I could go for a fine monk brew myself to be honest. Although, I am happy to share with the moderators if they find themselves to be a bit parched…That’s a good point. Maybe we could chip in and send the mods some monk beer or some of the monastery coffee or something.
-Tim-
I answer that, Some have contended that heretics, schismatics, and the excommunicate, who are outside the pale of the Church, cannot perform this sacrament. But herein they are deceived, because, as Augustine says (Contra Parmen. ii), “it is one thing to lack something utterly, and another to have it improperly”; and in like fashion, “it is one thing not to bestow, and quite another to bestow, but not rightly.” Accordingly, such as, being within the Church, received the power of consecrating the Eucharist through being ordained to the priesthood, have such power rightly indeed; but they use it improperly if afterwards they be separated from the Church by heresy, schism, or excommunication. But such as are ordained while separated from the Church, have neither the power rightly, nor do they use it rightly. But that in both cases they have the power, is clear from what Augustine says (Contra Parmen. ii), that when they return to the unity of the Church, they are not re-ordained, but are received in their orders. And since the consecration of the Eucharist is an act which follows the power of order, such persons as are separated from the Church by heresy, schism, or excommunication, can indeed consecrate the Eucharist, which on being consecrated by them contains Christ’s true body and blood; but they act wrongly, and sin by doing so; and in consequence they do not receive the fruit of the sacrifice, which is a spiritual sacrifice.
OK, so if I understand, a superior can prohibit private Masses, but where private Masses are allowed, a religious priest can say the EF. Is that correct?I believe that Melchior, Jwinch and Br.David had hit the nail on the head that many people are missing.
The Holy Father said that religious priests can use the EF in private without having to ask for permission.
However, he did not say, “Religious priests can celebrate private masses without permission.”
In some orders, that decision is reserved for the superior of the house. As I said above, the pope would have to go into everyone of those constitutions and rules and amend them one by one, because either he or his predecessor signed off on them. He cannot amend then without his signature. They would have no legal force.
Since that has not happened, superiors in some communities still have the authority to deny permission for private masses. A bishop does not have that authority, because his men are not consecrated to obey him in this way.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
I agree that the ability to consecrate is there regardless of one’s personal opinion on the form of the Mass. From what Brother JR posted, it was the intent which was under question and whether or not a priest can be ordered to perform an extraordinary act. I’m sure that he will come and set things straight if I am not explaining that properly.
So how is any priest obliged to say the Mass? Now naturally you cannot physically force a priest to say Mass, but I do not think that means you can’t punish them for refusing their obligation, when it exists. Now in order to punish one requires a law that, being trespassed, assigns punishments: are you telling me there simply exists no such law? If so, and if say a parish priest refused to do his duty or say Mass, how do his superiors go about replacing him, or does the priest enjoy squatters rights, as it were, and the faithful are simply to accept that they have no sacraments?No my friend, you have not proven it. I’m holding the Modus Procedendi. I’ll paraphrase it, because it’s very long. In accord with tradition, a bishop or a superior can assign any validly ordained priest to celebrate the sacraments. That priest has the duty to comply, if the assignment is reasonable and in accordance with the law and his assignment. And then it goes on and on about what is and is not reasonable. It is inconsistent with tradition to mandate a priest to celebrate the sacraments. Then it goes on and on to say how every priest should be eager to celebrate the sacraments.
The constitutions of my community say: “While the superior has the authority to withhold permission to celebrate mass, from any cleric, for just cause [it leaves it up to the superior to define just cause], he does not have the authority to command a cleric to celebrate the mass. The celebration of the sacred mysteries must be freely undertaken by the cleric.”
The Church does not give us the authority to make such commands. We can assign, but we cannot demand.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
Do you really need JR to tell you the dangerous implications of resting the validity of a sacrament on someone’s personal opinion? What are the personal opinions of heretics as regards the sacraments or the Most Holy Trinity? Nonetheless, we know that - so long as they use the correct matter and form, even they can and do baptize. The intention, when defective, is exposed by mutalating or otherwise bastardising the rite. I think the intention to do what the Church does is normally satisfied simply by actually doing what the Church does; otherwise, we would perpetually labour under doubt of the validity of all the sacraments we have received, including our baptism.
That’s right.
It depends ow the constitutions are worded. Let me just give you two different possible wordings.
You might want to read what I wrote again. I just got done saying that personal opinion did not invalidate the sacraments.
Three things: 1) I do not base my understanding of the sacraments on what you think. I base them on what the Church says. I am also willing to listen to what people who have been formally trained by the Church have to say on the matter. 2) Baptism is a really poor example to choose. A Methodist pastor can validly baptize without the reception of valid Holy Orders. They cannot consecrate the Eucharist. 3) Going through the motions per the rubrics provided by the Church does not equal intent. If I go to confession and do and say all the proper things was the sacrament valid? Are my sins absolved? Now take the same scenario without conscious intent on my part to abstain from sin in the future.
Earlier you stated that we needed documentation from the Vatican. Now you say, we have enough evidence. This, despite the fact that someone reading the Modus Procedendi while writing this response and who has been trained in Canon Law, has told you that you are wrong. Well maybe you have enough evidence, but I don’t since it seems to be based largely on your own opinion. So, you can either drop it, or follow your own advice and go find contrary evidence and present it. If you decide on option two I hope you enjoy Canon Law and Theology, I hear the courses can be challenging. Also when you get back, please start another thread so that we can actually discuss the potential reunion of SSPX which is what *this *thread is supposed to be about.
Interesting, I did not know that. I guess you could look at it as they were praying for others instead of themselves, but I understand where you are coming from.
Me too.
I have heard various dates thrown out but haven’t seen anything even remotely official to support them. Plus, as others have said, much of this may stay private for some time.
Me too. I am really exited that this might work.
I could not agree more.
Also praying hard for the reunification of ALL Christians.
Even if we were to know today, whatever structure they decide on, if any, may not effective for several months if not longer IMO.
Why sad? Just because I haven’t seen it doesn’t mean it hasn’t happened. There are many who are far, far closer to the SSPX situation than I am. Hopefully some of them will chime in and let us know if they have seen anything remotely official regarding a timeline.
