Should Catholics Keep Heads in Sand?
Pope Francis
(Remnant) Editor’s Note: As this article went to press, the Vatican Press Office—clearly in response to worldwide expressions of dismay by concerned Catholics—has floated reports that the interview of Pope Francis by Eugenio Scalafari quoted in this article was not a verbatim transcript and that Scalfari did not use a tape recorder or take notes. The same neo-Catholic commentators who attempted to defend some of the Pope’s shocking statements in the interview are now exulting that perhaps the interview was not accurate after all—showing once again their willingness to bend and twist themselves in any direction to persuade us all that nothing is amiss in the Church.
We are, however, witnessing the Vatican apparatus’s usual two-step. The interview in its entirety, complete with quotation marks, has been posted on the Vatican website and the Pope has not corrected a single word of it. Further, Vatican spokesman Fr. Federico Lombardi told the press that “if Francis felt his thought had been ‘gravely misrepresented,’ he would have said so.”
The Remnant will not dance either the Vatican or the neo-Catholic two-step. Unless the Pope himself indicates to the contrary, the Remnant will assume that His Holiness stands every word attributed to him by Scalfari and posted on the Pope’s own official website. We have had enough of this nonsense! Another interesting development: Cardinal Dolan has informed the press that the “mystical moment” recounted in the Scalfari interview, when the Pope-elect supposedly stepped into a room adjacent to the Sistine Chapel to ponder whether to accept the election and was illuminated by an interior light, never happened. In fact, there is no such room next to the Chapel. Yet, the interview as posted on the Vatican website retains this entire account. It is up to the Vatican to explain this glaring discrepancy. We merely report it… END (Click on photo to read rest of The Remnant article)
(Catholic Truth) Editor’s Note: It is puzzling, is it not, to find so many Catholics refusing to acknowledge that, due to the crisis in the Church, lots and lots of things are, as the Editor of the Remnant so tactfully puts it, “amiss”. To say the least. Why is that? Why do so many Catholics “bend and twist” in their efforts to defend the indefensible? Nobody EVER has anything to fear from the truth, as any true educator and any genuinely apostolic soul knows. So, why the refusal to acknowledge that what was foretold at Quito, Fatima and Akita, is now coming true before our very eyes? Is it because they have weak faith and so maybe we’d be better not discussing the issues raised by this very talkative pontiff? Is that the way forward? Over to you!
Comments (101)
“He that is not with the Pope is not with God, and he that wants to be with God, has to be with the Pope.” Sister Lucia, Fatima visionary
Scottish Priest,
I’d like to know the source of that quote from Sister Lucy – she is quoted all over the place saying things she never said.
Are you with Pope Francis when he says that as long as everyone follows their own ideas about good and evil the world will be a better place?
Scottish Priest,
I, too, would like a source for that quote – not everything attributed to Sr Lucia is authentic. Sr Lucia also said words to the effect that we should not wait for the pope and bishops, we should go ahead an live the Fatima message – loosely from memory that is what she said, from a confirmed source. In a hurry right now or I’d dig out the actual quote.
Obviously, every Catholic should be “with the Pope” when he is expounding the doctrines of the Church and the moral law. When he is making statements contrary to the traditional teachings on both faith and morals, then, as St Robert Bellarmine teaches, we have a duty NOT to be “with the Pope”.
It appears that you are implying, Scottish Priest, by quoting Sister Lucia’s alleged comment, that we have to agree with every papal utterance, no matter what the source, no matter whether or not it conforms to Catholic doctrine. If so, I’m wondering if you are one of those suffering from the ‘diabolical disorientation’ that Sister Lucia definitely did warn us about. Please read this article by Fr Tim Finigan. It puts things in a bit more perspective:- http://the-hermeneutic-of-continuity.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/assent-and-papal-magisterium.html
What does ‘with the pope’ actually mean? Sounds very accusatory to me. Slurring trads as ‘disobedient’ etc.. Salvation doesn’t come from the Pope. Unfortunately, some people believe the Pope redeems them.
If Sr Lucia really did say that, we are under no obligation to assent to it, after-all she might have been competent on matters relating to Fatima, but she was just a nun, she was not a teaching authority, a bishop or a doctor of the Church.
It annoys me when people quote the purely spiritual and private sayings of the saints like they would the catechism.
Scottish Priest, Were you accusing anyone of ‘not being with the Pope’? There is a tendency (and I am not accusing you of this) among some Catholics to preach charity and reasonableness for everybody, whether it be Protestants or Hindus, but when it comes to dealing with Traditionalists, well they’re just ‘fair-game’. The neo-Catholics have no scruples when it comes to hurling vitriol at trads, which is outrageously hypocritical since they’re the ones who go on at us about being ‘uncharitable’ etc.. So utterly blind they are.
If the pope votes Tory and I vote Labour, if the Pope likes Palestrina and I like Bach, if the pope doesn’t like Marmite… where does it end?
Some people’s view on the office of the Papacy is like the Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union. Don’t you dare speak badly of the Supreme Soviet, or you’ll be digging holes in Siberia for the rest of your life!
I happen to think the Holy Father’s choice of pectoral cross is poor. Am I a heretic? Have I expressed hated towards the Holy Father? Have I showed disunity?That’s an aesthetic opinion which I have a moral right to hold. I didn’t relinquish my soul when I became Catholic! It reminds me of the Borg in Star Trek, a race with many members but one unified personality, “We are Borg! We are Borg!”. Neo-Catholics are just the same.
I think in terms of the laity, the simple explanation is that they are being led astray by bad bishops. They have never been taught the Faith and they haven’t really ha their mistakes corrected, which is part of that learning process.
The diabolical disorientation is now so widespread that any contact with modern parishes, however minimal, is a danger to the Faith. Even good younger priests can’t be totally relied upon because they haven’t been taught the Faith properly, either at school or in seminary.
Materialism is now widespread, even amongst the clergy and the practising laity. People prefer their own pleasures. They want an easy life. Therefore the modern way of thinking, ie. relativism, suits them just fine.
I think this is a masterstroke of Satan. He is moving slowly, under the cloak of darkness, so much so that he is barely noticed. This is why he is so dangerous.
I read in The Flourish this week that 30 years ago the Archdiocese of Glasgow had 300 diocesan priests. Today they have 150 and 60 of those are retired. With no prospect of ordination for years and only two seminarians, alarm bells should be ringing. Are these the fruits of Vatican II, the new springtime? Absolutely. The Archbishop, instead of acknowledging that the direction the Church has been going in for the last 40 years has been wrong, claims that we need to think of new ways of working. Well, Your Grace, it’s the “new ways” that have landed us in this mess and the “old ways” that will get us out of it.
As for the Pope, I really don’t know what to say about him. We know that the diabolical disorientation “begins at the top”. I think that’s now pretty obvious.
Dear Editor thanks for this notice. Pope Francis has uttered too many destructive sound-bites. He has opened pandoras box. When you say as he has, as vicar of Christ,”we cannot be a Church of little rules”. Well you have to ask what sacred doctrine couldn’t be trashed under that little gem. You have to ask why he is choosing to teach informally through the media,rather than infallibly to the faithful through the Church.
Tommy – I agree: it is very bad that the Pope is using the media as he does to apparently teach informally, as you put it. I’m already bracing myself for his comments at the world consecration on Sunday next.
The Remnant newspaper article (which this piece refers to) is excellent.
In particular, I liked:
“Perhaps, then, the emergence of Jorge Bergoglio from the last conclave was a providential development. For it is forcing more and more Catholics to make a choice”
The blogger ‘Mundabor’ made a similar point on his own blog recently.
I am heartened by how widespread criticism of Francis is already becoming, among Catholic journalists, writers, moral theologians etc is. Even among people not considered “traditional” in any sense. In contrast, Francis’ main supporters seem to be secular politicians, hollywood celebrities, the anti-Catholic media and non-Catholics (notably atheists) in general.
Francis seems a bit…..well, I can think of a well-known Scottish phrase, referencing human body parts, which is used to highlight a situation which is inverted, or “the wrong way around” and so dissatisfactory. However, I should refrain from using it here, as it is somewhat crude, but I’m sure you know what I mean.
I strongly dislike Francis’ ideas that everyone can just invent their own idea of what is good. This idiocy is in large part responsible for the chaos in the Church today. Often people who follow this idea are called “Cafeteria Catholics” in that they only have time for aspects of the faith which suit them, they care not for anything which is challenging or difficult. It seems to me that Francis has fully endorsed Cafeteria Catholicism, from the highest level.
To give an example of the kind of Catholicism Francis’ ideas gives rise to:
Recently I had a discussion with a close family member who said she had “brilliant news”. Apparently a distant relation is having a baby, which was conceived via the IVF technique, after a long series of other treatments failed to cause a pregnancy.
This situation was held up as being a reward for the “great faith” of the family, which had helped them through the difficulties of trying to conceive. Apparently they had been to Lourdes and everything to pray for a child (seemingly by any means possible, regardless of the morality involved).
I pointed out, somewhat hesitantly, that the Catholic Church teaches against IVF given it causes an amount of fertilised human eggs (i.e. human beings in the first stages of life) to be discarded as “unneeded”. Accordingly, IVF is responsible for the destruction of human life in the same way as abortion.
My family member was briefly silent and then responded, “Oh, well, that wouldn’t be my view”.
I think this situation shows the widespread ignorance and/or outright disregard which so-called Catholics – even those with a supposed “great faith” – have for the teachings of the Church they profess to belong to. Not to mention the great arrogance in over-riding Church teachings with personal opinions. But then – who can blame them, that’s seemingly what Pope Francis is promoting, no?
The situation is even more tragic given the family member I was speaking to –who feels personal views over-rule the Catechism – was previously the head-teacher of a Catholic primary school, and currently helps out at RCIA classes for people wanting to become Catholics.
(I was tempted to ask what the point of RCIA classes is, if folk can just make morality up on the hoof, to suit themselves).
The point of RCIA classes in to foster a spirit of community-ness and togetherness… Koinonia.
Gabriel Syme,
This acceptance of IVF is very widespread. People look amazed at the expression of any level of concern about it. Whatever happened to “we must accept that it’s not God’s will” when married couples discover they are unable to have children?
Gabriel Syme,
“I strongly dislike Francis’ ideas that everyone can just invent their own idea of what is good.”
It’s really beyond belief that he said what he did about everyone following their own ideas of good and in that way making the world a better place. When you think about it, he is contradicting his two predecessors because they spoke a lot about “the dictatorship of relativism”. I wonder what Pope Emeritus Benedict is thinking of his successor saying the opposite and even in a way saying relativism is a good thing. I hope that’s an exaggeration but that’s how I understand his words about everyone doing what they think is good.
I found this piece helpful:-
On Papalotry
by Dr. William Marra
Editor’s note: This is edited transcript of a portion of the speech “Alternative to Schism” given at the Roman Forum Conference in August, 1995. In this presentation, Dr. Marra presents a clarification that will help Catholics to think critically and correctly, when confusing and contradictory statements emanate from even the highest authorities in the Church.
Belief and Obedience
My great teacher, Dietrich von Hildebrande wrote four outstanding books on the present crisis in the Church. Recently, his latest book, The Charitable Anathema was published. I wish we could mail a copy to Rome. A chapter in this book contains one of the most important lectures he ever gave to the Roman Forum. It concerns the difference between belief and obedience. He called it the critical difference. It was masterful.
The point is this: if there is a problem on a question of truth, and there’s a big dispute, and finally Rome speaks (invoking its infallible authority) and says, “This statement must be believed de fide”. Then this is the end of the dispute. Roma locuta causa finita. Rome has spoken, the case is finished. That is the end of it. Therefore, we owe assent of belief to statements of truth.
However, practical decisions of Churchmen, even the highest authorities; the Pope, bishops, priests are something quite different. We do not say, for example, that a command of a Pope or decision of a Pope to call a council is true or not. We can say that it is wise or not … it is opportune or not. Such a decision in no way asks us to assent to its truth. It asks us to obey the command or commands that pertain to us. This is what von Hildebrande meant by difference between belief and obedience. And we Catholics are never obliged to believe that a given command, or given decision of anyone, including the Pope, is necessarily that of the Holy Ghost.
The Limits of Divine Protection
There is a kind of papalotry going around. It acts as if no matter what comes out of Rome, it must have been inspired by the Holy Ghost. This line of thinking holds, for example, that if Vatican II was called, it means that the Holy Ghost wanted to call it. But this is not necessarily the case. Convoking Vatican II was a personal decision of John XXIII. He may have thought God was telling him to call it, but who knows? He has no special charism that guarantees he would recognize such a decision as coming from the Holy Ghost with theological certitude.
We can say that the Pope has the power to call a council. We can say that the authorities in the Church can call upon the Holy Spirit to guarantee, in a very narrow set of cases, that what comes from this council is de fide. (And nothing in Vatican II was pronounced de fide, Ed.)
The glory of the Church is that it has supernatural help to define truth. It has supernatural help to guarantee that its sacraments are efficacious and so on. But who said that the decision to call the council was protected by the Holy Ghost?
Some Clarifications
Let’s look at certain practical decisions of any Pope. A Pope could command the suppression of a religious order. That happened a few centuries ago, the Pope suppressed the Jesuits. He was a little premature, I think they should have waited. This type of suppression concerns obedience, not belief.
For all practical purposes, Paul VI suppressed the Roman rite. We have no Roman rite. Pope Paul VI thought he had the liturgical power to do this. Von Hildebrande called it the greatest blunder of Paul VI’s Pontificate. So to suppress a religious order, to suppress a rite, to name a bishop is a matter of obedience, not belief, and it is not protected by the Holy Ghost.
We have 2,600 bishops in the Church. Does that mean the Holy Ghost picked all of those? That is blasphemy, friends. Do you want to blame the Holy Ghost for Archbishop Weakland?
As already mentioned, to call a council is a practical decision of the Pope. A person may piously believe that God inspired it. But no one can say that this is an object of faith.
Also, we must not believe that whoever becomes Pope is the man God wants to be Pope. This is a play on words that “this is the will of God.”
Every theologian has always understood there are two senses to the will of God. The positive will of God and the permissive will of God.
Now, we know that God positively wants holy people in the Church … “this is the will of God, your sanctification”. But when evil is done, this is through the permissive will of God. It is not something that God directly wills, but something that He permits when men exercise their free will.
Before any conclave which elects a Pope, the electors are supposed to pray for guidance by the Holy Spirit. Now, if they are truly men of God, and they really pray, it is to be expected that the Holy Spirit will give them the right choice. But if they’re willful, ambitious, carnal men, and they are not truly opening themselves to inspiration, an unworthy candidate of their own choosing may be the result. That doesn’t mean that the man elected ceases to be Pope. That doesn’t mean that he loses the protection of the Holy Spirit when he teaches faith and morals. But it could be that this Pope will end up to be a disaster.
Now how do I know this? Well, not because I know that any of the modern Popes have been a disaster, this is too controversial. But in Church history, there are many instances of disastrous Pontificates.
We Learn From History
Dr. John Rao is a good friend of mine. He is a professor of Church History. He is very unhappy with the so-called conservative people who, when they do their doctor’s degree in history, they will document all of the disastrous decisions of the past Popes. They will write about all the disastrous things that happened. But when it comes to the present situation, they’re mum. They believe that everything must be right. But if everything must be right and perfect in present Pontificates, then why do they write their doctoral dissertation on the disasters of Pope Honorius, Pope Liberius, Pope Alexander VI or anyone else?
So, Rao insists that we learn from history, and that in no way can we say “ ‘X’ was elected Pope therefore that is the will of God”. No, it may be either the positive will of God or merely the permissive will of God. But it could be that the man selected to be Pope may be the worst candidate for the office.
It is as if God says, “you carnal electors and you carnal people in the Church who did not pray enough will get what you deserve.” The Papacy is still protected, and will never teach with its infallible authority something as true that is false, but everything else is up for grabs. The given Pope might do every type of abomination … his personal life might be a disaster, he might be self-willed, and so on. It could be that he is a horrible person.
He can also be a disaster for the faith even if he is a good person.
The Papacy is not protected from such a calamity. And this is a point on which we ought to have a real dialogue with the so-called conservatives.
Westminster Fly – many thanks for reminding us of that terrific synopsis by Dr Marra. It’s appeared on this (our old) blog many times but not for a while.
And here’s a man – not at all a “traditionalist” type – asking the question that many others must now be asking: given the utterances of Pope Francis, why on earth would anyone convert to Catholicism today? Read his refreshing, if depressing, take on the Church of “Holy Father Francis”…
Good article
Catholics most certainly should not keep their heads in the sand. They should stand up, be counted and defend Christ and His Holy Church. There are those Catholics who claim to be ‘loyal’ to the Church, but yet put up with and put a conservative spin on what the Pope was saying. Not me I’m afraid.
I’m having dinner tomorrow with a friend of mine, and he doubtless, will ask what I think of Francis and the Canonisations. I, as someone obedient to the Church, but not the Pope, will bring up his statements on gays, abortion, contraception, prayers with the Rabbi, unmarried couples. Then I will mention how J23 ruined the Church with his pagan council, and how JP2 prayed with rabbis for the coming of the jewish messiah, the assissi gatherings, koran kissing and receiving blessings from hindus and animist witchdoctors. I cannot keep my head buried and stay silent while this apostasy goes on unchallenged. If people were to keep their heads buried, would Monsignor Lefebvre have formed the SSPX? No we’d all be Novus Ordo (Catholics)
Catholic Convert,
Petrus has given you very good advice below – please take it to heart. If he had not corrected you as he has done, I would have deleted the offending remarks. So please, take more care over what you write. No personal remarks is a key rule to protect the ethos of this blog.
When you write disrespectfully as you do – in a personal way about the Pope – you give credence to those who argue against blogs like this one. They jump on that sort of commenting to argue that it is leading folk into error. Your error is there for all to see, and the more thoughtful reader will realise that you’d be having these very bad thoughts anyway and giving voice to them without being corrected, but for this blog.
You are not a stupid person, Catholic Convert, and we’ve noted that you humbly accept correction, but what is missing to date is a firm purpose of amendment. Notice that the regular and highly informed bloggers can speak the truth about the current crisis in the Church, the shocking utterances of Pope Francis and so on, quite firmly, forthrightly even, but without making nasty personal remarks about him. That is a skill which you must seek to develop – pronto!
Please keep reading the About Us page until you have imbibed its contents. Please, as I say, and thank you!
Catholic Convert,
I’d calm the beans a bit. I wouldn’t start mouthing off about “obedience to the Church, but not the pope” without explaining what you mean by that. It is a very Catholic thing to be obedient to the pope. He is the father of kings. We are not bound to be obedient when the pope makes mistakes. Be careful you don’t lead others, who have limited understanding, astray with sweeping statements.
I’d also be wary of describing the Second Vatican Council as “pagan”. Pope John XXIII did not “ruin” the Church. That is impossible. Be very careful with this.
Of course I am obedient to the Pope, but not when he is causing people to live in sin. You agree with me that this is shocking and bizarre stuff what happening in the Church. Also, how can you describe the Pontiff as the Father of Kings? Did the Kings of Spain and Belgium obey Pope Benedict XVI when he pressured them not to allow abortion/ gay marriage? I can’t obey the Pope when he says ‘who am I to judge gay people’ or ‘we should welcome cohabiting couples’. How? Do we welcome them and then tell them to change? Some people don’t want to change. I apologise for referring to the Pope as a (blank), or an (blank) and for referring to NO supporters as (blank). Editor’s humility is rubbing off on me.
I’m ready to come to your SSPX chapel Editor!!!
Meanwhile, read this. As my dad would say in his broad Yorkshire accent: ‘ee heck, it’s a reight pearler this ‘un’! http://www.patheos.com/blogs/deaconsbench/2013/09/vatican-denis-reports-pope-called-gay-man-in-france/
Catholic Convert,
All apologies accepted plus a pay rise for speaking of “editor’s humility” with a straight face. And I’m very pleased (if you’re serious) that you are thinking of attending an SSPX chapel.
I did laugh at your mimic of your dad but that link is something else. Take this quote, for example, from Fr Lombardi denying that the Pope called a “gay” man to tell him his homosexuality didn’t matter:
“There is always the risk that people pretend to be the pope over the phone,” Lombardi added
Er, of course there is. And there’s also the risk that some people might lie and pretend they’ve had a call from the Pope. Which are very two good reasons (among plenty others) that the Pope should stop phoning people. If he’s lonely, he could spend a bit more time before the Blessed Sacrament and then, well, he could ring me…
I picked it upon spiritdaily.com a thread on there about a traditionalist defending the Pope. I couldn’t manage to post the thread so I posted the quote with an access that didn’t load for some reason.
I wouldn’t trust anything on Spirit Daily. it’s jam-packed with stuff about false / dubious apparitions and ‘charismatic’ goings-on.
If people were to keep their heads buried, would Monsignor Lefebvre have formed the SSPX? No we’d all be Novus Ordo (Catholics)
Had this not been the case (i.e. Lefebvre’s mission), there’s a good chance I might have lost the faith by now. So I wouldn’t even be a ‘Novus Ordo (sic.) Catholic’.
…Not because I lacked faith, but because one only has a limited supply of reason. I commend those ‘Novus Ordo (sic.) Catholics’ who have stayed faithful all this time. I really don’t know how they do it, They are obviously made of solid stuff. I nearly went mad, after only three years of practising the faith.
Recently, since the abdication, some are asking more worried questions. Some are speaking out under this papacy who wouldn’t have done before. I am terrified that some will be pushed to their limits and might loose the faith. This is why we have a responsibility to inform ourselves. If we blindly submit to the papolatrist attitude, we actually leave ourselves vulnerable to having our faith hurt. Some people who have held out this long might just experience this.
Miles Immaculatae,
How true. I’m on the email list of Priest for Life and they are the original papolatrists. Their email today is (again) asking for donations, this time to fight the “media smear campaign” against the Holy Father. Truly, you could not make it up.
Miles, YOU (and Catholic Convert) should thank God for the great graces He’s given you, which allows you to see and understand the truth about what is happening in the Church today and which allows you to comprehend the extent and limits of papal authority. Far too many cradle Catholics – including even some priests – appear ignorant of this central information.
Almost the only way any of us can keep faith and explain the situation to others, is to remember that what is happening in the Church today has been foretold, even as far back as the 17th century at Quito (Our Lady of Good Success) and by Our Lady of Fatima in Portugal in 1917, and Our Lady at Akita in Japan in 1973. I am absolutely confident that these prophecies took place precisely to help us to keep faith during this period of unprecedented and truly terrible crisis.
Catholic Convert, you should do your best to tell your dinner date tomorrow evening about the above prophecies if and when the question of Pope Francis is raised, as you suspect it will.
The only people who have been ‘twisting’ the Holy Father’s words recently are the Neo-Catholics; not the secular media. Michael Matt demonstrates this very plainly.
You might get away with saying the media have given their reporting of the Pope’s statements a bit of ‘spin’. You could say they have focused disproportionately on certain statements. You could say the media has been over-enthusiastic in its reporting of the most obscure and minor of papal addresses…
But to claim their is a ‘media smear campaign’! Smear campaign?
If he’s being serious then this poor soul is very deeply in denial and very vulnerable to becoming disillusioned in the near future.
How have Priests for Life taken the Pope’s assertion that we’re too obsessed with abortion these days? I kind of understand why they’re in denial, and I don’t want to judge them too harshly. But honestly..,
I told my dinner date all this about the prophecies and what the Pope has said, and why I disagreed with the canonisations. He should said JP2 showed respect to Muslims by kissing the Koran and praying with Jews at the Wailing Wall. He said ‘he was praying for their conversion as he did it. We all worship one God’. I’ve only just put my discipline away.I’m going mad. I said to him when people spin the Pope’s words, it’s false obedience for the sake of obedience. We should not obey that which is faulty.
I will continue to convert and eventually find an SSPX chapel. I told my friend this and he said the SSPX Priests aren’t approved, so I might as well just attend an Eastern Orthodox Church if I want valid but not licit. They are legitimately ordained.
Editor, Petrus, Miles, Gabriel- You’ve won. I’ve come over to your side. I want to find the faith in all it’s truth and glory.
Lord, help me to find that which I seek.
In the Holy Name of Jesus Christ, and Mary, Ever Virgin.
Ora Pro Nobis.
Catholic Convert,
You’re hanging in there brilliantly. Well done, so far.
In your place though I would try to find an SSPX priest to finish my instructions and be received in one of their chapels.
Your friend’s advice about the SSPX Vs Eastern Orthodox is nonsense. The Orthodox are in schism. End of.
The SSPX is merely in an irregular situation and there are several examples of the fact that the Vatican accept that there are faithful who choose to attend their chapels. When one bishop in Hawaii informed six lay people in his diocese that they were excommunicated because they received ALL the sacraments at an SSPX chapel (not just Mass) the six wrote to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and Cardinal Ratzinger as was (Pope Benedict XVI) wrote back overturning the Bishop’s statement of excommunication. They were NOT excommunicated, he said. Google Hawaii Six for the whole story.
Other examples can be found – e.g. Google RENEW AMERICA: SSPX not in schism, and if you Google “are SSPX confessions valid” (or similar) you’ll find the answer to that loud and clear as well – I posted an excellent article on this topic from The Remnant website on our blog not that long ago, so Google to find that. If I wasn’t in a hurry I’d do it for you but it’s almost time for me to head for the pubs and clubs and you wouldn’t want a gal to be late, would you?
I hear Monsignor Fellay is coming to the UK in the next few years (Miles, I believe that came from your good self). I might get conditionally confirmed by him. I just so loyal to my Parish as all my friends are there. Also, the only SSPX chapel is in Manchester/ Chorley/ Preston. I can’t travel there on a Sunday and to receive instruction. The time will come for me to find an SSPX, and one may open nearer to me, give the society’s explosive growth.
As an ordinary, lay pew catholic, I can’t keep up with Pope Francis. I can’t understand his many words, let alone find guidance from them. The sheer volume of his output is getting boring and I have stopped reading what he says, although it’s all over the internet.
To my mind, there’s only one factual point that might be clarified – is there, or is there not, a room next to the Sistine Chapel where he declared he had received enlightenment? That CAN be verified.
Otherwise, I’m disorientated. Hopefully not diabolically.
pew catholic,
This article was linked to The Remnant article at the top of this thread, and answers your question about the (apparently non-existent) room next to the Sistine Chapel.
We live in interesting times, whether we’re sitting in the pews or looking down on the pews (so to speak!)
PS – there’s nothing “ordinary” about you, pew catholic; not with that sunny smile on your face!
Thanks for the link, editor. I am now even more disorientated, perhaps to the point of changing my avatar – a very serious matter. Us in the pews have real problems with all this Francis stuff.
I think I saw your avatar appliquéd onto a chasuble once.
My avatar, Jonny Lemon? Moi? Are you sure it wasn’t onto a mitre?
I meant Pew Catholic’s. And apart from the big smiling Sun there were rainbows, clouds and even a couple of sheep.
He must mean pewcatholic’s avatar. I think I’ve seen it, too.
Well, now I’m insanely jealous! Pew Catholic ambles in here at his or her leisure every now and then, (more “then” than now, in fact) and hey presto, (s)he has been ordained and possibly entitled Monsignor, if not “Your Grace” – how unfair is that?
Jonny Lemon and 3LittleShepherds – avoid me for the next few days…
There is a room off the Sistine Chapel (the door is to the left as you look at the altar) where the new Pope dons his robes. I doubt that it overlooks the square.
Ecclesiam Suam,
The plot thickens! I wish I’d paid more attention last time I was in Rome!
Oh you can’t change your avatar now, Pew Catholic. Not now that it’s driven a wedge between us, thanks to your fans, Jonny Lemon and 3LittleShepherds. Apparently, they have you marked out for ordination, possibly at episcopal level. And I’m supposed to NOT be jealous? Gerragrip!
Seriously, don’t forget that Our Lady has been warning us of this diabolical disorientation since the 17th century (Quito, Ecuador)
More strength of faith is required of us, that’s all, really. Think about it. We think nothing of admitting and identifying “bad popes” from the past. The angst today comes from the shock of having to live through a time when an apparently bad pope is ruling (or rather not ruling!) the Church. We cannot, of course, judge the soul of the Pope (any more than he can judge the soul of a homosexual!) but – contrary to his stated views on the subject of “judging” – we can and must judge his objective actions and reported (and uncorrected) words. That way, we can protect ourselves, prevent ourselves from falling into error through the things we hear him saying in interviews and sermons. We need to keep ourselves informed, know what is accurately reported and compare it to what the Church teaches etc. We might call such attempts to protect our faith “safe-sermons” !
Can you believe them? Jonny Lemon and 3LittleShepherds? It’s YOU they think ought to be ordained not moi. MY avatar hasn’t been seen imprinted on a chasuble or mitre, oh no, not good enough. Jealous, did you say? You’d better believe it!
This is how rumours start! My avatar is the common or garden ‘smiley’ dressed up a bit, by me, in a graphics program. No sheep, rainbows or clouds, and it’s never been near a chasuble. But oh dear, I can imagine chasubles acquiring smiley faces and goodness knows what else under this regime. Maybe my ordination should wait a bit …
I remember when I lived in a Catholic chaplaincy. It was the boys’ job to look after the sacristy and prepare the Altar and vestments for Mass in the morning. Me and my friend were having a nosey root around in the sacristy one night and to our horror we came across a genuine rainbow chasuble!
I was even more horrified when I later learned it had belonged to Cardinal Winning, and it was worn by him at a World Youth Day Mass! I was even more horrified still when I found out John Paul II wore an identical one at the same Mass!
Me and my friend had the mischievous idea to lay out this same chasuble for the following morning’s Mass. That would have really wound the priest up. Fortunately we were able to restrain ourselves, or else I would have had to confess that.
I thought this was kind of amusing. It’s one of Fr. Zuhlsdorf’s red interpolations.
[HEY! All you dopes out there who think that Pope Francis is somehow… I dunno… a bad Pope. Pope Francis has talked more about the Devil as a real person screwing with our lives than … name the Pope. Go ahead… find a Pope.]
I thought it was amusing because he called the devil a “real live person”!
Let me edit it so that it makes more sense.
HEY! All you dopes out there who think that Pre-Vatican II Popes are somehow… I dunno… bad Popes. Pope St. Plus X talked more about the Modernists screwing with our Faith than … name the Vatican II Pope. Go ahead… find a Pope.
There, so much better!
3LittleShepherds,
Unfortunately, there’s nothing amusing about Fr Z. He causes such confusion. Appears to be all for the Traditional Mass on the one hand then defends the use of extraordinary ministers on the other and when I had the temerity to point out the fact that EMHC are not supposed to be used at all, even in a packed church (# 8, Instruction on the Laity, 1997) he blocked me from his blog.
His ability to cause confusion is right there in his original (red interpolation) statement – where he gives the impression that Pope Francis is a good pope because he has spoken about the Devil, implying that no other pope has spoken as much about the Devil.
That’s a typical liberal/modernist ploy – defending the modernist popes through attacking their predecessors.
He forgets that – as pointed out in Pascendi – modernists say something perfectly orthodox one minute, and something unorthodox the next. Causing confusion is what they DO…
Given his shocking media statements, for Fr Z to try to paint Pope Francis as a “good pope” is to fall into the trap of which the famous theologian of Trent, Melchior Canon warned:
“Peter has no need of our lies or flattery. Those who blindly and indiscriminately defend every decision of the Supreme Pontiff are the very ones who do most to undermine the authority of the Holy See – they destroy instead of strengthening its foundations.”
My guess is that, were he alive today, Cano would add “and words” to “defend every decision…”
In Fr Sylvester Berry’s commentary on the Apocalypse of St John he discusses the likelihood that the “false prophet” (i.e. the second Beast with the horns of a lamb) who submits the Church to the Antichrist may be an uncanonically-elected Pope.
If Fr Zuhlsdorf is still alive when that happens I have no doubt that he’ll be telling us how the second Beast has been ‘misunderstood’ and that we need to ‘read his words through’ what previous Popes have written.
The attitude of Catholics like Fr John Zuhlsdorf is both a foreshadowing of and a preparation for the advent of Antichrist.
Let’s face facts: Pope Francis is a bad Pope. He confuses the faithful and causes the enemies of the Church to rejoice.
There are some who exult whenever the Pope says something vaguely orthodox, such as Fr Ray Blake. That’s a bit like applauding a surgeon who has wrongly removed the patient’s kidney but is now applying ointment to the wound he created.
Let Pope Francis clarify and apologise for the confusion that he has caused and then I will applaud his new found orthodoxy.
My reading of Fr. Ray Blake is that he is far from uncritical of Franciscus!
No, but then he makes a point of rejoicing whenever Pope Francis says something remotely Catholic, as if that undoes the damage.
Augustine,
That is a very common attitude among contemporary Catholics. It’s an understandable desperation to see the good and to minimise the bad. Unfortunately, though, it can lead to a false sense of security (“oh the Pope’s OK then – nothing to worry about”).
We suffered it for years here in Scotland, with emails and phone calls arriving every time Cardinal O’Brien or any other bishop was reported as denouncing abortion or euthanasia. Would Catholic Truth stop criticising the bishops now? What will it take for you to be loyal to our bishops? We suffered that sort of baloney defence of the bishops for years. When we reported the Cardinal’s attacks on celibacy, or the toleration of dissent across the episcopal board, with notorious heretics speaking, by invitation, on Catholic premises throughout the land – silence. Only when the occasional “pro-life” comment was published did the laity spring into defence mode.
So, on one occasion, Miss McMoneypenny and I decided to attend a SPUC prolife conference to hear the Cardinal first hand. In his opening words he emphasised that he was “not a single-issue man” that for him, “pro-life” meant not just anti-abortion, but anti-nuclear weapons etc. So, as it turned out, even on the very front where his defenders rejoiced that he was “orthodox”, he fell far short.
We’re witnessing the same nonsense from the defenders of Pope Francis. Quoting Groucho Marx – If I’ve said this before, don’t stop me because I want to hear it again: if the Pope called a live press conference of the world’s top journalists and admitted all sorts of crimes and sins, his supporters would still blame “the biased media”.
I think Father Zuhlsdorf’s attempts to defend the indefensible are funny. Just because they’re so desperate. The Pope believes in the devil? 🙄 What good is believing in the devil if you’re not fighting against him?
Father has a talent for propaganda but it’s lightweight. And who is Mamajen? Is that a real person? Has she ever had a typo? Honestly, I have trouble believing she’s for real. Not only does she spout Father’s rhetoric but she has a girl-next-door photo avatar. The whole thing seems a put on to me. I could easily be wrong about her but I wonder how many PR people are employed by the Vatican?
I also wonder if there is some deliberate attempt underway to disturb the morale of Catholics. I don’t mean the Pope is doing that on purpose, but that’s the outcome so I was just wondering. Golly, I’m suspicious!
EMHC should never be used. Only the Priest can dispense the Sacrament as he is ordained. That is why only Communion under one kind should be given. Human hands do evil and sinful things.
Convert,
That argument is a red herring. Evil and sinful acts are committed with the human tongue.
The point is this – only a priest has anointed hands. He gives Communion on the tongue to protect the Blessed Sacrament from abuse.
Here is an interesting thought – that media interviews are replacing encyclicals under Pope Francis
http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1350619?eng=y
Surely you should still confess it. Didn’t you have the intent?
Surely you should still confess it. Didn’t you have the intent?
Are you claiming that laying out a chasuble to wind up the priest is a mortal sin? Don’t be ridiculous.
My previous two comments (and possibly this one) should be at the bottom after Jonny Lemon.
Does the SSPX perform valid sacraments? I have just been on line and found a presumably liberal source that says that the SSPX can only perform a valid confession when someone is in danger of death. Can’t a valid priest perform valid sacraments? Although when the excommunications were lifted by The Holy Father in 2009, didn’t he say that the SSPX priests don’t exercise a valid ministry in the Church.
Catholic Convert
The SSPX operates under Supplied Jurisdiction. Don’t expect priests in the Novus Ordo to tell you that.
Catholic Convert,
If you Google the articles to which I refer above in another comment addressed to your good self, you will soon find out that the majority of that which you read and hear about the SSPX is anti-SSPX propaganda.
Yes, I believe Pope Benedict did say something about the SSPX not having a ministry in the Church right now but that was not exactly breaking news. That’s why he lifted the (unjust/illicit) excommunications as a first step (he hoped) on the road to having the SSPX exercising their ministry “within the walls.” Your first clue, Catholic Convert, ought to be in the fact that throughout this crisis only traditional priests have been placed OUTSIDE the walls. Whether it’s the Fatima priest, Fr Gruner, suspended for no legitimate reason, his character assassinated at every turn, or Archbishop Lefebvre, the only priests to suffer any level of canonical discipline this past fifty or more years, have been traditionalists. The dissenters are praised and promoted – Hans Kung (heretic, now considering assisted suicide for himself) was invited by the newly elected Pope Benedict to visit him and the pair spent four hours together. Go figure…
No, laying out a chasuble to wind up a Priest to wind up a Priest is not a mortal sin, but it is something that is worthy of Confession. Would you lay out a wrong chasuble for Christ to wind Him up? Think on all Priests stand in the person of Christ the Head.
Catholic Convert,
That was a bit of fun. Please don’t take it seriously. Just a bit of fun. Not matter for confession. A laugh. As the old saying goes, “laugh and the world laughs with you, cry and you blog alone”…
Our Lord wouldn’t have a rainbow chasuble in his sacristy.
Why would any Priest have a rainbow chasuble? It is a symbol of the militant gay rights movement. I wish they would reinstate traditional vestments. I admire Benedict XVI and Prelates such as Card. Burke for this. Have you seen C. Burke in his watered silk Cappa Magna and galero? He got told to stop doing it. On youtube, Bishop Slattery of Tulsa celebrates a traditional Mass in the Basilica in Washington DC. His Cappa Magna was 20 feet long. If I were a Cardinal I would wear it just to wind the liberal hierarchy up.
So it’s okay for you to wind-up priests, but not me?
As I said, the rainbow World Youth Day chasuble belonged to JPII, and an identical one belonging to Cardinal Winning had found it’s was into a Catholic Chaplaincy, probably because of the relation to youth.
They were made in 1997, a time when rainbow chasubles already signified something dodgy. This is suspicious, but I think it was probably down to appalling taste rather than sympathy for the gay movement.
Obviously some priests will own one for gay reasons. Just stay away from them.
Catholic Convert, when God used a rainbow in the sky after the flood, was he using a militant gay rights symbol, or a sign of His eternal love for humankind. It’s in the bible, cant deny it. Blasphemy, more than likely intended as (misguided) humour, removed by editor
Catholic convert. In the bible we are told that after the flood God caused a rainbow to form in the sky, as a sign of His eternal promise to mankind(womankind too) never to become so angry with His creatures that He would destroy them in such away a gain. Yes cc, a RAINBOW. So God used a sign of the militant gay rights movement to proclaim His love for His creation. Surely if it was good enough for God to use a rainbow then His priests can do so also. Or is God just a politically motivated right wing Gay
Chardom,
So called gays have appropriated language (the very word gay itself) and the colour pink and the rainbow to promote their immoral way of life. That doesn’t make GOD “politically motivated” – it makes THEM politically motivated. So much in our culture is being appropriated by the homosexual lobby and so now most people wouldn’t dream of saying they felt gay today in case it was taken the wrong way. I’m sure you don’t mean to imply that God would approve of the homosexuals using the rainbow as a symbol? And knowing that it is a symbol now of homosexuals, why would priests and bishops use it on their chasubles, of all things?
This argument is so fallacious.
We all love rainbows, they are a beautiful part of God’s creation. However, rainbow chasubles have never been part of the Catholic liturgical patrimony. Therefore, if a priest goes out of his way to wear one, it is clearly done as an outward act to identify with the homosexual movement, not God’s covenant with Noah. Don’t be ridiculous.
Even if the priest was completely naive and really believed he was associating the symbolism of his chasuble with the Covenant with Noah, he must surely understand that such tasteless choice of vestments offend the dignity of the Sacred Liturgy. And it was the Very Reverend Monsignor Basil Loftus who accused traditionalists for being fond of “clown-like vestments”!
The unicorn is a symbol of chastity and Christ, and appears in psalms 21 and 28. The butterfly is also a symbol of the resurrection. Believe it or not, the pentagram is an ancient Christian symbol signifying the five Wounds of Christ, the Star of Bethlehem, the five senses and the five Books of the Pentateuch. It was only until the 19th century that it came to symbolise Satanism (in its inverted form), and even more recently still neo-paganism.
So according to your reasoning, you would be perfectly okay with a Chasuble that had rainbows, unicorns, butterflies and pentagrams on it, either individually or all at the same time? Really Chardom? Really?
I should be careful what I write. I hope I haven’t given theological justification for rainbow-butterfly-pentagram-unicorn vestments.
Miles Immaculatae,
Amazing! An amazing comment! Brilliant!
(Seriously, great points, thank you!)
It would be correct to wind the liberal hierarchy up. I would be defending ancient liturgical traditions and vestments. We should defend and uphold that which is holy, something that you seem to take as being light-hearted.
Chardom,
You seem to sympathise with modernist vestments and identify with symols appropriated by the gay rights movements. Are you a politically motivated right wing Gay?
We should defend and uphold that which is holy, something that you seem to take as being light-hearted.
I’d be careful throwing accusations like that around. Don’t be so smug. I was the only one in the entire parish who brought up the inappropriateness of the chasuble with the priest. That’s how I learned about it’s origin. And I told him precisely because I was “defend[ing] ancient liturgical traditions and vestments.” Where in any of my comments have I indicated that I “take [the matter of liturgy and vestments] as being light-hearted? Where?
By the way, the priest I laid the chasuble out for is no traditionalist.So like you, would I be correct in winding him up? Or since because apparently I’m a modernist now, would I be expected to confess it? As you advise above?
You said I should “think on all Priests stand in the person of Christ the Head”. Does that not include the liberal ones then? You, Catholic Convert, seem to contradict yourself. You come across as someone who doesn’t really know what he believes yet. So until you do, please don’t accuse me of not “uphold[ing] that which is holy”. It is precisely because I have done this, that I have received much condemnation by my own brother Catholics. And that is precisely because this is one of the forums I feel accepted. So don’t make it hard for me.
Jonny Lemon:
This is what you originally said- ‘Me and my friend had the mischievous idea to lay out this same chasuble for the following morning’s Mass. That would have really wound the priest up. Fortunately we were able to restrain ourselves, or else I would have had to confess that’.
I said you should still have confessed it because the intention was there. You are confused. You obviously do take liturgical vestments lightheartedly, otherwise you wouldn’t have thought about it. Do you see?
You never mentioned originally that a) you were the only one against and b) you didn’t say the Priest was not a Traditionalist. Stop telling half a story, it looks like gibberish.
I have no doubt about your respect and devotion. I came here for similar reasons. But don’t say that and then say your going to pull a stunt on your Priest.
Also, please don’t say I don’t know my faith. Seriously just don’t.
I look forward to the day when rainbow chasubles get burnt. Publicly.
Talk about making a mountain out a molehill. Get real, Convert!
God caused a RAINBOW to seal His promise to humankind,
He did not use a pentagram or butterfly or a Unicorn, but a RAINBOW. Get over that fact accept it and learn to live with it
Ed: you seem to be a tad confused on this. Nobody here thinks the rainbow is a bad thing. All anyone is saying is that because homosexuals have appropriated the rainbow as a symbol (as they have appropriated the word “gay”) doesn’t mean that God approves of their immoral actions. Get it, now?
Like many things, it is often repeated on here that the SSPX operate under ‘supplied jurisdiction’. This may be the opinion of the society and members of this board however the Church have never decreed on this.
As I understand it Supplied jurisdiction can only be used in limited circumstances
eg If I walk into what appears to be a Catholic Church and a priest is sitting in the confessional wearing a purple stole, I offer my confession, he confers absolution.
If the priest has the appropriate faculties then we have a valid absolution. If the priest does not have the appropriate faculties then a ‘common error’ has occurred as I am unaware of this fact – as a result the Church supplies the appropriate faculties.
This can also be applied in a situation of near death when any priest, faculties or not (even laicized) can confer the Sacraments and again in this instance jurisdiction is supplied
However in the case of the SSPX, those who participate generally know that the Priests of the Society are in an irregular canonical state, therefore do not have the appropriate faculties.
Since that knowledge pre exists then no common error can occur thus meaning jurisdiction cannot be supplied.
However this is merely my opinion, and if in error, I’m sure that a more learned member of the board will correct me.
Dear “N.T.”,
Clearly you are an adherent of Fr. Z’s opining, nee fixation, upon the subject of lack of Faculties on the part of SSPX clergy. I prefer to use my commonsense and logic, being surrounded by Ordinaries and clergy who appear not to promote Confession and even debase the same. For the record, I do not currently attend an SSPX chapel.
the Church have never decreed on this
————-
Hi there,
Yes, much of the ambiguity re the SSPX is due to unclear circumstances.
In my opinion, the Church tries to avoid talking about the SSPX and sacraments, I think it suits the Church to keep things vague and ambiguous, for the purpose of undermining the SSPX.
You never hear about legitimate ministries or faculties when the Church is heaping praise on protestants or saying how much we have in common with them. Strange, no?
The Church is frightened of itself. It hates it’s past and it’s own truth. That is why our Pontiff is making these confused statements. That is why it undermines the SSPX, whom I have come to support. I thank God for Monsignor Lefebvre, as I don’t think I would still be converting if the SSPX did not exist, thus providing an outlet for my traditional mind. It gives me encouragement. It beggars belief when His Eminence Metropolitan Hilarion (Alfeyev) the deputy head of the Russian Church argued that the Catholic Church should reinstate it’s traditions, in particular the Tridentine Mass, because as he said, the two Churches can meet on our traditions, which the Orthodox have zealously maintained. Have you noticed in the areas where traditional liturgies are used, i.e Byzantine Catholic in Romania/ Ukraine and Orthodox countries Church attendance is much higher than in the Catholic world. I don’t think that there is any Eastern bloc country where church attendance is below 40% due to the use of traditional liturgies. When I convert I will either try to attend a Tridentine or Byzantine Catholic liturgy, two beautiful and ancient liturgical and superior traditions.
Catholic Convert
“The Church is frightened of itself. It hates it’s past and it’s own truth. That is why our Pontiff is making these confused statements.”
Wrong. “The Church” is not frightened of itself. This is completely impossible. Bad popes, bad bishops, bad lay people have caused this. Not “The Church”. It might seem like I am splitting hairs but it’s an important point that you must grasp.
“I thank God for Monsignor Lefebvre, as I don’t think I would still be converting if the SSPX did not exist, thus providing an outlet for my traditional mind. It gives me encouragement.”
This is fantastic. I hope you are going to tell your priest that you now support the SSPX and will continue your instruction there?
” the two Churches can meet on our traditions, which the Orthodox have zealously maintained.”
I disagree. The Orthodox have been in the pocket of the Communists for years now. The two churches can’t “meet” on anything other than a complete act of repentance on behalf of the Orthodox. There can be no other way.
Miles
Yeah, your right. By the ‘Church’ I meant the Pope and clergy. One often does get the Pope and the Church mixed up. They are not the same thing. But could the Church exist without the Pope?
I will be confirmed and find an SSPX Priest, but for now the SSPX is a long distance away. I will attend the traditional Mass either on an SSPX (preferably) or a diocesan level.
It would be easier to unify with the Orthodox once they repudiate their heresy in relation to the Filioque clause and the Primacy of the Roman Pontiff. The Eastern Catholic Churches will be this missing link to bridge the gap.
The Orthodox have maintained their traditions. Did they have Second Constantinople Council in 1962? No, they use the same liturgy that was in existence from before the Great Schism of 1054.
As for your statement that ‘the orthodox have been in the pocket of the Communists for years’. Name an extant Communist regime where the Orthodox Church has a presence? If anything they are in Putin’s pocket, much in the same way the Catholic Church was in Franco’s pocket, although one cannot blame the Church for that. The Orthodox had to survive through accommodation. Believe me, they did not have it easy.
I’d be wary of making sweeping statements. These matters aren’t as simplistic as that. I’d do some serious research on the Franco regime. He has been slaughtered by the liberal press, but he was a great leader. Look at liberal Spain these days – progress? I think not!
I’m not making sweeping statements about Generalissimo Franco. I admire the man myself for his great moral leadership and his adamantine will against the Communists. For this I also admire Dr. Salazar. However, one cannot deny the closeness of certain integrist elements of the Spanish hierarchy to the regime i.e Cardinals Pedro Segura y Sáenz, Isidro Goma y Tomas and Enrique Pla y Deniel. Many elements did oppose Franco, most surprisingly from Opus Dei: in 1966 the first large scale protests against Francoism (the Caputxinada) were organised by Opus Dei leaders Pere Pascuale and Roberto Espi. Cardinal Julian Herranz as a young Opus Dei Numerary argued for an Agrarian Revolution in Andalusia, and was released from prison when the policeman found a Rosary in his pocket. His logic being you can’t be a Communist and carry a Rosary. Franco was a good Catholic who attended, like Salazar, daily Mass and oppsed Vatican II.
I just wrote something really amazing and it has disappeared into nothingness. I’m not pleased.
Miles Immaculatae,
For some reason that post went into SPAM. I cannot see (at a skim) anything obvious that would have caused that, but, in any event, I have now released it.
Sixupman
In no way am I any sort of adherent to Fr Z, I rarely read, much less pay attention to his site.
I’m not sure why you see my statement as a ‘fixation’ with faculties, it was in response to the statement that the SSPX operate under supplied jurisdiction.
Since supplied jurisdiction refers to faculties, so does my critique of its application… However me suggesting something you may want to ignore or not like is in no way a fixation.
The “fixation” referred to was that of Fr. Z, he espouses the “faculties” argument incessantly!
If you ‘google’ Fr. Saju George, S.J., you will find a priest in good standing complete with “faculties” – to whom would you rather Confess, him or an SSPX priest?
An SSPX priest every time, Sixupman. Fr Saju George SJ is liable to give me ten Highland Flings and an Irish jig to dance for my penance!
The ‘real’ Anglo-Catholics used a vernacular version of our very own Tridentine Missal with only minute differences and lack of imprimatur. Why was that not good enough for them? Because they are not true Anglo-Catholics, but some lesser hybrid of the species. I await to view the product of their endeavours. BTW I think I have seen an Ordinariate clergyman [and brood] at the TLM I attend and an hybrid-NOM at the same church.
Sixupman,
At his request, I deleted leprechaun’s post on the subject of the Ordinariate rite.
He emailed the following clarification:
The Catholic Herald and the NewLiturgy web page both give a different slant to the revised Ordinariate “Mass” to which my post refers.
Possibly the article I read could be accused of scaremongering. END.
I took a quick look at the link posted by leprechaun and it seems to be a sedevacantist site. Please be very wary of these sites and avoid posting links to them here, folks. Thank you.
I am aware that the “Traditio” site is sedevacantist and never watch it. For many years, certainly sixty, I have been intrigued by, pre-Vatican II, Anglo-Catholicism and the geographical areas of its strength – mining villages and super-rich areas. My grandmother warned me to be careful in London as there were churches and services which were identical to our own. The Ordinariate is just not the same. BTW I get the feeling that we will end up with a CofE type operation: low, middle and high church, but the “high” bit will not be the TLM.
‘Originally fabricated for use by the Pope Benedict XVI’s “ordinariate” for Anglicans, Monsignor Andrew Burnham, a senior cleric in the ordinariate at the inaugural Novissima Ordo service, admitted that something that was until now “merely Anglican” had become part of the conciliar Church of the New Order’.
That is really spine-chilling. Is it me or does it make the ordinariate sound like a group of fifth columnists, whose motive is not true faithful conversion to the Church but to infiltrate and to Protestantise. Benedict XVI should not have ordained married priests. It undermines the discipline of celibacy. He should have reduced them to a lay state and only ordained unmarried priests and imposed celibacy on them. That said, some Anglican practices do appeal to me, such as the use of the Communion rail, unlike Catholics (not all) who receive standing and on the hand. When I get confirmed, I will kneel on the bare floor and receive on the tongue. I don’t care what the priest will think.
Convert,
There’s serious concerns regarding the new rite of Confirmation. SSPX recommend conditional Confirmation because of these concerns. I wouldn’t want to risk being Confirmed invalidly.
Sixupman
If people like 3littleshepherds (above) and many others tell us that we can legitimately attend the SSPX as they operate under “supplied jurisdiction” then that argument is about faculties and only faculties- as far as I am aware Supplied Jurisdiction applies only to faculties and no other argument.
As regards your question, if I was in danger of death then I would confess to either as I could be guaranteed valid absolution from both. In normal circumstances I would confess to neither.
Unfortunately your question is typical of many of the debates on here, posting polar opposites as if they are representative of the whole Church, SSPX is at one side and ‘clowns’ like the dancing priest are at the other. It may have passed you by, but there are many good, orthodox priests in between them- to these priests I would happily go to for confession
I seek out clergy whom I can trust – diocesan and otherwise – and support them. I support the parish priest where I live and I attend the Manchester Oratory and The Holy Name, when they were there. There are other clergy in the Salford, Liverpool and Lancaster Diocese whom I also trust. All that said, I speak from a very broad experience throughout the UK, Northern Germany and France and that leads me to stand by my support of the Sacraments dispensed by SSPX clergy. Clearly the reference to Fr. Saju George was humour, but equally I could have referred you to the chaos in the Diocese of Freibourg, or of the priestly associations in the UK which are anti-Magisterium and, de facto, appear to control diocese and castigate clergy who do not follow their particular inclinations. I was, through circumstance, perforce to attend a parish church, in Somerset, where BXVI, Rome and the Magisterium was criticised from the pulpit – not only by the PP but also by the proliferation of permanent deacons who postured their way through the parish. Not to mention the locum priest, from an adjacent parish, a convert, who espoused similar sentiments. Such was my concern and the effect it had on me, I sought the advice of a diocesan confessor in whom I could trust. Mother Church is falling about our ears and people are burying their heads in the sand. Upon current projections, my/our only salvation will be in identifying clergy who adhere to that which I was taught, by ‘real’ priests, in my youth, at the same time acknowledging the personal difficulties they, themselves, face in treading a difficult path.
Catholic convert- there are married priests in the eastern rites of the Catholic Church, the decision or the ordinarate married priests is hardly surprising.
Whistleblower – is there not some dubiety about the validity of SSPX sacraments????
Nolite,
If you are familiar with the story of the Hawaii Six then you would know the answer to that question.
Regarding the Eastern Catholic Churches – the vast majority of their priests are celibate.
Whistleblower,
You are right about the Eastern rite Priests. They must be married before ordination, hence most go to the seminary before marriage in their early twenties.
Please tell me why the new right is invalid? How can a valid Priest, invalidly confirm?
Catholic convert,
Permit me to answer on Whistleblower’s behalf. We cannot say that the New Rite of Confirmation is invalid per se. There are doubts over the matter and form used.
New RITE. My spelling is all over the shop.
Here’s some worrying news – helps to contextualise Cardinal Murphy O’Connor’s disappointment when Pope Benedict was elected: at that time he told the world that “our man was not elected.” Now we know who “his man” is: Read more…
Comments are closed.