Author Topic: Do SSPX Catholics have Obligation on Jan 1? Ask the Diocesan Bishop! (Read 1601 times)

Matthew · « **on:** December 30, 2019, 10:30:30 PM »

Quote

Quote From: Father Joseph Dreher | FSSPX [mailto:j.dreher@fsspx.email]
Sent: Sunday, December 29, 2019 10:25 PM
Subject: Attendance at Mass in January 1st

Dear Faithful:

I have finally received confirmation from the Diocese of Boise that January 1st is in fact a Holy Day of Obligation in this Diocese for 2020. The problem is that for many years now it has been the custom of Bishop Christensen to dispense of the obligation of attending Mass on January 1st. The Boise Diocese had not updated their website for 2020 and so this is why today's bulletin said that Wednesday is "Traditionally" a Holy Day of Obligation. It seems that the Diocese of Spokane clearly listed Wednesday as a Holy Day on their website so it might be possible that Rome has finally cracked down on bishops who have been dispensing from the obligation of Holy Days without any real reason. I was not able to have this clarification announced at the Masses today because the contact person from the Boise Diocese only got back to me on this matter this evening. Anyway, I wanted to let all of you know that whether you live in Washington or in Idaho you are in fact obliged under pain of sin to attend Mass on Wednesday January 1st and to refrain from servile work.

To help you fulfill this obligation we will have the normal Sunday schedule with confessions at each Mass at ICC so 7am, 8:30 am, 10:30 am and 12 noon and both convents will have their normal Sunday schedule as well, so 8 am at Carmel and 10:30 am at St Dominics.

Please note that four of our priests are on vacation this week so it might take us a little longer to respond to your phone calls or requests since we are operating at 50%. If you have an emergency, please call the emergency number in the bulletin and we will take care of your needs immediately.

All of the priests at the priory wish you a grace-filled New Year and may God and Our Lady bless and protect your families as we start this new decade.

--

God bless you.

Cor unum et anima una,
Fr. Joseph M. Dreher

Nishant Xavier · « **Reply #1 on:** December 30, 2019, 11:03:47 PM »

Did the Bishop dispense SSPX Catholics from the obligation of assisting at Holy Mass? No doubt, the Bishop could do that; but what I understand from the email is Fr. Dreher saying the SSPX will schedule confessions and offer Holy Masses on January 1st, so as to help SSPX Catholics fulfil that obligation. That's what this part seems to suggest:

"Anyway, I wanted to let all of you know that whether you live in Washington or in Idaho you are in fact obliged under pain of sin to attend Mass on Wednesday January 1st and to refrain from servile work.

To help you fulfill this obligation we will have the normal Sunday schedule with confessions at each Mass at ICC so 7am, 8:30 am, 10:30 am and 12 noon and both convents will have their normal Sunday schedule as well, so 8 am at Carmel and 10:30 am at St Dominics."

Matthew · « **Reply #2 on:** December 30, 2019, 11:14:07 PM »

Yes, it looks like unlike in years past, the Diocesan Bishop hasn't absolved Novus Ordo & SSPX Catholics from their Holy Day obligation THIS year, 2019.

Nevertheless, since when does the SSPX act like it's part of the local Diocese? This proves right (once again) what the Resistance has been resisting.

Like an ambitious and wise employee seeking a promotion, the SSPX is "acting the part" and proving itself BEFORE it gets the actual formal deal from Rome. A form of "fake it till you make it".

Nishant Xavier · « **Reply #3 on:** December 30, 2019, 11:30:49 PM »

Hmm. Maybe deeper reflections and more careful consideration on the Crisis in the Church and Church Teaching on Ecclesiology, Matthew, have led the Society's best Theologians and Priests to the conclusion that the mainstream Church Hierarchy must be a valid Hierarchy. This is Fr. Jean Michel Gleize, Seminary Professor of Ecclesiology at Econe: https://fsspx.news/en/content/23744

"Eleventh, Bishop Fellay9 recently stated that the contemporary Church, as represented by the Roman authorities, remains the true Church, one, Catholic, holy, and apostolic. “When we say extra Ecclesiam nulla salus, out of the Church, no salvation, it is indeed to the Church of today that we refer. That fact is absolutely certain. We must cling to it. […} Going to Rome does not mean we agree with them. But Rome is the Church, and the true Church10.” He speaks further of “the Church, which is not an idea, which is real, which stands before us, which we call the Roman Catholic Church, the Church, with its pope, its bishops, debilitated as they may be ...

The emphasis on the concrete reality of the contemporary Church is only intended to show that in spite of everything, the Church holds the promise of eternal salvation. “In rejecting what is wrong, we must not reject everything. The Church remains one, holy, Catholic and apostolic. […] When we reject the evil found in the Church, we must not conclude that it is no longer the Church. Large parts of it are no longer the Church, true. But not all of it ... And the same dual concept is expressed in the metaphor of an invalid, as used by Bishop Fellay at the last Congress of Courrier de Rome: “The Catholic Church is our Church. We have no other. There is no other. The Good God has allowed it to become diseased. For this reason we try to avoid contagion ourselves. But for all that we are not trying to form another Church. […] The disease is a disease; it is not the Church itself. It is within the Church, but the Church remains itself. […] Certainly, we must fight the disease. But this diseased Church is indeed the Church founded by Our Lord. It alone holds the promise of eternal life. To it alone has been promised that the gates of hell will not prevail42.” We can therefore speak of a ‘conciliar Church’, in order to indicate that among the leaders of the Church and among many of its faithful there is an orientation or a spirit that are foreign to the Church and obstruct its good. (Courrier de Rome B.P 10158 – 78001 Versailles Cedex – Fax 01 49 62 85 91 – Email: courrierderome@wanadoo.fr)"

poche · « **Reply #4 on:** December 31, 2019, 04:23:24 AM »

Do you really feel the need to ask?
What would you were to do if he were to say that January 1 is not a holy day of obligation?
Either way, I plan to attend mass on January 1st.

Maria Auxiliadora · « **Reply #5 on:** December 31, 2019, 05:19:51 AM »

Quote from: Matthew on December 30, 2019, 11:14:07 PM

Yes, it looks like unlike in years past, the Diocesan Bishop hasn't absolved Novus Ordo & SSPX Catholics from their Holy Day obligation THIS year, 2019.

Nevertheless, since when does the SSPX act like it's part of the local Diocese? This proves right (once again) what the Resistance has been resisting.

Like an ambitious and wise employee seeking a promotion, the SSPX is "acting the part" and proving itself BEFORE it gets the actual formal deal from Rome. A form of "fake it till you make it".

Since the regularization in Argentina! Rorate Caeli had an Argentinian lawyer explain how the regularization in Argentina was a sort of "back door" (sneak) entrance into the conciliar church WORLDWIDE. Ill try to find the juridical analysis and post it.

Maria Auxiliadora · « **Reply #6 on:** December 31, 2019, 05:32:46 AM »

I don't have time right now to find the Rorate Caeli article in English. The quote below comes from the link provided. It is NOT a coincidence that the three Argentinians are the leaders of the SSPX now. No one would understand the implications of this regularization better than them. Fr. Bouchacourt himself was involved in this effort.

Quote

https://adelantelafe.com/analisis-juridico-del-reconocimiento-de-la-fsspx-en-argentina-un-avance-mas-alla-de-benedicto-xvi/

ACTUALIZACIÓN (14/04) En Adelante la Fe hemos pedidos a este destacado jurista que hiciera una valoración de las diversas informaciones, de ambas partes, que tratan de quitar importancia a esta noticia indicando que es algo meramente “administrativo”. Esta es su respuesta:
“Luego de la noticia del reconocimiento del estado argentino a la FSSPX han salido comunicados, de uno y otro lado, que oscurecen más que aclarar.

Releí las partes pertinentes del Código de Derecho Canónico y estoy más convencido aún que no hay forma de considerar a la FSSPX parte de la Iglesia en Argentina y no en el resto del mundo. Viola toda lógica jurídica.

Lo de un trámite meramente administrativo -con el fin de ejercer libremente la vida apostólica- no tiene sustento alguno porque hace décadas que están en nuestro país, con seminarios, templos, escuelas y demás bienes, que bien pudieron adquirir como asociación civil sin fines de lucro. ¿Cuál es la mejora administrativa? ¿Evadir Impuesto a las Ganancias? ¿Obtener sueldos y subvenciones?

Se estaría ante una gravísima situación donde no comulgan con Roma pero sí reciben los beneficios en Argentina por ser “romanos”.

El trámite tardó unos quince días hábiles, impropios para cualquier trámite burocrático, salvo que la presentación fuera hecha absolutamente prolija, sin faltar nada y gestionada de antemano con la autoridad. El Expediente es barra quince (/15) lo que demuestra que se inició este año y no es una mera nota de Poli acompañando un trámite del 2011, como lo afirma Agencia DICI.

Es imposible que a esto se llegue sin el acuerdo de Roma y de Econe“.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #7 on:** December 31, 2019, 05:51:14 AM »

Quote from: XavierSem on December 30, 2019, 11:30:49 PM

Hmm. Maybe deeper reflections and more careful consideration on the Crisis in the Church and Church Teaching on Ecclesiology, Matthew, have led the Society's best Theologians and Priests to the conclusion that the mainstream Church Hierarchy must be a valid Hierarchy. This is Fr. Jean Michel Gleize, Seminary Professor of Ecclesiology at Econe: https://fsspx.news/en/content/23744

"Eleventh, Bishop Fellay9 recently stated that the contemporary Church, as represented by the Roman authorities, remains the true Church, one, Catholic, holy, and apostolic. “When we say extra Ecclesiam nulla salus, out of the Church, no salvation, it is indeed to the Church of today that we refer. That fact is absolutely certain. We must cling to it. […} Going to Rome does not mean we agree with them. But Rome is the Church, and the true Church10.” He speaks further of “the Church, which is not an idea, which is real, which stands before us, which we call the Roman Catholic Church, the Church, with its pope, its bishops, debilitated as they may be ...

The emphasis on the concrete reality of the contemporary Church is only intended to show that in spite of everything, the Church holds the promise of eternal salvation. “In rejecting what is wrong, we must not reject everything. The Church remains one, holy, Catholic and apostolic. […] When we reject the evil found in the Church, we must not conclude that it is no longer the Church. Large parts of it are no longer the Church, true. But not all of it ... And the same dual concept is expressed in the metaphor of an invalid, as used by Bishop Fellay at the last Congress of Courrier de Rome: “The Catholic Church is our Church. We have no other. There is no other. The Good God has allowed it to become diseased. For this reason we try to avoid contagion ourselves. But for all that we are not trying to form another Church. […] The disease is a disease; it is not the Church itself. It is within the Church, but the Church remains itself. […] Certainly, we must fight the disease. But this diseased Church is indeed the Church founded by Our Lord. It alone holds the promise of eternal life. To it alone has been promised that the gates of hell will not prevail42.” We can therefore speak of a ‘conciliar Church’, in order to indicate that among the leaders of the Church and among many of its faithful there is an orientation or a spirit that are foreign to the Church and obstruct its good. (Courrier de Rome B.P 10158 – 78001 Versailles Cedex – Fax 01 49 62 85 91 – Email: courrierderome@wanadoo.fr)"

More like “deeper reflections and more careful consideration” has caused the SSPX to believe Archbishop Lefebvre made a terrible, terrible mistake in separating from the conciliar church, and they must at all cost reintegrate themselves back into it.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #8 on:** December 31, 2019, 05:58:13 AM »

Quote from: Maria Auxiliadora on December 31, 2019, 05:32:46 AM

I don't have time right now to find the Rorate Caeli article in English. The quote below comes from the link provided. It is NOT a coincidence that the three Argentinians are the leaders of the SSPX now. No one would understand the implications of this regularization better than them. Fr. Bouchacourt himself was involved in this effort.

Ding, ding, ding, ding, ding!

We have a winner!

CCCC #101:

https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/catalog-of-compromise-change-and-contradiction-in-the-sspx/90/

Nishant Xavier · « **Reply #9 on:** December 31, 2019, 07:12:47 AM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson

More like “deeper reflections and more careful consideration” has caused the SSPX to believe Archbishop Lefebvre made a terrible, terrible mistake in separating from the conciliar church, and they must at all cost reintegrate themselves back into it.

Disagree. The General Council's argument was like this: +ABL would have been willing to sign the Protocol if Tradition was guaranteed Catholic Bishops and freedom to offer the True Mass and criticize the Council. These things have been granted to the Society today. Therefore, "when we compare the arguments given by Archbishop Lefebvre at that time we draw the conclusion that he would not have hesitated to accept what is being proposed to us. Let us not loose that sense of the Church, which was so strong in our venerated founder." (General Council Letter). In other words, remaining faithful to +ABL's principles, one can certainly believe, that especially after Summorum Pontificuм in 2007, Universae Ecclesiae in 2011, and those like Abp. Pozzo admitting more recently that one can criticize Nostra Aetate and other Conciliar docuмents, it is reasonable and right to resume normal canonical relations with the Roman authorities again; while still criticizing the Council etc.

Supposing Archbishop Lefebvre had obtained (at least one) Catholic Bishop and signed the protocol in 1988, Sean? Would you have left?

There would have been no need to do so then and there is no need to do so now. The SSPX was in fact founded as canonically regular. Canonical regularity is not something in itself evil (my Goodness, what a terrible ecclesiology it is to suggest that), but its unjust deprivation is an injustice to be suffered patiently. It is a lack of a due good which the Society authorities have the right to obtain. Likewise, Ordinary Jurisdiction is something the Society Bishops, as Catholic Bishops, have a right to. Yet, it can only be obtained through the Pope. Therefore, Society Bishops have a right to obtain it, through the Pope, just as Bp. Fellay said the SSPX has done.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #10 on:** December 31, 2019, 07:17:14 AM »

Quote from: XavierSem on December 31, 2019, 07:12:47 AM

Disagree. The General Council's argument was like this: +ABL would have been willing to sign the Protocol if Tradition was guaranteed Catholic Bishops and freedom to offer the True Mass and criticize the Council. These things have been granted to the Society today. Therefore, "when we compare the arguments given by Archbishop Lefebvre at that time we draw the conclusion that he would not have hesitated to accept what is being proposed to us. Let us not loose that sense of the Church, which was so strong in our venerated founder." (General Council Letter). In other words, remaining faithful to +ABL's principles, one can certainly believe, that especially after Summorum Pontificuм in 2007, Universae Ecclesiae in 2011, and those like Abp. Pozzo admitting more recently that one can criticize Nostra Aetate and other Conciliar docuмents, it is reasonable and right to resume normal canonical relations with the Roman authorities again; while still criticizing the Council etc.

Supposing Archbishop Lefebvre had obtained (at least one) Catholic Bishop and signed the protocol in 1988, Sean? Would you have left?

There would have been no need to do so then and there is no need to do so now. The SSPX was in fact founded as canonically regular. Canonical regularity is not something in itself evil (my Goodness, what a terrible ecclesiology it is to suggest that), but its unjust deprivation is an injustice to be suffered patiently. It is a lack of a due good which the Society authorities have the right to obtain. Likewise, Ordinary Jurisdiction is something the Society Bishops, as Catholic Bishops, have a right to. Yet, it can only be obtained through the Pope. Therefore, Society Bishops have a right to obtain it, through the Pope, just as Bp. Fellay said the SSPX has done.

“‘cuz for a limited time only, glamor shots by Deb are half off.”

Nishant Xavier · « **Reply #11 on:** December 31, 2019, 07:25:33 AM »

Quote

“‘cuz for a limited time only, glamor shots by Deb are half off.”

I accept your concession.

MiserereMei · « **Reply #12 on:** December 31, 2019, 08:39:59 AM »

Quote from: XavierSem on December 31, 2019, 07:12:47 AM

Disagree. The General Council's argument was like this: +ABL would have been willing to sign the Protocol if Tradition was guaranteed Catholic Bishops and freedom to offer the True Mass and criticize the Council. These things have been granted to the Society today. Therefore, "when we compare the arguments given by Archbishop Lefebvre at that time we draw the conclusion that he would not have hesitated to accept what is being proposed to us. Let us not loose that sense of the Church, which was so strong in our venerated founder." (General Council Letter). In other words, remaining faithful to +ABL's principles, one can certainly believe, that especially after Summorum Pontificuм in 2007, Universae Ecclesiae in 2011, and those like Abp. Pozzo admitting more recently that one can criticize Nostra Aetate and other Conciliar docuмents, it is reasonable and right to resume normal canonical relations with the Roman authorities again; while still criticizing the Council etc.

Supposing Archbishop Lefebvre had obtained (at least one) Catholic Bishop and signed the protocol in 1988, Sean? Would you have left?

There would have been no need to do so then and there is no need to do so now. The SSPX was in fact founded as canonically regular. Canonical regularity is not something in itself evil (my Goodness, what a terrible ecclesiology it is to suggest that), but its unjust deprivation is an injustice to be suffered patiently. It is a lack of a due good which the Society authorities have the right to obtain. Likewise, Ordinary Jurisdiction is something the Society Bishops, as Catholic Bishops, have a right to. Yet, it can only be obtained through the Pope. Therefore, Society Bishops have a right to obtain it, through the Pope, just as Bp. Fellay said the SSPX has done.

In my opinion, for me who have been in this world for awhile, +ABL was a defender of the Truth regardless of the consequences. The type of criticism I see nowadays seems to me like watching a barking caged chihuahua dog. It's annoying but harmless. Someone else is in control. I see the same thing in the political world. Many people critize thru social media but at the end most of the time don't harm the hidden individuals that control this world.

Nishant Xavier · « **Reply #13 on:** December 31, 2019, 08:50:51 AM »

Hi Miserere. I understand. Sometimes the criticism coming from Menzingen these days seems to be muted. Personally, I'm in favor of very strong criticism of the errors afflicting the Church today.

However, I think the more important thing today is not only to criticize but to build; to build coalitions with all those friendly and favorable to Tradition, to build traditional Mass centres everywhere, and of course the most important work of forming many Priests for the future; and winning many souls to Tradition. We may well have to continue fighting for decades to come. Are we prepared for it?

Rorate had an article a while ago that all Priests who offer the Tridentine Mass in the world (SSPX/Indult/sede/resistance/diocesan) together are around 10,000; just about 2.5% of all Priests. We must evangelize for the Mass and the Faith, and try to bring that total in 10 to 20 years to at least 100,000 Priests who offer the Traditional Mass, and preach the Traditional Faith. Then, Tradition will be strong.

That imo is a long, but real, path to final victory. God Bless.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #14 on:** December 31, 2019, 09:24:27 AM »

Well, on this point, if these bishops are the legitimate hierarchy, then it is perfectly within their authority and their right to dispense from Holy Days of Obligation (as granted by the Pope).

SSPX priest have always inserted the name of the local ordinary in the Canon. Is that as far as it goes, to pay lip service?

Author Topic: Do SSPX Catholics have Obligation on Jan 1? Ask the Diocesan Bishop! (Read 1601 times)

Matthew

Do SSPX Catholics have Obligation on Jan 1? Ask the Diocesan Bishop!

Nishant Xavier

Re: Do SSPX Catholics have Obligation on Jan 1? Ask the Diocesan Bishop!

Matthew

Re: Do SSPX Catholics have Obligation on Jan 1? Ask the Diocesan Bishop!

Nishant Xavier

Re: Do SSPX Catholics have Obligation on Jan 1? Ask the Diocesan Bishop!

poche

Re: Do SSPX Catholics have Obligation on Jan 1? Ask the Diocesan Bishop!

Maria Auxiliadora

Re: Do SSPX Catholics have Obligation on Jan 1? Ask the Diocesan Bishop!

Maria Auxiliadora

Re: Do SSPX Catholics have Obligation on Jan 1? Ask the Diocesan Bishop!

SeanJohnson

Re: Do SSPX Catholics have Obligation on Jan 1? Ask the Diocesan Bishop!

SeanJohnson

Re: Do SSPX Catholics have Obligation on Jan 1? Ask the Diocesan Bishop!

Nishant Xavier

Re: Do SSPX Catholics have Obligation on Jan 1? Ask the Diocesan Bishop!

SeanJohnson

Re: Do SSPX Catholics have Obligation on Jan 1? Ask the Diocesan Bishop!

Nishant Xavier

Re: Do SSPX Catholics have Obligation on Jan 1? Ask the Diocesan Bishop!

MiserereMei

Re: Do SSPX Catholics have Obligation on Jan 1? Ask the Diocesan Bishop!

Nishant Xavier

Re: Do SSPX Catholics have Obligation on Jan 1? Ask the Diocesan Bishop!

Ladislaus

Re: Do SSPX Catholics have Obligation on Jan 1? Ask the Diocesan Bishop!