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.
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.
Well said. Perfectly reasonable, logical argument. Which is why so many won’t accept it.
I thought a Jubilee year occured every 50 years. Can the Pope just declare one out of
the blue? One more thing to be suspect of.
Bergoglio’s mercy being used as a weapon? Will the Year of Mercy allow Catholics to kneel to receive Holy Communion and then take this away when the year is over? What else will he allow that we already have the right as Catholics? The list is endless!
The previous code of canon law placed jurisdiction for preaching and confession in the hands of the local ordinary and to those within his own diocese. The new code extended that jurisdiction to read that faculties are now given by one’s ordinary but are good all around the world. There is never a question of validity of the sacrament. Whether it is unlawful or illicit is where the question arises. All of this confusion comes down simply to the profession of faith. It would clear up a lot of contradiction if only the Church would list the dogmas to be professed. To expect a profession to a book of documents without any specificity is asking for the ridiculous. The time has come for the Church to list its dogmas for all its members, lay and clergy alike, to profess them. We would then have the ability to debate the particular dogmas which are held in doubt. 50 years later and we still are unsure exactly what Vatican II demands us to hold as its dogmas. Now that would make a healing synod.
Unfortunately, reason and logic are in short supply when it comes to so many in Catholic Media in respect of the Pope, or the SSPX. For example, the CMTV article on the matter. As you say, the document implicitly recognises the need of the relevant Faithful to have the validity of their absolutions assured (as the Canon Law provides through “supplied jurisdiction” to the confessors).
This issue of jurisdiction is a distraction from the real issues. The real issues are the doctrine and the new mass. The real issue is we have a new church, a new religion and a new mass. Vatican II gave us a new religion. Vatican II gave birth to a new church a counterfeit church. Vatican II gave us a new mass which is an expression of that new religion. The Christ of Vatican II is not the Christ of the Catholic Church.
The “Cosmic Christ” of Vatican II explained here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GsawxvuWIiw
We are really dealing with two religions here. Catholics need to stop going to the new mass.
Dear rcaamo, that is the last thing the heretical modernists, who are in the majority, would want!
If Papa Ratzinger had said something like this, it would be worthwhile to parse. Not so with Francis. Francis is all over the map and there typically isn’t enough reflection behind his words to make them worth that level of explication. On any other subject I suspect you would agree that it’s not fruitful to draw any deep implications from a statement in this pontificate, formal or off-the-cuff (“Who am I to judge?”).
Naw, the Pope isn’t validating any principle here, he’s just doing his usual ad hoc thing. It may work to the benefit of the Church and the society in particular in the long run, but it’s just another case of “I’m the Pope, I am, and I can do and say what I want.”
I’m not disagreeing with the principle, but I am disagreeing with the fact the the Pope intends to validate the principle. Francis “doesn’t do doctrine,” and he doesn’t “do” canon law, either.
What you are suggesting is available. Remember a dogma can never be held in doubt and are never open to debate. That is one of the beauties of the Catholic Faith – it is certain. Vatican II never postulated any dogma as it was ” a pastoral council”, not a “Dogmatic Council” as all other previous were.
Spot on Mr. V.
What I find interesting is that this “good news” came in the form of a letter to a bishop instead of a formal docuement that would need to be cleared by the “theological structurer” Card. Muller.
For those who are not aware, Card. Muller is the arch-nemesis of the SSPX in the Curia. And coincidentally, he is also Francis’ arch-nemisis in the Curia and especially at the upcoming synod.
Call me suspicious, but it would appear that this “good news” isn’t so much aimed at the SSPX and their Faithful as it is at those “conservatives” who are resisting the Kasperian/Bergoglian “theology done on the knees”.
Supporting evidence is the fact that the SSPX came out with a thank you note for this “act of mercy” on the same day that it was released. In other words, they did not even need to get their (FIRST RATE) canonists involved with drafting the responce. So it doesn’t appear to be too threatening to them.
Actually, it confirms their position as Louie outlined above.
What we are dealing with here is the “law of unintended consequences”, if not the real “God of surprises”, i.e. the Holy Spirit. I am sure he will put this latest misstep by Francis to good use.
Yes, God really does work in mysterious ways.
Archbishop Lefebvre, ora pro nobis!
As if an atheist false-pontiff could grant a Catholic anything relating to the Faith. When you stand back and look at the reality it is absurd.
Even if Novus Ordo Watch is too terrifyingly truthfully Catholic for you, the mock up of Voris with egg on his face should mitigate the terror.
“…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.”
This means that, according to Francis, BEFORE the grossly misnamed “Holy Year of ‘Mercy’ ” i.e. as in RIGHT NOW, and all these 40+ years, the priests of the SSPX HAVE NOT validly and licitly dispensed, and ARE NOT currently validly and licitly dispensing the sacrament of penance!
I think we are making way too much of this alleged demonstration of mercy on the part of Bergoglio.
I’d argue it’s anything but. It’s confirming people in the erroneous belief outlined above, namely the alleged invalidity (and illicitness) of their absolutions. Moreover, it’s reinforcing the idea in a lot of neo-caths minds the notion that the “poor SSPX” are in need of “mercy” because of their “rebellious” and “schismatic” attitude towards the Holy See and now the “Merciful” Francis, in an extraordinary outpouring of generosity and mercy, is extending the ‘mercy’ allocated to unrepentant adulterers, sodomites, fornicators, during this year of “mercy” EVEN to the SSPX!
Both your comments are exactly the point. To clear up the confusion, we need to get down to the brass tacks of the issue. If it is not a dogmatic council, then what is the problem? It would bring to light what has been hidden for the past 50 years…the truth and those behind hiding it.
What, according to Bergoglianism, are the consequences of not going to confession at all?
Mmm. Bit like the devil telling Eve she’s good to go…
Now that is a good question!
It would have seemed much more to the point if the Pope regularized all of the activities of SPPX…all the sacraments especially the Mass. What good is it to grant jurisdiction for confession if one returns to Mass the following week and now has to confess that he attended an illicit Mass and received communion? So what was the point of this offer? It would have been spectacular for the Pope in this year of mercy to have accepted the unfortunate situation totally and granted the SPPX recognition until the issues are worked out.
Jimmy Akin just emailed me (I’m on a list) and said, among other things, that SSPX absolutions were invalid, and presumably will be invalid again in a year. He seemingly does not accept the “case of necessity” argument. I’ve always had the utmost respect for Mr. Akin, but I don’t know whom to follow anymore. Ironically, one reason I converted is that under normal circumstances Catholics know what they believe, and upon what authority.
I feel some force behind Louie’s (SSPX’s) argument, but in my mind, Mr. Akin is not someone I can safely ignore.
One can be sure it’s all part of the Modernist,
Anti-Deposit of Faith agenda. After all he’s the Great Indifferentist in Faith and morals – all are to be consumed by the PF World Church, to include heretics, apostates, Protestants, Jews, Muslims, atheists . . .
No more effective way to kill the Faith than to continually act as if it’s all arbitrary, based on his feelings and desires and that he can change Faith and morals as and when he wants. Indifferentism, Relativism, Positivism, Materialism.
“Make a Mess!”
Dear TCA, Is it rational that the criterion of the objective, genuine good of the souls of the Faithful knowing their absolutions are valid (and licit) would apply during the coming Jubilee Year, but not before, or after it?? The basis for the “grant” of validity as given, has always been in existence over the relevant period of time, to date.
Dear TCA, It’s a truly awful time for the Faithful but always remind yourself, if someone is suggesting changes to the Deposit of Faith, or the moral law, or discipline or practice contingent on same, it is erroneous, and a departure from the truths of the Faith, which, being true, are unchangeable. God bless.
Another condition stated by FRANCISCUS is: “It will be necessary to accompany these celebrations with the profession of faith and with prayer for me and for the intentions that I bear in my heart for the good of the Church and of the entire world. … FRANCISCUS” If the intentions of “The Pope” are prayed for instead of “the intentions that I bear in my heart …”, would the penitent “validly and licitly receive the absolution of their sins”? Is the phrase “intentions that I bear in my heart” a typical way for a pope to express a condition? http://www.cfnews.org/page88/files/60a66ff1af3e03e6c68b8fb5e6992ce9-436.html
Bishop Athanasius Schneider has been calling for a new Syllabus of Errors to deal with the VII errors, for years.
Jimmy Akin is a Vatican II new church apologist. Jimmy Akin is living proof of the state of necessity in the Church. He thinks modernism is Catholicism as do the vast majority of the hierarchy. Jimmy Akin is a nice man. Jimmy Akin is a nice dangerous man. I have spoke to Jimmy Akin on the phone he is clearly a nice calm mam. That nice calm man and his views lead to hell. Modernism & neo modernism is toxic to souls.
Jimmy Akin is infected with neo modernism. My heart breaks for the guy he was a protestant and tried to convert to what he thought was Catholicism but in fact was the modernist masonic/ marxist revolution that is Vatican II new church with it’s new mass. Scott Hahn……..same story nice guy but his books and ideas have done more to harm souls than any living laymen that I can think of. Again he thought was converting to Catholicism but in fact what he converted to was the modernist masonic/ marxist revolution that is Vatican II new church with it’s new mass. How tragic and sad. God allows it.
I recently made a general confession to a SSPX Priest (my first confession to a SSPX Priest) and I can tell you come on in the waters are Catholic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSvQXlMNjto
Run a mile from the Jimmy Akin types. They have spiritual AIDS.
You get it. My wife and I discussed this “Make a Mess!” quote yesterday. What is going on here is the hegelian dialectic this is a classic Marxist tactic. Problem reaction solution (aka) thesis antithesis synthesis.
I hope the leaders of the SSPX see what is going on here. What Pope Frances has done will create a PROBLEM (what to do with SSPX marriages and what to do when the year of mercy is over ect)
Then the Bishops,the SSPX, and the laymen will have a REACTION they will cry out “we have a PROBLEM here (what do we do with this “mess” the problem caused) Then comes the SOLUTION phase which is what the zionist/masonic/ marxist revolution intends the swallowing up of the SSPX into Vatican II new Church.
This is a long war in 1988 the zionist/masonic/ marxist revolution divided and conquered Tradition with the creation of the FSSP and the other approved traitor groups.
Then the devil and his zionist/masonic/ marxist revolution divided and conquered Tradition with the war between the SSPX and the Resistance. Now the the devil and his zionist/masonic/ marxist revolution is trying to reunite the SSPX & FSSP and the other approved traitor groups which will then lead to the marxist conflict clash infighting that they love so much in politics.
The SSPX and the FSSP and the other approved traitor groups will fight if the SSPX comes into new church (think of what agent of Satan Michael Voris and his reactionary comments will do then) The devil is running circles around Catholics. “Make a Mess!” indeed Our Lady of Fatima pray for us.
Strange as this may sound, this special and unique Year of Mercy for the flock would seem correct only if the Holy See were to admit the errors of Vatican II and the Novus Ordo Missae having led the flock astray for the last 50 years.
Maybe Our Lord has not entirely abandoned Rome but is laying before us a very crooked path.
That would be great sadly it is the Year of Pseudo-Mercy:
Uh, you’re having trouble figuring out whether to believe Louie or Jimmy Akin? That might be the most shocking thing I’ve read here today. Jimmy Akin is a NewChurch, Bergoglio, Keating, Hahn apologist of the highest order. He is in no way a Traditionalist. He’s part of the problem, not part of any solution to what you must admit is the greatest crisis in the Church since Arianism. In those earlier times Akin would have been saying the same kinds of things about St. Athanasius as he does about the SSPX.
Yes, that was my first thought too. Why should we believe Francis this time? Is there someone behind him pushing for this? Did someone mention this over coffee (sorry, mate) one morning, and did Francis say: “oh, yeah. I guess I gotta mention this – I’ll say….” Deep this is not.
I always like to remember – what is yours by nature/right is yours but anything that’s given to you by another can be taken back. We’d better wait for the other shoe to drop.
Yes, Jimmy Akin is not someone you want to learn Catholic faith from. I once heard him on the Catholic Answers tell a little boy who called to ask if he had to go to Mass on Sunday as he was invited to go camping with a little friend. Akin’s response? Go ahead and spend the weekend with your friend – don’t worry about Mass – and he was spreading this junk over the public airwaves…
In no way would anyone EVER reach the conclusion which is the title of this article.
I think the Pope’s letter was a brilliant tactical maneuver. Rather than declare that the SSPX priests can not validly or legitimately hear confessions; therefore, avoid them. He demonstrated his indisputable power as the Supreme Pontiff over all priests who call themselves Catholic by giving the SSPX priests the validity and legitimacy that they lacked. They can turn around and say ‘well we had it anyway.’ But the Pope, the indisputable head of the Church that SSPX claims to belong to, has made it obvious to the world that he does not believe their claim, and he, the Pope, has the power and the desire to make that right, for the good of the Faithful. The Pope looks like the Pope should look: powerful, magnanimous, caring and generous. The SSPX looks far worse than it ever has. The Pope brought the SSPX back into the Church without their consent. Hoisted on their own Petard…..Check and Mate.
“brilliant tactical maneuver”, “Hoisted on their own Petard” and “Check and Mate” Your words are completely devoid of a Catholic and supernatural character.
I am so sick of unprincipled churchmen and laymen in these matters. If the SSPX are Catholic in Dogma and doctrine it has been a great injustice that the authorities have abused their power and withheld jurisdiction from them what Frances did yesterday would then be a great scandal and a greater injustice because he did not apologize.
If the SSPX do in fact teach error in Dogma and doctrine then what Frances did yesterday is wicked because he is willing to expose Catholics to error and puts them in danger by exposing them to Priests of the SSPX. It also would be wedding heretics to the Church which is impossible.
These churchmen believe nothing and stand for nothing.
So which is it? Are the SSPX orthodox Catholics or are the SSPX heretics. Either way what Frances did is unprincipled and wicked. This is not how God works. This is not how Catholics thinks. This is not how Catholics act. Shame on you for praising the scandals of Frances.
It is not clear whether the HF is declaring that the priests of the Society:
1) are recognised as always having had jurisdiction
2) are being accorded a grant of jurisdiction that is to have force for the Jubilee and only during the Jubilee
3) are being accorded a grant of jurisdiction that “sanates” anything wanting to the exercise of jurisdiction by Society priests in the tribunal of the sacrament of Reconciliation
4) are being accorded a grant of jurisdiction valid from henceforth.
5) have jurisdiction, etc., for the duration of the Jubilee, whether they have jurisdiction outside it or not.
The headline “Pope Francis confirms it: SSPX has always had supplied jurisdiction” goes beyond the facts with that “always”. And “confirms” is also debateable. “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” says a lot less than the headline does. Those words of the HF seem to fit best with interpretations (2) or (5).
The uncertainty as to the HF’s intention arises because the words of the HF are not set out in legal form, with all Ts crossed Is dotted in order to avoid all possibility of misconstruction of his meaning. What is needed is a proper legal document, like a rescript, beginning with a “We, Francis, by Divine Providence Pope…”.
What is clear, is that the Pope, who has full authority to do so – both legal and moral – is over-riding any canonical deficiencies in the exercise of the Society’s priests, that may arise from their lack of incardination in the dioceses in which they exercise the priestly ministry to absolve from the guilt of sin. But jurisdiction they must have. At least during the Jubilee, they have it. Even if the HF is not a legitimate Pope – as is suggested in some quarters. Whether his words are vulnerable to beimng contested on grounds of lacking proper legal form, is another matter. That might be a possible ground for a bishop to ignore them who wished to do so. A Papal wish – though it may have moral force in his own diocese – does not have legal force in any other diocese. If he wishes to enact a law, he must give the intended law legal forms that make its meaning and force impossible to mistake.
While I am very grateful for the HF’s action, I think we should be very careful of drawing sweeping conclusions from it about the extent or scope or duration of the jurisdiction of the priests of the Society. Papal acts can at times be the decisive proof that a disputed course of action is in accord with the Faith – an excellent example of this is that in 1502 Alexander VI settled for good the much-disputed question of whether the Pope had the authority to permit a man to marry his deceased brother’s wife; the Pope settled – and was judged to have settled the question – by granting this permission.
The present action by the HF is not expressed in language that shows that the Pope intends to resolve a disputed question: in the present case, whether the priests of the Society have jurisdiction to absolve in everyday circumstances. His action is not a denial of such jurisdiction, nor a recognition of it, nor a grant of it, nor a judgement of it; his action leaves the question of jurisdiction in those circumstances exactly where it was. It would be unwise to give the HF’s action a wider significance than the letter of it justifies. Even if, from some POVs, it seems illogical to suppose that the Society’s priests have jurisdiction to hear confessions and absolve from sins during the Jubilee, but lack or may lack this jurisdiction at other times. The seeming illogic may seem illogical and not be illogical, if one were a canonist. It will be interesting to see what, if anything, Edward Peters, who is a canon lawyer, has say about this news.
I don’t think the HF’s action changes anything very much.
…have settled the question – by granting this permission. No such judgement of an uncertainty seems to be intended here.
The present action by the HF..
I am fairly sure that is the substance of the intention – but they might not get what they intend.
Does anyone ever get sick of hearing completely ignorant of the Faith, frequently non-Catholic, not very bright “Commentators” second guessing, parsing, and pontificating about every single thing coming from Rome. It’s like the Faith has become like professional football and everybody is an armchair quarterback.
Of course, sites like this and many others could not exist if that weren’t true.
I have resolved everything Catholic in my own mind. As long as the Pope does not command that I do something which is sinful, and so far none of them have, then I am absolutely bound by the words of Christ to Peter, and by many dogmatic statements, to obey him. I am also bound to respect his office. I believe and adhere to the traditional teachings of the Church. I attend the Traditional Mass which has been made available to me. I obey the Pope in all things which are not sinful. I think that’s exactly what the SSPX should be doing. Breaking away from the Pope and not obeying his commands was gravely sinful and wrong.
Where do you go to mass? Do you support the FSSP and the approved Latin Mass groups? Do you attend the new mass?
This issue of jurisdiction is a distraction from the real issues. The real issues are the doctrine and the new mass. The real issue is we have a new church, a new religion and a new mass. Vatican II gave us a new religion. Vatican II gave birth to a new church a counterfeit church. Vatican II gave us a new mass which is an expression of that new religion. The Christ of Vatican II is not the Christ of the Catholic Church.
We are really dealing with two religions here. Catholics need to stop going to the new mass.
What is going on here is the hegelian dialectic this is a classic Marxist tactic. Problem reaction solution (aka) thesis antithesis synthesis https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWo1wKWiJHY
( I in no way support David Icke or his spiritual views but this video is good in explaining the hegelian dialectic )
I hope the leaders of the SSPX see what is going on here. What Pope Frances has done will create a PROBLEM (what to do with SSPX marriages and what to do when the “year of mercy” is over ect) Then the Bishops,the SSPX leaders and the laymen will have a REACTION they will cry out to Rome “we have a PROBLEM here” (what do we do with this “mess” the PROBLEM has caused)
Then comes the SOLUTION phase which is what the zionist/masonic/marxist revolution intended when they introduced the PROBLEM in the first place which is the swallowing up of the SSPX into Vatican II new Church. The devil is smart and tricky.
This is a long war in 1988 the zionist/masonic/ marxist revolution divided and conquered Tradition with the creation of the FSSP and the other approved traitor groups.Then the devil and his zionist/masonic/ marxist revolution divided and conquered Tradition with the war between the SSPX and the Resistance. Now the the devil and his zionist/masonic/ marxist revolution is trying to reunite the SSPX & FSSP and the other approved traitor groups which will then lead to the marxist conflict clash infighting that they love so much in politics. Brilliant yes evil for sure.
The SSPX and the FSSP and the other approved traitor groups will fight if the SSPX comes into new church (think of what agent of Satan Michael Voris and his reactionary comments will do then) The devil is running circles around Catholics. Remember the Frances quote “Make a Mess!” wow “Make a Mess! indeed Our Lady of Fatima pray for us!
After the events of yesterday I predict Bishop Williamson and Bishop Faure will be doing more consecrations of Bishops. If I had to put a number I on it I would guess we will see at least 5 more Bishops all over the world and I think we will see more Bishops soon. I do not know under what conditions the remaining three Bishops in the official SSPX would consecrate more Bishops. We always here about Bishop Williamson and Bishop Fellay but we need to remember that the other two Bishops while silent are still there and can do consecrations if need be. Bishop Tissier De Mallerais can see what is going on and I trust his judgment. The question is will he act?
I have to give credit where it is due. Bishop Williamson knew something about events of yesterday and he gave us a heads up last week.
Bishop Williamson Relentless Romans
” then I am absolutely bound by the words of Christ to Peter, and by many dogmatic statements, to obey him.”
I assume you meant “Peter” not “Christ to Peter”, what happens if the current Peter and all the Peters after Vatican II held different doctrines comparing to ALL the Peters starting from St. Peter? That is why as Catholics we hold on to the Tradition handed down by ALL the Peters. For example this Peter we have believes atheists go to haven too so that contradicts ALL the Peters before Vatican II and as Catholics we have to reject this Peter’s heresy in order to save our souls.
“Breaking away from the Pope and not obeying his commands was gravely sinful and wrong”
Could you read this letter from Benedict XVI (who believes Jews do not need to be evangelized and still go to heaven) in which the Holy Father made it 100% clear the difference between Rome and SSPX is not discipline but doctrinal (in his own words), and it is about Vatican II and the teaching of the Popes after Vatican II. It is very simple if Vatican II did not teach errors and heresy then SSPX is in a position of heresy because it rejects some of the teachings of Vatican II otherwise Rome is the one holds heretical positions contradicting the Popes before Vatican II starting with St. Peter.
But I have to say I disagree with Louie that Vatican always consider the Sacraments of SSPX are valid. I think they never showed their hands on this issue. And the latest action of Francis did not show its original or future position on this issue. They still behave like a devil in which Our Lord admonish against, “Let your Yes be Yes, let you No be No”. Any confusion is from the evil Spirit.
“If the SSPX do in fact teach error in Dogma and doctrine then what Frances did yesterday is wicked because he is willing to expose Catholics to error and puts them in danger by exposing them to Priests of the SSPX. It also would be wedding heretics to the Church which is impossible. ”
brilliant !!! The best way we know if something is from the Devil is to see if the action clarify things or produce more confusions. Though we can not judge Francis’ interior but from its fruits we know what he did in no way from the wisdom of the Holy Spirit.
I’m going to respond to some of the things that have been said/asked. I go to the Latin Mass at various places. My diocese makes many available throughout the week. I do not attend the Novus Ordo.
I have also attended an SSPX Chapel. The SSPX is a priestly fraternity and exists to provide the traditional sacraments to those who choose to frequent them. It really has no authority at all over those who choose to attend their chapels. In other words, the people who go there have no basis for affiliation other than their Catholicism. Period.
I very seriously doubt if anyone could make me aware of anything which this or any Pope since Vatican II has said or done, not in keeping with Tradition, which I do not already know and then some ie. Catechisms, Liturgies, Religious Orders, etc.
When I said “I am bound by Christ’s words to Peter,” I was referring to these:
“And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it;” along with many, many dogmatic statements that indicate that the Pope is the Supreme Authority and the Vicar of Christ on Earth. He is to be obeyed in all matters of faith and morals. That’s it.
You can not be Catholic and deny this central Dogma of the Faith.
As long as the Pope is not commanding you to do something which is sinful, you are bound to obey him. All those who disrespect the Pope and his Office are committing a sin. And that includes many blogs and websites. Archbishop Lefebvre’s acts of defiance were wrong and sinful. He showed a lack of Faith and trust in God and led many astray.
You are clearly confused. Vatican II gave us a new religion. Vatican II gave birth to a new church a counterfeit church. Vatican II gave us a new mass which is an expression of that new religion. The Christ of Vatican II is not the Christ of the Catholic Church. The Christ they teach and believe in is the cosmic Christ of Teilhard De Chardin.
We are really dealing with two religions here. Catholics need to stop going to the new mass and the modernist approved Latin Masses . If you float around between the modernist approved Latin Mass and the SSPX you are showing one of two things 1)you are confused 2) you are unprincipled and do not think that the Catholic Faith and doctrine need to be publicly professed where you attend mass. It sounds like you are doing what many do (if the mass is valid then we can be there). If that is what you are doing Catholics can’t do that. We have to be where the Faith is.
You wrote “As long as the Pope is not commanding you to do something which is sinful, you are bound to obey him.” True but the churchmen are in fact asking us to sin by accepting or being indifferent to Vatican II & the new mass and all the errors that go with them. Heresy and Schism are Mortal sins. Being indifferent in matters of religion or religious indifferentism is also a serious sin.
In order to have “full communion” and the Latin mass approved priestly orders officially accept Vatican II “new” doctrine and the new mass. If one attends a diocesan indult mass you are literally praying in union with modernists. Vatican II new church is not the Catholic Church.
You are completely wrong about the SSPX. They do hold positions that are clear and expressed publicly. The laymen that attend SSPX chapels often do understand why they are there it is about doctrine and how one deals with the crisis in the Church. This is the 1974 declaration archbishop lefebvre:
“We hold fast, with all our heart and with all our soul, to Catholic Rome, Guardian of the Catholic faith and of the traditions necessary to preserve this faith, to Eternal Rome, Mistress of wisdom and truth.
We refuse, on the other hand, and have always refused to follow the Rome of neo-Modernist and neo-Protestant tendencies which were clearly evident in the Second Vatican Council and, after the Council, in all the reforms which issued from it.
All these reforms, indeed, have contributed and are still contributing to the destruction of the Church, to the ruin of the priesthood, to the abolition of the Sacrifice of the Mass and of the sacraments, to the disappearance of religious life, to a naturalist and Teilhardian teaching in universities, seminaries and catechectics; a teaching derived from Liberalism and Protestantism, many times condemned by the solemn Magisterium of the Church.
No authority, not even the highest in the hierarchy, can force us to abandon or diminish our Catholic faith, so clearly expressed and professed by the Church’s Magisterium for nineteen centuries.
“But though we,” says St. Paul, “or an angel from heaven preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema” (Gal. 1:8).
Is it not this that the Holy Father is repeating to us today? And if we can discern a certain contradiction in his words and deeds, as well as in those of the dicasteries, well we choose what was always taught and we turn a deaf ear to the novelties destroying the Church.
It is impossible to modify profoundly the lex orandi without modifying the lex credendi. To the Novus Ordo Missae correspond a new catechism, a new priesthood, new seminaries, a charismatic Pentecostal Church – all things opposed to orthodoxy and the perennial teaching of the Church.
This Reformation, born of Liberalism and Modernism, is poisoned through and through; it derives from heresy and ends in heresy, even if all its acts are not formally heretical. It is therefore impossible for any conscientious and faithful Catholic to espouse this Reformation or to submit to it in any way whatsoever.
The only attitude of faithfulness to the Church and Catholic doctrine, in view of our salvation, is a categorical refusal to accept this Reformation.
That is why, without any spirit of rebellion, bitterness or resentment, we pursue our work of forming priests, with the timeless Magisterium as our guide. We are persuaded that we can render no greater service to the Holy Catholic Church, to the Sovereign Pontiff and to posterity.
That is why we hold fast to all that has been believed and practiced in the faith, morals, liturgy, teaching of the catechism, formation of the priest and institution of the Church, by the Church of all time; to all these things as codified in those books which saw day before the Modernist influence of the Council. This we shall do until such time that the true light of Tradition dissipates the darkness obscuring the sky of Eternal Rome.
By doing this, with the grace of God and the help of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and that of St. Joseph and St. Pius X, we are assured of remaining faithful to the Roman Catholic Church and to all the successors of Peter, and of being the fideles dispensatores mysteriorum Domini Nostri Jesu Christi in Spiritu Sancto. Amen.”
Here is the audio of the 1974 declaration archbishop lefebvre:
You said “Archbishop Lefebvre’s acts of defiance were wrong and sinful. He showed a lack of Faith and trust in God and led many astray.”
This show yet another twisted mind that can not see clearly. I say a distinction needs to be made between when the rightful superiors are sodomite heretics or Catholics. True a Bishop is a Bishop and the Pope is the Pope just like the Father of the family is still the Father of the family when he comes home at 3am drunk ready to rape the children and beat his wife. The children do well to run and hide to avoid being raped and say a hail Mary for dad.
Yeah he is still dad but they are right to run! Same story when the Pope,Bishops and Priests come with Vatican II modernism and the new mass the Catholics must run for the good of our souls but we must stay united to the abusers like the reformer Saints. That is what the SSPX does the FSSP & the modernist approved Latin Mass groups are getting raped and endangering their salvation and the that of the laymen under them from the spiritual AIDS the FSSP & the modernist approved Latin Mass groups have caught from the Pope and the Bishops. Yes the crisis is that bad.
One is an “unbeliever” or heretic “in good standing” who is following “his conscience” as regards the “absurdity” of confession, and is thus just as liable to get into heaven as Mr X with his wife and children praying on their knees at their local Tridentine mass faithfully fulfilling their duties in their state of life.
Ergo – why bother about going to confession at all?
Ergo – who cares whether Francis “grants” absolution powers to this or that priestly society as we are all going to heaven?
Not only is one not bound to obey anything that emanates from the Holy See that opposed Faith and morals but one is positively bound to denounce and reject same. Obedience to the Pope is contingent upon his “teachings” being in accordance with the unchangeable Deposit of Faith and moral law. Pope Francis is continually opposing the Deposit of Faith and morals in his statements and actions, and continually appointing, promoting and collaborating with public opponents of the Faith, while penalising those who uphold the unchanging and unchangeable Deposit of Faith. See the Denzinger-Bergoglio website for a list of just some of the statements and repeated assertions (backed up by actions) of the Pope that are in opposition to the Deposit of Faith (and even the Natural Moral Law).
As long as the Pope remains the Pope and he has not commanded anyone to sin, he is to be obeyed. He is always to be respected. Many times obedience to lawful authority is the test. There were many, many saints who were commanded to do things or stop doing other things by Church authority or by their Confessor (like saying public masses or hearing confessions or even meeting with the Blessed Virgin), based on false allegations or misunderstandings. Sometimes the commands appeared unjust, unwise, or even persecutory. The saints always obeyed because obedience takes precedence over everything. No one may judge the Pope. No one in authority has accused the Pope of heresy or of any other wrong doing. Therefore, he is to be obeyed in all matters except sin.
You keep saying “As long as the Pope remains the Pope and he has not commanded anyone to sin, he is to be obeyed.” Yes we hear you and I am saying they have in fact asked us to sin by being at least indifferent in matters of religion. Religious indifferentism is also Mortal sin. That is on a good day. On a bad day and what is 100% clear is the evil they are asking us to accept is Vatican II and the new mass.
The wicked document from the Pope Benedict XVI called “Summorum Pontificum” said that:
“Art 1. The Roman Missal promulgated by Paul VI is the ordinary expression of the ‘Lex orandi’ (Law of prayer) of the Catholic Church of the Latin rite. Nonetheless, the Roman Missal promulgated by St. Pius V and reissued by Bl. John XXIII is to be considered as an extraordinary expression of that same ‘Lex orandi,’ and must be given due honour for its venerable and ancient usage. These two expressions of the Church’s Lex orandi will in no any way lead to a division in the Church’s ‘Lex credendi’ (Law of belief). They are, in fact two usages of the one Roman rite.”
Catholics do not have to lie (sin) and say the new mass is the Roman rite to get the true mass the Traditional Latin mass. Also it is an implied lie to call the new mass the “ordinary form” of the Roman rite and the true mass the “extraordinary form” of the Roman rite. Why? It implies an equality that is objectively not there. The new mass offends God and leads to a loss of Catholic Faith and practice. The new mass is evil.
As wicked as Summorum Pontificum is the modernists wouldn’t even give us that! They resisted even Summorum Pontificum! But that is a side issue we should not be attending these “approved Latin masses” for doctrinal reasons and reasons of principle. Unless you do believe what Summorum Pontificum calls for I do not and no Catholic should because the new mass it is evil while it can be valid it is not the ‘Lex orandi,” of the Roman rite and it leads to the “Lex credendi’ which is neo modernism & Vatican II.
The authorities are asking the SSPX to accept Vatican II and the new mass for “full communion” and the Catholic answer is NO! It seems that you think you can have your cake and eat it to objectively you can’t you have to choose Christ or anti Christ.
Here is the wicked document SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM:
The reason Trads don’t understand this is because they believed the hoax of a return to Tradition that was Pope Benedict XVI. Pope Benedict XVI’s pontificate was a modernist mirage. Pope Benedict XVI’s pontificate was a modernist mirage! The Catholics in much need of water were tossing sand in their faces during the Pope Benedict XVI mirage and thought it was water. We were tricked again. We Catholics are stupid.
when people say “no one judge the Pope” that means formally because the Pope is the supreme pastor, but we are obligated to judge everything objectively. So when the current Pope says something contradicting with previous Popes, we are not using our own authority (which is zero) but the authority of the Holy Tradition of the Church. So if I say I agree with Pope Francis’ doctrine that atheist go to heaven too even if they do not convert then I am denying the teaching of all the popes before Vatican II, starting with Pope St. Peter. Catholicism unlike Mormon, is not a cult in which the latest leader’s teaching is held as truth if it contradicts his predecessors, including the Apostles and Christ, the founder of our religion. So yes we should never rely on our own authority even we are Cardinals to reject a sitting Pope’s teaching but we should obey the authority of the Tradition handed down by Christ, the Apostles, and the Pope before Vatican II.
“As long as the Pope remains the Pope and he has not commanded anyone to sin, he is to be obeyed”
Totally agree, but the problem with Francis and JP II is they taught us a faith that is foreign to the Holy Catholic Faith, and the first condition for salvation is to have Catholic Faith. So if we give assent to their teachings we can not be saved.
“Does anyone ever get sick of hearing completely ignorant of the Faith, frequently non-Catholic, not very bright “Commentators” second guessing, parsing, and pontificating about every single thing coming from Rome.”
## Some people like to understand what the precise intent and scope of a Papal action is. This is not an illegitimate enquiry.
Obedience to the Pope is not and cannot be absolute, because Popes are capable of abusing their authority. It is not unorthodox or immoral or a novelty to say this. Papal authority is circumscribed by the function of the Papacy, and it is immoral to let the Pope commit a crime against the Church unresisted. Only cowards and flatterers and respecters of persons more than of God would do that. The Pope is as bound by the Law of Christ as the most insignificant peasant is – far more so, if anything, since the function of the Pope is to lead the Flock of Christ to salvation, and not into “poisoned pastures”.
Of course it is not good to make a habit of being a contrarian, and of resisting the Pope as a matter of course. Charity must on no account be allowed to be weakened. But in circumstances like those of the present, in which the Church is being wronged and harmed and weakened by the very men charged with authority over all Catholics, Catholics cannot be expected to stand by and tolerate the systematic destruction of the Faith. The Faith is far more important than the Papacy – the Papacy, or rather the Petrine function that is at its heart, exists for the good of the Church and the Faith; not they, for the good of the Papacy. The only title the Popes have to the obedience and reverence of Catholics, comes from what the Faith & the Church teach about the Papacy. Corrupt the Faith or the Church, and the Popes lose all claim on the obedience and reverence of Catholics. The Pope is not above either, but is invested with the “fullness of power” for the better service of both, not for his own exaltation, but for that of Christ and His Church.
That the Pope commands a thing to be done, does not in itself guarantee that the command is good or wise or holy or prudent or just or moral or orthodox. It may be a foolish and very unwise command. There is a presumption in its favour – but this presumption may not be justified.
“When I said “I am bound by Christ’s words to Peter,” I was referring to these:
“And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it;” along with many, many dogmatic statements that indicate that the Pope is the Supreme Authority and the Vicar of Christ on Earth. He is to be obeyed in all matters of faith and morals.”
## This obedience is ordered to the good and flourishing of the Church and the Faith & the Church’s mission. If the Pope’s will is contrary to any of those ends, it has no claim on the obedience of Catholics. If the Pope requires the Mass to be Protestantised, to obey him is out of the question. If he commands Catholics to commit syncretism or indifferentism, his command has no force, because there can be no such thing as a moral obligation to what is immoral. Such a suggestion is meaningless nonsense. Once he returns to his senses and commands what is good, or not evil, then he can be obeyed. The Church is the Bride of Christ, not the bride or play-thing or property of the Pope. He is not the Church’s Lord, but a servant set over her members within her, differing from his fellow-servants only in his position among them. The greatest of the Saints is not a Pope, but a Jewish peasant-women, someone who on earth was a complete non-entity. The Papacy will end, as all earthly power must – but the glory of the Mother of God will outlast the universe.
“Archbishop Lefebvre’s acts of defiance were wrong and sinful. He showed a lack of Faith and trust in God and led many astray.”
## On the contrary, ISTM he showed a confidence in God that was heroic. It would have been entirely understandable if he had not gone ahead with the 1988 consecrations. He was in his 80s, he was almost entirely alone among the bishops, he risked excommunication for seeming to commit one of the worst crimes possible, every merely natural calculation told against his going ahead. But he went ahead, because he put the good of the Church, the Faith & the priesthood above his own convenuence and reputation. STM this is heroic charity, not a crime against the unity of the Church. But for this “great priest”, this “giant among missionaries”, the Catholic Priesthood might be on its last legs. That he disobeyed a Papal command is no evidence that he did so willingly. let alone sinfully.
“The saints always obeyed because obedience takes precedence over everything.”
## With all possible respect, it does not. Charity is supreme among the virtues, not obedience. Obedience is a very great & much-needed & under-appreciated good, but it is the greatest of them, nor is it the highest of virtues. To be perfected, it needs faith, hope & charity to supernaturalise it; and charity holds the highest place of all these. Otherwise, obedience becomes the deadly obedience of the Nuremberg Trials. Blessed Robert Grosseteste, Bishop of Lincoln, defied a command of Pope Innocent IV (1243-54) that would have harmed the Church. He is among the Blessed.
“This issue of jurisdiction is a distraction from the real issues.”
## Jurisdiction is not all-important, but it is still of very high importance.
Well, he is the reigning Pope, and so his official acts do deserve respect. IMO, unless he does something that is clearly wrong, we should be wary of criticising him. Even Popes should be shown mercy. He needs far more prayer (which might actually do good) than criticism (which, since he is most unlikely to know of it, will very likely do little or no good, and may do the critic harm).
What true pope has ever lead his flock to sin? Sure, a true pope is human and can make mistakes, but what true pope has ever been obstinate in his error? As far as I have always known, we are to obey the true pope always when he speaks for the universal Church….to denounce his words, when those words are set forth as part of the magisterium, is surely a mortal sin.
You dont need to be an “authority” to call the man who calls himself pope a heretic, if in fact he is a heretic. Any layman who knows his faith is capable of calling a spade a spade. This idea that we have to wait for “the proper authorities” to call a pope out for being a heretic is noting more than post V2 hogwash and has ZERO basis in Church teaching. If the “pope” said tomorrow that Christ wasnt actually God would you need the proper authorities to tell you that he was a heretic?
But not criticizing errors would harm souls, if he preached Christ did not multiply bread and fish but merely move others emotionally so they shared the food in their lunch box with others, that is reducing Our Lord to mere men. And if we keep silent those who are weak in faith might actually believe Francis’ interpretation and deny Christ’ divinity.
We can call him a material heretic but have no authority to kick him out of his Office of Peter a council has to be called to show he is a heretic the he lose his office.
And when Francis’ Year of Mercy begins, will those who have previously confessed to an SSPX priest have to confess that they had confessed to an SSPX priest before the Year of Mercy commenced?
And a further thought: Would the penitent have to express a firm purpose of amendment to avoid all SSPX Masses in future and not frequent the SSPX confessional after the Year of Mercy has expired?
I would be interested in hearing what BP Williamson has to say concerning this letter to the SSPX.
A council CANNOT be called to put the pope on trial….a true pope can be judged by no council. Where did you get this idea from? We have authority, as Catholics, to call him a heretic if he is a heretic. No council is needed nor can one be called to do so. You are either making up your own rules or you dont understand how the Church operates.
“Too terrifyingly truthfully Catholic” – LOL.
Churchmilitant.com, by Peter O’Dwyer, referred to this as a Great Act of Ecumenism, if the SSPX were to be allowed in The Church.
Who put What in The Water Supply for The Residents of The Warehouse In Detroit, to consume?