Too many Sympathetic for SSPX

[numealinesimpet]

This incident was definitely the epitome of nonsense. However, that does not justify the actions of the SSPX. Nor does it justify the actions of the parents who took the children to be confirmed by excommunicated bishops. Right now, there are canon lawyers questioning the validity of all those confirmations. Eventually, the Holy Father will have to say that they were valid or that they were suspect and again use radical sanation to fix the problem, if it can even be fixed by radical sanation. I’m not sure if a suspect Confirmation can be fixed by sanation.

The rational choice is to find a bishop and a program that is orthodox. There are many bishops and many programs with valid faculties to confirm and who do it by the book.

Fraternally,

Br.JR, FFV

Is it not the case that one is “normally” required to present for Confirmation in one’s own diocese?

 

[JReducation]

Is it not the case that one is “normally” required to present for Confirmation in one’s own diocese?

Not in the USA. I don’t know about other episcopal conferences. In the USA, if you have a letter from you pastor, you’re good to go anywhere in the country or its colonies. The letter is very easy to get. The only reason that you have to get it is to guarantee to the diocese that’s receiving you that you’re in good standing with the Church.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[numealinesimpet]

That’s granting faculties for this particular case. It’s a nod of consent, but only for the case on the desk.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

Well I don’t mean to quibble, but is that not an inference, not a stated fact from the Vatican? Is not the alternate inference equally defensisble?

St Robert Bellarmine wrote, ‘Let the legislator speak plainly if he wishes to be obeyed’.

 

[numealinesimpet]

Not in the USA. I don’t know about other episcopal conferences. In the USA, if you have a letter from you pastor, you’re good to go anywhere in the country or its colonies. The letter is very easy to get. The only reason that you have to get it is to guarantee to the diocese that’s receiving you that you’re in good standing with the Church.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

I wonder what would hapen if the pastor were in favour of the Phoenix confirmation and refused to provide the letter.

 

[JReducation]

Well I don’t mean to quibble, but is that not an inference, not a stated fact from the Vatican? Is not the alternate inference equally defensisble?

St Robert Bellarmine wrote, ‘Let the legislator speak plainly if he wishes to be obeyed’.

One thing that we must be careful when reading the doctors and the saints is to remember that they have no authority over those in authority. It’s certainly good advice that St. Robert is giving. But the person doing the nodding, can argue that the priest understood him and that no one else need to understand him.

This is very important, because this happens a great deal. The laity often feels that something has happened or not happened, it can go either way. In fact, the reality is opposite that which the laity believes. It’s a very common practice in the Catholic Church for hierarchy and male religious superiors to leave the laity out of the loop. The argument has always been, “They don’t need to know unless it’s about them. If it’s a specific case or individual, the less the laity knows, the less interference.” That’s not a dogma or even a law. It’s just a custom.

But the person giving the consent is satisfied that the priest understood him. The burden to ask for clarification falls on the priest.

I wonder what would hapen if the pastor were in favour of the Phoenix confirmation and refused to provide the letter.

The pastor cannot deny you the letter. That’s why I said that it’s easy to get. The letter is just a statement that you are in good standing with the Church. He cannot deny you that statement, unless he knows something about you. In which case, he is supposed to tell you what he believes he knows.

Canon Law says that the laity has the right to receive the sacraments from any priest who has faculties. The law does not bind people to parishes or dioceses. It incardinates people. If you live in the Diocese of Dublin, you’re incardinated into that diocese. There is no reason that you cannot go to Belfast for your sacraments, unless there is an agreement between the bishops that prohibits this. As I said, I have never seen such a rule in the places where I have been assigned: Italy, Ecuador, Puerto Rico, USA, and France.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Melchior_1]

Continuing from previous posting…
The Baseball Confirmation of Phoenix, Arizona, 1998. The following true account is “compiled from various sources”. Let the reader be aware that some of these sources were Diocesan magazines up and down the USA, who reported the incident with approval. In June 1998 the bishop in Phoenix, Arizona had all of that year’s candidates for confirmation come to the new baseball stadium to all be confirmed on the same day. He gave every priest in the diocese faculties to confirm during the service. He invited all attendees (including a special invitation to non-Catholics) to come to the ballpark wearing red shirts for the Holy Spirit. They then sang a song to the Holy Spirit to the tune of “Take me out to the Ballpark,” an American folksong sung by Barney the dinosaur to name one advocate of the song. During the Mass, many people were seen eating hot dogs and popcorn. The candidates for confirmation poured out of the bleacher seats to any priest anywhere and were confirmed. No ID was required from candidates to ascertain who was eligible for confirmation or to receive the Eucharist. After the Confirmation, two boxes arrived at the rectory of a local church to a truly devout priest. A delivery man plopped the boxes on the counter and said, “These are for you. They are the consecrated hosts that weren’t used at the ballpark.” He opened the boxes and to his horror he found two large food service containers, generally used to hold about 10 gallons of ice cream, filled with consecrated hosts. The second box didn’t even have these. It was lined with butcher paper and thousands of consecrated hosts were tossed into the box. He immediately took the boxes to the sacristy and started to reserve the Blessed Sacrament in every ciborium and chalice he could find. He then scoured each container and box for Crumbs to consume. He counted 5000 hosts Did the celebrants over-consecrate 5000 hosts? Or was it more? Did another parish receive a similar shipment?
The faithful of Arizona had two choices in 1998. They could take their child to the SSPX chapel where he would be confirmed according to the rites of the Catholic Church, specifically and infallibly ‘canonised’ at the Council of Trent and by Pope S. Pius V in perpetuity. Or they could take them to the Ballpark.

As Cdls Ottaviani and Bacci noted to Pope Paul VI in the document generally known as ‘The Ottaviani Intervention’ in 1969, the situation arising since the close of the Second Vatican Council (whose validity they never questioned) was giving rise to ‘an agonising crisis of conscience’.

Can you provide a neutral third party link describing this event? I wouldn’t mind reading an unbiased account.

 

[JReducation]

I don’t think this account proves the innocence or culpability of the SSPX. It just proves that the SSPX were not the only nit-wits in the Church. We sort of knew that. :sad_yes:

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[numealinesimpet]

Can you provide a neutral third party link describing this event? I wouldn’t mind reading an unbiased account.

My main source was a close personal friend resident in Phoenix, who asked me not to pass on the name of the priest in question (who was well known to my friend). This incident was the last straw for their family, who began to attend the SSPX Mass Centres thereafter. Since then I have seen on, I think, the National Catholic Register, the comment that it was favourably reported in diocesan magazines in the USA. Bro. J.R., you sound as though you have heard about this case? Can you give us some more direct links? I note that it is under review concerning its validity.

There are those who ask an SSPX bishop for ‘conditional confirmation’. To the response that there is no such procedure in Canon Law, the answer must be that Canon Law is greater than the sum of the existing particular provisions, as any future unprecedented situation will have to call, either for an additional ‘positive’ law, or recourse to the more general principles of Law. It would seem that, should this Phoenix Confirmation be declared invalid, the laity would need to present for another ceremony; and that, in the interim, it would be appropriate to ask for a Conditional Confirmation.

 

[numealinesimpet]

Originally Posted by** JReducation**: that does not justify the actions of the SSPX. Nor does it justify the actions of the parents who took the children to be confirmed by excommunicated bishops.

I have never seen an official refutation of the SSPX invoking of Canons 1321-1324, indemnifying them from the decree of excommunication.

 

[numealinesimpet]

I don’t think this account proves the innocence or culpability of the SSPX. It just proves that the SSPX were not the only nit-wits in the Church. We sort of knew that. :sad_yes:

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

I didn’t think we were allowed to use the word ‘nitwits’. I thought we were only to quote Canon law and record incidents.

 

[JReducation]

I have never seen an official refutation of the SSPX invoking of Canons 1321-1324, indemnifying them from the decree of excommunication.

This was stated a long time ago by Bl. John Paul II. I can’t recall the year, but it was right after the excommunication. The Archbishop asked for a hearing, because Canon Law says that he is entitled to have one. His defense what the state of emergency. When the request reached the Vatican, my guess is that it must have gone to the Signatura, which is the department that deals with legal cases, Bl. John Paul said that there would be no hearing, because the law did not apply to Archbishop Lefebvre. This was actually stated by the Archbishop himself in one of his letters. He was very upset, because Bl. John Paul dismissed a canon so as to deny him a way out other than submit to the Holy See.

When Cardinal Ratzinger was elected pope, the issue of a hearing came up again. I’m not sure if it was the SSPX or the Roman Curia would brought it up. Pope Benedict said that he was willing to lift the excommunication, but not willing to have a hearing. To have a hearing would be to admit that the papacy had doubts and in fact, neither he (Pope Benedict) or his predecessor (Bl. John Paul) had any doubts about the validity. Canon Lawyers have said that given what Pope Boniface VI, I think it’s the VI, said about Canon Law and the pope, this is perfectly legitimate and honest. The pope can apply canon law unilaterally to whom ever he wants to apply it, but he cannot be bound by Canon Law, previous popes, or councils.

The remission of the excommunication was Pope Benedict’s final statement that the excommunications were valid. Had there been any doubt, there could not be a remission. There would first have to be a trial to determine if a remission was needed.

I don’t know what is said among the priests of the SSPX, but apparently the four bishops were fine with this. They requested the remission of the excommunication rather than a trial and were happy to get it. Pope Benedict said that he was lifting the excommunication at their request.

I have a good friend who’s an SSPX priest and he’s very honest. He believes that the claim about the canon and the state of emergency was a last ditch attempt to redeem themselves and that the Pope was not willing to entertain it, because it was obvious that they did not stand a chance. Even the SSPX recognize that Canon Law is subject to the interpretation and application of the pontiff, not the law itself. In other words, just because the law says that you’re entitled to a trial, does not mean that you’ll get one. The Pontiff can simply say that the law does not apply to you and no one can challenge that. Because there is no appeal above the pope. You can’t call on God to sit on a tribunal.

At this point, it’s all water under the bridge, because the excommunications were lifted and the four bishops and the pope are happy. The next step is to see if the Holy Father likes whatever it is that the SSPX said in the preamble.

Then we deal with the aftermath. There are going to be SSPXers who are not going to come home and there are going to be radical liberals that are not going to give the SSPXers a welcome home party.

This almost reminds me of the reconciliations with some of the Eastern Churches. They’er Catholic, but they’re on the edge. They shy away from the mainstream and the mainstream is happy that they do. It’s unfortunate, but who ever said that human beings are always rational?

Fraternally,

Br.JR, FFV

 

[JReducation]

I didn’t think we were allowed to use the word ‘nitwits’. I thought we were only to quote Canon law and record incidents.

Sorry. I call my friars nit-wits every time they do something nonsensical, that I forget myself when posting.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Melchior_1]

My main source was a close personal friend resident in Phoenix, who asked me not to pass on the name of the priest in question (who was well known to my friend). This incident was the last straw for their family, who began to attend the SSPX Mass Centres thereafter. Since then I have seen on, I think, the National Catholic Register, the comment that it was favourably reported in diocesan magazines in the USA.

No worries, mate! It’s not that I don’t believe you, but I wanted to read up on what happened. Not a lot of reports on Google about it, so I thought I’d ask

 

[JReducation]

No worries, mate! It’s not that I don’t believe you, but I wanted to read up on what happened. Not a lot of reports on Google about it, so I thought I’d ask

Apparently something happened that was nonsensical. As usual, you never get the right story. It’s like the game that kids play. You tell someone something in his ear. By the time it gets to the other end its been edited and embellished as I like to say. After a while, you can’t separate fact from fiction.

I’ll give you the same advice that I gave my novices when they asked about it. Actually it was not advice, it was a question. The dialogue went something like this?

NOVICES: Brother, where can we get more information about this?

ME: Why do you need more information?

NOVICES: Just curiosity.

ME: Is it going to make you holier?

NOVICES: No but . . .

ME: Is it going to help in your ministry?

NOVICES: No, but . . . Brother.

ME: Does it help your understanding of theology?

NOVICES: Brother, does that mean that we can’t read more on this?

ME: It means no such thing. It means that you can get around to minding someone else’s business after you have finished saving your soul.

The End.

Now they don’t worry if they can’t read something, unless it has something to do with their spiritual life or their ministry. Yes, I know. I’ve been told that I’m very hard on the novices. Believe it or not, they love it. It makes life very safe for them. Life can be so easy, if we allow it to be so.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Melchior_1]

Apparently something happened that was nonsensical. As usual, you never get the right story. It’s like the game that kids play. You tell someone something in his ear. By the time it gets to the other end its been edited and embellished as I like to say. After a while, you can’t separate fact from fiction.

I’ll give you the same advice that I gave my novices when they asked about it. Actually it was not advice, it was a question. The dialogue went something like this?

NOVICES: Brother, where can we get more information about this?

ME: Why do you need more information?

NOVICES: Just curiosity.

ME: Is it going to make you holier?

NOVICES: No but . . .

ME: Is it going to help in your ministry?

NOVICES: No, but . . . Brother.

ME: Does it help your understanding of theology?

NOVICES: Brother, does that mean that we can’t read more on this?

ME: It means no such thing. It means that you can get around to minding someone else’s business after you have finished saving your soul.

The End.

Now they don’t worry if they can’t read something, unless it has something to do with their spiritual life or their ministry. Yes, I know. I’ve been told that I’m very hard on the novices. Believe it or not, they love it. It makes life very safe for them. Life can be so easy, if we allow it to be so.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

I’m reading a couple books about how one observes the Rule(s), and something like this actually came up in one of the books (the concept of “freedom from inventing your day” and “freedom from life”).

Still have a lot to learn I guess

 

[JReducation]

I’m reading a couple books about how one observes the Rule(s), and something like this actually came up in one of the books (the concept of “freedom from inventing your day” and “freedom from life”).

Still have a lot to learn I guess

I never heard it put that way before; but I like it. We human beings have a tendency to pick up baggage along the journey. The Imitation of Christ says something to the effect that one should not look to another person’s failings until one has gotten rid of one’s own. I’m sure Kenpis got this from St. Augustine, because he said something similar in his rule.

Despite the good advice, we still like to pick up other people’s baggage as if we didn’t have enough of our own. Go figure.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Melchior_1]

I never heard it put that way before; but I like it. We human beings have a tendency to pick up baggage along the journey. The Imitation of Christ says something to the effect that one should not look to another person’s failings until one has gotten rid of one’s own. ** I’m sure Kenpis got this from St. Augustine, because he said something similar in his rule. **

Despite the good advice, we still like to pick up other people’s baggage as if we didn’t have enough of our own. Go figure.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

You called it; one of the books I’m reading is a commentary on the Rule of St. Augustine. The first three chapters or so he bring sup those two points, and fleshes them out. Very thought provoking, especially what he says about not thinking about lfie.

I’ll post some excerpts from it in the Vocations section in a day or two once I get my Kindle books on my desktop

 

[wasserfall]

Can you provide a neutral third party link describing this event? I wouldn’t mind reading an unbiased account.

How about the Diocese of Phoenix website for starters…

diocesephoenix.org/about-history.php

May 30, 1998: Diocese of Phoenix held “The Celebration of the Holy Spirit - a Mass and Confirmation” at Bank One Ballpark. Over 30,000 attended the celebration. The event was the first non-sports event held at the Bank One Ballpark.

 

[numealinesimpet]

Sorry. I call my friars nit-wits every time they do something nonsensical, that I forget myself when posting.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

No offence taken & none, I hope, given! That was my ‘good-night’!

 

[numealinesimpet]

This was stated a long time ago by Bl. John Paul II. I can’t recall the year, but it was right after the excommunication. The Archbishop asked for a hearing, because Canon Law says that he is entitled to have one. His defense what the state of emergency. When the request reached the Vatican, my guess is that it must have gone to the Signatura, which is the department that deals with legal cases, Bl. John Paul said that there would be no hearing, because the law did not apply to Archbishop Lefebvre. This was actually stated by the Archbishop himself in one of his letters. He was very upset, because Bl. John Paul dismissed a canon so as to deny him a way out other than submit to the Holy See.

When Cardinal Ratzinger was elected pope, the issue of a hearing came up again. I’m not sure if it was the SSPX or the Roman Curia would brought it up. Pope Benedict said that he was willing to lift the excommunication, but not willing to have a hearing. To have a hearing would be to admit that the papacy had doubts and in fact, neither he (Pope Benedict) or his predecessor (Bl. John Paul) had any doubts about the validity. Canon Lawyers have said that given what Pope Boniface VI, I think it’s the VI, said about Canon Law and the pope, this is perfectly legitimate and honest. The pope can apply canon law unilaterally to whom ever he wants to apply it, but he cannot be bound by Canon Law, previous popes, or councils.

The remission of the excommunication was Pope Benedict’s final statement that the excommunications were valid. Had there been any doubt, there could not be a remission. There would first have to be a trial to determine if a remission was needed.

I don’t know what is said among the priests of the SSPX, but apparently the four bishops were fine with this. They requested the remission of the excommunication rather than a trial and were happy to get it. Pope Benedict said that he was lifting the excommunication at their request.

I have a good friend who’s an SSPX priest and he’s very honest. He believes that the claim about the canon and the state of emergency was a last ditch attempt to redeem themselves and that the Pope was not willing to entertain it, because it was obvious that they did not stand a chance. Even the SSPX recognize that Canon Law is subject to the interpretation and application of the pontiff, not the law itself. In other words, just because the law says that you’re entitled to a trial, does not mean that you’ll get one. The Pontiff can simply say that the law does not apply to you and no one can challenge that. Because there is no appeal above the pope. You can’t call on God to sit on a tribunal.

At this point, it’s all water under the bridge, because the excommunications were lifted and the four bishops and the pope are happy. The next step is to see if the Holy Father likes whatever it is that the SSPX said in the preamble.

Then we deal with the aftermath. There are going to be SSPXers who are not going to come home and there are going to be radical liberals that are not going to give the SSPXers a welcome home party.

This almost reminds me of the reconciliations with some of the Eastern Churches. They’er Catholic, but they’re on the edge. They shy away from the mainstream and the mainstream is happy that they do. It’s unfortunate, but who ever said that human beings are always rational?

Fraternally,

Br.JR, FFV

I agree with you that this is now water under the bridge, and that there are (regrettably) bound to be some souls who will refuse to go along with any reconciliation, no matter what it may be. As for the rest, my understanding is that a pope can change Canon Law, but he cannot simply ignore it on a one-off basis, as this would be against Natural Justice. There are precedents in history. I would prefer not to speculate on the outcome of an open trial had it ever been held. The Canons were not a last-ditch artifice, but the very basis of the decision to consecrate without mandate, as noted by Archbp. Lefebvre the previous June 1988 in a public sermon. Nonetheless, it is very encouraging that the lifting of the decree of excommunication was welcomed with relief by both sides.