tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5774317.post6213498958043693310..comments2024-03-20T16:30:09.690-05:00Comments on The Fifth Column: The SSPX and AbortionUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5774317.post-23174716505140846182015-09-04T09:10:22.541-05:002015-09-04T09:10:22.541-05:00" How can the Holy Father give them mercy, bu..." How can the Holy Father give them mercy, but yet cause them to sin yet again by not recognizing their marriages? "<br /><br />Classic - it is apparently the Pope's fault that people commit the sin of simulating a sacrament in an SSPX chapel. The Pope held a gun to their head and FORCED them to sin.<br /><br />This is the level of your reasoning? Seriously? In your favor, and in the favor of those who commit the sin you describe, invincible ignorance IS a defense. It is your only defense, and, in your case, sufficient unto the day. Steve Kellmeyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07509461318016670424noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5774317.post-73228020655682947002015-09-03T21:33:00.161-05:002015-09-03T21:33:00.161-05:00Mr. K.,
I am sorry to say that this is a big erro...Mr. K.,<br /><br />I am sorry to say that this is a big error you are proudly flaunting as the reality. So, the pope in his mercy grants the priests of the SSPX faculties to absolve for a period of one year, but does remember that along with confession, the SSPX faithful also marry. So, they are free to confess, but are not free to marry in the SSPX chapels. This compounds the mercy situation. How can the Holy Father give them mercy, but yet cause them to sin yet again by not recognizing their marriages? <br /><br />I believe the SSPX have supplied jurisdiction which comes from canon law, because of the state of things in the Church for the last 50 years.. Since you will not do the work, I have gone to the SSPX website and brought in the appropriate information from the New Code of Canon Law (not that the SSPX uses it, but it is irony that even the new code has this information in it):<br /><br /><br />2) the general principles of canon law, which inspire the particular laws. The two principal ones are:<br /><br /> the salvation of souls is the highest law (NC 1752).<br /> the Sacraments are on account of men.<br /><br />3) recourse equity. This is recourse to the mind of the legislator (when there is nothing explicit in writing), who never wants his legislation to be too onerous (burdensome), but always wants it to be interpreted in a just and favorable manner. That it is indeed the mind of the Church to be generous in the granting of jurisdiction and not overstrict or onerous is also apparent from the following two canons:<br /><br /> OC 2261 §2 (NC 1335). The Church suspends its prohibition for an excommunicated or suspended priest celebrating the Sacraments or posing acts requiring jurisdiction, provided it be in favor of the faithful who request it for any reasonable cause at all, and especially if there is no other minister.<br /> OC 878 §2 (NC 970). Ordinaries and superiors are not to restrict jurisdiction. If the priest is suitable and the good of the faithful requires his services this jurisdiction cannot be refused to him. Clearly traditional priests should in justice receive personal jurisdiction and that everywhere (NC 967).<br /><br />It is clear that, given the present circumstances of crisis in the Church and the principles of Canonical Equity, given the general principles of the law, and the Church’s continuous practice of supplying jurisdiction for the good of the faithful whenever it foresees that this lack of jurisdiction would be to their detriment, traditional priests receive supplied jurisdiction from the law. This is with the understanding that personal jurisdiction is unjustly refused to them simply because of their attachment to the Faith and its traditional expression (inseparable from the Faith), and that the faithful cannot be expected to continually search out and judge for themselves which confessors in the Conciliar Church might be acceptable and might give them the spiritual advice they need (given that the vast majority do not).<br /><br />In conclusion, therefore, it is obvious that, besides the case of common error, besides the case of probable and positive danger of death as interpreted in the broad sense of spiritual death, traditional priests receive a iure (from the law itself) a supplied jurisdiction for all cases in which this jurisdiction is required. This is simply the application of Canon 20, notably of Canonical Equity. There are no solid arguments against this and since there is at least a positive and probable doubt in favor of this argument, and we know that in such a case the Church certainly supplies jurisdiction, then traditional priests can and must act accordingly and the faithful can and should approach them for Confession.<br /><br />In the case of marriage this conclusion need not be applied. For OC 1098 (NC 1116) describes situations when even a priest without jurisdiction can validly assist at a Catholic marriage, namely when there is a major "inconvenience" for more than one month (as, for example, the New Mass or the liberal pre-Cana classes).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5774317.post-49413174839666572082015-09-03T08:07:43.293-05:002015-09-03T08:07:43.293-05:00Well Said Steve, concise and easy to understand. N...Well Said Steve, concise and easy to understand. Not the professional "catholic" wonks on the radio.stevhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02404300118679997839noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5774317.post-64040629138998832992015-09-03T07:51:43.308-05:002015-09-03T07:51:43.308-05:00You're as close to being Catholic ... as the s...You're as close to being Catholic ... as the south pole is from the north pole.<br /><br />If you would like to know the Catholic Dogma ... that we *must believe* to get to Heaven ... I list it on my website.<br /><br />www.Gods-Catholic-Dogma.com<br /><br />Catholic Faith (pre-fulfillment) writing of Deuteronomy 31:21 > <br />"For I know their thoughts, and what they are about to do this day."<br /><br />Catholic Faith (pre-fulfillment) writing of Job 21:27 > <br />"Surely I know your thoughts, and your unjust judgments against Me."<br /><br />Catholic writing of Romans 1:21 > <br />"They ... became vain in their thoughts, and their foolish heart was darkened."<br /><br />Mikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16461431542126250213noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5774317.post-19786459839448084242015-09-03T07:21:17.200-05:002015-09-03T07:21:17.200-05:00No, the Church has never formally said, nor does s...No, the Church has never formally said, nor does she regard the SSPX, as schismatics, but merely has said the illicit consecrations of 1988 were a schismatic act. The Church, however, has said (and has acted as if she regarded) the SSPX members are Catholics, that the problem of the Society's irregular status and their members' suspensions (including the disputed, dubious validity of their absolutions) is an internal matter, not an ecumenical one. The Church does not regard the SSPX and those who assist at their illicit Masses as a "cult," and has never said SSPX's adherents are following evil ways. That's nothing more than you acting as if you think you're holier and wiser than the Church. The pope's decree, good for one year only, explicitly extending the SSPX members faculties to grant absolution, does not constitute a declaration that the SSPX is schismatic, nor that the SSPX is not schismatic. It is, however, a generous gesture on the pontiff's part -- and only consistent, since it would be grievously uncharitable and unequitable for the pope who, out of a motive of wish to draw in the marginalised, washes the feet of transsexuals and women on Maundy Thursday in defiance or disregard of law, tradition and decency to be scrupulous of laws and doctrines pertaining to valid absolution rather than seek to reintegrate the SSPX.Confiteborhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17951083063448447552noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5774317.post-3946513627566517472015-09-02T15:03:48.806-05:002015-09-02T15:03:48.806-05:00Thank you, Steve, you NAILED IT. God bless you!Thank you, Steve, you NAILED IT. God bless you!Joanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11514939786372437849noreply@blogger.com