After a year, as long as the Holy Oils are not rancid, the Sacraments of Extreme Unction and Confirmation would still be valid, just illicit. Also, the Exorcisms in Baptism do not depend on the Oil.
Thank you for the rare post of reason and insight seen here.
Remember these people do not have the authority of the Church to use the sacramental order as a means of coersion or punishment,
but in doing so regardless, they thwart the primary mission of the Catholic Church and its priesthood, which is to save souls and bring them to God.
Conflicting over hostile statements between the sects is one order of worldly activity, but engaging the Divinely instituted Sacraments in these public squabbles is on an entirely different and higher order of scandal.
On the Pfeiffer/Hewko side, Fr. Pfeiffer was encouraged to rebel against Menzingen. He did so, and when his continued agitation then began to upset ongoing negotiations between the SSPX and its estranged Bishop, Fr. Pfeiffer was essentially cut off and sacrificed and any future assistance to him became doubtful.
And there appears to have been interference with other priests who became affiliated with the Pfeiffer group and supported their position on some of Bishop Williamson's views and teaching. That is apparently a grave crime in the petite SSPX. Such great outrage at criticising the Bishop's questionable exhortations and conclusions, as if there were no grounds for any just criticism or correction. His followers will admit no fault or doubt about his utterings, and they will tolerate none. His newly minted Bishops are identical in such attitudes. That is a fair indication of the same cultism that has been part of the SSPX for decades.
Fr. Pfeiffer should or hopefully has, found alternate sources for their sacramental necessities. Perhaps putting his anti-sedevacantism on the shelf to seek them from a valid Bishop, a sede-vacantist or an Eastern Orthodox Bishop of the old Tradition.
Thank you for the rare post of reason and insight seen here.If Fellay and/or Williamson really wanted to heap coals of fire on the heads of their “enemies”, they would follow the advice of Our Lord in Scripture and return any perceived affronts by so many kind deeds that it would melt any opposition. They instead withhold spiritual things (?simony) in exchange for allegiance.
Bp. Fellay and the SSPX will drive out parishioners and withhold sacraments from those who are "with the Resistance."
Bp. Williamson and his Three withhold sacraments from those who are "with the Pfeiffer Resistance."
They are like two sides of the same coin: no criticism of either +Fellay or +Williamson is tolerated and is punished severely.
Internecine squabbling is one thing, but holding innocent souls hostage to these sectarian hostilities is a grave enterprise, no matter who does it.
In this, this new hierarchy is proving itself to be everybit a recreation of the SSPX, and speaking of cultic behavior, as has been imputed to the Pfeiffer group in other threads, it is clearly in evidence with these "resistance" clerics. It is a matter of "you have said bad things about our leader and therfore the souls under your care will be denied sacramental necessities by us, until you recant" Have we not heard this before from the Roi de Menzingen?
Remember these people do not have the authority of the Church to use the sacramental order as a means of coersion or punishment, but in doing so regardless, they thwart the primary mission of the Catholic Church and its priesthood, which is to save souls and bring them to God.
Conflicting over hostile statements between the sects is one order of worldly activity, but engaging the Divinely instituted Sacraments in these public squabbles is on an entirely different and higher order of scandal.
On the Pfeiffer/Hewko side, Fr. Pfeiffer was encouraged to rebel against Menzingen. He did so, and when his continued agitation then began to upset ongoing negotiations between the SSPX and its estranged Bishop, Fr. Pfeiffer was essentially cut off and sacrificed and any future assistance to him became doubtful.
And there appears to have been interference with other priests who became affiliated with the Pfeiffer group and supported their position on some of Bishop Williamson's views and teaching. That is apparently a grave crime in the petite SSPX. Such great outrage at criticising the Bishop's questionable exhortations and conclusions, as if there were no grounds for any just criticism or correction. His followers will admit no fault or doubt about his utterings, and they will tolerate none. His newly minted Bishops are identical in such attitudes. That is a fair indication of the same cultism that has been part of the SSPX for decades.
Fr. Pfeiffer should or hopefully has, found alternate sources for their sacramental necessities. Perhaps putting his anti-sedevacantism on the shelf to seek them from a valid Bishop, a sede-vacantist or an Eastern Orthodox Bishop of the old Tradition.
The normal impediments to this are unimportant and should be suspended in such a time of crisis and the near complete breakdown of authority and reason in the Church today.
He should also leave SSPX I&II behind and focus on fighting against the treason in Rome and the Chanceries. Then he can claim that they are a true resistance.
The war between these two faction was unnecessary and did not need to happen. There is much fault which could be apportioned to all concerned. When the parties began to act in self interest, trouble entered in, it is the tool and the doorway by which demons have their powers over men.
I will pray for them all.
Yes.
Fr. Pfeiffer should or hopefully has, found alternate sources for their sacramental necessities. Perhaps putting his anti-sedevacantism on the shelf to seek them from a valid Bishop, a sede-vacantist or an Eastern Orthodox Bishop of the old Tradition.
Thank you for the rare post of reason and insight seen here.I am sorry you find this to be true. It does not happen in all locations. Even though i used to be a supporter of OLMC, I received sacraments from sspx when needed, assistance from b. Williamson, and sacraments from b. Zendejas. All knew my stance. The only person who gave me a hard time, at the time, was fr. Pfeiffer who claimed to be the last vestige of the Catholic Church and refused to return to our mission because we cooperated with "the fake resistance and the fake sspx". We are still a pin on his wall map, though, deceiving visitors as to the number of his missions.
Bp. Fellay and the SSPX will drive out parishioners and withhold sacraments from those who are "with the Resistance."
Bp. Williamson and his Three withhold sacraments from those who are "with the Pfeiffer Resistance."
They are like two sides of the same coin: no criticism of either +Fellay or +Williamson is tolerated and is punished severely.
I am sorry you find this to be true. It does not happen in all locations. Even though i used to be a supporter of OLMC, I received sacraments from sspx when needed, assistance from b. Williamson, and sacraments from b. Zendejas. All knew my stance. The only person who gave me a hard time, at the time, was fr. Pfeiffer who claimed to be the last vestige of the Catholic Church and refused to return to our mission because we cooperated with "the fake resistance and the fake sspx". We are still a pin on his wall map, though, deceiving visitors as to the number of his missions.I find this approach interesting. I believe Matthew and Sean Johnson hold to the same trad-ecuмenical viewpoint you outline here.
I find this approach interesting. I believe Matthew and Sean Johnson hold to the same trad-ecuмenical viewpoint you outline here.If I understand this comment properly, you are equating the "yellow-light" position with tradcuмenism?
My mother raised us that if you don’t stand for something, you’ll fall for anything.
I don’t buy it.
Pick something and stick with it.
:soapbox:
I am sorry you find this to be true. It does not happen in all locations. Even though i used to be a supporter of OLMC, I received sacraments from sspx when needed, assistance from b. Williamson, and sacraments from b. Zendejas. All knew my stance. The only person who gave me a hard time, at the time, was fr. Pfeiffer who claimed to be the last vestige of the Catholic Church and refused to return to our mission because we cooperated with "the fake resistance and the fake sspx". We are still a pin on his wall map, though, deceiving visitors as to the number of his missions.This actually happened to me. SSPX asked me not to go to their mass because we were going to Fr Pfeiffer masses too. And now that I have long agreed with the opening lines of this thread, the reverse is happening. I'm sick of hearing don't go here, don't go there, don't even go! As if the laity are expected to be canon lawyers and theologians figuring out all the details of orthodoxy when the bishops and priests haven't even done that. The answer isn't this Bishop's word or that priest's word, but THE Word, the Eucharist. Any priest or Bishop that tells me not to attend any true Latin Mass renders his opinion null and void. Why are they letting the devil divide us? They need to take this argument outside and come back and talk to us about unity. Tick tock, boys! My family and I are not going to wait. I'm sick of the devil,( in the name of what's supposed to be good) taking what is mine.
The one thing I appreciate about Fr. Pfeiffer is that he doesn't have a lot of money, unlike Bp. Williamson. If a true restoration is to be had, it should not have wealth behind it, IMO.
This actually happened to me. SSPX asked me not to go to their mass because we were going to Fr Pfeiffer masses too. And now that I have long agreed with the opening lines of this thread, the reverse is happening. I'm sick of hearing don't go here, don't go there, don't even go! As if the laity are expected to be canon lawyers and theologians figuring out all the details of orthodoxy when the bishops and priests haven't even done that. The answer isn't this Bishop's word or that priest's word, but THE Word, the Eucharist. Any priest or Bishop that tells me not to attend any true Latin Mass renders his opinion null and void. Why are they letting the devil divide us? They need to take this argument outside and come back and talk to us about unity. Tick tock, boys! My family and I are not going to wait. I'm sick of the devil,( in the name of what's supposed to be good) taking what is mine.You are thinking rationally and logically here. The everpresent factionalism does not serve the Church, it only serves factions or their leaders. As for the yellow light issue, recall that the yellow light is the best that two of these groups will put upon the Novus Ordo false mass, rendering this rating and system of prohibitions meaningless.
I hate to jump to hasty conclusions, but it does appear that CI scrubbed my last post from this (silly) thread. I had challenged Tradplorable on a few observations he made. Maybe I just overlooked it. Please correct me if I'm wrong, Matthew.
Meg:
So that's it, is it? Well, Fr. Pfeiffer did have $20,000 borrowed dollars from Fr.Voigt. Father claimed earlier that that sum was never repaid. I doubt that the OLMC chief has any of it left anyway. He seems to go though money pretty fast. Maybe Fr.P did restore the loan, but we have not heard that he did. If Fr. P. does not have a lot of money, maybe we ought to consider the manner in which he uses the money he does have.
What's "It" exactly?Give it a rest on the subject of Bishop Zendejas' property already:
I was just saying that Fr. Pfeiffer is somewhat poor, and that's not a bad thing. I'm not saying that he does a good job of spending what little he was well. And $20,000 is nothing compared with, say, that fancy mansion recently purchased by Bp. Williamson here in the U.S.
Give it a rest on the subject of Bishop Zendejas' property already:
No unbiased, reasonable person would look at the pics of that property and describe it as a "fancy mansion."
It is a former Jєωιѕн community center which looks more like a rather drab, overpriced, depressing dump, than a mansion.
As for the $10 million pricetag, it was quite a frugal investment, despite the overblown properties of the northeast:
He gets a combo residence, future priory, retreat house, and seminary for that price.
Compare it to the Taj Mahal in Virginia, and you will appreciate the thrift.
The manufactured scandal on this point is an epic fail.
And $20,000 is nothing compared with, say, that fancy mansion recently purchased by Bp. Williamson here in the U.S.
Nope. Not gonna give it a rest. And it's not a scandal, just an observation, though I suspect that you feel that are the only one qualified to make any observations.
I saw the photos of the interior which were posted. It's very fancy. Why don't you find the photos and post them? It's not a matter of what the property values are in any given area. That's a LOT of money, period.
Pfft....
$10 mil ain't squat for a multi-purpose commercial property in the Northeast.
And if you think that place is fancy, I must be living in the Ritz!
Please go on the internet right now, and find a commercial property within 100 miles of the current property, the following characteristics for less than the $10 mil:
-Room for 15+ retreatants;
-Room for 15+ seminarians;
-Personal living quarters;
-Commercial kitchen and refectory.
Let me know what you come up with.
Give it a rest on the subject of Bishop Zendejas' property already:I inadvertently said $10 mil; it was only $1 mil.
No unbiased, reasonable person would look at the pics of that property and describe it as a "fancy mansion."
It is a former Jєωιѕн community center which looks more like a rather drab, overpriced, depressing dump, than a mansion.
As for the $10 million pricetag, it was quite a frugal investment (despite being overpriced, as is nearly all commercial real estate in the Northeast):
He gets a combo residence, future priory, retreat house, and seminary for that price.
Compare it to the Taj Mahal in Virginia, and you will appreciate the thrift.
The manufactured scandal on this point is an epic fail.
I inadvertently said $10 mil; it was only $1 mil.
Where did the money come from for the $10 million dollar mansion? You may think that $10 million is not much money, but I think it is.You mean where did the 1 million come from?
Did Bp. Williamson just have that money on hand?
Or are there investors who helped with the financing, and if so, what do they expect in return for their investment?
Or, are there wealthy benefactors who helped pay for it, and what might they expect in return? Benefactors can be like lobbyists.
You mean where did the 1 million come from?
Well, the Jєωs bribed them, of course!!!
No wait, it was Menzingen who funded it!!!
Seriously, your suggestion that they were somehow paid off is revolting.
Do you really think 20,000 resistants can't come up with a million dollars?
You know how easy that would be for +BW to come up with???
No, I'm not saying that they were paid off...what does that even mean? And of course it wasn't the Jєωs or Menzingen. You are exaggerating. As trads often do.Please read more closely: I said 20k resistants, not residents.
So it was 20,000 residents who paid for it? Residents of where?
Please read more closely: I said 20k resistants, not residents.
Please read more closely: I said 20k resistants, not residents.
PS: Where DID he get "all that money" then, Meg?
Share your thoughts!
How would I know? That's what I'm asking YOU.I don't blame you for getting all girly and emotional; that's how God made you.
No need to get all girly and emotional.
Give it a rest on the subject of Bishop Zendejas' property already:You LIE!
No unbiased, reasonable person would look at the pics of that property and describe it as a "fancy mansion."
It is a former Jєωιѕн community center which looks more like a rather drab, overpriced, depressing dump, than a mansion.
Here's the link to all the pics (inside and out):SO you DID post the pictures. That makes it even more ghastly that you lied and said people would look at THAT and call it a drab dump.
https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/111-Smith-Ridge-Rd-South-Salem-NY-10590/2101793694_zpid/
Functional, yes.
Fancy, no.
I am sorry you find this to be true. It does not happen in all locations.
Do you really think 20,000 resistants can't come up with a million dollars?Where'd you get that figure from? I highly doubt there are 20,000 Resistants.
You know how easy that would be for +BW to come up with???
Here's the link to all the pics (inside and out):After looking at the pictures you so helpfully provided, I daresay it's a palace.
https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/111-Smith-Ridge-Rd-South-Salem-NY-10590/2101793694_zpid/
Functional, yes.
Fancy, no.
Here's the link to all the pics (inside and out):Looks fancy to me, but you are way off topic.
https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/111-Smith-Ridge-Rd-South-Salem-NY-10590/2101793694_zpid/
Functional, yes.
Fancy, no.
Yes, it does.No, it doesn't happen at all SSPX chapels.
If you attend the SSPX and they find out you are "Resistance" you are out.
Even Bp. W mentioned it in the weekend's EC:
"The General Chapter of 2006 entitled the Society authorities to dismiss from the Society any priest disagreeing with their policies in public – “This warning is to be taken seriously.”
No matter how good are the dissenting arguments, public dissent always harms the common good."
After a year, as long as the Holy Oils are not rancid, the Sacraments of Extreme Unction and Confirmation would still be valid, just illicit. Also, the Exorcisms in Baptism do not depend on the Oil.So fr. Pfeiffer and fr. Hewko are performing illicit sacraments with old holy oils?
The oils can also be "topped up". So a priest can go a long time without going to a bishop.I have heard this, but it makes no sense. Why would the Church require old oils be thrown out and new ones obtained if the oils could just be topped up?
The more important question is who is going to ordain his seminarians?
No, it doesn't happen at all SSPX chapels.First: To be clear, those are not Bp. W's comments: he was quoting Bp. Fellay's comments from the June Cor Unum letter to SSPX priests.
It didnt happen to me at mine, and I make no bones about where I stand.
Bishop williamsons comment relates to priests who speak out, not congregation.
First: To be clear, those are not Bp. W's comments: he was quoting Bp. Fellay's comments from the June Cor Unum letter to SSPX priests.Yes, I understand.
Second: Please understand that the policy of "public dissent always harms the common good" is not just their policy toward their priests. Their priests extend that policy into the pews to the laity. There have been plenty of people here who have experienced it personally. It is not a fiction.
The manufactured scandal on this point is an epic fail.
Scandal is too strong a word.There is no scandal.
The problem is that something which we should all be happy about has been kept a secret. It is not the first time.
All for fear of the pfeifferites.
Oils in an Emergency |
| ROME, MAY 22, 2012 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Legionary of Christ Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university. Q: Could a priest bless paraffin oil in hospitals for emergency baptism, confirmation and the sacrament for the sick? This is the type of non-animal oil that is normally found in hospitals easily. I believe it is distilled from petroleum. Will the three sacraments given with such oil be valid because the proper oil is unavailable in emergencies? Second, what if a simple blessing in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit is given for the oil because the blessing formulae were unavailable, will the three sacraments for the seriously sick be still valid? — J.T., Taiwan A: There are several questions involved here. First, what oils are we referring to? For the sacraments the Catholic Church blesses three separate oils during the Chrism Mass on Holy Thursday. The oil of catechumens is used for the non-essential complementary rites of baptism. The oil of the sick constitutes the matter of the sacrament of anointing of the sick. And then there is chrism, which is the essential matter of the sacrament of confirmation and is also used during the complementary rites of baptism, priestly ordination and some other rites such as the dedication of a Church or altar. The basic ingredient of the first two oils is olive oil; only the formula of blessing distinguishes one from the other. Chrism is a mixture of olive oil and balsam. Of these three, only in the case of the oil of the sick is there foreseen the possibility of another oil being used and of the priest's blessing the oil in case of emergency. Pope Paul VI brought about this possibility in the 1972 apostolic constitution Sacram Unctione Infirmorum. Referring to the matter of the sacrament the Holy Father established: "Further, since olive oil, which hitherto had been prescribed for the valid administration of the sacrament, is unobtainable or difficult to obtain in some parts of the world, we decreed, at the request of numerous bishops, that in the future, according to the circuмstances, oil of another sort could also be used, provided it were obtained from plants, inasmuch as this more closely resembles the matter indicated in Holy Scripture." He also permitted that priests could bless this oil in case of emergency. This norm was later incorporated into Canon 999 of the Code of Canon Law which determines who may bless the oil: "In addition to a bishop, the following can bless the oil to be used in the anointing of the sick: 1) those equivalent to a diocesan bishop by law; 2) any presbyter in a case of necessity, but only in the actual celebration of the sacrament. "Canon 1000 §1. The anointings with the words, order, and manner prescribed in the liturgical books are to be performed carefully. In a case of necessity, however, a single anointing on the forehead or even on some other part of the body is sufficient, while the entire formula is said." In those cases where the priest has blessed the oil himself for a particular situation, No. 22 of the Order for the Pastoral Care of the sick stipulates, "If any of the oil is left after the celebration of the sacrament, it should be absorbed in cotton (cotton wool) and burned." Unlike the case of the sacrament of the sick, Canon 880 §2 states, "The chrism to be used in the sacrament of confirmation must be consecrated by a bishop even if a presbyter administers the sacrament." There are less-specific norms regarding the oil of catechumens because this oil is not essential to the sacrament and in an emergency it is sufficient to baptize with water using the Trinitarian formula. At the same time, the ritual foresees the possibility of carrying out all the rites in an abbreviated form. If a person who receives an emergency baptism survives, the post-baptismal complementary rites (anointing with chrism, the white garment, and baptismal candle) are usually carried out at a convenient date in a church or oratory. Therefore, to answer the specific questions of our reader: — Paraffin oil is not suitable as valid material for any sacrament. If olive oil is unavailable for anointing the sick, another vegetable oil may be used. Chrism and the oil of catechumens must be that blessed by the bishop. It is thus incuмbent on the parish priest and hospital chaplain to make sure that he has all three oils readily available. — Only the oil of the sick may be blessed by a priest in emergency cases. One of the three formulas for blessing this oil must be used as appropriate in order to assure validity. The third formula, for exceptional circuмstances, is the briefest: "Bless + Lord, your gift of oil and our brother/sister N., that it may bring him/her relief." It would not be sufficient to make a generic blessing with no mention of the context of the sacrament of the sick. * * * Follow-up: Oils in an Emergency [6-5-2012]In the wake of our comments on blessing of holy oils by a priest (see May 22), an attentive reader called my attention to an oversight on my part regarding the blessing of the oil of catechumens. To wit: "Regarding the Oil of Catechumens, the general 'Rite of Blessing of Oils, Rite of Consecrating the Chrism,' found in an appendix in the previous English Sacramentary, in No. 7 of the introduction does mention the possibility of a priest blessing the Oil of Catechumens for 'pastoral reasons.' This permission is also found in the RCIA, at No. 101 in the U.S. English edition (or No. 129 of the Latin original)." The text of the Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults says, "The oil used for this rite is to be the oil blessed by the bishop at the chrism Mass, but for pastoral reasons a priest celebrant may bless oil for the rite immediately before the anointing." Another reader asked about the mixing of blessed and unblessed oil for the sacraments. We addressed this question in an earlier response and follow-up on Jan. 30 and Feb. 13, 2007. |