Quote from: hugeman

Quote from: Frances

the SSPX chapel in NY sermon was about sacrament of confession

Just Curious--

    As the priest was giving a sermon on the sacrament of Confession, did he explain to the faithful that SSPX priests have no
faculties to hear confessions of the faithful, and are unable to provide
absolution to the faithful, any longer?

    When the SSPX saw the crisis in the Catholic Church as an emergency, church law provided the necessary faculties (Supplied Jurisdiction) for the priests. However, with the SSPX now  officially accepting the entire Vatican Council, now accepting all the teachings of the Vatican II popes, and accepting all the new sacraments, there is, for the Neo-SSPX, no longer an emergency.

This reminds me of an interview I recently heard recorded with John Vennari
and a few others.  The interviewer asked an open question abut SUPPLIED
JURISDICTION and not one of the 4 being interviewed, INCLUDING John
Vennari, had a WORD to say.  They were all mute as a bedpost.  So the
interviewer had to move on to the next topic!  So much for that!

Quote

   Now, they must submit themselves to the disciplinary decisions of the magisterium, and obey the directives of the Congregation for the Faith. Arbp. Mueller says the SSPX bishops should submit themselves to a monastery to do reparation; he stated they "have no function in the Church."

Quote

   Interestingly, the rector of the SSPX's U.S. seminary in Winona even stated last June, just after Bp. Fellay swore his allegiance to Benedict and promised his acceptance of the Vatican II docuмents, that "the SSPX priests get their mission from the local (Novus Ordo) bishops!"

While real traditionalists don't buy Fellay's pandering to Rome, his oaths of submission to Rome preclude a state of  emergency, and, therefore, eliminate the ability of SSPX priests to assume the Church's authorization for their use of the priestly office without mandate.

See: Save Our Sspx!

Quote

Is Pope Francis an Enemy of the Faith

If he is a modernist, then he is an enemy of the faith, and the most dangerous of all the enemies in the history of the Church, for modernism is the cesspool of all heresies, the slyest mix of all the heresies ever.

It is that simple, were and are Pope Paul VI, JPII, B-16, and now Francis, modernists? Anyone that says not, is blind.

Remember, that rat poison is 99% nutritious grain, and it is only the 1% that kills you. The modernist will teach orthodoxy out of one side and soul killing heresy out of the other.

I thought this posting from another thread was worthy of its own. I cropped it some to simplify it.

Has the Neo-SSPX Lost Its Supplied Jurisdiction?

Quote from: Neil Obstat

Quote from: hugeman

Quote from: Frances

the SSPX chapel in NY sermon was about sacrament of confession

Just Curious--

    As the priest was giving a sermon on the sacrament of Confession, did he explain to the faithful that SSPX priests have no
faculties to hear confessions of the faithful, and are unable to provide
absolution to the faithful, any longer?

    When the SSPX saw the crisis in the Catholic Church as an emergency, church law provided the necessary faculties (Supplied Jurisdiction) for the priests. However, with the SSPX now  officially accepting the entire Vatican Council, now accepting all the teachings of the Vatican II popes, and accepting all the new sacraments, there is, for the Neo-SSPX, no longer an emergency.[/b]

This reminds me of an interview I recently heard recorded with John Vennari
and a few others.  The interviewer asked an open question abut SUPPLIED
JURISDICTION and not one of the 4 being interviewed, INCLUDING John
Vennari, had a WORD to say.  They were all mute as a bedpost.  So the
interviewer had to move on to the next topic!  So much for that!

Quote

   Now, they must submit themselves to the disciplinary decisions of the magisterium, and obey the directives of the Congregation for the Faith. Arbp. Mueller says the SSPX bishops should submit themselves to a monastery to do reparation; he stated they "have no function in the Church."

Quote

   Interestingly, the rector of the SSPX's U.S. seminary in Winona even stated last June, just after Bp. Fellay swore his allegiance to Benedict and promised his acceptance of the Vatican II docuмents, that "the SSPX priests get their mission from the local (Novus Ordo) bishops!"

While real traditionalists don't buy Fellay's pandering to Rome, his oaths of submission to Rome preclude a state of  emergency, and, therefore, eliminate the ability of SSPX priests to assume the Church's authorization for their use of the priestly office without mandate.

See: Save Our Sspx!

In these recordings of Fr. Rostand’s Post falls conference, there is a lot of revealing things to write about. However, there is a crucial question that was being asked here about being obliged to following the highest Law in the church –the state of emergency and the Supplied Jurisdiction (at 52:05), and followed up on by another person (at 58:50). YouTube link - SSPX District Superior "Deal with Rome is Prudent" Pt 2:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVn_y10bCo4&feature=youtu.be

This is a serious question that I think should be brought out to light some more.  This question on the state of emergency, and the fulfillment of the Church Law of Supplied Jurisdiction is really the main argument, the central argument, of the whole SSPX-ROME “practical agreement” issue.  It is the major difference between us (the old SSPX) and FSSP, Campos, and the others.  That is, we are safe from this conciliar apostasy by being safeguarded by the Cannon Law- supplied jurisdiction and they are not!

As much as Fr. Rostand did not answer the question, and those two people were laboring to stay on track, Fr. Rostand instead kept re-directing it into something else –prudence.

Listen to the exchange again at those marks.  It is very telling…an insight that is really a 180 degree different position of wanting to go into a conciliar Rome accord, coming from the U.S. District superior himself, than what used to be held in the “old” SSPX.

For those who do not understand this crucial problem and crises of the SSPX (past and present), about the state of emergency- supplied jurisdiction, there are many articles written of this that you can do a search.  (If anyone has a good link please drop it in.  But let’s stay on this subject; it is important)

In brief, the state of emergency for a Catholic must be an objective hindrance, obstacle, eclipse, etc.  of the normal means to receive the grace and sacraments from the Church.  From this state of emergency there becomes a “state of need”- the church in her wisdom –God’s will- supplies for this need in Her Cannon Law.  In fact, it is the highest of all Church Law, for the salvation of souls, the Church gives a “supplied Jurisdiction” to overcome this obstacle to the priests, bishops, and the faithful for this emergency to allow you, or a priest, bishop etc., to receive and give the sacraments based on that need.  This is what has been taught (mind you I wrote in brief) from the Society’s pulpits and conferences for years, especially since the 1988 consecrations of the 4-bishops.

So let’s continue what this Cannon Law really means to every baptized soul and priest in this real state of emergency that exists since the errors and consequences of Vatican II, and why it is a matter of principle and not of prudence that Fr. Rostand wishes us to believe.

In a normal situation, the fact that anyone received the sacraments from a SSPX priest today, or yesterday, or tomorrow, including the SSPX priests and bishops administering them, is in open and direct “disobedience” to the local bishop in his jurisdiction of dioceses, and in open and direct “disobedience” to the Pope.  Period!  Ah…but a response immediately follows -it is not a normal situation, a state of emergency and supplied jurisdiction (…) -you are absolutely correct!  So then in following the higher Law of the Church, the Law of God, in this “apparent disobedience” it is done out of principle first, it is objective, for the greater good , then it is prudent to decide to follow it –correct!  First the Wisdom of Principle, then the act of prudence.  Not the other way around!

So what does that mean in this present “practical-agreement” SSPX -crises?  Everything!

Fr. Rostand in this audio recording (7:04) acknowledged and agreed that Rome is still apostate =state of emergency.  -Correct.

Fr. Rostand in this audio recording (36:35)acknowledged and agreed that the state of emergency and state of necessity is objective and still remains even if the SSPX signs a practical agreement.  -Correct.

Fr. Rostand in this audio recording (37:00) said that this practical agreement has nothing to do with a Canonical matter (which contradicts Fr. Pfluger’s interpretation in his “We are back to square one” interview -Dici Oct. 16, 2012).

Fr. Rostand in this audio recording (52:05) in answering the question, about if the universal supplied jurisdiction of the Church Law would be hindered, from now needing permission from a conciliar bishop to open a chapel in his diocese (in one of the 6-conditions), Fr. Rostand actually affirmed, after stuttering,: “That yes it would definitely affect our growth”.  What is “growth” Fr. Rostand, if it isn’t souls coming in state of need to receive the sacraments?  And you play with this divine commission and obligation to then say: “And it would be for us a question once again of prudence…”.  No Fr. Rostand, it is not a matter of what you will decide to do with the objective Cannon Law, are you going to obey it as Archbishop Lefebvre had?  It is a matter of principle to follow the Law of the Church-especially for the salvation of souls!  If it would definitely affect the growth of souls as you said it would, is that “prudent” in your stewardship to play with these loss of souls?

So, what is the “practical agreement” for if there is still a state of emergency?

The SSPX leader’s stated premise to sign a practical agreement is in the General Chapters 6-conditions (Read them.  They are eye opening.), which are very superficial and pragmatic to the real crises we are undergoing of the Faith; and at (30:36) Fr. Rostand’s back peddling wishes us to believe that the agreement is to be what the SSPX always does… and speak out… like modernist Rome will take them in with loving ecuмenical arms and will not “touch” them –such was the fantasy of the other groups who said the same thing (…).

So now the problem.  With the above being true, that when the SSPX signs a “practical/legal” agreement with conciliar Rome, the SSPX “loses for itself”, and all of the faithful under them, the protection of the Cannon Law of “universal” supplied jurisdiction -Regardless of the set-up of agreement.  So, when the SSPX signs a “practical agreement” with conciliar Rome, you cannot say that the SSPX has “supplied jurisdiction” anymore when in fact, it doesn’t?  By a stroke of a pen, the SSPX is now legally absorbed in the conciliar structure.  Like Campos and the others that have been effectively shut down and compromised = modernist’s win.  That’s what conciliar Rome really wants!  Go play chess.  Sometimes for a strategy, you can give something up –so then you can come back to “check-mate” your opponent.

Question?  Has anyone ever heard from those groups using the platform of “supplied jurisdiction” anymore?  No!  Because by signing a practical agreement they willfully went into the (new)conciliar structure and implicitly/explicitly gave consent to a “legal normalcy” for themselves under a false premise and left behind the highest law of the church –the salvation of souls!  The NSSPX will no longer be able to go “outside” of their “new legal jurisdiction”.

Here is the depth of this.  This Cannon Law of State of Necessity-supplied jurisdiction is there to protect you from anyone looking to destroy the faith of our fathers, knowingly or unknowingly, locally or wholesale.  Therefore, every baptized Catholic, including priests, and bishops, all over the world, are commissioned and obliged under obedience to God to follow this Good Law to protect yourselves from harms way.  Further, a baptized Catholic, including priests, and bishops, have no right to hinder themselves, or another person from attaining this protection to receive the sacraments and graces the Church wishes to give.

Therefore, whatever practical or pragmatic “deal” with bells and whistles one wants to make with those who endanger the faith –regardless of personages: A). You have no right before God to put yourself in harm’s way.  B). You have no right before God to put others in harm’s way.  C). You have no right to put the True religion of God into another religion (conciliar/novus ordo religion).  D). When you sign you lose the protection of the Cannon Law.  E). No faithful can follow you into that danger.  F). You now no longer can help souls in the “freedom” of that protection without asking “permission” to the conciliar mechanism (…).  And so on…

Do you get the danger of this new SSPX-crisis yet?  This is not about a pretty badge of prelature, or a pride of recognition, or even fixing an “irregularity” –THIS IS ABOUT THE FAITH.  PLAIN AND SIMPLE!

If you do follow the NSSPX into the danger of the conciliar mechanisms of the conciliar Rome -then you are in real schism to the true faith.  Bluntly said!

So once the NSSPX signs the accord, it cannot “disobey” the orders to relocate hear, go there, shut down there, and all of the rest of the modernist tactics (…).

So where can the faithful go so as not to be infected by this conciliar/ecuмenical religion?

This is another entry- into another Catacomb.  Have faith.  God will provide!

How can the SSPX claim "Supplied Jurisdiction" when their theologian Fr Francois Laisney claims that Canonical Recognition from (Modernist) Rome is absolutely vital? It doesn't make sense.

(...)

How can the SSPX claim "Supplied Jurisdiction" when their theologian Fr Francois Laisney claims that Canonical Recognition from (Modernist) Rome is absolutely vital? It doesn't make sense.

The General Chapter that elects the SG of the SSPX is made up of Fellay appointees. He should be man enough now to conduct a plebiscite among all the SSPX priests to see if they want him as their SG.(The mode of electing the SG should also be changed away from this cronyist system).  Can those who support him honestly claim "Supplied Jurisdiction" and a valid priestly ministry? And if the majority do not support him, then he and his cronies should step down - and these new doubts can be laid to rest.

Lest there be any confusion or misunderstanding amongst readers, allow me to add a comment.

We have been well instructed by learned SSPX priests of old that, if a Catholic
needed the sacrament of penance, went into a Cstholic Church or monastery and saw a man In priestly garb, approached the priest and earnestly requested the Sacrament of Penance, the Church does NOT require him to explain that " I'm just visiting my family-- I'm from another Diocese--I have no faculty to hear your Confession."

Instead, the Church allows him to hear the confession, give absolution, and set the penitent free. Now, once the priest is in the confessional, and other faithful line up for confession, that priest still receives supplied jurisdiction to give the sacrament.

Because of the "state of emergency" in the Church as declared by Abp Lefebvre, this has been our (SSPX) justification for hearing confessions, because the faculty to hear confession comes from the Church, through the Ordinary (Bishop) of each diocese.

With respect to Episcopal Consecrations, and , in fact, all ordinations, when the Abp. instructed his four "Bishops-to-Be" as to his justification to consecrate them without a mandate, and their own responsibilities in accepting their consecration, he very clearly told them:

The justification for consecrating them as Bishops without the Papal mandate was the "State of Emergency" in the Church, and the need to preserve the priesthood ( this, also, is the authority for training and ordaining priests without the approval of Rome).He then told them quite explicitly that, when this state of emergency is over, and Rome has regained the faith, 'you (new
Bishops), are to present yourselves to the Holy Father and place your consecration and your ministry in His hands'.

It seems that Bp. Fellay has, therefore, painted himself into the proverbial corner. He has stated all over the world, that this Rome is different; that we don't need a doctrinal agreement; that we (he and the Chapter members) accept Collegiality, Religious Liberty, the Bastard Mass, Nostra Aetate, the New Code, all the popes of VC II, etc. etc. So , THEREFORE, how can there possibly be a 'state of emergency'??

Since there is no emergency in Fellay's new world, the three bishops SHOULD present themselves, and their episcopate, to the pope. In fact, as Father LeRoux, the SSPX seminary rector stated last June in Auriesville( at the height of their drunken stupor to have a deal with Rome at any cost), " our priests get their mission from the local Ordinary!!" Therefore, even the Seminary Rector acknowledges that their ordinations are no longer authorized by Canon Law provision of "state of emergency."
(...)

Quote from: Hugeman

... He then told them quite explicitly that, when this state of emergency is over, and Rome has regained the faith, 'you (new Bishops), are to present yourselves to the Holy Father and place your consecration and your ministry in His hands'...

(...)

Well said.

If there is no need of a Doctrinal rectitude / agreement, then there is NO crisis of the Faith!

Which equals -No state of emergency- hand yourselves in to the Pope.