Author Topic: Francis grants Absolution powers to SSPX Priests for Year of Mercy (Read 36905 times)

Ladislaus · « **Reply #60 on:** September 02, 2015, 08:05:09 AM »

Quote from: ascent

Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: ascent
SSPX has always been valid and licit because they've always remained Catholic.

That principle isn't correct. Even before Vatican II it wasn't enough to be "Catholic" in order to have jurisdiction to forgive sins.

Yet, it was YOU who was enrolled at an SSPX seminary that taught the reality of supplied jurisdiction in this Crisis. Do you want to explain this contradiction?

I swear this board is filled with people who didn't make it out of the third grade.

What part of this do you not understand? It does not suffice to be a Catholic in order to have jurisdiction. How is this difficult? You claimed that the SSPX has jurisdiction to hear Confessions "because they've always remained Catholic." That's false. It's because of supplied jurisdiction due to the state of emergency in the Church, not because they have been Catholic. Even before Vatican II, one could be a CATHOLIC priest in the Diocese of Cleveland but he couldn't just show up in the diocese of Pittsburgh and validly hear Confessions without receiving jurisdiction from the bishop to do so. In other words, being Catholic doesn't suffice for jurisdiction.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #61 on:** September 02, 2015, 08:08:39 AM »

Quote from: Matthew

How about just being calm and realistic?

I'm not against being rationally suspicious of the motives; quite to the contrary. I'm talking about all this bitter blustering that's uncharitable.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #62 on:** September 02, 2015, 08:13:44 AM »

Quote from: MaterDominici

Quote from: covet truth
Quote from: Ladislaus
I really cannot understand the bitterness here against Francis for this. No doubt he is just trying to be kind. I think we need to put aside the ranting and raving already. As far as we know, he's done this as a unilateral gesture with no strings attached.

Uh huh, just as he is "kind" to practicing ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs, lesbians, alternative "families", divorced and remarried Catholics who want to still receive the Eucharist, and all other ecuмenical gestures to protestants without their conversion. There is just no end to his "kindness". Do we confess Our Lord Jesus Christ and his commandments or do we not?

THIS^, is the "best" light I can see this in. Sure, it might be a nice gesture, but it's given in the same manner he's extending kindness to all sorts of sinful behavior.

Exact OPPOSITE OF THIS^

That's the dumbest "reasoning" I've heard yet. Just because he's shown false kindness to others doesn't mean that this couldn't also be an act of genuine kindness direct towards SSPX.

If I was dying of thirst and some sodomite gave me a glass of water, I would still tell him thank you for the water; his otherwise sinful life wouldn't necessarily preclude his having been moved by compassion to give me the water.

stgobnait · « **Reply #63 on:** September 02, 2015, 09:12:54 AM »

Unless the sodomite was giving you the water in order to recruit you....

Croix de Fer · « **Reply #64 on:** September 02, 2015, 09:19:55 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: ascent
Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: ascent
SSPX has always been valid and licit because they've always remained Catholic.

That principle isn't correct. Even before Vatican II it wasn't enough to be "Catholic" in order to have jurisdiction to forgive sins.

Yet, it was YOU who was enrolled at an SSPX seminary that taught the reality of supplied jurisdiction in this Crisis. Do you want to explain this contradiction?

What part of this do you not understand? It does not suffice to be a Catholic in order to have jurisdiction. How is this difficult? You claimed that the SSPX has jurisdiction to hear Confessions "because they've always remained Catholic." That's false.

SSPX has jurisdiction to hear Confessions because they've always remained Catholic (and valid priests). Any reader with average reading comprehension, and some understanding of the Catholic Church, can see that this truth in parenthesis was implied. I wasn’t saying being Catholic, alone, suffices for jurisdiction. However, if a valid priest ever becomes a heretic, it wouldn’t be licit for him to administer the Sacraments. He wouldn’t have supplied jurisdiction.

Quote from: Ladislaus

In other words, being Catholic doesn't suffice for jurisdiction.

Again, being a Catholic priest (in order to be truly Catholic, you must be in the Faith; and in order to be a real priest, you must have valid Holy Orders) does suffice for supplied jurisdiction in this emergency.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #65 on:** September 02, 2015, 09:25:16 AM »

Yeah, so I'm supposed to read your mind. What you stated was that being Catholic sufficed for jurisdiction.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #66 on:** September 02, 2015, 09:26:16 AM »

Quote from: ascent

Again, being a Catholic priest (in order to be truly Catholic, you must be in the Faith; and in order to be a real priest, you must have valid Holy Orders) does suffice for supplied jurisdiction in this emergency.

Too bad that's not even close to what you actually wrote. Nice attempt at after-the-fact revisionism.

Croix de Fer · « **Reply #67 on:** September 02, 2015, 09:32:03 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: ascent
Again, being a Catholic priest (in order to be truly Catholic, you must be in the Faith; and in order to be a real priest, you must have valid Holy Orders) does suffice for supplied jurisdiction in this emergency.

Too bad that's not even close to what you actually wrote. Nice attempt at after-the-fact revisionism.

Go back to remedial reading class. It's no wonder you flunked out of the seminary.

:roll-laugh1:

Ladislaus · « **Reply #68 on:** September 02, 2015, 09:34:55 AM »

Part of what everyone's missing is hinted at in the DICI release. There are probably a fair number of faithful at SSPX chapels who receive the Sacrament of Confession with a certain amount of trepidation. If they have to rely upon being right about the fact that the emergency situation suffices for supplied jurisdiction, they might be approaching the Sacrament with some degree of having their fingers crossed and hoping that it's valid ... i.e. without complete certainty. There's an analogy here with Perfect Contrition (along with the intention to receive the Sacrament) vs. the Sacrament of Confession. You can try to make an act of perfect contrition and hope that you have done so, but you can't be completely certain; that's why the Sacrament brings such comfort with it. You have concrete assurances that you have been forgiven (provided you didn't deliberately conceal anything and at least had an imperfect contrition for your sins). Same thing applies here. DICI refers to the fact that the faithful can approach the Sacrament during the "Year of Mercy" without "worry".

And in fact, this doesn't even necessarily imply that the supplied jurisdiction wasn't there to begin with just as receiving the Sacrament of Confession doesn't mean that there wasn't also Perfect Contrition and restoration to sanctifying grace beforehand.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #69 on:** September 02, 2015, 09:36:45 AM »

Quote from: ascent

Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: ascent
Again, being a Catholic priest (in order to be truly Catholic, you must be in the Faith; and in order to be a real priest, you must have valid Holy Orders) does suffice for supplied jurisdiction in this emergency.

Too bad that's not even close to what you actually wrote. Nice attempt at after-the-fact revisionism.

Go back to remedial reading class. It's no wonder you flunked out of the seminary. :roll-laugh1:

I quoted exactly what you wrote, o intellectually-challenged one. What you WROTE was that they had jurisdiction simply by virtue of being Catholic. Evidently you are the one who can't even read your own posts. Run along now.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #70 on:** September 02, 2015, 09:39:02 AM »

Just a reminder since you apparently have short-term memory problems in addition to the general lack of intellectual capacity.

Quote from: ascent

SSPX has always been valid and licit because they've always remained Catholic.

Matthew · « **Reply #71 on:** September 02, 2015, 09:41:09 AM »

Yes, giving the SSPX jurisdiction to hear confessions is objectively a good thing, taken in isolation.

But we can't really take this in isolation. At least the wise or non-foolish among us will not be inclined to treat of this ONE MOVE in isolation.

It is part of a broad program to re-integrate the SSPX into the One World Religion pantheon, of which the Conciliar Church is the seed or nexus.

This is a bribe, bait for a trap, if not a prelude to the formal deal itself! And no, a deal with Modernist Rome is NOT a good thing, despite some isolated good(s) here or there that would result. Maybe a family gets the guts to start going to an SSPX chapel over here, or a few of them over there.

But let us all not forget the big picture: the compromise of the SSPX with MODERNIST, APOSTATE Rome is NOT a good thing. It will do more harm than good.

When you're sitting in a plane with 0 of 4 engines functional, it's really foolish (objectively speaking) to gush over the quality of the seats, the entertainment, the drinks, etc. You have to look at the big, overall picture.

Yes, it's great that the Titanic fixed its climate control system. Hooray! We'll just ignore that big iceberg-sized gash in the forward hull of the ship. At least everyone can be warm and cozy as they sink to the bottom of the ocean...

Ladislaus · « **Reply #72 on:** September 02, 2015, 09:43:32 AM »

Quote from: Matthew

Yes, giving the SSPX jurisdiction to hear confessions is objectively a good thing, taken in isolation.

But we can't really take this in isolation.

It is part of a broad program to re-integrate the SSPX into the One World Religion pantheon, of which the Conciliar Church is the seed or nexus.

Quite possibly, but it's only dangerous or potentially harmful if there's a partner (aka an accomplice) on the other end; I'm only surprised that this wasn't preceded by a Rosary Crusade for exactly this intention.

Matthew · « **Reply #73 on:** September 02, 2015, 09:46:18 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Matthew
Yes, giving the SSPX jurisdiction to hear confessions is objectively a good thing, taken in isolation.

But we can't really take this in isolation.

It is part of a broad program to re-integrate the SSPX into the One World Religion pantheon, of which the Conciliar Church is the seed or nexus.

Quite possibly, but it's only dangerous or potentially harmful if there's a partner (aka an accomplice) on the other end; I'm only surprised that this wasn't preceded by a Rosary Crusade for exactly this intention.

Again, I say, "Where have you been". There are clearly accomplices on both sides; that much should be evident to anyone objectively following the news.

Bishop Fellay wants a deal so bad he can taste it. And yes, he's "that obvious". He thinks he's done a good job of hiding it, being stoic, or putting one over on us. He's mistaken. Just look at the whole Resistance.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #74 on:** September 02, 2015, 09:47:29 AM »

Another interesting aspect is that Rome doesn't entirely see the SSPX as non-Catholic. You wouldn't grant "jurisdiction" to a bunch of people who are not Catholic simpliciter ... e.g. to the Orthodox. There has been other language in the past which indicates the same thing, that they're "canonically irregular" and referring the rift as an "internal matter of the Church".