Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => The Sacred: Catholic Liturgy, Chant, Prayers => Topic started by: AMDGJMJ on May 23, 2023, 09:42:43 AM
-
Has anyone ever called the SSPX asking for a priest to come to give someone Extreme Unction and they instead recommended a local novus ordo priest?
This just happened yesterday in the case of my calling the SSPX VA Seminary asking for a priest to come to see my father in the hospital.
I knew that they had been getting more friendly with the local novus ordo priests but this blew my mind.
-
Have your father contact them directly and ask them to come. That way they will know he actually wants to see them.
-
Has anyone ever called the SSPX asking for a priest to come to give someone Extreme Unction and they instead recommended a local novus ordo priest?
This just happened yesterday in the case of my calling the SSPX VA Seminary asking for a priest to come to see my father in the hospital.
I knew that they had been getting more friendly with the local novus ordo priests but this blew my mind.
Does your father normally attend the Mass at the Seminary?
-
Fr. MacPherson is officially the "pastor" of the Seminary congregation, and handles the typical pastoral work the faithful need him to do, which would include sick calls.
I think his phone number might be on the front of the Seminary bulletin.
-
Father MacPherson was the one I talked to.
He basically was saying in danger of death just use a novus ordo priest if he is closer.
I found this online as the official SSPX opinion of whether you can go to confession to a novus ordo priest:
"Can a traditional Catholic go to confession to a Novus Ordo priest?
It would certainly be valid to go to confession to a priest who still celebrates the Novus Ordo Mass, provided that the penitent were assured of the doctrinal orthodoxy of the priest, his intention of doing what the Church does, and his use of the correct formula of absolution. It would furthermore be permissible in a state of necessity, such as when a person is dying and no traditional priest can be found.
However, it is not easy to have the assurance of a valid absolution, given the fact that the post-Conciliar Church consistently downgrades the reality and gravity of mortal sin, the benefits of confessing venial sins, the graces to be obtained from frequent confession, and the necessity of doing penance. Very often souls who have felt the urgent need to go to a Novus Ordo priest have come to me afterwards in confession, doubting the validity of their confession to this priest, on account of his trivializing of their sins.
Furthermore, I do not hesitate to strongly recommend against going to confession to such a priest, even when there is an assurance of a valid absolution. A penitent does not go to confession simply to receive the absolution of his sins. He has the desire to receive all the effects of the sacrament, including the direction, and if need be reprimand of the confessor, growth in the love of God and in sanctifying grace, a firmer purpose of amendment and the satisfaction of the temporal punishment due to his sins. All this is only possible if he sees in the confessor a judge, a teacher, and a physician. It is to guarantee these full effects of the sacrament of Penance that the Church supplies jurisdiction so that the faithful can ask any priest to hear their confessions, for any just reason (canon 2261, §2, 1917 Code and canon 1335 of the 1983 Code).
Manifestly it is not possible to have confidence in the guidance of a priest who compromises with modernism by celebrating the New Mass, even if he otherwise appears orthodox. Neither his judgment as to the reality of our contrition, nor his instruction as to the gravity of our sins, nor his remedies for the ills of our sins can be depended upon. The supernatural vision of Faith will necessarily have been undermined by the humanism and naturalism of the New Mass and the spirit of Vatican II. Our souls are much too precious to place in the hands of those who lack conviction.
Consequently, outside case of danger of death, it is preferable to make an act of perfect contrition, and to wait until one can open one’s soul to a traditional priest that can be trusted. [Answered by Fr. Peter R. Scott]"
http://archives.sspx.org/Catholic_FAQs/catholic_faqs__traditional.htm#confessiontonovusordopriest (http://archives.sspx.org/Catholic_FAQs/catholic_faqs__traditional.htm#confessiontonovusordopriest)
-
Does your father normally attend the Mass at the Seminary?
He does not.
-
Have your father contact them directly and ask them to come. That way they will know he actually wants to see them.
We managed to get Father Waters to come out from Pennsylvania to give my father the last rites last night. So, he is at least taken care of.
-
Has anyone ever called the SSPX asking for a priest to come to give someone Extreme Unction and they instead recommended a local novus ordo priest?
This just happened yesterday in the case of my calling the SSPX VA Seminary asking for a priest to come to see my father in the hospital.
I knew that they had been getting more friendly with the local novus ordo priests but this blew my mind.
Yes, happened to me in May 2021. Lapsed Catholic friend was on his deathbed after suffering from ALS. He had married a Protestant, but wavered between attending the Novus Ordo and Baptist services. He considered himself Catholic. He knew he was clueless. I tried for over a year to get him to go to Confession before he died. He wouldn't do it.
Seeing that he only had a few hours/days left, I got permission from the Baptist wife to get a Catholic priest to his house. I called my SSPX (mission) priest. It was a Sunday afternoon. He told me he was busy and to call a Novus Ordo "priest" instead.
The Novus Ordo "priest" came over. Prayed a short ecuмenical prayer and did a single anointing on the forehead (as I recall). There was no attempt to hear a confession or anything of that sort.
My friend died a few days later.
-
We managed to get Father Waters to come out from Pennsylvania to give my father the last rites last night. So, he is at least taken care of.
Dear AMDGJMJ,
God bless you for taking care of your father, body and soul. In the most fierce fight for his soul, you have done the right thing. Prayers for you and your family.
-
Yes, happened to me in May 2021. Lapsed Catholic friend was on his deathbed after suffering from ALS. He had married a Protestant, but wavered between attending the Novus Ordo and Baptist services. He considered himself Catholic. He knew he was clueless. I tried for over a year to get him to go to Confession before he died. He wouldn't do it.
Seeing that he only had a few hours/days left, I got permission from the Baptist wife to get a Catholic priest to his house. I called my SSPX (mission) priest. It was a Sunday afternoon. He told me he was busy and to call a Novus Ordo "priest" instead.
The Novus Ordo "priest" came over. Prayed a short ecuмenical prayer and did a single anointing on the forehead (as I recall). There was no attempt to hear a confession or anything of that sort.
My friend died a few days later.
Absolutely tragic. That SSPX priest had a chance to save a lost soul.
-
I'm sorry, but traditional Priests can't simply drop whatever they're doing for their own chapel(s) and parishioners to go visit sick or dying people who:
1) aren't their parishioners
2) aren't even traditional
3) aren't in the immediate area
and
4) didn't personally ask for them in the first place.
It would be great if they could visit everybody, but there are roughly 100 SSPX Priests in the United States, and the United States is a very big country.
That might seem harsh, but that's reality. Please give your Priests a break.
-
I'm sorry, but traditional Priests can't simply drop whatever they're doing for their own chapel(s) and parishioners to go visit sick or dying people who:
1) aren't their parishioners
2) aren't even traditional
3) aren't in the immediate area
and
4) didn't personally ask for them in the first place.
It would be great if they could visit everybody, but there are roughly 100 SSPX Priests in the United States, and the United States is a very big country.
That might seem harsh, but that's reality. Please give your Priests a break.
Before vatican 2, parish priests were obliged by canon law to visit their sick parishioners and administer the last rites to the dying, in other words they were bound by justice. Due to the crisis in the Church, traditional priests are not parish priests, they have no jurisdiction obviously, so they aren't bound in justice to visit their sick parishioners, but they're bound by charity; the same would apply to people who aren't their parishioners.
-
Yes, happened to me in May 2021. Lapsed Catholic friend was on his deathbed after suffering from ALS. He had married a Protestant, but wavered between attending the Novus Ordo and Baptist services. He considered himself Catholic. He knew he was clueless. I tried for over a year to get him to go to Confession before he died. He wouldn't do it.
Seeing that he only had a few hours/days left, I got permission from the Baptist wife to get a Catholic priest to his house. I called my SSPX (mission) priest. It was a Sunday afternoon. He told me he was busy and to call a Novus Ordo "priest" instead.
The Novus Ordo "priest" came over. Prayed a short ecuмenical prayer and did a single anointing on the forehead (as I recall). There was no attempt to hear a confession or anything of that sort.
My friend died a few days later.
Well, the priest can't give him absolution anyway when he has shown absolutely no indication of wanting to go to Confession. In fact, he resisted your requests to go to Confession, and it wasn't of his volition that the priest came in the first place. Even had a Traditional priest arrived, he couldn't have given such a one absolution.
-
I'm sorry, but traditional Priests can't simply drop whatever they're doing for their own chapel(s) and parishioners to go visit sick or dying people who:
1) aren't their parishioners
2) aren't even traditional
3) aren't in the immediate area
and
4) didn't personally ask for them in the first place.
It would be great if they could visit everybody, but there are roughly 100 SSPX Priests in the United States, and the United States is a very big country.
That might seem harsh, but that's reality. Please give your Priests a break.
Very true, and it should be pointed out that SSPX priests do not have ordinary jurisdiction. I thought that most trads knew that - but evidently not. The way that supplied jurisdiction works is that a Catholic approaches the priest (who has supplied jurisdiction) for the sacraments. The priest does not approach a stranger (who doesn't attend an SSPX chapel) to administer the sacraments. The SSPX is an easy target these days.
-
Has anyone ever called the SSPX asking for a priest to come to give someone Extreme Unction and they instead recommended a local novus ordo priest?
This just happened yesterday in the case of my calling the SSPX VA Seminary asking for a priest to come to see my father in the hospital.
I knew that they had been getting more friendly with the local novus ordo priests but this blew my mind.
Why didn't you ask a sedevacantist priest to help your father?
-
Very true, and it should be pointed out that SSPX priests do not have ordinary jurisdiction. I thought that most trads knew that - but evidently not. The way that supplied jurisdiction works is that a Catholic approaches the priest (who has supplied jurisdiction) for the sacraments. The priest does not approach a stranger (who doesn't attend an SSPX chapel) to administer the sacraments. The SSPX is an easy target these days.
The jurisdiction is given nonetheless. Someone is approaching the priest on his behalf. Let's not get too legalistic, Meg! The supreme law of the Church is the salvation of souls.
-
Has anyone ever called the SSPX asking for a priest to come to give someone Extreme Unction and they instead recommended a local novus ordo priest?
This just happened yesterday in the case of my calling the SSPX VA Seminary asking for a priest to come to see my father in the hospital.
I knew that they had been getting more friendly with the local novus ordo priests but this blew my mind.
I hope your Father is okay AMDGJMJ, I will keep him in my prayers.
I am really surprised to hear this about Fr MacPherson, I have a lot of time for him, I think he is a really genuine priest. He is right, of course, telling you to get a NO priest in danger of death if no certainly-validly-ordained priest could get to your Father in time to give him certainly valid sacraments. If this were not the case, and yet he made no suggestion to get a Traditional priest to your Father, then that would leave me very disappointed (and surprised) indeed. The only exception I can imagine would be if your Father was not a Traditional Catholic, and had not agreed to see a Trad priest, and the distance for the priest to travel was considerable.
However, a similar (or worse) thing happened to me some years back when I tried to get an SSPX priest to a Resistance Catholic in the throes of death. The person in question actually went to the SSPX to Mass with me only a month or so earlier. He had been with the SSPX for decades prior to the Resistance. A good, simple soul he was, with no guile. He had been given the Last Rites a few months earlier, but he bounced back, made it out of hospital and was doing quite well, so in the mind of the Church he certainly should have received the Last Rites again. I went to the priory to get the SSPX priest to take him to give the Last Rites, but he refused outright, saying: "I warned you from the pulpit". A couple of hours later the man was dead. May he rest in peace. I wrote to several superiors about the incident. All but one ignored the letter, the one who replied saying: "You should have called the NO priest. Unlike the Resistance, the SSPX considers them to be valid priests". Rather shocking don't you think? Imagine a man drowning at the beach and you go to the lifeguard, and he refuses to go to his aid: "I warned him not to swim outside the flags"! Then you complain to the authorities and they commend the lifeguard and tell you that you should have thrown the drowning victim a piece of string...
-
Why didn't you ask a sedevacantist priest to help your father?
Do you think a sedevacantist priest would have been more willing to go?
As far as I am aware of there are not any in the local area. Father McMahon used to be here to help but is now elsewhere. Father Collins officiated our wedding but he came down from NY for that and we planned it over 6 months in advance.
-
Before vatican 2, parish priests were obliged by canon law to visit their sick parishioners and administer the last rites to the dying, in other words they were bound by justice. Due to the crisis in the Church, traditional priests are not parish priests, they have no jurisdiction obviously, so they aren't bound in justice to visit their sick parishioners, but they're bound by charity; the same would apply to people who aren't their parishioners.
This was my thought as well.
-
I hope your Father is okay AMDGJMJ, I will keep him in my prayers.
I am really surprised to hear this about Fr MacPherson, I have a lot of time for him, I think he is a really genuine priest. He is right, of course, telling you to get a NO priest in danger of death if no certainly-validly-ordained priest could get to your Father in time to give him certainly valid sacraments. If this were not the case, and yet he made no suggestion to get a Traditional priest to your Father, then that would leave me very disappointed (and surprised) indeed. The only exception I can imagine would be if your Father was not a Traditional Catholic, and had not agreed to see a Trad priest, and the distance for the priest to travel was considerable.
However, a similar (or worse) thing happened to me some years back when I tried to get an SSPX priest to a Resistance Catholic in the throes of death. The person in question actually went to the SSPX to Mass with me only a month or so earlier. He had been with the SSPX for decades prior to the Resistance. A good, simple soul he was, with no guile. He had been given the Last Rites a few months earlier, but he bounced back, made it out of hospital and was doing quite well, so in the mind of the Church he certainly should have received the Last Rites again. I went to the priory to get the SSPX priest to take him to give the Last Rites, but he refused outright, saying: "I warned you from the pulpit". A couple of hours later the man was dead. May he rest in peace. I wrote to several superiors about the incident. All but one ignored the letter, the one who replied saying: "You should have called the NO priest. Unlike the Resistance, the SSPX considers them to be valid priests". Rather shocking don't you think? Imagine a man drowning at the beach and you go to the lifeguard, and he refuses to go to his aid: "I warned him not to swim outside the flags"! Then you complain to the authorities and they commend the lifeguard and tell you that you should have thrown the drowning victim a piece of string...
Wow... That is terrible... Thank you for sharing your story!
My parents allowed us to host the mission chapel here in Front Royal for a few months at their farm for a small fee to make it legal and which we ourselves paid during COVID when our normal chapel (St. Athanasius) was closed down. If we hadn't done that the SSPX chapel here might not have the larger mission chapel they have now... So, one might think that the SSPX would help at least in return for that. But no... Instead they said "We would come if there wasn't a novus priest around to do it. They are valid and in causes of near death even an Eastern Orthodox priest can help." 🤦
I am just grateful that we managed to get in contact with Father Waters from York, PA. He dropped everything and left immediately to make the 3 hour drive one way during rush hour traffic.
I only I only wish I had thought to call him first instead of taking hours to try and arrange something with the SSPX... In the future he will be the person I call when someone I know in the area needs a priest.
-
However, a similar (or worse) thing happened to me some years back when I tried to get an SSPX priest to a Resistance Catholic in the throes of death.
Was this a younger-generation priest, ordained, say within the last 15 years or so? I've noticed a disgraceful lack of zeal for souls among many of them. They are more concerned about organizing activities than in saving souls.
-
Why didn't you ask a sedevacantist priest to help your father?
Was this question posed in benevolent sincerity or with some other roundabout aim? If the latter, this isn't the time and place for it. If the former, there are gentler ways to word such a question that would make a well-meaning sentiment clearer to any reader of this forum.
-
Do you think a sedevacantist priest would have been more willing to go?
As far as I am aware of there are not any in the local area. Father McMahon used to be here to help but is now elsewhere. Father Collins officiated our wedding but he came down from NY for that and we planned it over 6 months in advance.
No, I don't think so. But why complain about the SSPX, when a sedevacantist priest would not be willing either to help your father. You are sedevacantist, correct?
-
The jurisdiction is given nonetheless. Someone is approaching the priest on his behalf. Let's not get too legalistic, Meg! The supreme law of the Church is the salvation of souls.
I do not agree. If that seems too legalistic, then so be it.
-
Has anyone ever called the SSPX asking for a priest to come to give someone Extreme Unction and they instead recommended a local novus ordo priest?
This just happened yesterday in the case of my calling the SSPX VA Seminary asking for a priest to come to see my father in the hospital.
I knew that they had been getting more friendly with the local novus ordo priests but this blew my mind.
This is very troubling. Only four years ago a priest from the Va seminary came to visit my father, who was a non-practicing novus ordo Catholic, at the hospital upon my request. He was not in danger of dying, but old and had just had major surgery so I felt it was a crucial time for him to be guided back to the Church before it was too late.
My understanding at the time was that you could rely on an SSPX priest to come when called without hesitation or conditions, and that was exactly what occurred.
Now the policy seems to have changed, perhaps in reaction to Burbidge (Arlington diocese bishop) making such a big deal about the Society's presence in Front Royal. If this is the case, we are in trouble. Since when does the Society worry about what the novus ordo prelates say about them? Do they only abide by the rules when called out on them?
I think the faithful deserve an explanation of their new policy of deferring to the novus ordo for administering sacraments. And if they do believe that all novus ordo priests and sacraments are valid then they have absolutely no business doing what they are doing. It completely undermines the state of necessity that was proclaimed by the Archbishop.
-
I think the faithful deserve an explanation of their new policy of deferring to the novus ordo for administering sacraments. And if they do believe that all novus ordo priests and sacraments are valid then they have absolutely no business doing what they are doing. It completely undermines the state of necessity that was proclaimed by the Archbishop.
So the state of necessity has to do with the question of the validity of the sacraments? Is that why +ABL started the SSPX, in your view? Did he really start the SSPX because he believed the NO sacraments to be invalid?
-
Wow... That is terrible... Thank you for sharing your story!
My parents allowed us to host the mission chapel here in Front Royal for a few months at their farm for a small fee to make it legal and which we ourselves paid during COVID when our normal chapel (St. Athanasius) was closed down. If we hadn't done that the SSPX chapel here might not have the larger mission chapel they have now... So, one might think that the SSPX would help at least in return for that. But no... Instead they said "We would come if there wasn't a novus priest around to do it. They are valid and in causes of near death even an Eastern Orthodox priest can help." 🤦
I am just grateful that we managed to get in contact with Father Waters from York, PA. He dropped everything and left immediately to make the 3 hour drive one way during rush hour traffic.
I only I only wish I had thought to call him first instead of taking hours to try and arrange something with the SSPX... In the future he will be the person I call when someone I know in the area needs a priest.
Dear AMDGJMJ
Thank God for Fr. Waters! He sounds like Fr. James Haynos, ordained by Archbishop Lefebvre, whose sole mission is the salvation of souls. He visited an older novus ordo couple on his way back to his priory monthly until he was transferred. Because of the declining health status of the husband, Fr made sure to administer the sacrament of Extreme Unction for him. The man died shortly after Fr. Haynos left his assignment. Another man had fallen away from the Church and was very near death. Fr. Haynos stayed nearby for three days bringing him back to the Faith. That man received all the sacraments before his death. The joy we could see on Fr.'s face telling us about it showed why he persevered. Being in the presence of a holy priest who is a true missionary of Our Lord is humbling. We thank God for giving us the many blessings we received learning about our Roman Catholic Faith, and learning what the life of a happy Roman Catholic priest really is like.
Caring for and taking care of your parents at the end of their lives is a true blessing. It can be very stressful, very tiring, but it is a unique opportunity to care for them just a little while the way they care for their children for a lifetime. God bless you and your family--still praying!
-
I think the problem with “doubtful orders” is terrible. The SSPX should continue to ordain anyone from the NO. I was in the same boat trying to get a priest to see a dying relatives. I actually have had fantastic success with all of the SSPX priests I have asked. They do want the person to be receptive of their presence, but all of them have responded. Unfortunately, there wasn’t a priest in close proximity to one of my relatives. I even contacted a sedevacantist priest who said no. However, I ended up getting a FSSP priest to help and was grateful for his support. I hope at least my relative was able to ask forgiveness for his sins, even if they were not able to be forgiven by the priest , since he had doubtful orders imo. Please NO priests, try to receive conditional orders if possible. I am sure it won’t hurt, and will actually allow the Church to be healed.
-
No, I don't think so. But why complain about the SSPX, when a sedevacantist priest would not be willing either to help your father. You are sedevacantist, correct?
If Father Waters had not been able to make it, my next step was going to be to contact Father McMahon from NY who worked with my old confessor Father Collins both of whom are/were sedevacantists. He has brought the last Sacraments to many people in places where others would not.
I know of a specific case in the fast few years where Father McMahon flew down to Florida to give last rites to someone whom the SSPX refused to go see because the person wasn't in their parish (even though only a couple hours away from). So, in actuality some sedevacantist priests seem to be more willing to go the extra mile to help those dying more than the SSPX. I did not call him though because he is much further away and wanted to try and have a priest come for whom it might be less inconvenient.
As to whether I hold the sedevacantist position that is irrelevant. I was trying to find any surly validly ordained Catholic priest who was willing to help. I personally believe that the novus ordinations are questionable but apparently the SSPX does not anymore.
-
This is very troubling. Only four years ago a priest from the Va seminary came to visit my father, who was a non-practicing novus ordo Catholic, at the hospital upon my request. He was not in danger of dying, but old and had just had major surgery so I felt it was a crucial time for him to be guided back to the Church before it was too late.
My understanding at the time was that you could rely on an SSPX priest to come when called without hesitation or conditions, and that was exactly what occurred.
Now the policy seems to have changed, perhaps in reaction to Burbidge (Arlington diocese bishop) making such a big deal about the Society's presence in Front Royal. If this is the case, we are in trouble. Since when does the Society worry about what the novus ordo prelates say about them? Do they only abide by the rules when called out on them?
I think the faithful deserve an explanation of their new policy of deferring to the novus ordo for administering sacraments. And if they do believe that all novus ordo priests and sacraments are valid then they have absolutely no business doing what they are doing. It completely undermines the state of necessity that was proclaimed by the Archbishop.
Well said!
-
Dear AMDGJMJ
Thank God for Fr. Waters! He sounds like Fr. James Haynos, ordained by Archbishop Lefebvre, whose sole mission is the salvation of souls. He visited an older novus ordo couple on his way back to his priory monthly until he was transferred. Because of the declining health status of the husband, Fr made sure to administer the sacrament of Extreme Unction for him. The man died shortly after Fr. Haynos left his assignment. Another man had fallen away from the Church and was very near death. Fr. Haynos stayed nearby for three days bringing him back to the Faith. That man received all the sacraments before his death. The joy we could see on Fr.'s face telling us about it showed why he persevered. Being in the presence of a holy priest who is a true missionary of Our Lord is humbling. We thank God for giving us the many blessings we received learning about our Roman Catholic Faith, and learning what the life of a happy Roman Catholic priest really is like.
Caring for and taking care of your parents at the end of their lives is a true blessing. It can be very stressful, very tiring, but it is a unique opportunity to care for them just a little while the way they care for their children for a lifetime. God bless you and your family--still praying!
What a beautiful story! We need more priests like this who truly put God and the salvation of souls first! Thank you so much for sharing! 😇
-
If Father Waters had not been able to make it, my next step was going to be to contact Father McMahon from NY who worked with my old confessor Father Collins both of whom are/were sedevacantists. He has brought the last Sacraments to many people in places where others would not.
I know of a specific case in the fast few years where Father McMahon flew down to Florida to give last rites to someone whom the SSPX refused to go see because the person wasn't in their parish (even though only a couple hours away from). So, in actuality some sedevacantist priests seem to be more willing to go the extra mile to help those dying more than the SSPX. I did not call him though because he is much further away and wanted to try and have a priest come for whom it might be less inconvenient.
As to whether I hold the sedevacantist position that is irrelevant. I was trying to find any surly validly ordained Catholic priest who was willing to help. I personally believe that the novus ordinations are questionable but apparently the SSPX does not anymore.
Good to know that sedevacantist priests are willing to give last rites to anyone. I wasn't aware of that.
Why does the SSPX have to assess the validity of the ordination of a novus ordo priest who isn't affiliated with them at all, in regards to the said novus ordo priest giving last rites to someone who isn't a traditionalist, and who didn't ask for a traditional priest? Is that really their job?
-
Good to know that sedevacantist priests are willing to give last rites to anyone. I wasn't aware of that.
Why does the SSPX have to assess the validity of the ordination of a novus ordo priest who isn't affiliated with them at all, in regards to the said novus ordo priest giving last rites to someone who isn't a traditionalist, and who didn't ask for a traditional priest? Is that really their job?
Oh, my goodness... Really? 🤦
I thumbed up you for the first paragraph but then I read the second paragraph afterwards...
My parents were actually making an effort by giving their consent to have a traditional Catholic priest when for years they would have not normally had anything to do with a traditional priest. That itself was a great grace from God in my opinion. So... Do you think they would be encouraged to be traditional by then being told, "Oh... Well, the SSPX say just to use a local novus ordo priest."
It would have been better if the SSPX had just said, "No we can't help you. Find someone else." But instead they suggested to bring in a local novus ordo priest. This seems to indicate that they really no longer question novus ordo ordinations at all. That was the point that I was trying to make.
-
So the state of necessity has to do with the question of the validity of the sacraments? Is that why +ABL started the SSPX, in your view? Did he really start the SSPX because he believed the NO sacraments to be invalid?
From what I understand... The good Archbishop Lefebvre did question the validity of the new ordinations even if the SSPX no longer does.
Here is a letter he wrote about four months after the Episcopal Consecrations in Econe:
"Ecône, 28 oct. 1988
Very dear Mr. Wilson,
Thank you very much for your kind letter. I agree with your desire to reordain conditionnaly these priests, and I have done this reordination many times.
All sacraments from the modernists bishops or priests are doubtfull now. The changes are increasing and their intentions are no more catholics.
We are in the time of great apostasy.
We need more and more bishops and priests very catholics. It is necessary everywhere in the world.
Thank you for the newspaper article from the Father Alvaro Antonio Perez Jesuit!
We must pray and work hardly to extend the kingdom of Jesus-Christ.
I pray for you and your lovely family.
Devotly in Jesus and Mary.
Marcel Lefebvre"
-
Oh, my goodness... Really? 🤦
I thumbed up you for the first paragraph but then I read the second paragraph afterwards...
My parents were actually making an effort by giving their consent to have a traditional Catholic priest when for years they would have not normally had anything to do with a traditional priest. That itself was a great grace from God in my opinion. So... Do you think they would be encouraged to be traditional by then being told, "Oh... Well, the SSPX say just to use a local novus ordo priest."
It would have been better if the SSPX had just said, "No we can't help you. Find someone else." But instead they suggested to bring in a local novus ordo priest. This seems to indicate that they really no longer question novus ordo ordinations at all. That was the point that I was trying to make.
And if the SSPX would have said to just find someone else, then you wouldn't have complained about them? The SSPX have never considered NO sacraments to be invalid.
They do, however, have to make a decision when a novus ordo priest wants to join them - they have to assess as to whether or not the NO ordination was valid. But this is because the NO priest came to them and wanted to join them. Do you see the difference between your situation and the situation with NO priests coming to them to join them?
As far as I know, the SSPX do not get involved with non-SSPX laity who want or need last rites. I suppose you think that's a horrible thing, but it makes sense to me.
So many people want to re-invent the history of the SSPX, especially the ralliers (who want to reconcile with Rome) and the sedevacantists. The thing is, no matter how much flack the SSPX gets from the left and the right, it will likely still exist when we have all gone to our eternal reward.
-
And if the SSPX would have said to just find someone else, then you wouldn't have complained about them? The SSPX have never considered NO sacraments to be invalid.
Well, we have Archbishop Lefebvre writing at one point that nearly all NO Sacraments can be presumed doubtful. So the position of SSPX has clearly loosened regarding the validity of NO Sacraments. Sean has a lot of evidence to back that up.
-
Well, we have Archbishop Lefebvre writing at one point that nearly all NO Sacraments can be presumed doubtful. So the position of SSPX has clearly loosened regarding the validity of NO Sacraments. Sean has a lot of evidence to back that up.
Well, Archbishop Lefebvre said a lot of things that didn't actually become a policy of the SSPX. The SSPX doesn't presume that the NO sacraments are doubtful. Why should they? They don't have anything to do with the NO.
Each case of a NO priest coming to them to join them is investigated. They are not automatically re-ordained. Never have been.
-
So the state of necessity has to do with the question of the validity of the sacraments? Is that why +ABL started the SSPX, in your view? Did he really start the SSPX because he believed the NO sacraments to be invalid?
ABL absolutely had doubts about the validity of the NO sacraments. It is one of the main reasons for the crisis in the Church. It seems like people like yourself and the neo-sspx are the one's who are trying to rewrite history.
This new policy is not how the sspx originally operated. The more they try to gloss over the problems in the novus ordo church, the more it undermines their reason for being. No crisis = no state of necessity.
-
Oh, my goodness... Really? 🤦
I thumbed up you for the first paragraph but then I read the second paragraph afterwards...
My parents were actually making an effort by giving their consent to have a traditional Catholic priest when for years they would have not normally had anything to do with a traditional priest. That itself was a great grace from God in my opinion. So... Do you think they would be encouraged to be traditional by then being told, "Oh... Well, the SSPX say just to use a local novus ordo priest."
It would have been better if the SSPX had just said, "No we can't help you. Find someone else." But instead they suggested to bring in a local novus ordo priest. This seems to indicate that they really no longer question novus ordo ordinations at all. That was the point that I was trying to make.
Exactly! What a scandal.
-
Well, Archbishop Lefebvre said a lot of things that didn't actually become a policy of the SSPX. The SSPX doesn't presume that the NO sacraments are doubtful. Why should they? They don't have anything to do with the NO.
Each case of a NO priest coming to them to join them is investigated. They are not automatically re-ordained. Never have been.
Dear Meg
Perhaps you missed it, but novus ordo ordained- in-the-new-rite Vitus Huonder, consecrated-in-the-new-rite attempted to consecrate the Holy Oils this year for the FSSPX in Germany and beyond. I refer you to Sean Johnson's "RE: +Huonder: The Fox in the Henhouse"--excellent work.
-
ABL absolutely had doubts about the validity of the NO sacraments. It is one of the main reasons for the crisis in the Church. It seems like people like yourself and the neo-sspx are the one's who are trying to rewrite history.
This new policy is not how the sspx originally operated. The more they try to gloss over the problems in the novus ordo church, the more it undermines their reason for being. No crisis = no state of necessity.
Can you cite where +ABL said that the NO sacraments are invalid, and that the policy of the SSPX is to presume that they are invalid?
+ABL started the SSPX so that Tradition can be saved and maintained - until such a time as it was wanted again. His job was to train up priests in the Old Mass, as well as form them in sound doctrine, and to stand up for Tradition in the face of Modernism. This is something that the sedevacantists can't tolerate, so +ABL must be reformed into something that he wasn't. And trads are generally gullible enough to fall for it.
-
Each case of a NO priest coming to them to join them is investigated. They are not automatically re-ordained. Never have been.
I know this to be untrue, as I was at the seminary when various NO priests arrived to receive conditional ordination simply by their request. There was no investigation. One priest said he had no doubts about his orders but said he wanted to get conditionally ordained to put the faithful at his chapel at ease (since many of them did have doubts). No investigation was done for those cases about which I have first-hand knowledge from my time at STAS.
-
I know this to be untrue, as I was at the seminary when various NO priests arrived to receive conditional ordination simply by their request. There was no investigation. One priest said he had no doubts about his orders but said he wanted to get conditionally ordained to put the faithful at his chapel at ease (since many of them did have doubts). No investigation was done for those cases about which I have first-hand knowledge from my time at STAS.
Okay, how does that change the subject at hand? It has never been the policy of the SSPX to automatically re-ordain Novus Ordo priests.
It really is futile to try to talk sense to sedevacantists. I give up. The SSPX will, however, likely outlast any of the sedevacantist groups. The SSPX has many faults, but extremism isn't one of them. That's why they are likely to survive (provided they don't reconcile with Rome).
And the Resistance is likely to split after +W goes to his eternal reward, so I place no hope in them at all anymore.
-
Can you cite where +ABL said that the NO sacraments are invalid, and that the policy of the SSPX is to presume that they are invalid?
+ABL started the SSPX so that Tradition can be saved and maintained - until such a time as it was wanted again. His job was to train up priests in the Old Mass, as well as form them in sound doctrine, and to stand up for Tradition in the face of Modernism. This is something that the sedevacantists can't tolerate, so +ABL must be reformed into something that he wasn't. And trads are generally gullible enough to fall for it.
So, if we assume your narrative is true, why did Lefebvre insist on ordaining all of his priests using the Old Rite of Priestly Ordination and why did he use the the Old Rite of Episcopal Consecration in 1988? In fact, why does the SSPX, to do this day, continue to do this?
Isn't the main principle of R&R to go along with the Pope on all things that do not harm the faith or morals? If the new Holy Orders were perfectly fine, why then did not Lefebvre embrace those Rites in the ordinations that he performed? Wouldn't it be at least highly probable that he had some doubts about the VALIDITY of those "orders." Why else would he go against apparent wishes of the Pope and the practice of the entire Catholic Church after 1968?
-
The SSPX priests defer to the Novus Ordo and will not step on any feet and cross NO jurisdictional boundaries, as if the "anointing" by the doubtfully ordained NO priest is an acceptable replacement or something. Not the same SSPX I used to know.
-
I know this to be untrue, as I was at the seminary when various NO priests arrived to receive conditional ordination simply by their request. There was no investigation. One priest said he had no doubts about his orders but said he wanted to get conditionally ordained to put the faithful at his chapel at ease (since many of them did have doubts). No investigation was done for those cases about which I have first-hand knowledge from my time at STAS.
So are you saying that the SSPX practice went from conditionally re-ordaining novus ordo priests who requested it, to not or rarely conditionally re-ordaining novus ordo priests who request?
-
The SSPX priests defer to the Novus Ordo and will not step on any feet and cross NO jurisdictional boundaries, as if the "anointing" by the doubtfully ordained NO priest is an acceptable replacement or something. Not the same SSPX I used to know.
What a ridiculous statement. SSPX Priests all over the place regularly make sick calls and give Extreme Unction to those in need of it. Sure, in this thread there are 2 cases where SSPX Priests supposedly did not go to give Extreme Unction when they could have, yet in at least one of these instances the person involved:
1) Wasn't a parishioner of the Priest in question
2) Wasn't even a traditional Catholic
3) Didn't personally request a visit from a Priest at all, from a traditional Priest in particular, or even more this SSPX Priest specifically
4) If the OP of this incident is full and complete, the person showed no signs of repentance, nor of a desire to receive Extreme Unction from ANYONE, let alone this particular SSPX Priest
Others in this thread have said the SSPX Priest in question had a duty in charity to this person. My answer to that: think about the number of people on whatever road you live on. How many of those people would fit the four descriptives I just listed? Probably everyone on your road except you and your family. Does any random SSPX Priest have some obligation in charity to everyone living on your road then? To everyone in the obituary column of your local newspaper? To every resident of the nearest nursing home?
The SSPX won't cross jurisdictional boundaries? Bishop Fellay just consecrated a large church in Mexico with no regard whatsoever to the "jurisdictional boundary" of the Novus Ordo Ordinary of the place. Read the public statement of the Novus Ordo Archbishop of Puebla if you don't believe me. Ask the Novus Ordo Archbishop of Puebla if he feels his feet got stepped on.
-
So are you saying that the SSPX practice went from conditionally re-ordaining novus ordo priests who requested it, to not or rarely conditionally re-ordaining novus ordo priests who request?
What I'm saying is that I am personally aware of several cases from the late 1980s and early 1990s where no "investigation" was done before performing conditional ordinations.
-
Was this a younger-generation priest, ordained, say within the last 15 years or so? I've noticed a disgraceful lack of zeal for souls among many of them. They are more concerned about organizing activities than in saving souls.
About 15 years out I would say, yes.
-
I do not agree. If that seems too legalistic, then so be it.
The Church wants souls to go to Heaven, Meg, not Hell. That is the Supreme Law of the Church. There is absolutely no law that trumps it. The whole of the Church's law is geared towards this end, and if ever there is a situation where it would not serve this end, it ought not to be followed. In cases of necessity, every priest has jurisdiction. The Church even wants a non-Catholic minister to come to the rescue in such cases if no Catholic minister can be found.
-
And the Resistance is likely to split after +W goes to his eternal reward, so I place no hope in them at all anymore.
"I place no hope in them at all". Really? So where do you place your hope, Meg?
If we are with the Resistance, is it not because we have judged that to be the truly Catholic position?
Of course there will be continued break-aways from the Resistance, that is the history of the true religion. The Catholic Church from its foundation has had how many tens of thousands of sects split off? Same for the SSPX - hardly a year has passed since its foundation that there have not been defections. In any institution where human beings are involved there will always be error splitting away from truth, it is inevitable. Fr Pfieffer wasn't the first, and he won't be the last.
So keep up your hopes! God will never abandon His truth, and He will never abandon us unless we first abandon Him.
-
I'm sorry, but traditional Priests can't simply drop whatever they're doing for their own chapel(s) and parishioners to go visit sick or dying people who:
1) aren't their parishioners
2) aren't even traditional
3) aren't in the immediate area
and
4) didn't personally ask for them in the first place.
It would be great if they could visit everybody, but there are roughly 100 SSPX Priests in the United States, and the United States is a very big country.
That might seem harsh, but that's reality. Please give your Priests a break.
Wow, just wow.
-
Well, we have Archbishop Lefebvre writing at one point that nearly all NO Sacraments can be presumed doubtful. So the position of SSPX has clearly loosened regarding the validity of NO Sacraments. Sean has a lot of evidence to back that up.
Fr. Jahir of the FBMV (aligned with the Resistance in Brazil) was also not conditionally ordained even though he was ordained in the New Rite. I don't know why is this an issue now brought up by certain factions in the Resistance when the Resistance has not been consistent on this matter themselves. As far as I personally know, conditional ordinations were still done by in the SSPX in the mid 2000s.
-
I think if you are a legitimate traditional priest, and a Catholic ( any Catholic) calls for extreme Unction, you'd better have a damn good reason before God and man for not showing up and not arranging for another priest ( NOT NO) who will.
-
Update: Not only did the SSPX suggest a novus ordo priest but when I refused to arrange for the novus ordo priest to visit my father the SSPX apparently decided that they would contact him anyways without our asking or my father agreeing to it. :facepalm:
He just showed up at the hospital unannounced. He was two days late. Father Waters had already been there and my father was already doing better. I wonder what he thought of that and if he reported it back to the SSPX... :popcorn:
-
Fr. Jahir of the FBMV (aligned with the Resistance in Brazil) was also not conditionally ordained even though he was ordained in the New Rite. I don't know why is this an issue now brought up by certain factions in the Resistance when the Resistance has not been consistent on this matter themselves. As far as I personally know, conditional ordinations were still done by in the SSPX in the mid 2000s.
The monastery of Fr Jahir was aligned with the SSPX in pre-Resistance times. I don't know the story of Fr Jahir's ordination.
But of course, Archbishop Lefebvre considered the new rite of priestly ordination valid in itself.
Doubts as to validity arose because of vernacular translations, adaptations, revolutionising the theology of the priesthood etc, such that it became increasingly difficult over time to remove that doubt. Hence, a readiness on the part of the old SSPX to conditionally ordain. One can see clearly from ABL's 'letter to Mr Wilson' what his position was.
The problem with the SSPX now is that it seems to be increasingly favouring validity, even presuming validity. I have encountered this attitude myself with SSPX priests on more than one occasion. A simple blanket statement 'they're valid priests'. Period!
I don't think there is inconsistency in the Resistance, but rather a real quasi-official change of attitude/position in the SSPX.
-
Update: Not only did the SSPX suggest a novus ordo priest but when I refused to arrange for the novus ordo priest to visit my father the SSPX apparently decided that they would contact him anyways without our asking or my father agreeing to it. :facepalm:
He was two days late. Father Waters had already been there and my father was already doing better. I wonder what he thought of that and if he reported it back to the SSPX... :popcorn:I
What??? Was it a case of they knew this priest really well, knew for certain his ordination was valid, and knew he used the old rite and valid oils for Confirmation??? Not likely. I am just so disappointed hearing this coming from Fr MacPherson...
-
What??? Was it a case of they knew this priest really well, knew for certain his ordination was valid, and knew he used the old rite and valid oils for Confirmation??? Not likely. I am just so disappointed hearing this coming from Fr MacPherson...
Yeah... :facepalm:
Father MacPherson said that they were on good terms with this novus ordo priest, Father Lundberg, and that he offered the Latin Mass at his parish and would use the Old Rite.
Interestingly... The local Bishop has specifically said that any traditional Sacraments like Baptism and Extreme Unction are not allowed for his diocesan priests to do in our diocese.
So, that begs the question... Would he have specifically gone against his bishop or actually have used the novus ordo "Anointing of the Sick" when he went?
I know a lady whose sister went to college with Fr. Lundberg. She says that he is a nice man but that his ordination is definitely not certainly valid.
I have also heard of Fr. Lundberg before... So, as soon as I heard his name I knew who Father MacPherson was talking about and flatly refused to have him visit my father.
I told Father MacPherson we could just talk to Father Gee if we wanted to go that route since he had been my father's parish priest before he stopped going. Apparently Father MacPherson didn't like that... Father Gee causes too much tension for the SSPX. 😅
-
Yeah... :facepalm:
Father MacPherson said that they were on good terms with this novus ordo priest, Father Lundberg, and that he offered the Latin Mass at his parish and would use the Old Rite.
Interestingly... The local Bishop has specifically said that any traditional Sacraments like Baptism and Extreme Unction are not allowed for his diocesan priests to do in our diocese.
So, that begs the question... Would he have specifically gone against his bishop or actually have used the novus ordo "Anointing of the Sick" when he went?
I know a lady whose sister went to college with Fr. Lundberg. She says that he is a nice man but that his ordination is definitely not certainly valid.
Thanks for the update. Really sad to hear the way our beloved SSPX is heading. I hope your Father is doing better.
I was a bit distracted when I wrote my posts above. With the old SSPX (and the Resistance) the presumption with new orders was against validity until all doubt removed by investigation. With the neo-SSPX there are just too many examples showing that the presumption is now in favour of validity...
-
Yeah... :facepalm:
Father MacPherson said that they were on good terms with this novus ordo priest, Father Lundberg, and that he offered the Latin Mass at his parish and would use the Old Rite.
Interestingly... The local Bishop has specifically said that any traditional Sacraments like Baptism and Extreme Unction are not allowed for his diocesan priests to do in our diocese.
So, that begs the question... Would he have specifically gone against his bishop or actually have used the novus ordo "Anointing of the Sick" when he went?
I know a lady whose sister went to college with Fr. Lundberg. She says that he is a nice man but that his ordination is definitely not certainly valid.
Fr. Lundberg has Opus Dei connections. The SSPX are on good terms with the priests who are leading the charge against the SSPX in the diocese of Arlington? These priests who are supposedly "obedient" to their bishop? I'm not sure what is going on here but it doesn't sit well with me.
-
Update: Not only did the SSPX suggest a novus ordo priest but when I refused to arrange for the novus ordo priest to visit my father the SSPX apparently decided that they would contact him anyways without our asking or my father agreeing to it. :facepalm:
He just showed up at the hospital unannounced. He was two days late. Father Waters had already been there and my father was already doing better. I wonder what he thought of that and if he reported it back to the SSPX... :popcorn:
Sounds like damage control. Perhaps they have been reading Cathinfo? :popcorn:
-
(post deleted)
-
My answer to that: think about the number of people on whatever road you live on. How many of those people would fit the four descriptives I just listed? Probably everyone on your road except you and your family.
Not on the road I live on; out of the 12 houses on the street, only two families are not Traditional Catholics. ;)
-
What I'm saying is that I am personally aware of several cases from the late 1980s and early 1990s where no "investigation" was done before performing conditional ordinations.
Right,
I'm thinking that the old SSPX were more than happy to conditionally re-ordain novus ordo priests without conducting an investigation, "just in case". Now it seems that the present SSPX presumes that any novus ordo priest who wants to join them, is validly ordained, and they may investigate his ordination if it calls for.
-
Not on the road I live on; out of the 12 houses on the street, only two families are not Traditional Catholics. ;)
And where would this be, if you don't mind saying? (A general description, even if only the state, would suffice.)
-
Okay, how does that change the subject at hand? It has never been the policy of the SSPX to automatically re-ordain Novus Ordo priests.
It really is futile to try to talk sense to sedevacantists. I give up. The SSPX will, however, likely outlast any of the sedevacantist groups. The SSPX has many faults, but extremism isn't one of them. That's why they are likely to survive (provided they don't reconcile with Rome).
And the Resistance is likely to split after +W goes to his eternal reward, so I place no hope in them at all anymore.
Meg, conditional ordination and consecration has nothing to do with sedevacantism. If Bp. Williamson ordained or consecrated using the new form I would have a grave doubt. The issue is with a questionably defective form.
-
Right,
I'm thinking that the old SSPX were more than happy to conditionally re-ordain novus ordo priests without conducting an investigation, "just in case". Now it seems that the present SSPX presumes that any novus ordo priest who wants to join them, is validly ordained, and they may investigate his ordination if it calls for.
I believe that they did as a matter of course, and it was only when an NO priest became stubborn that they might relent (cf. the case of "Father" Stark that was one of the main contributors to the departure of "The Nine").
-
And where would this be, if you don't mind saying? (A general description, even if only the state, would suffice.)
It is the place that you can probably easily guess.
-
It is the place that you can probably easily guess.
St Mary's maybe? :popcorn:
-
Update: Not only did the SSPX suggest a novus ordo priest but when I refused to arrange for the novus ordo priest to visit my father the SSPX apparently decided that they would contact him anyways without our asking or my father agreeing to it. :facepalm:
He just showed up at the hospital unannounced. He was two days late. Father Waters had already been there and my father was already doing better. I wonder what he thought of that and if he reported it back to the SSPX... :popcorn:
This is truly shameful. I am sorry for the anxiety and trouble you have been given over this, what seems to me, a dereliction of duty on the part of the SSPX priest.
A priest’s absolute first priority should be to go the the rescue of any soul who is tinkering on the edge of life and is willing to receive his ministrations, whatever his affiliation to this or that group within the traditional Catholic movement or even if he hs no affiliation. Such a person may be moreso in need of rescue from eternal danger.
Meg says, that is not his job.. But Priesthood is not a job. Priesthood is a heroic sacrifice for the salvation of souls - not just SSPX souls but all lost and abandoned souls.
Where is the heroic missionary spirit today?
-
I believe that they did as a matter of course, and it was only when an NO priest became stubborn that they might relent (cf. the case of "Father" Stark that was one of the main contributors to the departure of "The Nine").
I think the reason why Archbishop Lefebvre allowed fr. Stark in the SSPX is because Fr. Stark was most likely ordained by an old rite bishop, albeit with the new rite of ordination; which is less problematic than the new rite of episcopal consecration. Fr. Stark was ordained in 1970 I believe.
-
What I'm saying is that I am personally aware of several cases from the late 1980s and early 1990s where no "investigation" was done before performing conditional ordinations.
You would have been in the best place to judge, but sometimes an investigation might have simply been the NO priest phoning the seminary, speaking with Bishop Williamson and explaining "Bishop Martin Luther Jr ordained me at the local circus". Response: "Lad, set up the chapel again". It would be interesting to hear BW's explanation. After all, Archbishop Lefebvre made it clear that in cases where there is no doubt, it is a sacrilege to "repeat" the ordination. There is no way that BW ever held the new rite to be automatically invalid. Agree?
-
Meg, conditional ordination and consecration has nothing to do with sedevacantism. If Bp. Williamson ordained or consecrated using the new form I would have a grave doubt. The issue is with a questionably defective form.
No, OA, it is not a question of the FORM for the new rite of ordination of priests FOR THE SSPX OF OLD OR THE RESISTANCE. This is everything to do with Sedevacantism! As an ex-seminarian from St Thomas Aquinas Seminary, you ought to know that. Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX do not, and have never, held the officially promulgated new rite form of priestly ordination to be invalid. Your doubts are not at all the same as the doubts held by Archbishop Lefebvre or the SSPX of old on this matter.
-
Yeah... :facepalm:
Father MacPherson said that they were on good terms with this novus ordo priest, Father Lundberg, and that he offered the Latin Mass at his parish and would use the Old Rite.
Interestingly... The local Bishop has specifically said that any traditional Sacraments like Baptism and Extreme Unction are not allowed for his diocesan priests to do in our diocese.
So, that begs the question... Would he have specifically gone against his bishop or actually have used the novus ordo "Anointing of the Sick" when he went?
I know a lady whose sister went to college with Fr. Lundberg. She says that he is a nice man but that his ordination is definitely not certainly valid.
I have also heard of Fr. Lundberg before... So, as soon as I heard his name I knew who Father MacPherson was talking about and flatly refused to have him visit my father.
I told Father MacPherson we could just talk to Father Gee if we wanted to go that route since he had been my father's parish priest before he stopped going. Apparently Father MacPherson didn't like that... Father Gee causes too much tension for the SSPX. 😅
This Fr Lundberg, here, delegated to implement the policies of Traditionis Custodes??? Oh dear!
Arlington diocese delegate: Fr. Bjorn Lundberg - The Sacred: Catholic Liturgy, Chant, Prayers - Catholic Info (cathinfo.com) (https://www.cathinfo.com/the-sacred-catholic-liturgy-chant-prayers/arlington-diocese-delegate-fr-bjorn-lundberg/msg885203/?topicseen#msg885203)
-
It is the place that you can probably easily guess.
Did Dorothy tell Toto we're not there anymore?
-
This Fr Lundberg, here, delegated to implement the policies of Traditionis Custodes??? Oh dear!
Arlington diocese delegate: Fr. Bjorn Lundberg - The Sacred: Catholic Liturgy, Chant, Prayers - Catholic Info (cathinfo.com) (https://www.cathinfo.com/the-sacred-catholic-liturgy-chant-prayers/arlington-diocese-delegate-fr-bjorn-lundberg/msg885203/?topicseen#msg885203)
Yep! :popcorn:
-
The monastery of Fr Jahir was aligned with the SSPX in pre-Resistance times. I don't know the story of Fr Jahir's ordination.
But of course, Archbishop Lefebvre considered the new rite of priestly ordination valid in itself.
Doubts as to validity arose because of vernacular translations, adaptations, revolutionising the theology of the priesthood etc, such that it became increasingly difficult over time to remove that doubt. Hence, a readiness on the part of the old SSPX to conditionally ordain. One can see clearly from ABL's 'letter to Mr Wilson' what his position was.
The problem with the SSPX now is that it seems to be increasingly favouring validity, even presuming validity. I have encountered this attitude myself with SSPX priests on more than one occasion. A simple blanket statement 'they're valid priests'. Period!
I don't think there is inconsistency in the Resistance, but rather a real quasi-official change of attitude/position in the SSPX.
Dom Tomas de Aquino basically said the same thing about Fr. Jahir's ordination - it is valid. Period! There is the objective position of the SSPX and the Archbishop that presumes validity unless there is anything showing otherwise. And then there are the subjective opinions of laity that does not feel comfortable with such priests hence we hear some are conditionally ordained to assuage such fears and some are not.
-
Dom Tomas de Aquino basically said the same thing about Fr. Jahir's ordination - it is valid. Period! There is the objective position of the SSPX and the Archbishop that presumes validity unless there is anything showing otherwise. And then there are the subjective opinions of laity that does not feel comfortable with such priests hence we hear some are conditionally ordained to assuage such fears and some are not.
No, that is not the same thing. Concluding validity after investigation is not at all the same as presuming validity before investigation.
-
What needs to be addressed is that there is a strong Opus Dei influence in the Arlington Diocese. It's usually the conservative, cassock wearing priests who know how to offer the TLM who are members.
It has come to my attention that two diocesan priests who fit that description recently visited the seminary in Dillwyn. One of whom I know is strongly anti-sspx. I'm sure the seminary warmly welcomed them but it begs the question of what is really going on with these relations when the bishop here is so against the Society and has even labeled them schismatic.
The sspx priests down at the seminary are not from this area, and probably have no idea of the OD influence in this diocese. Perhaps they have been duped by the conservative appearance and apparent orthodoxy of these priests. But they need to understand that they will never leave the conciliar church and the novus ordo because of their false sense of obedience to the conciliar hierarchy, especially if they are members of OD.
-
Did Dorothy tell Toto we're not there anymore?
Yes, she did. To her surprise Toto answered back "Told-ya not to be smoking dem poppies"
-
Dom Tomas de Aquino basically said the same thing about Fr. Jahir's ordination - it is valid. Period! There is the objective position of the SSPX and the Archbishop that presumes validity unless there is anything showing otherwise. And then there are the subjective opinions of laity that does not feel comfortable with such priests hence we hear some are conditionally ordained to assuage such fears and some are not.
Sure, the opinions of the laity are all just subjective feelings. Right. Many of the laity are fairly well informed about the matter, and some even have some seminary training. In fact, those who are less informed just tend to go along with whatever their priest tells them.
-
Sure, the opinions of the laity are all just subjective feelings. Right. Many of the laity are fairly well informed about the matter, and some even have some seminary training. In fact, those who are less informed just tend to go along with whatever their priest tells them.
Dear Ladislaus,
Thank you! Even though some SSPX priests think that the laity can't read Latin or do any research on our Roman Catholic Faith, as we are instructed to do in order to know our Faith; some of us actually can and do that work. We do it out of duty, but most of all, out of love of Our Lord and the Faith he has given us. Positive doubt about the validity of ordinations and consecrations is not a "feeling"!
-
No, OA, it is not a question of the FORM for the new rite of ordination of priests FOR THE SSPX OF OLD OR THE RESISTANCE. This is everything to do with Sedevacantism! As an ex-seminarian from St Thomas Aquinas Seminary, you ought to know that. Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX do not, and have never, held the officially promulgated new rite form of priestly ordination to be invalid. Your doubts are not at all the same as the doubts held by Archbishop Lefebvre or the SSPX of old on this matter.
Plenus, the problem with the SSPX- and it has always persisted- is that there has never been an "official position" on any issue of importance. When I was in seminary '94-'97 I was told by three different seminary professors not to say that the New Mass is a sacrilege, because the language is "too rough." We do not want to upset the apple cart! One professor said to me, "How are we going to convert the Novus Ordo Catholics if we say that the New Mass is a sin?" This liberalism has always persisted in the SSPX, hence now we have a breakoff SSPX - The Resistance. You seem to have conflated separate issues, the new rites of the sacraments/Mass with the Sede issue.
When Fr. Wathen began writing the Great Sacrilege (before the SSPX existed in America), the burning question was not, "Is Paul VI a valid pope or not?" but rather, "The New Mass and the New Sacraments are sinful, and Catholics may not participate in them." Sure, there were sedes even in the late 60's early 70's, but the main focus was the orthodoxy, the validity, the morality of these "novelties" in the Church.
-
No, OA, it is not a question of the FORM for the new rite of ordination of priests FOR THE SSPX OF OLD OR THE RESISTANCE. This is everything to do with Sedevacantism!
:jester: No it doesn't. A positive doubt of the new-church's sacraments does not (directly) lead to sedevacantism. Mutually exclusive.
Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX do not, and have never, held the officially promulgated new rite form of priestly ordination to be invalid.
That's mainly because of the issue of time. +ABL could not write-off all new-ordinations as invalid because some of them were done by valid novus ordo bishops.
In the same way, that's why +ABL never said all novus ordo masses are invalid...because AT THE TIME (70s, 80s, 90s), you still had valid novus ordo priests/bishops, who, if they used the TRADITIONAL CANON, even in the new mass, it could be valid.
Ultimately, the problem with the new-sspx is that it did not update its philosophy on new-rome once all the old, valid, novus ordo priests died. Now that new-rome is 99% filled with new-rite bishops/priests, the "positive doubt" about such is VERY GREAT. I don't see how anyone could argue otherwise.
PlenusV, you're making an argument based on decades-old data. This is why it's faulty.
-
Yes, she did. To her surprise Toto answered back "Told-ya not to be smoking dem poppies"
The whole The Wizard of Oz thing is something that a person on hallucinogenics might see while under their influence. (Not that I would know.)
-
Plenus, the problem with the SSPX- and it has always persisted- is that there has never been an "official position" on any issue of importance. When I was in seminary '94-'97 I was told by three different seminary professors not to say that the New Mass is a sacrilege, because the language is "too rough." We do not want to upset the apple cart! One professor said to me, "How are we going to convert the Novus Ordo Catholics if we say that the New Mass is a sin?" This liberalism has always persisted in the SSPX, hence now we have a breakoff SSPX - The Resistance. You seem to have conflated separate issues, the new rites of the sacraments/Mass with the Sede issue.
When Fr. Wathen began writing the Great Sacrilege (before the SSPX existed in America), the burning question was not, "Is Paul VI a valid pope or not?" but rather, "The New Mass and the New Sacraments are sinful, and Catholics may not participate in them." Sure, there were sedes even in the late 60's early 70's, but the main focus was the orthodoxy, the validity, the morality of these "novelties" in the Church.
When you get right down to it, sedevacantism and acceptance or rejection of the Novus Ordo have nothing to do with each other. In theory, a person could reject Francis as Pope, yet accept the NOM.
-
The whole The Wizard of Oz thing is something that a person on hallucinogenics might see while under their influence. (Not that I would know.)
Interesting. I've never seen that movie, but I think that sort of thing was a fad in late 19th-early 20th century. Alice in Wonderland definitely has a strongly hallucinogenic feel to it, and even Chesterton's fictional writings (much as I love them) have a strongly irrational atmosphere, such as The Napoleon of Notting Hill, the Ball and the Cross, The Man Who Was Thursday, and most of the Father Brown stories.
-
Interesting. I've never seen that movie, but I think that sort of thing was a fad in late 19th-early 20th century. Alice in Wonderland definitely has a strongly hallucinogenic feel to it, and even Chesterton's fictional writings (much as I love them) have a strongly irrational atmosphere, such as The Napoleon of Notting Hill, the Ball and the Cross, The Man Who Was Thursday, and most of the Father Brown stories.
People had longer attention spans, and in the era you cite, they didn't have cinematic entertainment, so they had to create "pictures in their minds", the more florid and fanciful, the better. There was also the desire, then as now, for the escapism of fantasy.
-
The whole The Wizard of Oz thing is something that a person on hallucinogenics might see while under their influence. (Not that I would know.)
The Wizard of Oz is actually an allegory for the usurpation of the American monetary system.
Here's a docuмentary about that: https://odysee.com/@TGHeretic:7/Bill-Still_-The-Secret-of-Oz:2
-
:jester: No it doesn't. A positive doubt of the new-church's sacraments does not (directly) lead to sedevacantism. Mutually exclusive.
That's mainly because of the issue of time. +ABL could not write-off all new-ordinations as invalid because some of them were done by valid novus ordo bishops.
In the same way, that's why +ABL never said all novus ordo masses are invalid...because AT THE TIME (70s, 80s, 90s), you still had valid novus ordo priests/bishops, who, if they used the TRADITIONAL CANON, even in the new mass, it could be valid.
Ultimately, the problem with the new-sspx is that it did not update its philosophy on new-rome once all the old, valid, novus ordo priests died. Now that new-rome is 99% filled with new-rite bishops/priests, the "positive doubt" about such is VERY GREAT. I don't see how anyone could argue otherwise.
PlenusV, you're making an argument based on decades-old data. This is why it's faulty.
Good points! Thank you! :cowboy:
-
I believe that they did as a matter of course, and it was only when an NO priest became stubborn that they might relent (cf. the case of "Father" Stark that was one of the main contributors to the departure of "The Nine").
But way back in 1983, "The (Naughty) Nine" charged the SSPX with failure to administer conditional ordinations to incoming new rite priests.
2. Doubtful Priests
Over the past few years, the Society has accepted the service
of priests ordained by vernacular versions of the New Rite of
Ordination of 1968. On November 30, 1947, Pope Pius XII issued
his Apostolic Constitution Sacramentum Ordinis, dealing with
the matter of the Sacrament of Orders. It was his intention "to
put an end to all controversy," as he said. He did this by, among
other things, decreeing and determining which words in the
form for the ordination of a priest "are essential and therefore
requisite for validity."
The English words of the form in the New Rite of ordination
so differ from the ones Pius XII said were essential for validity
that they introduce a positive doubt as to its validity. In fact the
doubt is not negative, but positive enough even in your own
mind, Your Grace, so as to justify the conditional ordination of
priests ordained in the New Rite.
And so you have in fact conditionally ordained at least two
priests in America: Father Sullivan and Father [. . .]. Indeed, you
even asked Rev. Philip Stark to accept conditional ordination
and he, as you yourself told us, adamantly refused And yet, after
his refusal, you nevertheless allowed and continue to allow him
to work with the Society; and he is not the only doubtfully or-
dained priest that you permit to do so — he is one of many.
Thus under the aegis of the Society, doubtful Masses are be-
ing offered, doubtful absolutions are being given and dying
people are being anointed with an "Extreme Unction" that may
be invalid and of no more value than the anointing with oil done
by a Protestant minister.
How, one must ask before God, can the Society reject the
doubtful sacraments of the new Church only to replace them
with doubtful priests? How grave a sin this is! How false a pre-
tense! Furthermore the Society in the Southwest District has be-
gun to import to the United States priests whose theological
training and manner of ordination are under a similar cloud.
As Your Grace knows, this has been a source of scandal.
The employment of such priests strikes at the heart of one of
the reasons for the Society's existence: to provide unquestionably
valid sacraments for the faithful — for if a positive doubt exists
as to the validity of a priest's ordination, not only are the sacra-
ments he administers doubtful, but the faithful are put into a
position by the Society of choosing between the doubtful sacra-
ments of the new Church and the doubtful priests of the Society.
From the standpoint of Catholic morality this is inadmissible.
Source link (http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/NineLetter.pdf)
-
The Wizard of Oz is actually an allegory for the usurpation of the American monetary system.
Here's a docuмentary about that: https://odysee.com/@TGHeretic:7/Bill-Still_-The-Secret-of-Oz:2
It was about "jurisdiction" too. ;)
"You have no power here." (https://youtu.be/OQ_g6NOo7yo)
-
What needs to be addressed is that there is a strong Opus Dei influence in the Arlington Diocese. It's usually the conservative, cassock wearing priests who know how to offer the TLM who are members.
It has come to my attention that two diocesan priests who fit that description recently visited the seminary in Dillwyn. One of whom I know is strongly anti-sspx. I'm sure the seminary warmly welcomed them but it begs the question of what is really going on with these relations when the bishop here is so against the Society and has even labeled them schismatic.
The sspx priests down at the seminary are not from this area, and probably have no idea of the OD influence in this diocese. Perhaps they have been duped by the conservative appearance and apparent orthodoxy of these priests. But they need to understand that they will never leave the conciliar church and the novus ordo because of their false sense of obedience to the conciliar hierarchy, especially if they are members of OD.
You hit upon the sea serpent hiding beneath the waves.
It makes perfect sense that Opus Dei would hold a strong presence in Arlington and DC... the seat of American secular power.
Where the National Cathedral to the Immaculate Conception is domed both inside & out with the judaic six pointed star.
(https://i1.wp.com/memosandmirth.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/NationalShrineImmaculateConception11.jpg?resize=1140%2C1520&ssl=1)
The neo-SSPX's goal to obtain "prelature' from the jew-Pope is a threat to the Opus Dei, which holds enormous power within the schismatic church.
Opus Dei is the only religious order with the prelature privilege.
Michael Voris's "Church Militant" is Opus Dei funded social media, with the goal of undermining the SSPX threat.
But much more could be said... and should be said about Opus Judei.
-
I'm sorry, but traditional Priests can't simply drop whatever they're doing for their own chapel(s) and parishioners to go visit sick or dying people who:
1) aren't their parishioners
2) aren't even traditional
3) aren't in the immediate area
and
4) didn't personally ask for them in the first place.
It would be great if they could visit everybody, but there are roughly 100 SSPX Priests in the United States, and the United States is a very big country.
That might seem harsh, but that's reality. Please give your Priests a break.
Between 2009 and 2012, I learned from direct experience that the SSPX had a discreet policy in place not to provide Sacraments to non SSPX members.
One involved a dying fallen-away Novus ordo gentleman and the other a dying Hispanic lady who was new to Catholic Tradition.
In the latter case, the SSPX priest advised the Catholic lady's friend that if she had not come to the SSPX chapel before her illness, he would not be allowed by his superiors to come to the hospital to give her Last Rites.
-
Plenus, the problem with the SSPX- and it has always persisted- is that there has never been an "official position" on any issue of importance.
OA, come on! You lost your credibility right there at the very start!
-
One professor said to me, "How are we going to convert the Novus Ordo Catholics if we say that the New Mass is a sin?" This liberalism has always persisted in the SSPX
You had some interesting professors during those years. Where is THAT professor, now??? Unfortunately, that is the human element in any society, but they were certainly undermining the position of the Society of which they were members. Liberals will always be there, it is a question of superiors being vigilant to weed them out before they can do too much damage. As you know, there is a litany of defections from the SSPX from the day of its establishment, to the left of Conciliarism and to the right of Sedevacantism. Which way did you go again???!!!!
-
You seem to have conflated separate issues, the new rites of the sacraments/Mass with the Sede issue.
You replied to Meg that the issue of re-ordaining priests had nothing to do with Sedevacantism, when she had stated that it was never the policy of ABL and the SSPX to automatically re-ordain priests from the Conciliar Church, and you went on to say it was an issue of doubtful form. Now is it not true, that this is the Sedevacantist position, not Archbishop Lefebvre's position? Of course! That is the point! It is not a question of the form for ABL and the SSPX, but for Sedevacantists it is, as can clearly be seen by what Incred has subsequently posted. Meg was simply expressing our collective frustrations at having our SSPX/Resistance discussions compounded by Sedevacantist theology.
-
Between 2009 and 2012, I learned from direct experience that the SSPX had a discreet policy in place not to provide Sacraments to non SSPX members.
One involved a dying fallen-away Novus ordo gentleman and the other a dying Hispanic lady who was new to Catholic Tradition.
In the latter case, the SSPX priest advised the Catholic lady's friend that if she had not come to the SSPX chapel before her illness, he would not be allowed by his superiors to come to the hospital to give her Last Rites.
Firstly, there is no such thing as lay SSPX or non-SSPX members, unless one is of the Third Order. Secondly, I have personal experience where SSPX priests will go if the sick person himself explicitly requests for a Traditional priest, and not due to the overexaggerated wishes of the sick person's Traditional relatives hoping that sick person will somehow convert to Tradition at his deathbed. I have even first hand knowledge of someone wanting SSPX priests to celebrate the Funeral Mass of their non-Traditional relatives! What is the point in that if the dead person was never in favor of Tradition during his life? You may as well just ask for a mass for the dead said for that particular soul.
-
Ultimately, the problem with the new-sspx is that it did not update its philosophy on new-rome once all the old, valid, novus ordo priests died. Now that new-rome is 99% filled with new-rite bishops/priests, the "positive doubt" about such is VERY GREAT. I don't see how anyone could argue otherwise.
PlenusV, you're making an argument based on decades-old data. This is why it's faulty.
No, I'm arguing a principle, which does not change with data.
But I agree with you entirely, that over time, the doubts as to validity increase, as clearly expressed in Archbishop Lefebvre's letter to Mr Wilson. Eventually there will be no priests left in the Conciliar Church who were not ordained by newrite doubtful bishops. The presumption must be against validity now more than ever.
-
I have personal experience where SSPX priests will go if the sick person himself explicitly requests for a Traditional priest, and not due to the overexaggerated wishes of the sick person's Traditional relatives hoping that sick person will somehow convert to Tradition at his deathbed.
Yes, I too. Most SSPX priests I know will give the traditional certainly-valid sacraments to ANY Catholic who asks for them, especially in extremis. What a sad experience Incredulous relates, and God help such priests who have truly lost the understanding of their vocation.
-
No, I'm arguing a principle, which does not change with data.
:confused: What principle are you referring to? You said, a page ago, that the "form" of the new rite isn't doubtful. If you truly believe this, then how can you say the below, where you agree that "doubts as to validity increase" as time goes on. :confused: I'm totally confused.
But I agree with you entirely, that over time, the doubts as to validity increase, as clearly expressed in Archbishop Lefebvre's letter to Mr Wilson. Eventually there will be no priests left in the Conciliar Church who were not ordained by newrite doubtful bishops. The presumption must be against validity now more than ever.
Or are you saying that the main issue is the new rite consecrations? If so, I agree. But we can't minimize the issue with new-rite ordinations, just because the new-rite consecrations are MORE problematic. Both are problematic.
-
Was this a younger-generation priest, ordained, say within the last 15 years or so? I've noticed a disgraceful lack of zeal for souls among many of them. They are more concerned about organizing activities than in saving souls.
Mr. G can tell you about a notorious instance in which a Resistance man in St. Mary's was in a critical car accident, and the family called the priory. I won't say more than that, because I don't recall the exact sequence of events which followed.
-
If there is an SSPX policy by which their priests are giving the midddle finger to the families of dying Catholics, that is disgraceful (and a most grievous mortal sin directly repugnant to the priestly state).
Are you fricking kidding me???
:facepalm:
A priest has a duty in both justice and charity to go to the aid of those in extreme physical and/or spiritual necessity, regardless of the disposition of the dying or their family, or what parish they go to.
It sounds to me like this policy is saying:
"Please don't waste our time. We have a lot of shit to do (although probably nothing to do when you call). But nevertheless, we are really delicate and precious, and we are sooooooooo overworked, that all these dying people are a real drag. Seriously, dude, can't you just go to the fαɢɢօt priest down the road? We thank you for understanding, and please be sure to inconvenience yourself for the next academy work day we schedyule for you. By the way, we also do online confession sign-up now, so we won't be inconvenienced in that regard either."
All that aside, I have had SSPX priests come to attempt conversion of my agnostic grandfather (and it will redound to that priest's glory that he attempted to convert him in his last moments, and may have even been successful). Another priest came for my grandmother despite the objections of jurisdiction made by the local novus ordo priest over her. The SSPX priest expressed some concerns about that, but when I said I didn't give a shit what the novus ordo priest said, he came and gave the rites.
So this policy flies in the face of my personal experience, and yet on paper it looks absolutely attrocious and unpriestly (and the horror stories from St. Mary's and elsewhere show that not everyone had as good luck with SSPX priests ministering to non-SSPXers as I did).
A priest (spiritual father) should be every bit as exhausted at the end of a day, as a biological father caring for his family is.
-
I can also see the opposite side, where some good, Trad faithful want to impose a Trad priest upon their dying loved ones, even though the extended family (and the dying person) wants nothing to do with Tradition. This is simply a waste of time, but the grieved Trad wants to "try whatever they can" (emotionally speaking) and is hoping for a miraculous conversion, even when all the signs point to the dying person being obstinate.
Such cases are heartbreaking but also common. I'm sure the sspx has to use this policy to filter out such cases. It's sad but necessary.
-
I can also see the opposite side, where some good, Trad faithful want to impose a Trad priest upon their dying loved ones, even though the extended family (and the dying person) wants nothing to do with Tradition. This is simply a waste of time, but the grieved Trad wants to "try whatever they can" (emotionally speaking) and is hoping for a miraculous conversion, even when all the signs point to the dying person being obstinate.
Such cases are heartbreaking but also common. I'm sure the sspx has to use this policy to filter out such cases. It's sad but necessary.
A man may spend his entire life warring with God, but in his final moments, who knows what changes grace may work in a soul?
You gotta' take the chance with everyone, whether they say, "I want nothing to do with a priest" or not.
Even Voltaire wanted to convert in the end.
-
You also have to "read the tea leaves". I can see a case where there is one, lone Trad family member, in a sea of novus ordo-ites and the Trad asks the dying person if they want a Trad priest. The dying person says "no, I want Fr Bob from down the street."
At that point, it's a waste of any Trad priest's time (and also a deception, although for good intentions) to call a Trad priest down to a hospital, only for him to get turned away.
Probably what happens more often is the Trad doesn't even ask the dying person if they want a Trad priest (because they know the answer) and calls one anyway. The result is the same - the priest is turned way.
If there were hundreds of priests in each state of the US, ok, no problem. They have time. But calling a Trad priest for an openly anti-Trad or anti-religious person, in this day and age, is a waste of time.
It's a different story if the dying person is open to conversation; but most aren't. That's reality.
-
You also have to "read the tea leaves". I can see a case where there is one, lone Trad family member, in a sea of novus ordo-ites and the Trad asks the dying person if they want a Trad priest. The dying person says "no, I want Fr Bob from down the street."
At that point, it's a waste of any Trad priest's time (and also a deception, although for good intentions) to call a Trad priest down to a hospital, only for him to get turned away.
Probably what happens more often is the Trad doesn't even ask the dying person if they want a Trad priest (because they know the answer) and calls one anyway. The result is the same - the priest is turned way.
If there were hundreds of priests in each state of the US, ok, no problem. They have time. But calling a Trad priest for an openly anti-Trad or anti-religious person, in this day and age, is a waste of time.
It's a different story if the dying person is open to conversation; but most aren't. That's reality.
I am not sure that it is right to call a traditional priest in for someone who is not open to having him there...
In the case of my father (the original post of this thread) I asked my parents if they were open to having a traditional priest come and give my father Extreme Unction. I expected them to say no (they have been against my being traditional for years) but felt that it was my duty to at least ask and give them the option. I don't know what moved them to agree and be open to it but they were.
It was a big deal for them to agree. So when the SSPX just said to have a novus ordo priest go to them instead I was rather distraught. Here my parents were finally agreeing to have traditional Sacraments through a traditional priest and the SSPX was denying it to them.
Everyone sharing their stories has helped me to see that this is becoming more and more of a trend and that the SSPX are becoming less and less dependable for anyone who will not serve and commit to them first above all else.
For me I will go with Saint Joan and say, "Dieu premier servi!" ("God first served!")
-
I am not sure that it is right to call a traditional priest in for someone who is not open to having him there...
In the case of my father (the original post of this thread) I asked my parents if they were open to having a traditional priest come and give my father Extreme Unction. I expected them to say no (they have been against my being traditional for years) but felt that it was my duty to at least ask and give them the option. I don't know what moved them to agree and be open to it but they were.
It was a big deal for them to agree. So when the SSPX just said to have a novus ordo priest go to them instead I was rather distraught. Here my parents were finally agreeing to have traditional Sacraments through a traditional priest and the SSPX was denying it to them.
Everyone sharing their stories has helped me to see that this is becoming more and more of a trend and that the SSPX are becoming less and less dependable for anyone who will not serve and commit to them first above all else.
For me I will go with Saint Joan and say, "Dieu premier servi!" ("God first served!")
But at that point, why should it matter to a Novus Ordo adherent whether a priest offers traditional sacraments or post-Vatican II sacraments? So far as I am aware, nobody in the Novus Ordo questions the validity or the efficacy of sacraments conferred in the old rites. The only problem they would have, is with questions as to whether the priest has faculties or not, and in danger of death, even a Novus Ordo adherent should acknowledge that the church supplies faculties regardless. Is there something I’m missing here?
On the other hand, I suppose it is possible that someone with a weak grasp of sacramental theology could think, oh, no, they’re not supposed to be doing it that way anymore, it’s not legitimate, and could conflate that with sacramental invalidity.
-
But at that point, why should it matter to a Novus Ordo adherent whether a priest offers traditional sacraments or post-Vatican II sacraments? So far as I am aware, nobody in the Novus Ordo questions the validity or the efficacy of sacraments conferred in the old rites. The only problem they would have, is with questions as to whether the priest has faculties or not, and in danger of death, even a Novus Ordo adherent should acknowledge that the church supplies faculties regardless. Is there something I’m missing here?
On the other hand, I suppose it is possible that someone with a weak grasp of sacramental theology could think, oh, no, they’re not supposed to be doing it that way anymore, it’s not legitimate, and could conflate that with sacramental invalidity.
Dear SimpleMan,
You are missing quite a lot here! It is called "God's grace upon a soul"! After many prayers and deeds in this family's life, when it got down to the reality of the gravity of possible death, a Catholic daughter gave her mother and father the best gift she could give to them---true sacraments of the Roman Catholic Church through a true priest of the Roman Catholic Church. I pray that I will be blessed in that most important way when that time comes for me and my family members.
Perhaps you have never personally been in the situation of a dear family member's imminent death. Perhaps all of your family routinely receives the sacraments from a priest ordained by a bishop who definitely, without any positive doubt, has been consecrated in the Latin rite of the Roman Catholic Church and is in the line of Apostolic Succession. I sincerely hope that is the case. Please have some compassion for those of us who are not in that situation. Snarky comments about a person "with a weak grasp of sacramental theology" do not contribute to such a serious matter.
Remember, it is all about the salvation of souls.
-
Snarky comments about a person "with a weak grasp of sacramental theology" do not contribute to such a serious matter.
He wasn't being snarky; you missed his point.
-
Dear SimpleMan,
You are missing quite a lot here! It is called "God's grace upon a soul"! After many prayers and deeds in this family's life, when it got down to the reality of the gravity of possible death, a Catholic daughter gave her mother and father the best gift she could give to them---true sacraments of the Roman Catholic Church through a true priest of the Roman Catholic Church. I pray that I will be blessed in that most important way when that time comes for me and my family members.
Perhaps you have never personally been in the situation of a dear family member's imminent death. Perhaps all of your family routinely receives the sacraments from a priest ordained by a bishop who definitely, without any positive doubt, has been consecrated in the Latin rite of the Roman Catholic Church and is in the line of Apostolic Succession. I sincerely hope that is the case. Please have some compassion for those of us who are not in that situation. Snarky comments about a person "with a weak grasp of sacramental theology" do not contribute to such a serious matter.
Remember, it is all about the salvation of souls.
I have indeed been in that situation, with my father. For several reasons, he was unable to receive Extreme Unction. He would have had no issue whatsoever with receiving from a traditional priest, in fact, he was basically a sedevacantist, though he didn't have the theological underpinnings to be able to construct an argument for it, he just said "that man's no Pope".
The comment wasn't snarky. I was simply referring to the fact that people who are uneducated in the Faith, or who simply can't understand certain distinctions, would not understand the difference between liciety and validity, would never have heard of ecclesia supplet, and would uninformedly reason something like "Vatican II changed all that stuff, and it's not supposed to be in Latin anymore (Latin versus vernacular is all that many people understand), that priest is using old prayers that aren't valid anymore", not understanding the difference between liciety and validity, nor understanding what makes a sacrament valid or invalid. They could further reason that "schismatic [sic] confessions aren't valid, and neither are schismatic [sic] Last Rites", or WRT the Eucharist, "the Church doesn't allow the old Mass anymore, least of all celebrated by schismatics [again, sic], so that means it's not a valid Mass". If pressed to say "do you mean it's not the Body and Blood of Christ", they might well respond "I dunno, I just know it's not a valid Mass, those guys aren't Catholics". Not everyone knows what "valid" means WRT sacraments.
-
He wasn't being snarky; you missed his point.
Thank you, please see my previous post.
-
But at that point, why should it matter to a Novus Ordo adherent whether a priest offers traditional sacraments or post-Vatican II sacraments? So far as I am aware, nobody in the Novus Ordo questions the validity or the efficacy of sacraments conferred in the old rites. The only problem they would have, is with questions as to whether the priest has faculties or not, and in danger of death, even a Novus Ordo adherent should acknowledge that the church supplies faculties regardless. Is there something I’m missing here?
On the other hand, I suppose it is possible that someone with a weak grasp of sacramental theology could think, oh, no, they’re not supposed to be doing it that way anymore, it’s not legitimate, and could conflate that with sacramental invalidity.
Traditional vs. post-VII is one thing, but individual NOM priests tend to be laxer about adhering even to those already-weakened rules as to sacramental form and matter, and not just with regard to Last Rites.
As to that "weak grasp of", (not snark, all good) yes, laity should try to understand sacramental theology as best they can, but it's up to the priest to get it right. A family member shouldn't have to stand there and witness something slipshod and then worry about it after it's too late.
-
I have indeed been in that situation, with my father. For several reasons, he was unable to receive Extreme Unction. He would have had no issue whatsoever with receiving from a traditional priest, in fact, he was basically a sedevacantist, though he didn't have the theological underpinnings to be able to construct an argument for it, he just said "that man's no Pope".
The comment wasn't snarky. I was simply referring to the fact that people who are uneducated in the Faith, or who simply can't understand certain distinctions, would not understand the difference between liciety and validity, would never have heard of ecclesia supplet, and would uninformedly reason something like "Vatican II changed all that stuff, and it's not supposed to be in Latin anymore (Latin versus vernacular is all that many people understand), that priest is using old prayers that aren't valid anymore", not understanding the difference between liciety and validity, nor understanding what makes a sacrament valid or invalid. They could further reason that "schismatic [sic] confessions aren't valid, and neither are schismatic [sic] Last Rites", or WRT the Eucharist, "the Church doesn't allow the old Mass anymore, least of all celebrated by schismatics [again, sic], so that means it's not a valid Mass". If pressed to say "do you mean it's not the Body and Blood of Christ", they might well respond "I dunno, I just know it's not a valid Mass, those guys aren't Catholics". Not everyone knows what "valid" means WRT sacraments.
Dear SimpleMan,
I am truly sorry about your father. Please accept my apology for misinterpreting your comments in regards to the father of AMDGJMJ.
-
Dear SimpleMan,
I am truly sorry about your father. Please accept my apology for misinterpreting your comments in regards to the father of AMDGJMJ.
It's all good. In dealing with the pandemic theological ignorance among everyday Catholics nowadays, it is entirely possible for someone with knowledge unintentionally to come across as elitist or snobbish.
-
But at that point, why should it matter to a Novus Ordo adherent whether a priest offers traditional sacraments or post-Vatican II sacraments? So far as I am aware, nobody in the Novus Ordo questions the validity or the efficacy of sacraments conferred in the old rites. The only problem they would have, is with questions as to whether the priest has faculties or not, and in danger of death, even a Novus Ordo adherent should acknowledge that the church supplies faculties regardless. Is there something I’m missing here?
On the other hand, I suppose it is possible that someone with a weak grasp of sacramental theology could think, oh, no, they’re not supposed to be doing it that way anymore, it’s not legitimate, and could conflate that with sacramental invalidity.
Good points. In general I agree with you about people who go to the novus ordo. My family fall along more of the exceptional case you mentioned on the bottom.
They are super conservative novus ordo Catholics. So, I think that is why my becoming traditional has been hard for them to understand. They basically think that being traditional is similar to a being part of a Protestant split-off from the Church.
I don't think that they question the validity of our priests, just as they don't question the validity of the Eastern Orthodox. In their minds it is more about the "unlawfulness" of being against and/or split from the "Pope". Though at the same time they themselves are traditional enough to say "We are more Catholic than the Pope".
When my husband and I got married we didn't know until about a month or two before our wedding if any of my family would be there because in their minds we were being married "outside the Church". They ended up getting a "dispensation" from their Bishop. If was a crazy mess but in the end God helped everything to go smoother than we could have expected.
All of that being said... With there being local novus ordo priests in the area and my family's past qualms about having anything to do with traditional priests. I figured that they would probably refuse to see a traditional Catholic priest for Extreme Unction and in that case I figured that it would have not been right to ask a traditional priest to visit. That was all I meant. 😅
-
Does your dad plan to be buried or cremation? If cremation, then trad priest will not give extreme unction.
-
Does your dad plan to be buried or cremation? If cremation, then trad priest will not give extreme unction.
My parents are against cremation. I know this because they were very disturbed when my grandmother died and was cremated and they were talking about making sure to put in their will that they did not want this. They are as conservative as you can be in the novus ordo without being full traditional Catholics.
My mother even wears dresses or skirts all the time. Which is more than many traditional women do from the SSPX...
I pray to God that they may make the final jump one day and become traditional all the way.:pray:
-
My parents are against cremation. I know this because they were very disturbed when my grandmother died and was cremated and they were talking about making sure to put in their will that they did not want this.
A comment from the former dairy farmer now working at a funeral home ...
The term "will" is sometimes used generically to include "final wishes", but the docuмent "last will and testament" is almost never read or referenced until several days, or even weeks, after the funeral. It is not the place to record one's funeral wishes.
The best way to be sure that one's death care wishes are properly carried out is to preplan your arrangements at the funeral home of one's choice and pay for it. Most funeral homes have a means (typically a life insurance policy or a trust account) to accept preneed payments over time (interest free). Once the arrangements one has selected (service package, casket, incidentals) have been fully paid for usually their cost is frozen at that point in time. The same should be done for cemetery property, the opening and closing, and the marker. These set aside assets are shielded from the spend down requirement if one has to use medicaid (not to be confused with medicare) in their final years.
If one's final care is not prearranged, then state law (of which there can be 50 different variations) determines who gets to make the decisions, because these things need to be dealt with in a timely manner. Often a "power of attorney" docuмent or guardianship expires on the death of the person who granted the "power of attorney" to someone. In WA where I live it is possible sign a docuмent designating a specific individual or individuals to have the authority to make someone's final arrangements which supersedes the authority of relatives designated by state law. That person needs to agree to accept the responsibility, and the matter of funding needs to be determined.
A final matter to consider: People sometimes die while traveling, or an elderly parent may move to be closer to one of their adult children but when the time comes they want to be taken "back home" to be buried next to their spouse. Flying casketed remains across the country is expensive, and this is when cremation is sometimes chosen, though that would not have been the preferred choice. I believe that there are insurance policies that can cover the extra cost of transporting someone back home if they die while traveling, the funeral home where the pre-arrangements are made would know. Otherwise, if someone moves away from where they wish to be buried when the time comes, that extra cost needs to be provided for. We had a case once where a gentleman died back east (Virginia I think) and his funeral and burial were to be in eastern WA. He was embalmed but no final prep and dressing yet, and in a combo air tray (a cardboard shipping container for human remains not in a casket). His daughter and son-in-law drove him cross country nonstop in a u-haul van. The daughter had been a deputy coroner, so she was comfortable with it all and knew what to do. An important aspect is to have the proper paperwork completed and traveling with the deceased, it is usually frowned upon to be driving around with a dead body and not have paperwork.
-
You had some interesting professors during those years. Where is THAT professor, now??? Unfortunately, that is the human element in any society, but they were certainly undermining the position of the Society of which they were members. Liberals will always be there, it is a question of superiors being vigilant to weed them out before they can do too much damage. As you know, there is a litany of defections from the SSPX from the day of its establishment, to the left of Conciliarism and to the right of Sedevacantism. Which way did you go again???!!!!
I had two professors actually tell me not to say that the NO Mass is a sacrilege. One left the SSPX and the other is still there.
-
A comment from the former dairy farmer now working at a funeral home ...
The term "will" is sometimes used generically to include "final wishes", but the docuмent "last will and testament" is almost never read or referenced until several days, or even weeks, after the funeral. It is not the place to record one's funeral wishes.
The best way to be sure that one's death care wishes are properly carried out is to preplan your arrangements at the funeral home of one's choice and pay for it. Most funeral homes have a means (typically a life insurance policy or a trust account) to accept preneed payments over time (interest free). Once the arrangements one has selected (service package, casket, incidentals) have been fully paid for usually their cost is frozen at that point in time. The same should be done for cemetery property, the opening and closing, and the marker. These set aside assets are shielded from the spend down requirement if one has to use medicaid (not to be confused with medicare) in their final years.
If one's final care is not prearranged, then state law (of which there can be 50 different variations) determines who gets to make the decisions, because these things need to be dealt with in a timely manner. Often a "power of attorney" docuмent or guardianship expires on the death of the person who granted the "power of attorney" to someone. In WA where I live it is possible sign a docuмent designating a specific individual or individuals to have the authority to make someone's final arrangements which supersedes the authority of relatives designated by state law. That person needs to agree to accept the responsibility, and the matter of funding needs to be determined.
A final matter to consider: People sometimes die while traveling, or an elderly parent may move to be closer to one of their adult children but when the time comes they want to be taken "back home" to be buried next to their spouse. Flying casketed remains across the country is expensive, and this is when cremation is sometimes chosen, though that would not have been the preferred choice. I believe that there are insurance policies that can cover the extra cost of transporting someone back home if they die while traveling, the funeral home where the pre-arrangements are made would know. Otherwise, if someone moves away from where they wish to be buried when the time comes, that extra cost needs to be provided for. We had a case once where a gentleman died back east (Virginia I think) and his funeral and burial were to be in eastern WA. He was embalmed but no final prep and dressing yet, and in a combo air tray (a cardboard shipping container for human remains not in a casket). His daughter and son-in-law drove him cross country nonstop in a u-haul van. The daughter had been a deputy coroner, so she was comfortable with it all and knew what to do. An important aspect is to have the proper paperwork completed and traveling with the deceased, it is usually frowned upon to be driving around with a dead body and not have paperwork.
Good points! 😊
At least in this case my brother and I are the executors of my parents' will and I think my brother probably is the one who is in charge of arranging the funeral too and neither of us agrees with cremation.
-
A comment from the former dairy farmer now working at a funeral home ...
The term "will" is sometimes used generically to include "final wishes", but the docuмent "last will and testament" is almost never read or referenced until several days, or even weeks, after the funeral. It is not the place to record one's funeral wishes.
The best way to be sure that one's death care wishes are properly carried out is to preplan your arrangements at the funeral home of one's choice and pay for it. Most funeral homes have a means (typically a life insurance policy or a trust account) to accept preneed payments over time (interest free). Once the arrangements one has selected (service package, casket, incidentals) have been fully paid for usually their cost is frozen at that point in time. The same should be done for cemetery property, the opening and closing, and the marker. These set aside assets are shielded from the spend down requirement if one has to use medicaid (not to be confused with medicare) in their final years.
If one's final care is not prearranged, then state law (of which there can be 50 different variations) determines who gets to make the decisions, because these things need to be dealt with in a timely manner. Often a "power of attorney" docuмent or guardianship expires on the death of the person who granted the "power of attorney" to someone. In WA where I live it is possible sign a docuмent designating a specific individual or individuals to have the authority to make someone's final arrangements which supersedes the authority of relatives designated by state law. That person needs to agree to accept the responsibility, and the matter of funding needs to be determined.
A final matter to consider: People sometimes die while traveling, or an elderly parent may move to be closer to one of their adult children but when the time comes they want to be taken "back home" to be buried next to their spouse. Flying casketed remains across the country is expensive, and this is when cremation is sometimes chosen, though that would not have been the preferred choice. I believe that there are insurance policies that can cover the extra cost of transporting someone back home if they die while traveling, the funeral home where the pre-arrangements are made would know. Otherwise, if someone moves away from where they wish to be buried when the time comes, that extra cost needs to be provided for. We had a case once where a gentleman died back east (Virginia I think) and his funeral and burial were to be in eastern WA. He was embalmed but no final prep and dressing yet, and in a combo air tray (a cardboard shipping container for human remains not in a casket). His daughter and son-in-law drove him cross country nonstop in a u-haul van. The daughter had been a deputy coroner, so she was comfortable with it all and knew what to do. An important aspect is to have the proper paperwork completed and traveling with the deceased, it is usually frowned upon to be driving around with a dead body and not have paperwork.
I have a pre-need policy, as well as a memorandum of understanding to my trustee, with copies on file at the funeral home and with my attorney, which details everything I wish to have done, Requiem Mass, Gregorian Masses, everything. Once the funeral directors come to pick me up, it kicks in immediately, they call my trustee, my attorney, and my local Latin Mass affiliation, and things are supposed to be done precisely in accord with it. You are quite right, you shouldn't put that kind of thing in a will, because by that time, the funeral is over and done with.
If you don't do that (I have no family members who would be able to execute these requests), it's very likely that the funeral home would just go on "Catholic autopilot", meaning that they call your territorial parish, and you get the "Mass of Christian Burial" (gag!) complete with white pall, white vestments, de facto canonization, "On Eagles' Wings"... I can feel the luv already.
-
As you know, there is a litany of defections from the SSPX from the day of its establishment, to the left of Conciliarism and to the right of Sedevacantism. Which way did you go again???!!!!
That is understandable given the nature of this crisis. Catholics who have the faith cannot NOT have a tension between the need to be in communion with and in submission to the Catholic hierarchy. There's no pre-Vatican II teaching, no Pope, Church Father, Doctor, or theologian who ever held that it's OK to break from communion with and submission to the Catholic hierarchy. That was the stuff of Old Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Protestantism. So this tension tends to resolve itself one way or the other, by either trying to reconcile the post-V2 changes as accidental, perhaps destructive due to its implementation rather than its substance, and therefore return to submission to the Conciliar hierarchy, or else, if one is unable to apply this "hermeneutic of continuity" to the V2 changes, to hold that the Conciliar hierarchy is not actually the Catholic hierarchy.
So, basically, if the crisis were characterized by a syllogism (from the SV perspective to start):
MAJOR: Catholic hierarchy cannot substantially corrupt the Magisterium and the Mass.
MINOR: Conciliar hierarchy substantially corrupted the Magisterium and the Mass.
CONCLUSION: Conciliar hierarchy is not the Catholic hierarchy.
SV: hold the MAJOR, MINOR, CONCLUSION
R&R: hold the MINOR but tend to reject the MAJOR and therefore the CONCLUSION.
Conservative Novus Ordites: hold the MAJOR, reject the MINOR, and therefore the CONCLUSION.
Some people refuse to accept the CONCLUSION out of hand, and so they struggle with whether to reject the MAJOR or the MINOR to avoid the conclusion. R&R reject the MAJOR, while those who end up back in submission to the Conciliar hierarchy reject the MINOR. SVs reject neither the MAJOR nor the MINOR, and so they end up at their SV conclusion.
-
MAJOR: Catholic hierarchy cannot substantially corrupt the Magisterium and the Mass.
MINOR: Conciliar hierarchy substantially corrupted the Magisterium and the Mass.
CONCLUSION: Conciliar hierarchy is not the Catholic hierarchy.
This!
The One Holy Catholic and Aposotolic Church is INDEFECTIBLE
because it is protected from heresy and error by the Holy Ghost.
They all apostatized at VII.
They declared Allah is Jesus' Father.
That's denying Christ: antichrist
They started a false church of Chrislam.
(https://i.imgur.com/gOc0fmV.png)
Note: he doesn't say a false Mass
or an irreverent Mass
or an invalid Mass.
He says a FALSE CHURCH.
It's the pantheon of gods church of the nwo.
Those who remain "una cuм" are giving a pinch of incense to the pantheon for which thousands of martyrs gave their lives rather than comply.
-
This!
The One Holy Catholic and Aposotolic Church is INDEFECTIBLE
because it is protected from heresy and error by the Holy Ghost.
They all apostatized at VII.
They declared Allah is Jesus' Father.
That's denying Christ: antichrist
They started a false church of Chrislam.
(https://i.imgur.com/gOc0fmV.png)
Note: he doesn't say a false Mass
or an irreverent Mass
or an invalid Mass.
He says a FALSE CHURCH.
It's the pantheon of gods church of the nwo.
Those who remain "una cuм" are giving a pinch of incense to the pantheon for which thousands of martyrs gave their lives rather than comply.
It's clear they are herding trads into the SSPX so they can
"practice their faith" in a little side chapel
while they still "subsist in" the pantheon.
-
It's clear they are herding trads into the SSPX so they can
"practice their faith" in a little side chapel
while they still "subsist in" the pantheon.
Yes, and there was a striking quote made recently by Father Pagliarani to the effect that they want Tradition to have its "place" in the "Church".