SSPX update?

[pnewton]

It would not be possible for someone from the mainstream Church to go to an SSPX priest for a valid confession simply because he prefers his personality to that of his own parish priest, so no-one is encouraging anything.

Thank you. That is good to know.

 

[Faithdancer]

Here is something that is bothering me- is the easy dismantling of the vaunted Notre Dame defense by the Alabama front line a judgement against the “cafeteria Catholicism” that seems to be rampant among the faculty and administration of some of the larger Catholic colleges and universities in this country? Or was Coach Kelly simply out-coached by Coach Saban, his team outclassed by superior speed, talent and athleticism?

I read on another forum here somewhere that the most devout player on the Irish this year seemed to be Manti T’eo…a Mormon!:bigyikes:

Perhaps instituting an SSPX presence in Notre Dame campus ministry might reinvigorate the team next year, create a new sense of urgency and orthodoxy, and put the “touchdown” back in “Touchdown Jesus…” I don’t know…

 

[Dee_S]

Uh, did you guys miss this post? It’s kind of an unfortunate statement by Fellay.

Isn’t this sort of. . . . problematic for the SSPX?

it was covered a few posts back…yes, sort of…revealing would you not agree

 

[Dee_S]

It may be that in your case and the others which with you are familiar, the bishops were being pastoral. Something many traditionalists decry, but which nonetheless has it’s place.

I have no idea what your sins are or what you said to those priests, bishops, and cardinal, but they may have seen clearly enough that your sins were not of the kind that wouldn’t be confessed again anyway. That is habitual or ordinary sins (even mortal) that an ordinary layperson may commit and repeat and confess then recommit throughout their lifetimes - ie, envy, anger, even impurity and theft

Perhaps in the instances you mentioned, the shepards were glad enough to have their one lost sheep back, and aware enough of it’s trials while lost, that stepping through the exercise of reconfessing sins that you (in your ignorance) thought were properly confessed at the time.

**It is the priests and bishops of the SSPX who accept ordination, knowing they *will ***be suspended immediately. And who offer sacraments knowing that they *are *suspended, who bear the greater burden.

:thumbsup:as I mentioned to Justin in my earlier posts, I think that the answer lies in the fact that they were approached for reasons other than confession and that they were fully aware that you already had a confessor in good standing with the Church, who would be guiding you correctly - so what would have been achieved by them ‘underlining the point’?

 

[JReducation]

There are many things happening on this thread and all are very interesting. Rather than quote each post in order to respond, I’ll just skip that part and start gabbing away.

First:

Bishop Fellay’s comment on the Jews was a very unfortunate comment for many reasons. A bishop of the Catholic Church coming across like an antisemite does not do much for the Church’s image in the world, especially after what we have just grone through with the sex abuse scandal. He’s not doing anything for the Church. A public figure should refrain from making comments unless said comments are going to do some good. Inciting racism, bigotry, generalizations, and undermining the work of the Holy See is not what one would consider doing good.

Second:

While on the subject of the SSPX, any priest who is suspended or laicized cannot validly absolve except under two situations without exception.

The person is in danger of death

The peninent does not know that the priest has no faculties.

The Church does need to go after Catholics who go to confession to SSPX priests. It is the moral responsibility of the priest to refrain from hearing confessions. If the Catholic knows the rules, it is his moral responsibility to comply with Church law.

The Church does not have to demand that a person who knowingly went to an invalid confession do it again. If the person knows that the sacrament was not valid, he knows that he must do it again. There is no difference between this and going to confession to a priest with faculties and deliberately leaving out a mortal sin. You know that the absolution is invalid. The Church does not have to send you a telegram.

Just for the record, there are bishops who are insisting that anyone who comes from the SSPX or any other similar situation be discouraged from receiving Holy Communion if they know themselves to be in a state of mortal sin and at the time they went to confession to said priest, they knew that he did not have faculties. The issue has been publicly discussed in some diocese where the need for such discussion has come up.

As far as marriage is concerned the solution is radical sanation. This is something that the local bishop can do without having to go through a wedding ceremony for a second time.

Third:

Justin, you say that the Church failed miserably if the documents of Vatican II need to be read by scholars and not by John Doe in the pew.

The fact is that the Church did not fail, because it was never the Council Father’s intent that the documents be read by John Doe in the pew. They did not write it for him. They wrote the documents for bishops, theologians, priests, religious educators and men and women religious. The bishops were to go back to their dioceses and make sure that the content of the documents was disseminated in a manner that was easy for their people to understand. This part did not happen. But the documents themselves were not written for the layman with no theological and philosophical background.

The same is also true for the CCC. This book was not meant to be a teaching tool for the non-theologian. This books is meant to be a resource for other catechisms. Fr. Hardon takes a lot from here. The Catholic Catechism for Adults published by the USCCB takes a lot from here and is user friendly. LIfe Teen put out a very good book Called What Every Catholic Should Know. It’s very user friendly. It too comes from the CCC.

The writers never had the average man in the pew in mind when they wrote these texts. They were writing for their peers. The intent was that their peers would use these texts, along with what the Church already had in her treasury of writings to produce material appropriate for each country and age group. Did we fail to do this? Yes we did. There are now some bishops who are taking charge and doing what had to be done originally.

 

[JReducation]

Fourth:

I was not going to copy and paste, but I have to on this one or my response will make no sense.

Let me risk the bullet and the Bull and repeat that informing oneself of controverted points of the Faith is the duty of any Catholic, ***but ***let me qualify it by adding that ‘any Catholic’ needs to be reasonably intelligent as theology is not everyone’s cup of tea, and - ‘and’ in bold, underline, italics and caps - AND that the faithful in question inform themselves of controverted points of the Faith, they don’t ***resolve ***them. ***That ***means that they come to sufficiently clear understanding of the issues in question as elucidated by reliable and reputable experts, that they can see what the errors about it consist of. This needs to be done for religious liberty, which is not an obtuse, abstract speculative topic of higher theology, but something that concerns everyone’s daily life, here and now. We’d better understand how religious liberty works if we are to appreciate in what way religious error can or can’t have freedom of the city, and how we are to interact with non-Catholic religions in consequence. A misunderstanding here leads to fallout, big time.

ARE YOU TOTALLY INSENSITIVE OR JUST DISRESPECTFUL???

Do you realize that when a religious tells you that he cannot discuss a certain point because he risks dismissal from his community and suffers a curse of eternal damnation imposed by his founder that this is not to be taken lightly? When he tells you such, it is a polite way of telling you to drop the subject or take it up with someone else who is free to discuss it.

To go back to it with the same religious is either insensitive or disrespectful. What it says to me is that you did not take seriously what to us is very serious. It’s a failure to validate our reality.

This is another real problem with some people. They want religious brothers and sisters, as long as they don’t have to play by the rules. It does not work that way. If you want us around, there are ground rules.

If one wants to be a traditionalist, one must also remember that religious families are part of Catholic tradition and that we have laws are part of that tradition, which the laity, secular clergy and the religious must respect. We, religious, are not accessories in the Church. We are essential to the life of the Catholic Church. Therefore, it is imperative that people respect our laws and rules. When we say that we do not discuss something, drop it or take it to someone else. Do not put our souls in danger just to please yourself.

You say that every Catholic must be informed and intelligent, well inform yourself on this one too.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[ringil]

it was covered a few posts back…yes, sort of…revealing would you not agree

Fellay is making it clear.

The SSPX does not seem likely to be reconciled, even more so with Fellay’s latest goof. I am beginning to think that they don’t even desire reconciliation.

Benedict has made it clear that he doesn’t want to hear disparaging comments about the jews and then Fellay pulls this?

THe is pretty big news I think.

 

[Faithdancer]

Fourth:

I was not going to copy and paste, but I have to on this one or my response will make no sense.

ARE YOU TOTALLY INSENSITIVE OR JUST DISRESPECTFUL???

Do you realize that when a religious tells you that he cannot discuss a certain point because he risks dismissal from his community and suffers a curse of eternal damnation imposed by his founder that this is not to be taken lightly? When he tells you such, it is a polite way of telling you to drop the subject or take it up with someone else who is free to discuss it.

To go back to it with the same religious is either insensitive or disrespectful. What it says to me is that you did not take seriously what to us is very serious. It’s a failure to validate our reality.

This is another real problem with some people. They want religious brothers and sisters, as long as they don’t have to play by the rules. It does not work that way. If you want us around, there are ground rules.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

Easy, Br. JR- have a brandy! You guys do have brandy down there, don’t you?

Or maybe a nice Amontillado, non-demi sec mais tres sec.

I only recommend the Amontillado when I see three frownies, btw.

 

[Dee_S]

Notice that there is an ambiguity in the provision laid down by the Pontifical Commission.

“ambiguity”… that is a classic SSPXism! the logic of your disputation falls apart right there, sorry. One can’t be expected to believe that a Pontifical Commission is ambiguous.

The circumstances which create an exception for an otherwise invalid confession could be extended to an otherwise invalid marriage. In other words, someone can contract marriage in the SSPX ‘genuinely not knowing that the priest does not have the required faculty’, which, in the logic of what the Pontifical Commission is saying, would leave the marriage valid as well.

Canon Law is very clear about the validity of sacraments from suspended priests. One can’t always square a circle. The sacraments of marriage and confession given by SSPX priests are invalid.

It is not correct to assume that what applies to confession would apply to marriage, as they are rather different sacraments. As we all know, the sacrament of marriage is conferred by the two parties who marry, and not by the presiding minister. If the couple are in genuine ignorance of the consequences of being married by a suspended priest, then in the eyes of God their marriage is good.

The issue of validity would only arise should one of them should apply for an annulment or have some sort of official dealings with the Church regarding marriage. Then they would discover that Canon Law considers it invalid and they would be made the offer to convalidate it.

Personal experiences really cannot overturn Church Law, so perhaps it is best to not confuse or upset others who are prepared to trust it, and who do not understand the dichotomous mindset that comes about when one disobeys the Church, but wants to believe that they are not doing so - a mindset peculiar to the SSPX - and proof of that abounds at all levels.

 

[JReducation]

Here is something that is bothering me- is the easy dismantling of the vaunted Notre Dame defense by the Alabama front line a judgement against the “cafeteria Catholicism” that seems to be rampant among the faculty and administration of some of the larger Catholic colleges and universities in this country? Or was Coach Kelly simply out-coached by Coach Saban, his team outclassed by superior speed, talent and athleticism?

I read on another forum here somewhere that the most devout player on the Irish this year seemed to be Manti T’eo…a Mormon!:bigyikes:

Perhaps instituting an SSPX presence in Notre Dame campus ministry might reinvigorate the team next year, create a new sense of urgency and orthodoxy, and put the “touchdown” back in “Touchdown Jesus…” I don’t know…

You want to take a university that is the exclusive domain of an exempt religious congregation and give it to the SSPX, which is a suspended secular institute because of a football game?

It’s just a football game. Regardless of what we think, the Holy Cross Brothers are an exempt religious institute protected by the Holy Father himself. Have we forgotten how annoyed the Holy Father got when people jumped all over Fr. Jenkins over the Obama issue? They were politely told to back off an exempt religious.

It was not that the Vatican agreed with the invitation of President Obama. I don’t think that they agreed at all. It was that there were people attacking a religious who is protected by the Right of Exemption granted to him by the Council of Trent. The Vatican politely reminded people of this. There were only two people who had the right to say anything to him, his superior general and the pope.

We must be careful not to do one wrong thing to fix another. If we want to say that Notre Dame should only admit practicing Catholics, that’s an interesting suggestion. Notre Dame didn’t raise those kids. They arrived as they are, unfortunately.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[JReducation]

Easy, Br. JR- have a brandy! You guys do have brandy down there, don’t you?

LOL Actually, we rarely drink. We can’t afford it. We can barely afford food.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[JReducation]

Fellay is making it clear.

The SSPX does not seem likely to be reconciled, even more so with Fellay’s latest goof. I am beginning to think that they don’t even desire reconciliation.

Benedict has made it clear that he doesn’t want to hear disparaging comments about the jews and then Fellay pulls this?

THe is pretty big news I think.

You’re right about Pope Benedict’s wishes, not only about Jews, but also about Muslims. We have had to dismiss two from religious life and suspend one priest already. The Holy Father is not taking prisoners on this subject.

If bishops and major superiors do not put their foot down and make sure that people do not make this kind of remark, they can find themselves in big trouble if they are caught. I don’t play games with the Holy See. I told our brothers that if they put their feet in their mouth, they will find themselves facing consequences, no questions asked and no second chances. The Holy Father has said, “I will not introduce an antisemite into polite society.”

Those of us who are faithful to him, should pay attention and put distance between us and such opinions.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Faithdancer]

LOL Actually, we rarely drink. We can’t afford it. We can barely afford food.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

I can’t afford Remy-Martin anymore, myself. And that is tragic! As far as the Amontillado- it is rather like food, I think. Perhaps it simply creates a forgetfulness for food.

 

[Dee_S]

Fellay is making it clear.

The SSPX does not seem likely to be reconciled, even more so with Fellay’s latest goof. I am beginning to think that they don’t even desire reconciliation.

Benedict has made it clear that he doesn’t want to hear disparaging comments about the jews and then Fellay pulls this?

THe is pretty big news I think.

I think so too…and add to that the fact that Bishop Fellay appears to be refusing to give the official reply waited for as seen in the Declaration of Ecclesia Dei October 29,2012 and says in his recent sermons that he has already told the Vatican in July after their General Chapter that they did not want to reconcile or have the Personal Prelature. Yet the Declaration says differently…methinks they wait in vain

"The Pontifical Commission ‘Ecclesia Dei’ takes this occasion to announce that, in its most recent official communication (6 September 2012), the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X has indicated that additional time for reflection and study is needed on their part as they prepare their response to the Holy See’s latest initiatives."

“… Just a few months ago, a culminating point along this difficult path was reached when, on 13 June 2012, the Pontifical Commission presented to the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X a doctrinal declaration together with a proposal for the canonical normalisation of its status within the Catholic Church.”

**“At the present time, the Holy See is awaiting the official response of the superiors of the Priestly Fraternity to these two documents.” **
visnews-en.blogspot.com/2012/10/declaration-of-pontifical-commission_29.html

 

[Dee_S]

I can’t afford Remy-Martin anymore, myself. And that is tragic! As far as the Amontillado- it is rather like food, I think. Perhaps it simply creates a forgetfulness for food.

:console:here’s a little something from me to cheer you up…

http://media-cache-ec2.pinterest.com/upload/39688040437671613_ec4evHRf_b.jpg

It’s the *ICE CREAM *that makes the whiskey taste so good

 

[Faithdancer]

:console:here’s a little something from me to cheer you up…

http://media-cache-ec2.pinterest.com/upload/39688040437671613_ec4evHRf_b.jpg

It’s the *ICE CREAM *that makes the whiskey taste so good

Ooooh, et ne nos inducas in tentationem!

 

[JReducation]

I think so too…and add to that the fact that Bishop Fellay appears to be refusing to give the official reply waited for as seen in the Declaration of Ecclesia Dei October 29,2012 and says in his recent sermons that he has already told the Vatican in July after their General Chapter that they did not want to reconcile or have the Personal Prelature. Yet the Declaration says differently…methinks they wait in vain

"The Pontifical Commission ‘Ecclesia Dei’ takes this occasion to announce that, in its most recent official communication (6 September 2012), the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X has indicated that additional time for reflection and study is needed on their part as they prepare their response to the Holy See’s latest initiatives."

“… Just a few months ago, a culminating point along this difficult path was reached when, on 13 June 2012, the Pontifical Commission presented to the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X a doctrinal declaration together with a proposal for the canonical normalisation of its status within the Catholic Church.”

**“At the present time, the Holy See is awaiting the official response of the superiors of the Priestly Fraternity to these two documents.” **
visnews-en.blogspot.com/2012/10/declaration-of-pontifical-commission_29.html

I’M SOOOOO DUMB!!! :banghead:

I had not seen this until you just put it together. I was wondering why the Vatican kept saying that they had not received an official response and Bishop Fellay kept saying that they had said, “No.” It all just made sense when I saw your post. Allow me to explain with an example.

Every community must have a general chapter. Whatever the general chapter says, becomes the law of the community, as long as it does not contradict Canon Law or the rule given by the founder. However, there are legal conditions here.

First: There are regular general chapters. For example, my community’s constitution says that we shall have a general chapter every three years and that we shall elect a superior general every six years. Once the constitution was approved by the proper authorities, we don’t have to ask for permission to have our trienniel general chapter. However, if we want to have a special general chapter out of sequence, then we must have the permission of the proper legal authority, either the bishop or the Holy See.

Second: The SSPX has no canonical place in the Church. Therefore, the Church cannot grant the SSPX permission to have a special general chapter. In that case, this general chapter that the SSPX just held does not exist in the mind of the law. If it does not exist, whatever came out of it, is not official.

Conclusion: The only official answer can come from Bishop Fellay himself. He has to say, “I have decided not to bring the SSPX back home.” He can’t say “The general chapter has decided,” because the Church never put the answer in the hands of the general chapter.

He can certainly consult anyone he wants, but in the end, the answer must say, "I Bernard Fellay have decided . . . . " That’s what Rome is waiting for.

As long as he does not send that note to them, the whole situation is on standby. If he sends an official note with his name and signature, taking responsibility for the “No,” he risks being in schism. The next question is going to be, “So what happens when you and the other bishops get too old to govern?”

If they say that they’re going to ordain successors, there are serious problems.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Dee_S]

LOL Actually, we rarely drink. We can’t afford it. We can barely afford food.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

No need for me to send you anything Brother, you are in very good hands…

 

[Dee_S]

Ooooh, et ne nos inducas in tentationem!

*Sed libera nos a **malo
http://kuvar.krstarica.com/uploads/pics/slad_kup.jpg
(My favourite…agony in Lent should I see a pic like this)

 

[JReducation]

http://www.redletterchristians.org/wp-content/uploads/St-Francis-Feeding-the-Birds.jpg

No need for me to send you anything Brother, you are in very good hands…

No, we’re not eating those birds.

*Sed libera nos a *malo
http://kuvar.krstarica.com/uploads/pics/slad_kup.jpg

(My favourite…agony in Lent should I see a pic like this)

Now that looks good. :yup:

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV