SSPX update?

[JReducation]

Anyway, one can in charity presume that these faithful are still acting and living in good faith, and I would very much like to think that Holy Mother Church takes this into account, and does not turn their desire to live a reverent and spiritual sacramental life into a mockery. Somehow I think she takes care of them by giving them what they are sincerely looking for.

The Church can only give what she has the authority to give. She does not have the authority to grant faculties to any priest who is suspended or dispensed from the priesthood unless there is an immediate danger of death or the penitent, through no fault of his own does not know that the priest does not have faculties. In that situation, the Church has the authority to supply faculties, but it’s only in those cases.

It’s not that the Church is trying to make a mockery of the spiritual search of good people. It’s that she cannot give them what they need through illegal means. The Church cannot break the law in order to help someone out. To grant faculties to these priests would be illegal. The Church does not have the authority to do what’s illegal. She would first have to change Canon Law. That gets into a whole theological issue. Faculties can only be given by an ordinary. Only the diocesan bishop or the male superior of a religious community can be an ordinary.

The new canon would have to say that any bishop can grant faculties. This would make it legal for Bishop Fellay to grant faculties. But there is a theological problem. Unless the bishop is the head of a Church, he has no apostolic jurisdiction. He has succession, but succession is not enough to make him the ordinary authority.

For this reason, any Catholic who knowingly confesses to a priest who has no faculties is not absolved. The key here is “knowingly”. In this case, the Catholic who knowingly confesses to a priest from the SSPX has to question his motives for confessing to a priest who does not have the power to absolve. The matter become more complex, if the Catholic tells you that he does not believe or agree with the Church’s authoritative position on this point. In essence, the person is saying that he has authority to say what law is right and what law is wrong or what application of the law is right or wrong. He’s trespassing on the authority of the Magisterium. Now you have an invalid confession that is coupled with the sin of presumption.

I think you have an interesting perspective in the descriptive scenario. I can see where this rings true (more in the eighties than today) and it highlights the reason why judgement of the soul is reserved to God alone.

Judgment of the soul is reserved to God alone. However, judgment of the sacraments is reserved to the bishops who govern in union with the pope. If in the Church’s judgment these absolutionss are invalid, then so they are. The Church is making a statement about the absolution. She commends the soul to the mercy of God.

Brother, I agree for the most part on this. However, it is my understanding that Fr. Hardon’s Catechism was written well before the CCC. The first edition of the CCC was not promulgated by Blessed JP2 until 1992 and was published, for the first time, in French, that same year. Fr. Hardon’s Catechism was originally published in 1975, almost 20 years earlier. Am I missing something there?

LOL, no. I don’t think you’re missing anything. You’re just behind the clock a little. Fr. Hardon’s Catechism was edited to conform to the CCC in the 1990s. I don’t even know how many editions of his catechism have been published.

However, in defense of Fr. Hardon, there was not much to edit. He had it right from the beginning. It was a matter of changing a word here or there and adding a few things like the wording on abortion, the wording on the Jews and Muslims, and maybe some other minor details that one wold not notice unless one had an older and a newer edition side by side. None of it is earth shattering.

 

[JReducation]

Secondly, there is a large misunderstanding on the CCC being written, primarily, for bishops, theologians, etc. and as a resource for other catechisms, rather than being written for the lay person. I have had several discussions with those who adamantly disagree with that position, right here on CAF. forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=727402

I don’t know why people argue that these texts were written for the common man, when they were not. I do to use the term laity, because there are many theologians among the laity, professional religious educators, and many laymen who are experts in Catholic studies.

Here is what the Church has to say about the CCC.

**On 11 October 1992, Pope John Paul II presented the Catechism of the Catholic Church to the faithful of the whole world, describing it as a “reference text”[1] for a catechesis renewed at the living sources of the faith. **

Pope John Paul II, in 2003, established a Commission under the presidency of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which was given the task of drafting a Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, as a more concise formulation of its contents of faith.

The idea is to reproduce an imaginary dialogue between master and disciple, through a series of incisive questions that invite the reader to go deeper in discovering ever new aspects of his faith. The dialogical format also lends itself to brevity in the text, by reducing it to what is essential. This may help the reader to grasp the contents and possibly to memorize them as well.

The compendium was written for everyone and it’s written in the traditional question and short answer format. The CCC was written as a reference books. It was not written to be user friendly as is the compendium and the other catechism that have been written using the CCC.

As I noted, we see this also with documents from the USCCB, etc. which are directly aimed towards the laity. They aren’t any more clear than V2 or the CCC on most occasions.

Not everything that the USCCB is meant for the average layman to pick up and read without the help of someone who is trained in the language of the bishops. It is true that they have a language of their own. I guess this is true of any area of life. Every area has its language.

If you were one of my brothers, I would be writing my response using very different words, very different sentence structure and probably leave many things unsaid assuming that you know them or you know where to find them, if you really need that information.

What you’re saying about the USCCB is a cultural issue. The language that the USCCB uses is the language of that culture. I think that’s probably one reason why religious superiors, bishops, priests, deacons, and some lay leaders on one side don’t say much about what comes out of the USCCB, because people often make the mistaken assumption that everyone understands it, “because I understand it.” It’s incorrect. The patient does not always understand a differential diagnosis when the conversation is between a doctor and doctor or doctor and nurse. Someone has to translate. Often, doctors assume that the patient knows what he’s talking about, because the nurse and the tech understood him.

It’s a bad assumption to make. I believe.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[jwinch2]

LOL, no. I don’t think you’re missing anything. You’re just behind the clock a little. Fr. Hardon’s Catechism was edited to conform to the CCC in the 1990s. I don’t even know how many editions of his catechism have been published.

However, in defense of Fr. Hardon, there was not much to edit. He had it right from the beginning. It was a matter of changing a word here or there and adding a few things like the wording on abortion, the wording on the Jews and Muslims, and maybe some other minor details that one wold not notice unless one had an older and a newer edition side by side. None of it is earth shattering.

Interesting. Thanks for that. The copy I have says nothing about an edition and says it was published in 1975 by Doubleday. Sometimes older versions of books are available on Amazon. Perhaps I got one of those.

 

[jwinch2]

I don’t know why people argue that these texts were written for the common man, when they were not.

Agreed, completely.

It is obvious from the preface of the CCC as well as the documents put out by Blessed JP 2 that the CCC was primarily written for one audience (e.g. the bishops, etc.) and to serve as a norm for other catechisms to be developed, but also was being given to the entire Church, to include the laity. Of course, the laity have been encouraged to read it, but that is not close to saying the same thing as it being written primarily for us. Fidei Depositum also states that the CCC was not intended to supersede earlier ones.

As you noted, I am not sure what is so hard to grasp about that one.

It’s a bad assumption to make. I believe.

I agree.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

I’M SOOOOO DUMB!!! :banghead:

Well you did select “Deus eligit stultus” for your seal. God is just making sure you stay honest.

 

[JReducation]

Well you did select “Deus eligit stultus” for your seal. God is just making sure you stay honest.

Touché.

On that note, I think I´ll go out and walk St. Max. I shall return.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[oldcatholicguy]

Touché.

On that note, I think I´ll go out and walk St. Max. I shall return.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

Enjoy your walk Brother.

 

[TimSpalding]

Catholic News Service: “Calling Jews ‘enemies’ is ‘unacceptable,’ Vatican spokesman says”
catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1300086.htm

VATICAN CITY (CNS) – The Catholic Church remains committed to deepening its relations with Jews and finds it “absolutely unacceptable” to consider the Jewish people as enemies, the Vatican spokesman said.

“It is absolutely unacceptable, impossible, to define the Jews as enemies of the church,” Jesuit Father Federico Lombardi said.

In an audio recording posted on YouTube Dec. 30, the head of the traditionalist Society of St. Pius X called the Jewish people “enemies of the church,” saying Jewish leaders’ support of the Second Vatican Council “shows that Vatican II is their thing, not the church’s.”

Bishop Bernard Fellay, superior general of the society, said those most opposed to the church granting canonical recognition to the traditionalist society have been “the enemies of the church: the Jews, the Masons, the modernists.”

 

[JReducation]

Catholic News Service: “Calling Jews ‘enemies’ is ‘unacceptable,’ Vatican spokesman says”
catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1300086.htm

I’ve often heard about putting the nail on the coffin. However, it never occurred to me that you could nail yourself inside the coffin.

We have three statements that no one will agree are acceptable.

1. The new mass is evil.
2. The Council was the council of the Jews, Masons and Modernists.
3. The Jews are the enemies of the Church.

When a bishop makes such statements in such a public manner, there is no way that anyone in authority can get his foot out of his mouth.

The rest, who said what and who offered what guarantees pales by comparison. It comes as no surprise to anyone that everyone who was watching the talks was speculating. Speculations can be dangerous, precisely because they can confuse and frustrate.

However, the speculations the were shared with the good bishop did not tarnish the good name of the Church, the mass or another faith tradition. His comments do just that.

I’m sitting here thinking, “If I were pope, how would I extricate the bishop’s foot from his mouth?” If I ignore the comments, especially the one about the mass and the Jews, what am I saying to the world? On the other hand, if I engage in a defense of the bishop, I will come across as one who is so desperate to have the SSPX back that I’ll put up with anything. Finally, if I engage in a debate with Bishop Fellay, I make us equals and we’re not. I’m the Pontiff and he’s my brother bishop, not my equal. Big difference.

What a mess. :sad_yes:

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[TimSpalding]

The problem is that this is HARDLY the first time that Fellay and the other SSPX bishops said such things. Good grief, one of the four was an outright Holocaust denier. The anti-semitism of the SSPX isn’t news.

So, where to go now? They’ve all been de-excommunicated. They always maintained Lefebvre hadn’t really been excommunicated. Now they truly aren’t. And anti-semitism is not something you can get excommunicated for. I suppose they’ll be excommunicated again the next time they illicitly ordain?

 

[Dee_S]

Catholic News Service: “Calling Jews ‘enemies’ is ‘unacceptable,’ Vatican spokesman says”
catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1300086.htm

:coffeeread:thanks for the link. There is one more article I came across today from the ADL which I post here in full:

New York, NY, January 8, 2013 … The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) denounced Bishop Bernard Fellay, superior of the Catholic traditionalist Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), as an “unrepentant anti-Semite” after he referred to Jews as “enemies of the church.”

**“We have many enemies, many enemies,” ** Bishop Fellay said, according to a recording of his speech posted on YouTube. He said that those who have been “most opposed that the church would recognize the Society” are "the enemies of the Church: the Jews, the Masons, the Modernists."

“Bishop Fellay has shown his true colors as an unrepentant anti-Semite who will not hesitate to blame Jews for his internal problems with his own church,” said Rabbi Eric J. Greenberg, ADL Director of Interfaith Affairs. “Fellay has made it clear that the society is a movement that adheres to centuries-old anti-Semitic beliefs, one that is training priests and teaching traditionalist Catholics to hate Jews.”

The League welcomed comments of Vatican spokesman Father Federico Lombardi who, in response to Bishop Fellay’s speech, stated that ‘it is impossible to speak of the Jews as enemies of the Church," and that "the Church is deeply committed to dialogue with Jews.’"

During his December 28 speech in Ontario, Canada, Bishop Fellay made clear that SSPX would never accept the historic reforms of the 1965 Second Vatican Council, which declared anti-Semitism a sin, affirmed God’s irrevocable Covenant with the Jewish people, and fostered historic positive and productive dialogue between the Catholic Church and Jews.

Bishop Fellay was explaining to church members why two years of negotiations with Pope Benedict XVI have failed to result in SSPX’s return as full members of the Catholic Church.

In his remarks, Fellay accused Jews of lobbying the Vatican to accept the reforms of the Second Vatican Council. **“Interesting, isn’t it?” **Fellay said. "People from outside the Church, who were clearly during centuries enemies of the Church, say to Rome, ‘if you want to accept these people (SSPX) you must oblige them to accept the Council.’ Isn’t that interesting? Oh it is. I think it’s fantastic, because it shows that Vatican II is their thing, not the Church’s. They see, the enemies of the Church see, their benefit in the Council. Very interesting."

Fellay also vowed to continue SSPX’s fight against accepting Jews as brothers and sisters, as Popes John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI have taught. ** “We are gaining in influence,” he said, referring to SSPX’s 510 priests and activities in 31 countries, including the United States, France and Argentina. “We know this tradition is the future of the church and so we must work so it comes back.”**

adl.org/PresRele/VaticanJewish_96/bishop-fellay-unrepentant-anti-semite-10813.htm

 

[Dee_S]

**
It’s not that the Church is trying to make a mockery of the spiritual search of good people. It’s that she cannot give them what they need through illegal means**. The Church cannot break the law in order to help someone out. To grant faculties to these priests would be illegal. The Church does not have the authority to do what’s illegal. She would first have to change Canon Law. That gets into a whole theological issue. Faculties can only be given by an ordinary. Only the diocesan bishop or the male superior of a religious community can be an ordinary.

For this reason, any Catholic who knowingly confesses to a priest who has no faculties is not absolved. The key here is “knowingly”. In this case, the Catholic who knowingly confesses to a priest from the SSPX has to question his motives for confessing to a priest who does not have the power to absolve. ** The matter become more complex, if the Catholic tells you that he does not believe or agree with the Church’s authoritative position on this point. In essence, the person is saying that he has authority to say what law is right and what law is wrong or what application of the law is right or wrong. He’s trespassing on the authority of the Magisterium. Now you have an invalid confession that is coupled with the sin of presumption.**

Judgment of the soul is reserved to God alone. However, judgment of the sacraments is reserved to the bishops who govern in union with the pope. If in the Church’s judgment these absolutionss are invalid, then so they are. The Church is making a statement about the absolution. She commends the soul to the mercy of God.

(my bold)

Just from a personal angle, during the time I was in the SSPX I remember (as I posted earlier), hearing many talks on “emergency jurisdiction” and reading lots of articles on the same. It is one of the most discussed topics there. I suppose it has to be, as the faithful need reassurance that they are attending valid sacraments & are not doing anything displeasing to God by challenging His authority on earth.

The SSPX spare no efforts in portraying themselves as the remnant, chosen by God during this crisis in the Church (the story of St Athanasius has been adopted to support this position) and that all done was in a just cause - that was approved by God - who would supply the jurisdiction needed due to the circumstances. Their biggest justification for laying claim to this “emergency jursidiction” is based on the need of the faithful for valid and not doubtful sacraments, as the New Mass was so bad & the priests who say it so Modernist that it was doubtful that a valid consecration took place…same with confession etc …see Fr Scott’s descriptions of the Mass & confessions sspx.org/Catholic_FAQs/catholic_faqs__traditional.htm

Unbelievable as it may sound, us faithful swallowed this hook, line & sinker and there was much sadness and & prayers offered up for the salvation of the Conciliar Church which had gone off the rails. The barque of Peter was sinking, and it was the graces brought about by ‘our’ masses that would pour down salvation. They further reinforced our loyalty by the claim that we were adhering to The Eternal Rome and that under these auspices that our sufferings & devotions were being seen and rewarded by God Himself.

:blush:sorry if what I have said above shocks or saddens anyone, I just felt that to give an angle from the ‘ground’ upwards may help others understand just how difficult it is to see clearly when you have got in too deep.

 

[JReducation]

I suppose they’ll be excommunicated again the next time they illicitly ordain?

In the case of an illicit ordination of a bishop, the pope does not have to lift a finger. The Code of Canon Law for the Latin Church says that there must be a mandate from the pope to ordain. In the Code of Canon Law for the Eastern Churches, such a mandate is not required. In the Latin Church, the law says that if you ordain a bishop without a mandate you incur automatic excommunication. There is no need for a paper trail.

If their leadership continues to make antisemitic statements, the pope can impose an excommunication. There are excommunications that are imposed by the law. The law says that if you ordain a bishop without a papal mandate you’re excommunicated. If you have an abortion knowing that you will be excommunicated, then you will be. and so forth.

However, this does not mean that you can only be excommunicated for the laws in the books. That has never been our tradition. If we look back in history, bishops and popes have excommunicated people for political differences, treason, disputes with authorities. The second superior general of the Franciscan order was excommunicated for disagreeing with Francis. Brother Elias was both, a brother and a priest. He was the superior general. However, he believed that Francis’ policy on poverty was not practical and needed to be tweaked. The Church recognized that Elias was right. However, Francis had said that even after his death he was to be obeyed and placed a curse that damns anyone who disobeys him. What happened to Elias was even worse than what happened to the SSPX bishops. He was excommunicated, He was dishonorably dismissed from the Franciscan Order and he was dishonorably laicized. When he recanted, the excommunication was lifted. However, the pope said that he could never return to religious life and could never exercise the priesthood, even as a secular priest, because in disagreeing with Francis he had offended the papacy. He was ordered to live his life doing penance. He died a very holy man.

Now let’s look at a precedent like that one and there are more like it. In this case, Bl. John Paul II said that antisemitism is a grave sin. He also said that bashing the Jews and blaming them for Jesus’ death is unjust and not allowed. The bishops of the world agreed. This is one of those areas where the college of bishops spoke as one voice, long before John Paul became pope. John Paul simply reminded everyone and said it a little more sternly.

If you’re making statements that have been condemned as grave sin by the Church and your statements

a. Do harm to the Church’s mission

b. Undermine the personal apostolate of the pope

c. Endanger the lives of Christians living in certain parts of the world

d. Refuses to accept another human being as your brother or sister

e. Rouses hate in people

f. Triggers contempt for the Church in others

Those are very serious things, enough for the pope to excommunicate your and order your executed.

 

[JReducation]

:coffeeread:thanks for the link. There is one more article I came across today from the ADL which I post here in full:

New York, NY, January 8, 2013 … The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) denounced Bishop Bernard Fellay, superior of the Catholic traditionalist Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), as an “unrepentant anti-Semite” after he referred to Jews as “enemies of the church.”

**“We have many enemies, many enemies,” ** Bishop Fellay said, according to a recording of his speech posted on YouTube. He said that those who have been “most opposed that the church would recognize the Society” are "the enemies of the Church: the Jews, the Masons, the Modernists."

“Bishop Fellay has shown his true colors as an unrepentant anti-Semite who will not hesitate to blame Jews for his internal problems with his own church,” said Rabbi Eric J. Greenberg, ADL Director of Interfaith Affairs. “Fellay has made it clear that the society is a movement that adheres to centuries-old anti-Semitic beliefs, one that is training priests and teaching traditionalist Catholics to hate Jews.”

The League welcomed comments of Vatican spokesman Father Federico Lombardi who, in response to Bishop Fellay’s speech, stated that ‘it is impossible to speak of the Jews as enemies of the Church," and that "the Church is deeply committed to dialogue with Jews.’"

During his December 28 speech in Ontario, Canada, Bishop Fellay made clear that SSPX would never accept the historic reforms of the 1965 Second Vatican Council, which declared anti-Semitism a sin, affirmed God’s irrevocable Covenant with the Jewish people, and fostered historic positive and productive dialogue between the Catholic Church and Jews.

Bishop Fellay was explaining to church members why two years of negotiations with Pope Benedict XVI have failed to result in SSPX’s return as full members of the Catholic Church.

In his remarks, Fellay accused Jews of lobbying the Vatican to accept the reforms of the Second Vatican Council. **“Interesting, isn’t it?” **Fellay said. "People from outside the Church, who were clearly during centuries enemies of the Church, say to Rome, ‘if you want to accept these people (SSPX) you must oblige them to accept the Council.’ Isn’t that interesting? Oh it is. I think it’s fantastic, because it shows that Vatican II is their thing, not the Church’s. They see, the enemies of the Church see, their benefit in the Council. Very interesting."

Fellay also vowed to continue SSPX’s fight against accepting Jews as brothers and sisters, as Popes John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI have taught. ** “We are gaining in influence,” he said, referring to SSPX’s 510 priests and activities in 31 countries, including the United States, France and Argentina. “We know this tradition is the future of the church and so we must work so it comes back.”**

adl.org/PresRele/VaticanJewish_96/bishop-fellay-unrepentant-anti-semite-10813.htm

This certainly sounds like hate speech. It’s also inaccurate.

I have no idea whether Jewish groups lobbied the Vatican or not. Let’s say that they did. They had very good reason to do so. The Jews and the Vatican have diplomatic relations. The SSPX and the Jews have antagonistic relations. The Jews have good reasons to fear the SSPX. It is a tribute to the Church, if they did lobby the Vatican. What it shows is that they trust the leadership of the Church enough to express their fears. That has nothing to do with Vatican II. That has to do with real fear.

To draw the conclusion that the Council belonged to the Jews, Modernists and Masons, because relations between the Jews and the Vatican have warmed over the years is totally inaccurate. Jews began to warm up to Catholics long before the Council. The Jews had a great respect and appreciation for Pope John XXIII, because of everything that he did for them when he was Cardinal Roncalli. They had a lot of affection for the Franciscans for the Assisi Underground. After the return to Israel, the Catholics in the Holy Land gave them material assistance. They agreed to uphold the 800 year old treaty between the Muslims and the Franciscans. None of these moves of good will on both sides had anything to do with the Council. If anything, the Council expressed what the Church was already feeling since the 1950s.

How do you say, “You really messed up this time,” in Latin?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Aramis]

How do you say, “You really messed up this time,” in Latin?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

Google translate gives me “Vos deviastis severe.”

 

[JReducation]

Google translate gives me “Vos deviastis severe.”

Actually that means, “you severely deviated;” but I’ll take it. LOL

I was browsing through another site, a traditionalist site, and I noticed that some people really don’t understand the seriousness of this statement. Their feeling is that the Vatican’s position on Jews is a diplomatic one, not truly grounded in faith and revelation. The reality is actually the opposite.

If we step back diplomacy comes from the Latin concept of knowledge. To be a diplomat means to operate out of knowledge or in Judeo-Christian terms, to use wisdom. We know that wisdom is always good, so tell us the wisdom books of the OT.

The Vatican operating out of the right thing to do, which is wisdom in Judeo-Christian culture or diplomacy in Grecco-Latin culture.

Therefore, what the Church is saying about the Jews and the relationship between Jews and Catholics is a good thing, not a bad one. It builds up, not tear down. I opens doors for dialogue, for peace and where there is dialogue and trust, there is the possibility of evangelization. No evangelist ever antagonized his audience, not deliberately.

This is the part that people don’t understand and when they don’t understand that the Church is operating out of a good and its end is also a good, then it is easy to see the defense of the Jews from the SSPX as a political move instead of a move based on justice.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Dee_S]

I’ve often heard about putting the nail on the coffin. However, it never occurred to me that you could nail yourself inside the coffin.

We have three statements that no one will agree are acceptable.

1. The new mass is evil.
2. The Council was the council of the Jews, Masons and Modernists.
3. The Jews are the enemies of the Church.

When a bishop makes such statements in such a public manner, there is no way that anyone in authority can get his foot out of his mouth.

The rest, who said what and who offered what guarantees pales by comparison. It comes as no surprise to anyone that everyone who was watching the talks was speculating. Speculations can be dangerous, precisely because they can confuse and frustrate.

However, the speculations the were shared with the good bishop did not tarnish the good name of the Church, the mass or another faith tradition. His comments do just that.

I’m sitting here thinking, “If I were pope, how would I extricate the bishop’s foot from his mouth?” If I ignore the comments, especially the one about the mass and the Jews, what am I saying to the world? On the other hand, if I engage in a defense of the bishop, I will come across as one who is so desperate to have the SSPX back that I’ll put up with anything. Finally, if I engage in a debate with Bishop Fellay, I make us equals and we’re not. I’m the Pontiff and he’s my brother bishop, not my equal. Big difference.

What a mess. :sad_yes:

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

So to the point Br JR, thank you. Your opening statement really appeals to my sense of humor, just finding it very difficult to resist posting an appro pic…ugh!! yr torturing me… “…it never occurred to me that you could nail yourself inside the coffin.”

http://www.grandcircuitinc.com/site...e/product_full/Patriot Box Nails 500.jpgsorry, it got the better of me…just hope Mel Gibson doesn’t sue me

 

[Justin_Swanton]

These extracts may seem off the point, but the popular topic for some years in the Church has been to define ‘baptism of desire’ for salvation that suits the current tastes, and as you say, even traditionalists may not reject the current trend, or the “good faith” angle.

Quote: Justin Swanton “Anyway, one can in charity presume that these faithful are still acting and living in good faith, and I would very much like to think that Holy Mother Church takes this into account, and does not turn their desire to live a reverent and spiritual sacramental life into a mockery. Somehow I think she takes care of them by giving them what they are sincerely looking for.”
Surely you mean God instead of Holy Mother Church? How can the Church take care of them when they are so out on a limb, so to speak. She cares by warning them not to adhere to these suspended priests in an organization that has no canonical status. As P Newton wisely remarked, God’s mercy is best in this case.

I mean the Church in her supernatural role of sanctifier. The Church isn’t just a collection of laws and social structures. SSPXers in good faith are a part of the Church inasmuch as they belong to the Mystical Body of Christ, just as do the Orthodox, Protestants and anybody else who has received the grace of baptism, either sacramentally or of desire, and is in a state of grace.

Legally one can be separated from the Church by excommunication, which separates one from participation in the sacramental life of Catholics (not necessarily from the Mystical Body - one can repent and still be excommunicated until the relevant authority lifts the excommunication), but that is a different issue.

 

[Justin_Swanton]

The Church can only give what she has the authority to give. She does not have the authority to grant faculties to any priest who is suspended or dispensed from the priesthood unless there is an immediate danger of death or the penitent, through no fault of his own does not know that the priest does not have faculties. In that situation, the Church has the authority to supply faculties, but it’s only in those cases.

It’s not that the Church is trying to make a mockery of the spiritual search of good people. It’s that she cannot give them what they need through illegal means. The Church cannot break the law in order to help someone out. To grant faculties to these priests would be illegal. The Church does not have the authority to do what’s illegal. She would first have to change Canon Law. That gets into a whole theological issue. Faculties can only be given by an ordinary. Only the diocesan bishop or the male superior of a religious community can be an ordinary.

The new canon would have to say that any bishop can grant faculties. This would make it legal for Bishop Fellay to grant faculties. But there is a theological problem. Unless the bishop is the head of a Church, he has no apostolic jurisdiction. He has succession, but succession is not enough to make him the ordinary authority.

For this reason, any Catholic who knowingly confesses to a priest who has no faculties is not absolved. The key here is “knowingly”. In this case, the Catholic who knowingly confesses to a priest from the SSPX has to question his motives for confessing to a priest who does not have the power to absolve. The matter become more complex, if the Catholic tells you that he does not believe or agree with the Church’s authoritative position on this point. In essence, the person is saying that he has authority to say what law is right and what law is wrong or what application of the law is right or wrong. He’s trespassing on the authority of the Magisterium. Now you have an invalid confession that is coupled with the sin of presumption.

This is the reason for my comparison between the English schismatics (eventually heretics) and the SSPX faithful. Going to confession to priest without regular faculties in bad faith and going to one in good faith are not the same thing IMHO. In the first case one has sufficient knowledge that one is not justified in doing so; in the latter case one does not.

Take the Greek Orthodox. We are accustomed to seeing them as ‘three-quarter Catholics’, pretty much a separate Church in good standing that is fairly orthodox and very conservative. They are nothing of the kind. They are former Catholics who put themselves in schism because the Patriarch of Constantinople felt himself to be on a par with the Pope. Their situation is irregular inasmuch as they refuse a due submission to the authority of the Pope and the dogmatic decisions of the Ecumenical councils that postdated their schism. They are not what Christ wants his Church to be. Nonetheless ***all ***their sacraments are valid because the spiritual good of their members, who are presumed to act and live in good faith, requires it.

The SSPX are an unusual case which doesn’t have any close parallels with the past, nonetheless I would suggest that it is possible to compare them to a certain extent with contemporary Orthodox.

Let me give a concrete example. Take Joe Trad. He escaped the whirlwind of the 70’s and 80’s by finding and staying with a Traditional chapel. His mindset is such that he feels every regular parish is a hotbed of modernism and that if he went there and took his family with him they would all soon lose the Faith. This mindset has been inculcated in him over the years by the group he belongs to. He himself is in good faith.

Well, Joe commits a grave sin and goes to his chapel for confession. He manages an imperfect act of contrition and is absolved. He leaves the confessional and the next day whilst walking in town he is run over and killed. The story now has two possible endings:

1. Joe appears before the Judgment seat and is condemned to hell. “Sorry Joe,” God tells him, “That sacrament was invalid. Just your bad luck.”
2. Joe does time in Purgatory and eventually is admitted to heaven. God, seeing his good faith and knowing that it would be psychologically impossible for him to make his way to a regular parish (presuming the regular parish offers weekly confession), supplies, through His Church, the absolution that Joe needs and came in good faith to his chapel to receive.

Personally I opt for the happy ending.

 

[Melchior_1]

The SSPX are an unusual case which doesn’t have any close parallels with the past, nonetheless I would suggest that it is possible to compare them to a certain extent with contemporary Orthodox.

This falls apart when we consider that the SSPX are bound by Catholic Canon Law, the Orthodox are not. Protestants aren’t either.

1. Joe appears before the Judgment seat and is condemned to hell. “Sorry Joe,” God tells him, “That sacrament was invalid. Just your bad luck.”
2. Joe does time in Purgatory and eventually is admitted to heaven. God, seeing his good faith and knowing that it would be psychologically impossible for him to make his way to a regular parish (presuming the regular parish offers weekly confession), supplies, through His Church, the absolution that Joe needs and came in good faith to his chapel to receive.

First, why is he psychologically unable to go to confession at a regular parish?

Second, removing the Sacrament portion, this is exactly what happens to everybody, Catholic or not. Upon visiting the judgement seat they have a choice to accept Christ and the fullness of Truth. It’s that how one lives their life on Earth which dictates how they answer to the Throne of God. The Sacraments, and Catholicism as a whole, prepares one to make that final “YES!” to Christ.

All that invalid Sacraments that do not give proper absolution do is make it that much harder for people to make that “YES!”, because they lack the same graces as others. You’d think the SSPX would be put ahead of Protestants because the SSPX have the Mass (illicit, but still Mass) & the Eucharist, but without valid Confession consuming the Eucharist won’t do them much good if they go the mortal sin.

Then again, if it’s as you say, there’s even more on the hands of the SSPX leadership and their clergy. If the laity involved with the SSPX are going to confession because the clergy say it’s valid (when it isn’t), the clergy is endangering souls just as much as the modernists they despise.

I understand where you’re going with this, Justin. I would hope the next time a thread on ecumenism and religious liberty comes up that you use the exact same logic and rhetoric.