly for their vocation of shepherd of souls. You may have to travel a good distance, or at least hop around among many parishes before you find a good Mass, depending on your bishop’s effectiveness, but I assure you that they can be found! Have some faith, and know that the “reform of the reform” is underway. 50 years after the great Second Vatican Council, we are truly on the way to implementing and living what the Council Fathers called for that long ago. This will mean an incredible growth in the faith and holiness of people worldwide, including a renewed appreciation for reverent liturgy, OF and EF alike.
As a concrete example: in my work in the parish office I was reading a diocesan directory, and had an assignment to call a distant parish. It so happened that the directory listed two Latin Masses on Sunday. I knew we already have an FSSP mission and this was not it. So I inquired with the receptionist and found that they do indeed celebrate the EF (in a very minority-laden territory) every week! Isn’t that fabulous? Seek and ye shall find. Knock and it shall be opened unto you.
M
missadeangelis
Guest
I agree that one can, in most cases, find a Parish where Mass is celebrated reverently and faithfully, though it might a couple hours away. IMHO when a Catholic has to shop around for a Mass that is celebrated with reverence according to the official rubrics with orthodox homilies etc. something is wrong (not with the person). I often go to several different Masses on Sunday within the same metro area and I am almost always amazed at the difference in liturgical practices and atmospheres. We should be able to walk into any Catholic Church and find objective reverence and orthodoxy. The call for unity should first be within the Church, or at least the diocese. Again, just my opinion.
mda
M
Mrs_Sally
Guest
I know I live in a very orthodox diocese; however, I travel quite a bit for work and have gone to Mass in many varied places and always found a perfectly reverant orthodox Mass. I may not have always liked every hymn choice and certainly some homilies were boring, but nothing heterdox. Yes, differences in atmospheres, but not to the extent that I couldn’t comfortably attend Mass.
M
missadeangelis
Guest
I can appreciate your position in the first paragraph, however I think my comments were perhaps misunderstood. All I was trying to say is that both sides of the argument have issues, though they are of course different in nature.
With regard to “Father Bozo” (your words, not mine) though, I take it we can both agree that openly supporting same sex marriage in a homily while aknowledging that the position is in opposition to Church teaching is indeed objectively sinning and He should not be celebrating Mass thereafter without the Sacrament of Penance as per Canon 916 (though his priestly faculties are by no means suspended).
Obedience to the teachings of Holy Mother Church in their entirety by all Priests and Religious is important IMHO because if they do, say, or support things in opposition to orthodox Catholicism it sends the message to the average person in the pew that they can make up their own faith too. United we stand, divided we fall. The outside non-Caholic world is starting to see this disunity, which then discredits the Magsterium.
mda
C
CesarAugustus
Guest
Also, if Father “heterodox” keeps preaching that x,y, and z aren’t grave sins, people could have troubles with repentance later. The problem with heterodox theologians and Priests is quite serious.
Blessings.
But they should convert. Sorry if I’m not understanding well, but sounds a bit like “everyone is fine in their house” or something like that. Can you expalin it better Brother? please?
Blessings.
J
JReducation
Guest
First of all, we don’t know what is in someone’s conscience. Therefore, we can’t demand that someone go to confession. The law is not to be interpreted that way. Confession is for the person who realizes that he or she is in a state of sin. A person who does not realize this, is subjectively less culpable or may even be not culpable, depending on the degree of the persons convictions and the honesty. This is part of moral theology and always has been.
Second, I agree that every priest and religious should think and speak with the Church. However, in a family of over one billion Catholics, you need a miracle not to find at least one person who sings off key. It’s not unexpected and should take no reasonable person by surprise. One simply sorts out the good from the bad as we do in all things in life. We let the person who has the authority to deal with it, do so. That may be a bishop or a religious superior.
The problem is serious and no one denies this. The point on the table is that the Church refuses to create a law that carries penalties for heterodoxy. She prefers to let this be resolved at the local level.
No, we’re talking about law here, not about doctrine. We’re saying that Catholic law cannot be imposed on non-Catholics. The law itself says so. Canon I says that this code is applicable only to the Latin Church. Then in the Eastern Code of Canon Law, Canon I says that the code is applicable only to the Eastern Churches, except for those that have their own codes of canon law. Even in the Catholic Church, we have created a system that says that our laws are applicable only to this population and not that one.Blessings.
When we speak of the SSPX, we tend to be more demanding of them, because our laws to do apply to them, whereas they do not apply to non Catholics or Eastern Catholics.
Until they make a public rejection of their Latin Catholic faith, the law continues to apply to them.
The Church would never dare impose law on non-Catholics, except in those matters that pertain to her, such as receiving the sacraments from a Catholic cleric. Even in that case, the law is speaking to the cleric, not to the non-Catholic. The non-Catholic does not read Canon Law. If you’re not a Canadian citizen, you’re probably not interested in the Canadian Constitution, nor does it apply to you.
The Code of Canon Law is like the code of civil law. It only applies to a target population. This is where some Catholics get into trouble and end up confused. They treat law as they would dogma. Dogma is absolute and unchangeable. Law is not absolute and is not unchangeable. Law is specific and changes with the situation and with the target population. The pope has the authority to apply it to me and not to you or to the left side of the room and not to the right side of the room. This is the case with the SSPX and the non-Catholics.
The law applies to the SSPX and Catholics want them to abide by it. We wouldn’t ask Lutherans to abide by it, because it was not written with them in mind. Heck, we wouldn’t even ask a Melkite Catholic to abide by it. The law that covers the SSPX does not cover a Melkite Catholic. But the law the covers a Melkite Catholic does not cover a Roman Catholic. It goes both ways.
I hope this makes it clearer.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
T
TrueLight
Guest
Oops!
- Status