Posted on 09/02/2015 5:55:55 AM PDT by BlatherNaut
As the entire “traditionalist” (aka Catholic) community surely knows by now, in a Letter of the Holy Father Francis to the President of the Pontifical Council for the Promotion of the New Evangelization at the beginning of the Extraordinary Jubilee of Mercy, Pope Francis stated:
A final consideration concerns those faithful who for various reasons choose to attend churches officiated by priests of the Fraternity of St Pius X. This Jubilee Year of Mercy excludes no one. From various quarters, several Brother Bishops have told me of their good faith and sacramental practice, combined however with an uneasy situation from the pastoral standpoint. I trust that in the near future solutions may be found to recover full communion with the priests and superiors of the Fraternity. In the meantime, motivated by the need to respond to the good of these faithful, through my own disposition, I establish that those who during the Holy Year of Mercy approach these priests of the Fraternity of St Pius X to celebrate the Sacrament of Reconciliation shall validly and licitly receive the absolution of their sins.
So, what does this mean?
The canon lawyers and the neo-cons can parse the Code and argue over its meaning until they’re blue in the face, but the fact of the matter is that Pope Francis just confirmed that the Society’s argument with respect to supplied jurisdiction has always been correct.
In a video dated July 15, 2015, the SSPX presented its understanding of the matter saying:
Traditional priests do have a jurisdiction that is neither territorial nor personal but supplied in view of the needs of the faithful in a state of necessity.
NB: The justification for insisting upon this jurisdiction, supplied extraordinarily by the Church, is the “state of necessity.”
Pope Francis, in his letter concerning the Year of Mercy, invoked the very same justification; namely, “the need to respond to the good of these faithful.”
Some might argue that the jurisdiction granted by the pope in this letter is specific to that period of time defined as “during the Holy Year of Mercy.”
This, however, invites one to ask the obvious question:
What precisely is different with respect to the needs of the faithful in the time period corresponding to the Year of Mercy as compared to the decades prior?
The answer, obviously, is nothing.
The only logical conclusion to be drawn, therefore, is that the state of necessity to which the SSPX has long claimed recourse for its insistence that the Church supplies its priests with jurisdiction has always existed; i.e., their argument has always been valid.
Like it or not, the pope himself just confirmed it.
To further illustrate the point, consider the matter of jurisdiction after the Year of Mercy.
Let’s imagine that solutions are not “found to recover full communion with the priests and superiors of the Fraternity.”
What happens to the Society’s jurisdiction on the day after the Year of Mercy comes to a close?
Unless the need corresponding to the good of the faithful somehow ceases to exist, the jurisdiction endures even if the Holy Father chooses not to extend it.
How so?
It will be supplied by the Church in response to the state of necessity, just as the Society has been telling us all along; a state of necessity that has just been confirmed by Pope Francis himself.
The answer, obviously, is nothing.
The only logical conclusion to be drawn, therefore, is that the state of necessity to which the SSPX has long claimed recourse for its insistence that the Church supplies its priests with jurisdiction has always existed; i.e., their argument has always been valid.
Like it or not, the pope himself just confirmed it.
It’s a case of extending the precedent. Had Pope Francis argued that in the spirit of mercy, he would overlook the disobedience of SSPX or something like that, your argument would carry. Rather Pope Francis confirmed the raison d’etre of SSPX. Any relation to with the Year of Mercy seems to have more to do with fostering understanding and tolerance and less to do with permitting something illicit.
No, that is not correct as there are formalities in play that we are not considering. Formally, a priest has to have the faculty for performing an absolution from a bishop that is in authority. That is not the case with the SSPX.
Can. 1335 ...If a latae sententiae censure has not been declared, the prohibition is also suspended whenever a member of the faithful requests a sacrament or sacramental or an act of governance; a person is permitted to request this for any just cause.
Isn't it also the case that a priest must "unite himself to the intention and charity of Christ" in order for sacraments to be valid? Having encountered priests with faculties whose words and actions make it impossible to have moral certitude that their intentions align with those of the Church, it seems apparent that the situation is not as black and white as some perceive it to be. The intention of the penitent is also a consideration, as well as the prudential judgments necessitated by particular situations (such as, for instance, when a bishop fails to provide trustworthy, accessible confessors with faculties). Can. 1335 seems to cover such exigencies.
I'm not sure where SSPX would be providing such confessors that there aren't other alternatives, maybe you could clear that up a bit.
I suggest you read "Goodbye, Good Men: How Liberals Brought Corruption into the Catholic Church" by Michael Rose and "Amchurch Comes Out: The U.S. Bishops, Pedophile Scandals and the Homosexual Agenda" by Paul Likoudis for further insight.
If the choice is between confessing to your parish priest who is openly living with his boyfriend or a priest who belongs to SSPX, there would seem to be "just cause" to opt for the latter. Faculties or not, perverted priests are OBJECTIVELY not trustworthy to hear one's confession. The sad truth is that when obedient, orthodox priests are thin on the ground, Catholics may be forced to make such choices. This is where Can. 1335 and prudential judgment seem to apply.
I can see where it would be difficult to find someone in that the only alternatives are far from where you live or something, particularly in more rural areas so maybe there are cases that fit the bill.
It just seems to me that more often than not it's a question of convenience and personal preference rather than necessity, exactly same criteria Cafeteria Catholics base their decisions on. Erring on one end of the spectrum for the same reasons others err on the other end of the spectrum, if you see what I mean.
Ultimately, in either direction, it comes down to intention.
"I am the Lord who search the heart and prove the reins: who give to every one according to his way, and according to the fruit of his devices." Jer 17:10
Until Francis and the Vatican address the doctrinal issues which was the real reason for an SSPX in the first place, this move rings hollow. I am concerned that this move will move the SSPX closer to reconciling with Rome with Rome having done NOTHING to address the real issues of Vatican II.
The problematic aspects of Vatican II will be viewed as relatively benign in comparison to the brazen attacks on the Sixth Commandment and on the teachings of Our Lord which are being orchestrated by the Kasperites and the Lavender Mafia at their "shadow councils" in preparation for the upcoming synod. If the corrupt modernists succeed in their subversive goals, the ranks of the resistance will swell.
It seems to me that if SSPX has a valid doctrinal stance to begin with, piusv makes is a very good point.
If the issues they raise are the sort of thing that can be settled by tinkering at the margins there wasn't much reason for all the sound and fury surrounding SSPX in the first place. If, as SSPX asserts and most who agree with them insist, there are major doctrinal points at issue then how can they reconcile without those issues being addressed after they've come this far ?
Modernism/Americanism is without a doubt the major strain of thought in many if not most places in this country but I don't see how that being the case frees individual Catholics to decide they can do more than find a parish where it doesn't hold sway or at least doesn't totally destroy the constant teaching of the Church.
I honestly don't see much difference between Luther during the few years he remained Catholic prior to being excommunicated and most of the SSPX folks I've run into. Overall they seem to have gone far beyond what Lefebvre had as his goals. Both Luther and Fellay rationalize away their own disobeying of every bit as much Church Doctrine as they insist those they oppose are disobeying.
IOW, there's either One True Church or there's not. I think someone has to be blind or on some sort of auto-pilot to not see the damage Americanism & Modernism have done to the Church in this country but the SSPX route ends at the same destination as the "True Catholic Church", "Palmarian Catholic Church", and "Pope Michael" crowd, without doing much good.
Where's the line between Luther and the folks who tell other Catholics not to go to Mass at all unless they go to one approved by them, even to the point of calling the NO Mass "an offense against God" ?
Working to halt and reverse the rot is one thing, burning the village to save it is another.
Didn't Pope Benedict XVI reaffirm that the Traditional Latin Mass has not be superseded? Then why isn't the battle within parishes to have Latin Mass along with or in place of NO rather than calling the NO "an offense against God"? A characterization that doesn't to hold water given that the Byzantine and others are accepted along with the Traditional Latin Mass ?
JMHo
Vatican II’s teachings on false ecumenism and religious liberty are a direct affront to the First Commandment. Nothing is worse than that. Until that is fixed we will see more and more attacks on other commandments.
But I do agree with you that the ranks of the resistance will swell regardless. It is important for those who are up in arms over the latest attacks on the Faith to understand where it all started.
Was Luther comparing the Church teaching at that time to previous Magisterium or his own brand of Christianity/interpretation of the Bible? Therein lies a HUGE difference between Luther and Archbishop Lefebrve and the SSPX.
And it also appears to me that your post focuses on the Latin Mass. The SSPX of old under ABL had much more to do with doctrine than the liturgy. The current SSPX? I’m not sure. It sure seems to me that there will be a reconciliation on the horizon and that will no be a good thing.
Doesn't change the fact that according to Church teaching, intention is a key constitutive element of sin. From the Catechism:
29 Q. What is required for a sin to be mortal? A. For a sin to be mortal three things are required: (1) Grave matter, (2) Full advertence, (3) Perfect consent of the will.
30 Q. When is the matter to be considered grave? A. The matter is grave when the thing under examination is seriously contrary to the laws of God and His Church.
31 Q. When is there full advertence in sinning? A. Full advertence in sinning is had when we know perfectly well that we are doing a serious evil.
32 Q. When is perfect consent of the will verified in sinning? A. Perfect consent of the will is verified in sinning when we deliberately determine to do a thing although we know that thing to be sinful (http://www.ewtn.com/library/catechsm/piusxcat.htm)
------------------
1757 The object, the intention, and the circumstances make up the three "sources" of the morality of human acts. http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a4.htm
------------
If, as SSPX asserts and most who agree with them insist, there are major doctrinal points at issue then how can they reconcile without those issues being addressed after they've come this far ?
AFAIK, their stance regarding the doctrinal conflicts between VII and previous Church teachings has not changed.
Where's the line between Luther and the folks who tell other Catholics not to go to Mass at all unless they go to one approved by them, even to the point of calling the NO Mass "an offense against God" ?
They are Catholic; Luther was an apostate. Regarding the Novus Ordo, they say that Catholics unaware of the deficiencies it contains (see Ottaviani Intervention - https://www.ewtn.com/library/curia/reformof.htm) are not at fault for attending, but that those who are aware should not attend.
Then why isn't the battle within parishes to have Latin Mass along with or in place of NO
Good luck with that.
Ecumenists have been so successful in their brainwashing campaigns that error has been widely spun as a positive good. “There is no greater enemy of the Immaculata and her Knighthood than today’s ecumenism...” (St. Maximilian Kolbe). However, when saboteurs of the Faith such as arch-ecumenist Cardinal Kasper dare to openly dismiss the very words of Jesus regarding marriage, such brazen defiance toward God is much more difficult to spin as a positive "doctrinal development". The attacks on marriage instigated by Kasper et al may prove to be a bridge too far for conservative Catholics and lead more of them to critically examine the modernist errors which have led us to this point.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.