... This Jubilee Year of Mercy excludes no one....
He "grants" it now and for the "Holy Year of Mercy", which implies that the SSPX priests did not have this power before. By the way, what about the SSPX marriages now, according to the Vatican?
Do these faculties apply only for the Jubilee year,I mean do they go "poof" after the year is up?
Along with this, the fact of Pope Francis’ move, together with the wording, confirms what I have been saying all along about the priests of the SSPX: they do not and have not had the faculty validly to absolve sins! The fact that this is being granted for the Year of Mercy bears out what I have been saying.
Quote... This Jubilee Year of Mercy excludes no one....
So, he's granting the resistance faculties too!
As it was easy to predict, the enemies of the SSPX now have additional ammunition to argue that the SSPX priests did not have power to absolve sins up till now:Quote from: Fr ZuhlsdorfAlong with this, the fact of Pope Francis’ move, together with the wording, confirms what I have been saying all along about the priests of the SSPX: they do not and have not had the faculty validly to absolve sins! The fact that this is being granted for the Year of Mercy bears out what I have been saying.
http://wdtprs.com/blog/2015/09/pope-francis-for-year-of-mercy-grants-that-sspx-priests-can-validly-absolve/
SSPX has always been valid and licit because they've always remained Catholic.
Sure seems like we might be seeing a deal in the near future.
Anyone paying ANY KIND OF attention to the SSPX/Rome situation should know that the effort (for a reconciliation/practical deal) isn't dead. Not by a long shot.
Quote from: MatthewSure seems like we might be seeing a deal in the near future.
Anyone paying ANY KIND OF attention to the SSPX/Rome situation should know that the effort (for a reconciliation/practical deal) isn't dead. Not by a long shot.
"I trust that in the near future solutions may be found to recover full communion with the priests and superiors of the Fraternity."
It's going to happen. If I had to bet I would wager regularization would materialize much like this-- that the SSPX is simply accepted, in the words of Bishop Schneider, "as they are" without preconditions.
Quote from: JPMQuote from: MatthewSure seems like we might be seeing a deal in the near future.
Anyone paying ANY KIND OF attention to the SSPX/Rome situation should know that the effort (for a reconciliation/practical deal) isn't dead. Not by a long shot.
"I trust that in the near future solutions may be found to recover full communion with the priests and superiors of the Fraternity."
It's going to happen. If I had to bet I would wager regularization would materialize much like this-- that the SSPX is simply accepted, in the words of Bishop Schneider, "as they are" without preconditions.
I think that there will be a high-level token preamble that any Catholic could sign.
Sure seems like we might be seeing a deal in the near future.
Anyone paying ANY KIND OF attention to the SSPX/Rome situation should know that the effort (for a reconciliation/practical deal) isn't dead. Not by a long shot.
The Society of St. Pius X learned, through the press, of the provisions taken by Pope Francis on the occasion of the upcoming Holy Year. In the last paragraph of his letter addressed September 1, 2015, to Archbishop Rino Fisichella, president of the Pontifical Council for the Promotion of the New Evangelization, the Holy Father writes:
«I establish that those who during the Holy Year of Mercy approach these priests of the Society of St Pius X to celebrate the Sacrament of Reconciliation shall validly and licitly receive the absolution of their sins.»
The Society of St. Pius X expresses its gratitude to the Sovereign Pontiff for this fatherly gesture. In the ministry of the sacrament of penance, we have always relied, with all certainty, on the extrdaordinary jurisdiction conferred by the Normae generales of the Code of Canon Law. On the occasion of this Holy Year, Pope Francis wants all the faithful who wish to confess to the priests of the Society of St. Pius X to be able to do so without being worried.
During this year of conversion, the priests of the Society of St. Pius X will have at heart to exercise with renewed generosity their ministry in the confessional, following the example of tireless dedication which the holy Curé of Ars gave to all priests.
Menzingen,
September 1, 2015
QuoteThe Society of St. Pius X learned, through the press, of the provisions taken by Pope Francis on the occasion of the upcoming Holy Year. In the last paragraph of his letter addressed September 1, 2015, to Archbishop Rino Fisichella, president of the Pontifical Council for the Promotion of the New Evangelization, the Holy Father writes:
«I establish that those who during the Holy Year of Mercy approach these priests of the Society of St Pius X to celebrate the Sacrament of Reconciliation shall validly and licitly receive the absolution of their sins.»
The Society of St. Pius X expresses its gratitude to the Sovereign Pontiff for this fatherly gesture. In the ministry of the sacrament of penance, we have always relied, with all certainty, on the extrdaordinary jurisdiction conferred by the Normae generales of the Code of Canon Law. On the occasion of this Holy Year, Pope Francis wants all the faithful who wish to confess to the priests of the Society of St. Pius X to be able to do so without being worried.
During this year of conversion, the priests of the Society of St. Pius X will have at heart to exercise with renewed generosity their ministry in the confessional, following the example of tireless dedication which the holy Curé of Ars gave to all priests.
Menzingen,
September 1, 2015
http://www.dici.org/en/news/communique-of-the-general-house-of-the-society-of-st-pius-x-on-the-letter-of-pope-francis-at-the-approach-of-the-holy-year-september-1-2015/
Learned through the press my eye! We now Know what the 'secret" meeting was about.
The Society of St. Pius X expresses its gratitude to the Sovereign Pontiff for this fatherly gesture.
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.
They were grateful for the lifting of the non-excommunications, too.
+Fellay is given "jurisdiction" to discipline certain priests, now they're given faculties to hear confession. I would be surprised if, before the end of the year, an agreement or arrangement has not been publicly announced. If not by the end of the calendar year, than certainly by the end of the "year of mercy".
I have accordistas in my family, and I can tell you they will eat this up for lunch and demand dessert. This is a colossal bone being tossed their way and they, like hungry dogs, will gobble it up with no questions asked.
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.
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.
QuoteThe Society of St. Pius X expresses its gratitude to the Sovereign Pontiff for this fatherly gesture.
How can the SSPX be "grateful" for this "fatherly gesture" when up to Dec. 8th none of their confessions for forty years have been considered "valid" by Rome? I guess the day after the mercy year ends it will be back to "invalid"? What a joke this is and yet they are "grateful". Rome is calling the shots and the SSPX dances to their tune. It's over.
Quote from: LadislausI 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.
You have got to be joking.
I assume this was sarcastic or tongue-in-cheek...
What are we supposed to do, forget all the anti-Catholic things and wanton destruction Francis has done in a short span of 2 years, and just assume the best?
As Catholics, we are not expected to play the fool or be naive. It's obvious what side "there is no Catholic God" Francis is on.
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.
Quote from: LadislausI 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.
What are we supposed to do, forget all the anti-Catholic things and wanton destruction Francis has done in a short span of 2 years, and just assume the best?
"I trust that in the near future solutions may be found to recover full communion with the priests and superiors of the Fraternity"
Why didn't Menz tell the Sovereign Pontiff what they told me twenty years ago, 'we have supplied jurisdiction; whilest at the same time thanking him for the thought, but assure him its not necessary...
Quote from: LadislausI 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.
You have got to be joking.
I assume this was sarcastic or tongue-in-cheek...
What are we supposed to do, forget all the anti-Catholic things and wanton destruction Francis has done in a short span of 2 years, and just assume the best?
As Catholics, we are not expected to play the fool or be naive. It's obvious what side "there is no Catholic God" Francis is on.
The Society of St. Pius X learned, through the press, of the provisions taken by Pope Francis on the occasion of the upcoming Holy Year. In the last paragraph of his letter addressed September 1, 2015, to Archbishop Rino Fisichella, president of the Pontifical Council for the Promotion of the New Evangelization, the Holy Father writes:
«I establish that those who during the Holy Year of Mercy approach these priests of the Society of St Pius X to celebrate the Sacrament of Reconciliation shall validly and licitly receive the absolution of their sins.»
The Society of St. Pius X expresses its gratitude to the Sovereign Pontiff for this fatherly gesture. In the ministry of the sacrament of penance, we have always relied, with all certainty, on the extrdaordinary jurisdiction conferred by the Normae generales of the Code of Canon Law. On the occasion of this Holy Year, Pope Francis wants all the faithful who wish to confess to the priests of the Society of St. Pius X to be able to do so without being worried.
During this year of conversion, the priests of the Society of St. Pius X will have at heart to exercise with renewed generosity their ministry in the confessional, following the example of tireless dedication which the holy Curé of Ars gave to all priests.
Menzingen,
September 1, 2015
Why didn't Menz tell the Sovereign Pontiff what they told me twenty years ago, 'we have supplied jurisdiction; whilest at the same time thanking him for the thought, but assure him its not necessary...
Quote from: MatthewQuote from: LadislausI 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.
You have got to be joking.
I assume this was sarcastic or tongue-in-cheek...
What are we supposed to do, forget all the anti-Catholic things and wanton destruction Francis has done in a short span of 2 years, and just assume the best?
As Catholics, we are not expected to play the fool or be naive. It's obvious what side "there is no Catholic God" Francis is on.
No, I'm dead serious. Sure we could suspect that there might be an ulterior motive, that some deal has been struck in the smoke-filled back rooms, with the SSPX. Other than that, this sounds a lot like that proposition condemned by the Church that all actions outside the Church are bad and sinful. You make it sound like Francis is just pure evil and the devil incarnate and cannot be well-intentioned. I like the tone of the DICI response; it expresses gratitude while at the same time respectfully upholding the SSPX contention that they have operated under supplied jurisdiction all these years.
One can be firm and principled without being bitter and angry.
Good for you.Quote from: DICIThe Society of St. Pius X learned, through the press, of the provisions taken by Pope Francis on the occasion of the upcoming Holy Year. In the last paragraph of his letter addressed September 1, 2015, to Archbishop Rino Fisichella, president of the Pontifical Council for the Promotion of the New Evangelization, the Holy Father writes:
«I establish that those who during the Holy Year of Mercy approach these priests of the Society of St Pius X to celebrate the Sacrament of Reconciliation shall validly and licitly receive the absolution of their sins.»
The Society of St. Pius X expresses its gratitude to the Sovereign Pontiff for this fatherly gesture. In the ministry of the sacrament of penance, we have always relied, with all certainty, on the extrdaordinary jurisdiction conferred by the Normae generales of the Code of Canon Law. On the occasion of this Holy Year, Pope Francis wants all the faithful who wish to confess to the priests of the Society of St. Pius X to be able to do so without being worried.
During this year of conversion, the priests of the Society of St. Pius X will have at heart to exercise with renewed generosity their ministry in the confessional, following the example of tireless dedication which the holy Curé of Ars gave to all priests.
Menzingen,
September 1, 2015
I think that this is a great response.
Thavis said he would not be surprised if the edict stays in effect beyond the Holy Year. "If this is meant to demonstrate the church's mercy, it doesn't make much sense that it would have an expiration date," he said.
Quote from: LadislausI 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?
I'm curious - how many here on Cathinfo think that Pope Francis would have 'granted' this to the SSPX were it still headed by the great Archbishop who once stated that Rome had lost the Faith and was being run by a bunch of Anti-Christs?
Wow, there was a time when the SSPX actually used that type of language...
This is a quote from a USA Today story about the Pope allowing priests to absolve abortions during the Year of Mercy:QuoteThavis said he would not be surprised if the edict stays in effect beyond the Holy Year. "If this is meant to demonstrate the church's mercy, it doesn't make much sense that it would have an expiration date," he said.
He, too, thinks that whatever the Pope is granting now will afterwards be the norm.
Readers, wait for it, take in advance a hint –
When the agreement comes, read the fine print! ... Brilliant these will be.
Quote from: MaterDominiciThis is a quote from a USA Today story about the Pope allowing priests to absolve abortions during the Year of Mercy:QuoteThavis said he would not be surprised if the edict stays in effect beyond the Holy Year. "If this is meant to demonstrate the church's mercy, it doesn't make much sense that it would have an expiration date," he said.
He, too, thinks that whatever the Pope is granting now will afterwards be the norm.
Bingo! Thank you for the quote. The only "mercy" on Francis' part is allowing +Fellay to secretly bring the unsuspecting sheep to the slaughter . They had to sign the 1989 PF in Argentina because that is non-negotiable, period! Since +Fellay does not have the honesty to admit it and the pope wants this agreement “con tenacia e pazienza” – “with tenacity and patience”, they are giving him the key to the secret path. The secret (doctrinal preamble) meeting must have been very successful for +Fellay. The district superiors must have signed it.Quote from: E.C. 424Readers, wait for it, take in advance a hint –
When the agreement comes, read the fine print! ... Brilliant these will be.
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.
Quote from: ascentSSPX 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.
Nothing about modern Rome should be taken seriously or even noted. If it is, it means a weakening of one's resolve to stay clear.
Quote from: LadislausQuote from: ascentSSPX 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.
:facepalm:
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?
How about just being calm and realistic?
Quote from: covet truthQuote from: LadislausI 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.
Quote from: ascentQuote from: LadislausQuote from: ascentSSPX 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.
:facepalm:
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.
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.
Quote from: ascentAgain, 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.
Quote from: LadislausQuote from: ascentAgain, 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. :laugh2: :laugh1: :roll-laugh1:
SSPX has always been valid and licit because they've always remained Catholic.
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.
Quote from: MatthewYes, 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.
Quote from: LadislausQuote from: MatthewYes, 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.
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".
I think we are missing something in this discussion. We haven't addressed what the reality of this whole mercy idea pertains to: of allowing priests to forgive sins heretofore only forgiven by a bishop or Rome.
In the N.O. there is very little "confession" as we know it. They have some kind of "reconciliation" service that forgives sins as a group without confession. Will these types of sins be included in such a service. I haven't seen anything written that requires a true confession of sin. This whole year of mercy idea just strikes me as a whitewash of the seriousness of sin and in particular the most serious sins that required a special absolution before now.
When a couple is openly courting each other, you can't leave the other party out of the equation, even if the man (or woman) decides to surprise the other with a gift or other token of affection. The affection is being fostered and nurtured by both sides over many months. Yes, it's technically true that she had no idea he was going to give her that beautiful necklace.
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.
Do these faculties apply only for the Jubilee year? I mean, do they go "poof" after the year is up?
As it was easy to predict, the enemies of the SSPX now have additional ammunition to argue that the SSPX priests did not have power to absolve sins up till now:Quote from: Fr ZuhlsdorfAlong with this, the fact of Pope Francis’ move, together with the wording, confirms what I have been saying all along about the priests of the SSPX: they do not and have not had the faculty validly to absolve sins! The fact that this is being granted for the Year of Mercy bears out what I have been saying.
Whether Francis means to abolish hell at his next synod is a matter for a separate thread. (Let's not get ahead of ourselves here.)
SSPX regulars won't bother much about this because they will still go to SSPX priests for confession before and after the "Year of Mercy" regardless. This announcement by Pope Francis, I reckon, will be more food for thought for those SSPX-hating indult/motu proprio folks. Those who fear going to SSPX priests for confession usually belongs to this group. Will they start flocking to Society chapels? I doubt so, but we shall see.
I disagree with your analysis, claudel.
Whether Francis means to abolish hell at his next synod is a matter for a separate thread.
Quote from: trentoSSPX regulars won't bother much about this because they will still go to SSPX priests for confession before and after the "Year of Mercy" regardless. This announcement by Pope Francis, I reckon, will be more food for thought for those SSPX-hating indult/motu proprio folks. Those who fear going to SSPX priests for confession usually belongs to this group. Will they start flocking to Society chapels? I doubt so, but we shall see.
It only takes a very few to stir the pot and cause dissension.
I remember hearing in one of his talks, Fr. John O'Connor said that typically, it only takes 2% of any group to stir the pot to turn the whole group into a mob. Perhaps that is one of the ulterior motives of this announcement - "Here SSPX, you need some NOers to mix in and start protesting having the priest's back to the people, and no vernacular and homo rights or no CITH or...."
Time will tell I guess.
I disagree with your analysis, claudel. You talk about "denotation" and the ability to read "actual words". But there are NO "actual words" which explicitly state: "SSPX's Confessions are not currently valid."
One can argue that it's strongly implied, but it's not denoted in any actual words.
And it's not true that the Vatican had heretofore granted the validity of all the Sacraments administered by SSPX priests while focusing on liceity. In the case of those Sacraments that require jurisdiction, liceity and validity are closely related.
Nor did Francis merely "recognize" the faculties; he explicitly granted them.
Quote from: claudelWhether Francis means to abolish hell at his next synod is a matter for a separate thread.
According to the Conciliar Church hell does exist but only traditional Catholics go there.
What I cannot believe is that those Priests who Ministered to us for so many years, are so silent at being offered a cloak of respectability, that they believed they never needed.. and we believed them too....
Quote from: ArvingerAs it was easy to predict, the enemies of the SSPX now have additional ammunition to argue that the SSPX priests did not have power to absolve sins up till now:Quote from: Fr ZuhlsdorfAlong with this, the fact of Pope Francis’ move, together with the wording, confirms what I have been saying all along about the priests of the SSPX: they do not and have not had the faculty validly to absolve sins! The fact that this is being granted for the Year of Mercy bears out what I have been saying.
This is a highly interesting comment, and it merits examination rather than (or, at least, along with) the sneers it's gotten in abundance. Of course, no one hereabouts is so deluded as to think that Father Zorro is a Trad or even a friend of Tradition. He shouldn't, however, be taken for an utter fool.
First and foremost, his comments demonstrate that he can read actual words—and that is a skill that I wish lay thicker on the ground here at CathInfo. Applying the principle that "exceptio probat regulam de rebus non exceptis" (this being the full form of "the [presence of an] exception proves the [existence of a] rule [concerning matters not excepted]"), he correctly states the fundamental implication of the words in the letter: Pope Francis (as head of the institutional church, whether he admits to being its head or not) denies both the validity and liceity of the confessions that priests of the SSPX hear.
As long as the Society [of Saint Pius X] does not have a canonical status in the Church, its ministers do not exercise legitimate ministries in the Church (…). Until the doctrinal questions are clarified, the Society has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers (…) do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church.
Surely Zorro is correct in regarding this as a big deal. Before this letter was issued, the papal and Vatican line had, for forty years and more, focused solely on liceity, thus implicitly granting what was obvious to any and every Catholic: validly ordained priests administer valid sacraments, like it or not.* After all, genuinely grave absence of liceity is enough to send a witting offender to hell, so why bluff when you're holding an aces-high full house?
Quote from: claudel
Whether Francis means to abolish hell at his next synod is a matter for a separate thread.
(Let's not get ahead of ourselves here.)
I didn't know abolishing Hell was even on the chopping block. We'll have to wait and see what comes out of the October synod first. Hell may eventually be abolished in the novus ordo through mere omission. Just stop mentioning it. That's been going on for decades.
What Claudel said in his post has introduced a different light on Pope Francis' actions. By issuing this statement, is Pope Francis actually taking the offensive against the SSPX and Tradition? In the first years of his pontificate, he usually just sneeringly referred to people "behind the times" but now has stated that for his year of mercy, he will allow the SSPX priests to validly absolve sins. This has an expiration date because the year of mercy has an expiration date.
What next?
What will follow?
Who here at CathInfo was surprised by Pope Francis' actions?
Quote from: Benedict XVIAs long as the Society [of Saint Pius X] does not have a canonical status in the Church, its ministers do not exercise legitimate ministries in the Church (…). Until the doctrinal questions are clarified, the Society has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers (…) do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church.
The sacraments of confession and marriage are different from the others in that they depend on the binding and loosing power of the Church. While the bestowal of holy orders, or the celebration of mass, can be valid but illicit, an illicit confession is ipso facto invalid. So you see, illiceity and therefore invalidity of SSPX confessions is and has ever been the Conciliar position. Which makes Ladislaus' hedging about denotations versus implications look ridiculous.
Quote from: LadislausAnother 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".
Yes, as someone (you?) pointed out, he referred to the SSPX adherents as "the faithful". You don't call non-Catholic congregations by that name.
Again, this is part of a very seductive carrot, or bait for a trap. You can see the two sides coming together. And that is not a good thing. Rome is about as far from converted as you can get.
Say I had a bunch of worldly co-workers -- who I was normally not close to -- but at a certain point I realized that I had been hanging out with them all the time and totally accepted by them. Wouldn't that be disturbing? Especially if they hadn't changed at all. If I ever found myself in such a situation, I think I'd slap myself and go on a 1-week retreat to see what's happened to me, or at least what happened to my Catholicism.
Quote from: claudelWhether Francis means to abolish hell at his next synod is a matter for a separate thread.
According to the Conciliar Church hell does exist but only traditional Catholics go there.
I'm not too quick today. I read this the first time and said, "What in the world could 'CITH' mean?" So I went away and came back later and read it again and just when I was about to consult a search engine, I thought, "How would you abbreviate Communion in the Hand? CH or CITH?" HAHAHAHAHA
Neil, please behave yourself. I don't believe SSPX confessions to be illicit or invalid. I was explaining the Conciliar position, which was misunderstood by others. This is perfectly clear from my post, and additionally so from the most passing acquaintance with my posting history.
From a SSPX er...
Thank-you for forwarding this news. The news article follows my comment, so you might want to skip down and read it first.
Francis has announced that, during the upcoming Jubilee year, any priest, anywhere, may forgive a woman the sin of abortion. He specifically stated that this is limited, for one year, and is to allow access to the Mercy of Almighty God to persons who most likely never knew Our Lord's mercy was available to them.
Along with this, and other, Jubilee Year "gifts", Francis is permitting the priests of the SSPX to give a valid and licit absolution of the sins of the faithful. Obviously, this means that confessions heard by SSPX priests outside of this one-year window, are neither valid nor licit, according to the established Catholic Church. And, by their response, we see that the SSPX agrees with this belief, and states so by "expressing its gratitude to the Sovereign pontiff for this fatherly gesture.." ( of course, they also mumble something about having relied on Canon Law to dispense sacraments when they had no authority..)
Cardinal Mueller has stated, over and over, that the SSPX priests have "no function within the Catholic Church;" many cardinals and Bishops, including most of the European ones, have stated on numerous occasions that the SSPX must accept the Vatican Council and all its teachings in order to be re-integrated into the Catholic Church; Ratzinger, before he abandoned his post, stated that the SSPX must accept all the declarations of the Vatican Council, and the popes and their teachings since the Council, in order to be welcomed back into the Church.
In this news release, though, we learn that Francis expects the SSPX to be reintegrated into the new church, and this is , therefore, simply a step. Nothing, in Rome, is done by accident. Lord Acton used to say, when it comes to world politics, nothing is done by accident. This whole game is staged. The actors on the stage are (or were) Hoyos, Wojytola, Ratzinger, Mueller, Francis (Jorge),Schmidberger, Fellay, Krah, Lorans, Rostand, and all their accompanying "yes-men." All of these individuals know there will be a reintegration; the only discussion is "on what terms and what is the best timing."
You see, Francis is many, many things. But with respect to running the Church of the One World Government, he is certainly not stupid. He knows that his one-world government masters are the very same ones who murdered, in cold blood, thousands, and millions, of Catholic priests and faithful; he knows that his "One World" friends raped and brutally killed thousands, and millions of faithful Catholic nuns, sisters, moms, and daughters. Francis knows this. Ratzinger Knows this. Wojytola and Paul VI were part of this; Krah is a part of this; Schmidberger, Lorans and their cohorts know this; and Fellay knows this. Fellay admitted, in 1993, that the Vatican was under the control of four or five Lodges of masonry "operating within the Vatican." They all know that these haters of Jesus Christ have wrought the destruction of the Catholic Church.
But, Francis has been advised that Fellay and company have sold out; that they have abandoned the principles of their founder, and that they are willing to do almost anything to get back into the main church. To prove this, they kicked out their own bishop who was a thorn in the side of the One-World Religionists; they kicked out hundreds of their own priests who insisted on adhering to the Archbishop's stance ; they have abandoned thousands of their own faithful who refuse to go along with protestant Rome; and they have changed their doctrinal stance and insistence of Catholic integrity. So, Fellay and Co. have proven their treasonous mettle; they have given the required evidence that they are turncoats. Now the game is to stage the play so the great majority of faithful are duped; allowing Rome to swallow up the SSPX whole with all the resources and people-- and in the meantime hammering that final nail into the coffin of the "most dangerous Bishop in the whole world" (this is the charge they leveled at Archbishop Lefebvre because he insisted in staying Roman Catholic).
Look closely at the SSPX' official response: "The Society of St. Pius X expresses its gratitude to the Sovereign Pontiff for this fatherly gesture."
How in the world can any organization, any group of people, any faithful Roman Catholic, and most especially the SSPX, even dare to play cat and mouse, to negotiate and set the terms of surrender, to question and cajole, to challenge, oppose, and disobey, He whom they themselves profess to be their Sovereign? Is it possible to have a nuttier show going on? A group of people claim Francis is the Vicar of Jesus Christ on earth, head of the One, Catholic, Apostolic Church, and they dare to challenge Him and ignore His orders? Are they for real?
Rather, what has really happened, is the SSPX has already capitulated, but has been given time to "con the masses"; after which time there will be a "formal re-entry"-- or, as Francis puts it "solutions will be found in the near future." So, of course, during this Jubilee year, SSPX priests will be able to offer licit and valid absolutions. The only ones who are excited about this are the ones who don't realize that Judas has already received his pay; he's just waiting for the right moment to give the victim to the enemy.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MERCY
Quote from: StubbornQuote from: trentoSSPX regulars won't bother much about this because they will still go to SSPX priests for confession before and after the "Year of Mercy" regardless. This announcement by Pope Francis, I reckon, will be more food for thought for those SSPX-hating indult/motu proprio folks. Those who fear going to SSPX priests for confession usually belongs to this group. Will they start flocking to Society chapels? I doubt so, but we shall see.
It only takes a very few to stir the pot and cause dissension.
I remember hearing in one of his talks, Fr. John O'Connor said that typically, it only takes 2% of any group to stir the pot to turn the whole group into a mob. Perhaps that is one of the ulterior motives of this announcement - "Here SSPX, you need some NOers to mix in and start protesting having the priest's back to the people, and no vernacular and homo rights or no CITH or...."
Time will tell I guess.
I'm not too quick today. I read this the first time and said, "What in the world could 'CITH' mean?" So I went away and came back later and read it again and just when I was about to consult a search engine, I thought, "How would you abbreviate Communion in the Hand? CH or CITH?" HAHAHAHAHA
You're right on target, Stubborn: 2% makes a mob, protesting N.O.-ers, throw in a few LGBT activists, CITH.
Whatever. Who knows what will spring up!?
When the revolutionaries destroyed the TLM, they didn't have to come up with all the details for the replacement ceremonies. All they had to do was allow for innovations under the umbrella "Options." In the worst case, for how a bishop should incense the altar at a particular part of one ceremony, whenever a bishop wrote to Rome asking for clarification Rome's reply was DEFINITIVE of their method. They said that it makes no difference what moves are made and what words are spoken while doing this incense ceremony -- just be sure you do NOT follow the same rubrics that you have used in the past.
.
2. But here again, you Resistance folk openly contradict yourselves at every turn. Bishop Williamson himself said that if the Holy Father were to offer him and Resistance priests a unilateral recognition, His Excellency would "be on the next plane to Rome, I'd be on the next plane to Rome!" The posters here, including Graham and others who critiqued this statement, surely remember this.
So what now? Has even that changed? We are going to refuse even a unilateral regularization from the Pope?
*SNIP*
Nishant and Ladislaus can rejoice in the coming union of the SSPX and Rome when the past 40 years of resistance will become a footnote in the history books and the name of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre will be erased altogether. Altogether now: "Mea culpa, Mea culpa, Mea maxima culpa!"
Quote from: covet truthNishant and Ladislaus can rejoice in the coming union of the SSPX and Rome when the past 40 years of resistance will become a footnote in the history books and the name of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre will be erased altogether. Altogether now: "Mea culpa, Mea culpa, Mea maxima culpa!"
Sedevacantist here, but Amen.
You would think by some of the posts here that Francis actually did something praiseworthy. Like denounce false ecuмenism or religious liberty. You know, the real reasons any so-called Trad is fighting any of these fights.
All of this mixup and confusion comes from conflating the Catholic Church with the conciliar church. The false belief that something Catholic can be non-Catholic at the same time. As Neil quoted somewhere, this kind of thought quickly leads to the end of sound thinking and ruin.
Nishant and Ladislaus can rejoice ...
Quote from: J.PaulAll of this mixup and confusion comes from conflating the Catholic Church with the conciliar church. The false belief that something Catholic can be non-Catholic at the same time. As Neil quoted somewhere, this kind of thought quickly leads to the end of sound thinking and ruin.
But isn't that the R&R view as well as the SSPX view?
Quote from: covet truthNishant and Ladislaus can rejoice ...
:cheers:
Ladislaus can rejoice in the coming union of the SSPX and Rome when the past 40 years of resistance will become a footnote in the history books and the name of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre will be erased altogether. Altogether now: "Mea culpa, Mea culpa, Mea maxima culpa!"
Quote from: covet truthLadislaus can rejoice in the coming union of the SSPX and Rome when the past 40 years of resistance will become a footnote in the history books and the name of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre will be erased altogether. Altogether now: "Mea culpa, Mea culpa, Mea maxima culpa!"
Well, what do you expect from a guy, Ladislaus, who expressed the biggest logical fallacy in CathInfo history when stating, “God is not a Catholic God”, :facepalm: while saying, “Only Catholics can be saved”. How can the heresy of the former be reconciled with the truth of the latter? It can’t…
Quote from: 2VermontQuote from: J.PaulAll of this mixup and confusion comes from conflating the Catholic Church with the conciliar church. The false belief that something Catholic can be non-Catholic at the same time. As Neil quoted somewhere, this kind of thought quickly leads to the end of sound thinking and ruin.
But isn't that the R&R view as well as the SSPX view?
Yes
On countless occasions, in sermons and addresses, in docuмents and books, and in conversation, Archbishop Lefebvre distinguished the
Conciliar Church from the Catholic Church.
Quote from: J.PaulQuote from: 2VermontQuote from: J.PaulAll of this mixup and confusion comes from conflating the Catholic Church with the conciliar church. The false belief that something Catholic can be non-Catholic at the same time. As Neil quoted somewhere, this kind of thought quickly leads to the end of sound thinking and ruin.
But isn't that the R&R view as well as the SSPX view?
Yes
No, it absolutely is not. What can be said is that, due to R&R's sedeplenism, there is a tension in the distinction between Conciliar and Catholic - but the distinction certainly is integral to the "classic" R&R position. Read, learn:Quote from: John LaneOn countless occasions, in sermons and addresses, in docuмents and books, and in conversation, Archbishop Lefebvre distinguished the
Conciliar Church from the Catholic Church.
http://strobertbellarmine.net/Archbishop_Lefebvre_and_the_Conciliar_Church.pdf
The Neo-SSPX, however, Bp. Fellay and Fr. Pfluger in their sermons and conferences, have sought to blur this distinction.
Quote from: J.PaulQuote from: 2VermontQuote from: J.PaulAll of this mixup and confusion comes from conflating the Catholic Church with the conciliar church. The false belief that something Catholic can be non-Catholic at the same time. As Neil quoted somewhere, this kind of thought quickly leads to the end of sound thinking and ruin.
But isn't that the R&R view as well as the SSPX view?
Yes
No, it absolutely is not. What can be said is that, due to R&R's sedeplenism, there is a tension in the distinction between Conciliar and Catholic - but the distinction certainly is integral to the "classic" R&R position. Read, learn:Quote from: John LaneOn countless occasions, in sermons and addresses, in docuмents and books, and in conversation, Archbishop Lefebvre distinguished the
Conciliar Church from the Catholic Church.
http://strobertbellarmine.net/Archbishop_Lefebvre_and_the_Conciliar_Church.pdf
The Neo-SSPX, however, Bp. Fellay and Fr. Pfluger in their sermons and conferences, have sought to blur this distinction.
2. But here again, you Resistance folk openly contradict yourselves at every turn. Bishop Williamson himself said that if the Holy Father were to offer him and Resistance priests a unilateral recognition, His Excellency would "be on the next plane to Rome, I'd be on the next plane to Rome!" The posters here, including Graham and others who critiqued this statement, surely remember this.
Bishop Williamson must be speaking of founding a society. He will not do that without authorization by Rome, and since he will not seek or receive such authorization, he says "get used to" the idea of a loose cooperation under his moral authority.
A few posters, attempting to defend Bp. Williamson's ill-framed remarks, seem to have inadvertently stated that a practical agreement sans doctrinal resolution is actually acceptable, contrary to everything the Resistance has been saying for 2+years. Another has reaffirmed the myth that traditionalists are in an "irregular" position in relation to Modernist Rome. We must reject these notions.
Quote from: NishantI listened to a bit of a sermon, and it is excellent, but I don't think it is consistent with what many Resistance priests have maintained in the course of the earlier back and forth polemics with the Society. His Excellency +Williamson states precisely what the SSPX is stating today, and has always stated, - that if a regularized structure without compromise is possible, it can be accepted for the good of the Church.
Fr. Hewko was cited earlier in this thread and Fr. Chazal likewise said, "Since that fateful month of may 2012 my specific intent has always remained the same : “That the SSPX and the New Rome remain separate until Rome converts”. http://www.therecusant.com/fr-chazal-war-aims A brief Google search shows Fr. Pfeiffer among others who have expressed themselves in a similar way. Just recently, there was an article by the Dominicans of Avrille posted here against His Excellency +Fellay considering even a simple ad-hoc "recognition of tolerance". So how does one maintain that such a hypothetical Roman proposal should absolutely be refused, while thinking a hypothetical Roman proposal for a structure for the Resistance would be a good and acceptable thing?
I maintain that +Williamson is employing an exaggerated rhetorical device to explain his view that ordinary jurisdiction is required to found a religious order. I don't believe he is making a real position statement about his willingness to deal with modernist Rome, since that would contradict especially the last 2+ years of his life in the resistance, and of his teaching before that. Remember that actions speak louder than words.
So what now? Has even that changed? We are going to refuse even a unilateral regularization from the Pope? Incredible. Unheard of. Based on what exactly in Tradition? Is it the dogma that says one must live outside the communion of the Roman Church and Her Sovereign Pontiff in order to please God and find salvation? Anybody who disagrees that the refusal of a unilateral recognition of a society by Rome is ridiculous show me anything - a Pope, a Saint, a Doctor - saying Catholic societies can be indifferent to the will of Rome and the Pope.
1. God bless the Holy Father for this truly paternal gesture. It should be noted at this point that Rome has long recognized tacitly the validity of confessions made by SSPX priests, Bishop Fellay said some years ago, "SSPX priests who confront these cases in the confessional [excommunication in cases ordinarily reserved to the Pope] absolve the penitent from the sin, and from the excommunication. According to Church policy, the priest must then send the case to Rome to be examined, and the excommunication formally lifted. Bishop Fellay says, “Every time – absolutely every time – we have received an answer from Rome that the priest who took care of this confession did well, that it was perfectly in order, and it was both licit and valid.” Rome would then comment on the penance, whether it was sufficient or not enough."
This was reported by CFN, Bishop Fellay gave several other proofs of the same at the time. So, in principle, this is not something entirely new, although it obviously reflects the increasingly evident fact that the Society is clearly regarded as integrally Catholic by the Roman authorities.
2. But here again, you Resistance folk openly contradict yourselves at every turn. Bishop Williamson himself said that if the Holy Father were to offer him and Resistance priests a unilateral recognition, His Excellency would "be on the next plane to Rome, I'd be on the next plane to Rome!" The posters here, including Graham and others who critiqued this statement, surely remember this.
So what now? Has even that changed? We are going to refuse even a unilateral regularization from the Pope? Incredible. Unheard of. Based on what exactly in Tradition? Is it the dogma that says one must live outside the communion of the Roman Church and Her Sovereign Pontiff in order to please God and find salvation? Anybody who disagrees that the refusal of a unilateral recognition of a society by Rome is ridiculous show me anything - a Pope, a Saint, a Doctor - saying Catholic societies can be indifferent to the will of Rome and the Pope.
3. A final word on delegated or supplied jurisdiction. Supplied jurisdiction is a delegatio a iure, a delegation operative by the law itself. In a similar manner to how a Pope may send an Apostolic delegate granting him faculties to absolve only in certain specific cases, the law itself, by the tacit consent of the lawgiver, automatically delegates the said power to priests in certain extraordinary circuмstances, most notably the danger of death of the penitent.
Here is Fr. Miaskiewickz explain that even supplied jurisdiction depends on the Pope, "Supplied jurisdiction, then, is a jurisdiction, be it ordinary or delegated, which is bestowed in an extraordinary manner, without any formality, even perchance to people who are unfit and unworthy ... the Supreme Pontiff, from whom all jurisdiction emanates and from whom all common law has its origin, supplies the necessary jurisdiction." Supplied or automatically delegated jurisdiction is not independent of the will of the Sovereign Pontiff, the supreme lawgiver, on the contrary, it depends on at least his tacit consent.
Whether we like it or not, Christ our Lord founded the Church in such a way that all authority, or jurisdiction, "rolls downward" from the Pope, to the bishops appointed by him, the priests sent by him, the faithful governed by them in communion with him. All authority comes from Rome in the Catholic Church. Period.
Have at it, folks. :popcorn:
"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."
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2015/09/urgent-pope-francis-grants-absolution.html
I, for one, am hoping that Bp. Williamson will provide his thoughts on this issue. I trust that his analysis will be well-thought-out, and will put the situation into a proper Catholic perspective.
Quote from: obediensHave at it, folks. :popcorn:
"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."
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2015/09/urgent-pope-francis-grants-absolution.html
So that the SSPX would not criticize his Motu Proprio on the Annulment of Marriage, which was to follow this supposed act of mercy of his, just a few days later. His strategy has obviously worked!
Quote from: AJNCSo that the SSPX would not criticize his Motu Proprio on the Annulment of Marriage, which was to follow this supposed act of mercy of his, just a few days later. His strategy has obviously worked!
That's a good point. I haven't heard anything from the SSPX about this annulment reform. I've actually heard more from Novus Ordites.
Edit: Actually, I just did a google "SSPX Francis annulment" and it brought up an article from the SSPX but I was denied access to the page. Verrrrrrry interesting. What *is* going on?
I thought, perhaps, this might have simply been an individual problem with your computer or connection so I did the same thing. When I click on the link:
http://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/get-your-annulment-quick-10576
The page that comes up says: Access denied. You are not authorized to access this page.
SSPX.org has never been a subscription only website. Evidently, someone posted a commentary but someone else said, "Wait a minute here! We can't publish that!" And the webpage was removed from public access though, interestingly, it was not simply deleted. Something is indeed queer.
Quote from: 2VermontQuote from: AJNCSo that the SSPX would not criticize his Motu Proprio on the Annulment of Marriage, which was to follow this supposed act of mercy of his, just a few days later. His strategy has obviously worked!
That's a good point. I haven't heard anything from the SSPX about this annulment reform. I've actually heard more from Novus Ordites.
Edit: Actually, I just did a google "SSPX Francis annulment" and it brought up an article from the SSPX but I was denied access to the page. Verrrrrrry interesting. What *is* going on?
I thought, perhaps, this might have simply been an individual problem with your computer or connection so I did the same thing. When I click on the link:
http://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/get-your-annulment-quick-10576
The page that comes up says: Access denied. You are not authorized to access this page.
SSPX.org has never been a subscription only website. Evidently, someone posted a commentary but someone else said, "Wait a minute here! We can't publish that!" And the webpage was removed from public access though, interestingly, it was not simply deleted. Something is indeed queer.
Quote from: TKGS
I thought, perhaps, this might have simply been an individual problem with your computer or connection so I did the same thing. When I click on the link:
http://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/get-your-annulment-quick-10576
The page that comes up says: Access denied. You are not authorized to access this page.
SSPX.org has never been a subscription only website. Evidently, someone posted a commentary but someone else said, "Wait a minute here! We can't publish that!" And the webpage was removed from public access though, interestingly, it was not simply deleted. Something is indeed queer.
That page name (get your annulment quick) makes it sound like an article that was negative towards the annulment process in the church. Maybe it was taken down in an effort to reduce criticism towards the powers that be?
As an aside, lots of website admins unpublish pages rather than delete them. Heck, CathInfo even does that. For example, this topic (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Where-are-these-priests-today) was unpublished by Matthew rather than being deleted, for whatever reasons he might have had. I don't think it's always nefarious to do so.
Quote from: complineQuote from: TKGS
I thought, perhaps, this might have simply been an individual problem with your computer or connection so I did the same thing. When I click on the link:
http://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/get-your-annulment-quick-10576
The page that comes up says: Access denied. You are not authorized to access this page.
SSPX.org has never been a subscription only website. Evidently, someone posted a commentary but someone else said, "Wait a minute here! We can't publish that!" And the webpage was removed from public access though, interestingly, it was not simply deleted. Something is indeed queer.
That page name (get your annulment quick) makes it sound like an article that was negative towards the annulment process in the church. Maybe it was taken down in an effort to reduce criticism towards the powers that be?
As an aside, lots of website admins unpublish pages rather than delete them. Heck, CathInfo even does that. For example, this topic (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Where-are-these-priests-today) was unpublished by Matthew rather than being deleted, for whatever reasons he might have had. I don't think it's always nefarious to do so.
Except one can not find any response by SSPX about Francis' annulments. Do you really believe that there isn't some nefarious reason?
We will soon be offering a more in-depth commentary on the problems with Mitis Judex Dominus Jesus.
OK, so we shall see. I'm guessing it will be a fairly tempered criticism.
Quote from: 2VermontWe will soon be offering a more in-depth commentary on the problems with Mitis Judex Dominus Jesus.
OK, so we shall see. I'm guessing it will be a fairly tempered criticism.
Here it is: Has Catholic Divorce Arrived? (http://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/has-catholic-divorce-arrived)
SSPX.ORG is grateful to the Rorate Caeli blog for allowing us to republish their English version of Prof. Roberto de Mattei's piece about Pope Francis' motu proprio on the streamlined annulment process.
This infuriates me because the SSPX cannot seem to come up with their own commentary on this debacle. Instead they are "grateful" to rely on Rorate Caeli which is an Ecclesia Dei website for an article written by Dr. Mattei whose only objection to Vatican II is that it has been "misinterpreted". I'm not saying that Dr. Mattei doesn't write some good articles because he does but isn't this just another tactic of the SSPX to present a Novus Ordo website in a positive light to the unsuspecting laity?
Quote from: JPMQuote from: 2VermontWe will soon be offering a more in-depth commentary on the problems with Mitis Judex Dominus Jesus.
OK, so we shall see. I'm guessing it will be a fairly tempered criticism.
Here it is: Has Catholic Divorce Arrived? (http://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/has-catholic-divorce-arrived)
SSPX.ORG is grateful to the Rorate Caeli blog for allowing us to republish their English version of Prof. Roberto de Mattei's piece about Pope Francis' motu proprio on the streamlined annulment process.
This infuriates me because the SSPX cannot seem to come up with their own commentary on this debacle. Instead they are "grateful" to rely on Rorate Caeli which is an Ecclesia Dei website for an article written by Dr. Mattei whose only objection to Vatican II is that it has been "misinterpreted". I'm not saying that Dr. Mattei doesn't write some good articles because he does but isn't this just another tactic of the SSPX to present a Novus Ordo website in a positive light to the unsuspecting laity?
Quote from: covet truthQuote from: JPMQuote from: 2VermontWe will soon be offering a more in-depth commentary on the problems with Mitis Judex Dominus Jesus.
OK, so we shall see. I'm guessing it will be a fairly tempered criticism.
Here it is: Has Catholic Divorce Arrived? (http://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/has-catholic-divorce-arrived)
SSPX.ORG is grateful to the Rorate Caeli blog for allowing us to republish their English version of Prof. Roberto de Mattei's piece about Pope Francis' motu proprio on the streamlined annulment process.
This infuriates me because the SSPX cannot seem to come up with their own commentary on this debacle. Instead they are "grateful" to rely on Rorate Caeli which is an Ecclesia Dei website for an article written by Dr. Mattei whose only objection to Vatican II is that it has been "misinterpreted". I'm not saying that Dr. Mattei doesn't write some good articles because he does but isn't this just another tactic of the SSPX to present a Novus Ordo website in a positive light to the unsuspecting laity?
(1) Guess the SSPX never did offer an in-depth commentary (at least not their own).
(2) Seems the SSPX knows exactly who they are lining up with these days. We just see more and more evidence that the SPPX will capitulate and "reconcile" with the Frauds.