L
LilyM
Guest
I just noticed that too - it’s such a great word, conjures up some wonderful imagery.
- Status
T
Titus
Guest
I don’t believe anyone here denies the validity of the TLM- celebrated by the FSSP or ICRSS or any priest really. But the SSPX clergy are schismatic- certainly their bishops are, therefore Confirmation is out for this lady.
I doubt we actually deny the validity of the SSPX masses, but they are illicit. It’s like saying, ‘I didn’t shoot him, but I was carrying a loaded weapon without a licence, but because I didn’t shoot him, aren’t I a good citizen?’’.
In danger of death, sure, approach an SSPX priest. The rest of the time, their sacraments are illicit and you give scandal by attending a mass celebrated by one of their priests.
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
Then the Vatican does need to get its act together - and badly 
- because it allows members of the Polish National Catholic Church to receive the Eucharist at Mass: & has allowed this since 1993.
It is impossible, these days, to know what’s allowed & what’s not; there seems to be no principle in what the Vatican does:- JP2 says soothing words of apology about the state of the Liturgy - & holds the Assisi abominations. IOW, indifferentism is a sin, except when committed by the Pope.
- US Bishops deny “pro-abortion” politicians the sacraments - the Vatican knights “pro-abortion” politicians
- the Vatican rants & raves against “indifferentism” - & gives the Eucharist to Protestants & schismatics
- The Vatican deplores the lack of missionary zeal among Catholics - & signs the Balamand Declaration, which leaves the Orthodox in their errors
- The Vatican complains of heterodoxy among Catholics - & downgrades Ecumenical Councils held in the West to being Western councils binding only the West. Which makes their definitions represent not all the Church, but only part. This was exactly what the Old Catholics said of Vatican I: that it was not ecumenical. Catholics sweated their guts out proving that it was. Rome now agrees with the Old Catholics on that point - so why should anyone believe what Rome says ?
The lack of principle which seems to be Rome’s only principle makes formation of conscience impossible.
B
BobP123
Guest
All I can say when I read similar posts to yours, Boy, those French bishops have really taken over the minds of the Catholic Church membership. Why do we allow them to run the Church like that?
Every time the SSPX come close to a settlement, or even now when the Pope has pretty much resolved to make the TLM available for ALL priests, it’s the French bishops who throw the tantrums and give TLM advocates hell. And you guys buy into it, hook, line, and sinker.
Ask yourself, does the Church really need these bishops? Bishops who are lucky if 10 people show up for the Novus Ordo Masses in their diocese? They are lucky they aren’t asked to step down.
B
bear06
Guest
Then the Vatican does need to get its act together - and badly
This would be comparing apples to oranges. Frist of all, the Archbishop Burke situation doesn’t have to do with the Polish National Church or other Churches (i.e. Polish National, EOs) approaching a Catholic priest for the sacraments. It has to do with Catholics approaching a schismatic priest for the sacraments.
U
Unfinished
Guest
I believe it was something I read on zenit.org a while ago. Sorry, didn’t save it.
It was an Archbishop/Cardinal being asked if the Pope was fond of the traditional Mass. (This was long before this motu proprio business). He responded by saying that he thought so because the Pope has said the TLM privately a few times.
B
bear06
Guest
Well, I will say that I doubt he despises it.
S
Semper_Fi_1
Guest
The Priest also needs permission from the local Ordinary to be a Confessor. As SSPX aren’t under their lawful local Ordinary, Absolutions from an SSPX Priest are also invalid.
I find I’m pretty lucky. A girl I was going after for like two months who finally said yes (we’ve now been together for like 8 months), I found out was Catholic before not even asking her out (accidently). I’m convinced relationships with Protestants can work, but to avoid future conflict down the road it’s best to marry a Catholic.
C
chevalier
Guest
@Godefridus:
@bear06:
@Godefridus (again):
As for mortal sin, for that you need grave matter, full knowledge, full consent. No archbishop can fill up the knowledge or consent ex post and I doubt any would want that, so the one whom you are quoting most probably spoke about grave matter or presupposed a certain state of knowledge and consent. I wouldn’t be so sure about the girl in question committing a mortal sin every time she goes to communion. Of course, I’d rather see her receive at an indult mass…
@bear06:
@Hesychios:
@Unfinished:
That’s something I think I can cheer you up a bit on: There’s that tiny little thing known as dispensation from canonical form. In some countries, they even have a wide whole-country dispensation for Catholics, so that you might even contract a sacramental marriage without knowing it just because the requirement of form is lifted for your location. Your bishop can allow you to marry that girl in a ceremony other than in a Rome-obedient church. The fact that the SSPX priest is suspended for being an SSPX priest doesn’t make any obstacle when the canonical form is dispensed with. Granted, indult would feel better…
@bear06:
Yep, there’s the problem with children. That is children being expected to go to indult by the father and SSPX by the mother.
@Godefridus (again):
I feel for you. Suffice to say sometimes people believe confession is a bad idea and they are in the same communion queue with you… Yep, similar matter to yours. And no, not the girl herself.
As for mortal sin, for that you need grave matter, full knowledge, full consent. No archbishop can fill up the knowledge or consent ex post and I doubt any would want that, so the one whom you are quoting most probably spoke about grave matter or presupposed a certain state of knowledge and consent. I wouldn’t be so sure about the girl in question committing a mortal sin every time she goes to communion. Of course, I’d rather see her receive at an indult mass…
@bear06:
Can’t agree more. Came up with this idea before I even got to know about premarital sex falling under the VI. Scratch, “I came up.” I’m sure I was well cared for and not left on my own. Anyway…
@Hesychios:
That’s the problem with rejectionists. If they just prefer the old liturgy, that’s one thing. But when they question the validity of post-Vaticanum 2 rites, a bigger problem starts: the validity of sacraments. Also, should they believe that a priest was invalidly ordained, it won’t matter if he says Pauline mass or indult: it will be an invalid priest for them. A non-priest. Compare with what we say about the validity of Anglican orders: no matter how they fix the rites, the old break in apostolic succession with a short-lived invalid rite still invalidates it because an invalid minister can’t do anything no matter how valid the rite is. Therefore, the girl in question might end up insisting on having children baptised, communed and confirmed specifically by an SSPX priest, not just in the old rite.
@Unfinished:
Unless I’m somehow horribly deceived and completely in error, I’ve seen photos from a procession before or after such an event in Germany back when he was Card. Ratzinger. The vestments were pre-Vaticanum 2, not post.
B
bear06
Guest
T
TNT
Guest
Here, let’s get to the real solution:
Turn her over to Mama Bear06 [sign]Salvation for Trads[/sign]for a week, kinda like that wife swap show.
Problem solved…either she’ll be a first class Conciliar catholic or wish she had.
G
Godefridus
Guest
Thanks, especially for the on-topic discussion.
Twitterpated was the best word I could think of. What other word, real or imaginary, in the English language can convey that she and I really like each other, but I won’t further abuse the word “love” by using it after we’ve only had one date.
The girl doesn’t believe that NO sacraments are invalid. The reason she thinks she has good reason to believe her Confirmation was invalid was because it happened in an absolute circus of a Mass (I won’t go into details because she requested the story not be spread). She received the oil from a priest even though the bishop was present. And they never seem to have recorded it; when she called to request a copy of her Confirmation certificate, they apparently had no record. But then they made one on the spot.
Also, she wasn’t raised SSPX. In fact she tells me she only started attending their Masses last October. She had a very chaotic and liberal introduction to Catholicism and she sought shelter where it was offered.
Twitterpated was the best word I could think of. What other word, real or imaginary, in the English language can convey that she and I really like each other, but I won’t further abuse the word “love” by using it after we’ve only had one date.
The girl doesn’t believe that NO sacraments are invalid. The reason she thinks she has good reason to believe her Confirmation was invalid was because it happened in an absolute circus of a Mass (I won’t go into details because she requested the story not be spread). She received the oil from a priest even though the bishop was present. And they never seem to have recorded it; when she called to request a copy of her Confirmation certificate, they apparently had no record. But then they made one on the spot.
Also, she wasn’t raised SSPX. In fact she tells me she only started attending their Masses last October. She had a very chaotic and liberal introduction to Catholicism and she sought shelter where it was offered.
U
Unfinished
Guest
Well, then she is probably still open to things. It sounds like you will be fine. Just be gentle. People here know more than most it is a sensitive issue.
S
Semper_Fi_1
Guest
Your best bet would be to try and find a reverent Novus Ordo (most cathedrals and older parishes have reverent NO’s) which fits her schedule, and yours. Maybe the both of you could take CCD together or you could go there to offer her spiritual support. Are the SSPX offering her the Sacraments when her Confirmation is in doubt?
H
Hesychios
Guest
I don’t know…many liturgical dancers could be saints too!
Especially after all the flack they catch…maybe they ‘offer it up’.
Let me make one thing clear. I in no way endorse liturgical dancing for the Divine Liturgy or Mass, I have a hard time with the concept. Perhaps it’s a matter of taste.
But I would not say they commit a mortal sin for dancing in praise of God in the temple.
Let’s change the situation around, what if Godefridus had coffee with this young lady, hit it off well, and then found out she was a liturgical dancer at a Novus Ordo parish? Clearly there is no reason why he could not date and even marry her from the perspective of the church, even in front of a Punky priest!
I don’t approve of schism, and in principle I don’t approve of disobedience to the local bishop. But this love interest is not a grave threat to the church. This young lady is just not important enough to be a true schismatic, she is just an innocent Christian yearning for God.
I say, if the relationship blooms in any way (the odds are against it, but that’s only because the odds are against every relationship), they can always ask for a dispensation and take it from there.
Michael
H
Hesychios
Guest
My guess is someone remembered her name and realised the mistake when she asked for the certificate.
The record is not as important as the fact that it happened. For many hundreds of years the church did not keep records like that, yet no on would argue that the sacraments were not valid. If it happened, it’s valid. End of story.
Good for her (about the seeking shelter).
She cannot possibly be set for life then. She is still working her way out of a sense of confusion. Don’t get hysterical on her, don’t get too excited about what she is doing right now.
Just be a good Catholic, the way you know how. Don’t push and don’t agonize over this. Just set a good example, and if (big IF) she grows to appreciate, love and respect you she will be more accomodating about church arrangements than you can imagine.
Just be confident in your faith, don’t make a big noise, live your faith.
*
Michael*
G
Godefridus
Guest
Offered it; she ain’t buyin’ it. I even suggested we see if Opus Dei ran a church in town. Nuthin’ doin’. But she doesn’t have any problems with an indult Mass except for there being none within her tight work schedule.
Yeah, her sacramentology isn’t quite complete. She even understands the concept of ecclesiam supplet, but she’s insistent on this. As far as she’s concerned, this conditional Confirmation is gauranteed valid. She must be anxious for that secure feeling. I’ve already argued with her; continuing to do so would be pointless.
Taken to heart. Thanks.
B
Brendan
Guest
FYI, the matter for the sacrament is not oil, but rather the laying on of hands.
If the Bishop was the one who laid hands upon her, there should be no question at all.
T
Titus
Guest
I am extremely offended that you think I take my stance on this or any issue from the French bishops. Not only did you ignore the points I made, but you mocked those who disagreed with you. And since B16 and JP2 before him disagree with you, that’s a dumb thing to do.
If the French bishops are the ones making all the noise, does that mean they are wrong?
C
cameron_lansing
Guest
That’s all sad but in regard to confirmation in the Latin Church, see canon 880.
Canon 880 “§1. The sacrament of confirmation is conferred through anointing with chrism on the forehead, which is done by the imposition of the hand, and through the words prescribed in the approved liturgical books.”
This wording of canon 880 comes from Paul VI, apostolic constitution, Divinae consortium naturae, 15 August 1971. A careful examination of the apostolic constitution leads canonical experts to conclude that the essential matter is the “anointing with chrism on the forehead, which is done by the laying on of hands.” (Huels, Woestmann, New CLSA commentary). Although it can be confusing, it is the use of the hand to chrismate (with the prescribed words, “be sealed with the gift of the Holy Spirit”) that is presented.
The earlier laying on with hands and prescribed prayer which precedes this is not of the essence of the conferral of the sacrament, and required for licit rather than valid administration.
However, canon 884§2 permits the bishop to invite other priests to join with him in administering the sacrament. If the bishop were the celebrant, it could only be concluded that he made this invitation.
Ecclesia supplet would not relevant to this situation. (And not to open another topic, although it is the stock of the SSPX, it generally is not relevant to the confessions and weddings of the SSPX since the conditions do not exist for it to kick in and supply the faculties needed for validity.)
- Status