Rorate Caeli

Note: First things first

Quite an eventful month for the German-speaking bishops.

In Germany, several bishops are afflicted by what can only be described as "mass hysteria" regarding an absolutely normal act of the life of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X (FSSPX / SSPX) - and it cannot be denied that the great act (very merciful, very just, or both) of Pope Benedict XVI, lifting the excommunication of the Bishops of the SSPX, did not entail the complete paralysis of the regular life of that society. It may still be in an irregular situation, but there has been no sign from the Vatican that the Sacraments ordinarily ministered by its Bishops and priests must be suspended while negotiations go on.

Meanwhile, in Austria, the local Bishops are heading off to Rome for emergency meetings in the Vatican, which include a rendezvous with the Pontiff himself. The topic? The unbearable "autonomy" of the "Church of Austria", particularly after the Linz scandal.

[Rorate note: It is not a regular "ad limina" visit of the Austrian bishops, which should take place no earlier than late 2010 or early 2011.]

---

Update (June 15): "The Holy Father received this morning in audience: Bishops of Austria." (Bollettino)


52 comments:

  1. Anonymous12:30 AM

    Actually, Bishop Müller of Regensburg was expecting that, on the very day after the Decree of 21st January, the S.S.P.X would stop all its priests from saying Mass or hearing confessions. He is outraged that they have continued. How dare they!

    Even more outrageous is the fact that they dare to ordain priests. Imagine, ordaining priests in Germany! Why, nobody has done that in years! Nobody even remembers how to do it. Who do they think they are!

    P.K.T.P.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Can an act be both just and merciful? The one would seem to exclude the other, at least with respect to a particular element. Anyone?

    ReplyDelete
  3. It may be partly just and partly merciful.

    However, what we here personally think of the papal act is absolutely irrelevant. We only try hard not to offend any reader on matters of mere personal opinion, which we do not consider paramount.

    ReplyDelete
  4. P.K.T.P. said:

    "Even more outrageous is the fact that they dare to ordain priests"

    THE
    SACRAMENTAL
    SOLDIER
    (John Neil McCaffrey - my blessed nephew)

    Our General led him to this world,
    For eight brief years his time unfurled,
    From babe to boy to Soldier soul
    A Sacramental Soldier that was his role.

    Accepting orders with joy and mirth
    This baptized babe white knight on earth,
    When boy, with tongue in penanced-prayer,
    Took Bread, locked lips to guard God there.

    The General chose this Soldier soul,
    To show how Christians can die whole,
    With Captain fulfilling his holy function,
    The priest who brings us Extreme Unction.

    And Sacramental Soldier soul,
    Five senses all saluted whole,
    With Holy Oils by Captain priest,
    You marched off to the Banquet Feast.

    You left the war at ease in place,
    And died in sanctifying grace.
    Oh, highly decorated Soldier soul,
    Please pray more priests...
    To make us whole.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anonymous2:14 AM

    "... but there has been no sign from the Vatican that the Sacraments ordinarily ministered by its Bishops and priests must be suspended while negotiations go on."

    So may I conclude from the above statement that I may go to confession to an FSSPX priest, at least while negotiations go on?

    ReplyDelete
  6. "Even more outrageous is the fact that they dare to ordain priests. Imagine, ordaining priests in Germany!"

    LOL.

    Of course, the FSSP and St. Philip Neri Institute as well have priestly ordinations.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anonymous7:00 AM

    To anonymous P.K.T.P.
    Almost all German dioceses had regular ordinations to the priesthood, this year as well as the years before. The numbers might not be large, but it is simply wrong to say, ordinations have not been done in years and nobody remembers how to do them.
    It is also shortsighted and disorienting to write against the Regensburg bishop Müller, who is a close personal friend of the pope and has been entrusted with the German edition of the Pope's Collected Works.

    ReplyDelete
  8. On Perkins first post.

    That is the most funniest comment I've seen on this blog ever!

    ReplyDelete
  9. Anonymous11:08 AM

    With some friends who needs enemies?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Anonymous11:10 AM

    I am surprised by this emergency meeting of the Bishops of Austria to the Vatican and meeting with the Pope.
    I very much hope he cleans house of them, and lectures them severely as to their gross mismanagement and failures.
    Cardinal Schonborn should be sacked outright during this meeting, and given a clerical position in the Vatican. Maybe running errands, sharpening pencils, Xeroxing, faxing, answering the phone etc. etc.

    I hope the Vatican ordered them to this meeting, and not something the Austrians asked for to "plead their case" and have the Vatican come around to their way of thinking.

    I hope heads roll. Actually, if this was a Vatican summons, I am surprised. I didn't think the Pope had the courage to actually do something.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Anonymous11:51 AM

    Bishop Müller, whom I have met, is the perfect example of the neo-conservative: orthodox, earnest, wishing well for the Church, but utterly clueless as to where the crisis really is, or what to do about it. He is also the archtypically unimaginative German, who values obedience (to himself, in this case) above all else. Add to this his simmering resentment against Papa Ratzinger for not having promoted him to Münich and you have a recipe for utter disaster at the end of this month.
    Many of us who left Msgr Lefebvre in 1988 would then be forced to conclude that the Vatican is too weak to be of any true help in this worst crisis of the Church in 1500 years, and would think seriously of returning.
    Who runs the Church: the Pope or the bishops? We are about to find out.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Prodinoscopus12:04 PM

    It is also shortsighted and disorienting to write against the Regensburg bishop Müller, who is a close personal friend of the pope and has been entrusted with the German edition of the Pope's Collected Works.

    ***So, because the Pope is buddies with Bishop Müller he will act against justice?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Salvatore Giuseppe12:22 PM

    P.K.T.P.
    It is my understanding that the SSPX still have their faculties suspended. If that is the case, it is rightfully so that Bishop Muller would be outraged that Masses, Confessions, and Ordinations continue.

    To me it looks like a slap in the face after the act of kindness from His Holiness to lift the excommunications and begin talks for regularization.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Whether one can licitly receive sacraments confected by SSPX priests depends on whether one believes that the supplied jurisdiction (ecclesia supplet) applies to the SSPX because of the claim of necessity invoked by ABL and claimed by the SSPX to this day. I have not seen any reliable refutation of this claim by anyone and, really, the only person who can solve this dilemma is the Pope himself who remains silent on this issue but hopefully not for long.

    With all the abuses prevalent in the NO liturgies and with palpable doubt in the minds of many Catholics about the intent of some NO ministers to do what the Church intends, who can argue that a state of necessity exists? Not me, for sure.

    There is, too, the matter of the salvation of one's immortal soul which is the supreme law of the Church. Accordingly, if one believes that one can only save one's soul at SSPX liturgies, then it can be argued that one is not only permitted to receive the sacraments from the SSPX but, in fact, is obligated to do so - especially if distance to a diocesan Mass precludes attendance there.

    On top of all this the Ecclesia Dei Commission has stated that one can satisfy one's Sunday Mass obligation at SSPX masses as long as ones does so without a schismatic mentality. Now, how can it be that one can do this without Confession if one is in need of such a sacrament? And, furthermore, how can one attend Mass and receive Communion but not receive the other sacraments from the SSPX? Does supplied jurisdiction exist but only for one sacrament and not the others?

    Now, I have publicly stated my belief that His Holiness is the true Vicar of Christ on earth with all the power and the authority attendant to the Office that he holds. Therefore, I again call on him to dispel any doubts in the minds of the faithful and issue faculties and jurisdiction to SSPX bishops and priests at least temporarily while discussions are in progress. In the meantime I will rest on the supplied jurisdiction claim derived from canon law.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Prodinoscopus1:03 PM

    SG, the SSPX have been ordaining priests in Germany for nearly 30 years. Why all the huffing and puffing now?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Peter1:31 PM

    Paul Haley: jurisdiction is needed for the validity of the sacraments of penance and matrimony ONLY.

    Prodinoscopus: because the neomodernist bishops are afraid that the failed experiment of the Second Vatican Council may be abandoned.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Anonymous2:50 PM

    "SG, the SSPX have been ordaining priests in Germany for nearly 30 years. Why all the huffing and puffing now?"

    Prodinoscopus:

    Because Satan realizes that his grip is weakening on the Church and he is in convulsions.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Peter said...

    Paul Haley: jurisdiction is needed for the validity of the sacraments of penance and matrimony ONLY.

    So, in other words, "supplied jurisdiction" does not cover all the sacraments? That is, pardon my opinion, a non sequitur of non sequiturs. Either there is emergency jurisdiction because of the state of necessity or there is not. I know what the NO bishops have been saying all along and that is precisely the problem - they have denied the right of the SSPX to claim supplied jurisdiction and have never admitted to the state of necessity. That is exactly why the intervention of His Holiness is required.

    ReplyDelete
  19. john carmen4:09 PM

    THEY THINK THEY ARE LITTLE POPES. THE FRUITS OF VAII TELLS THEM SO.THESE BISHOP HAVE LONG LOST THE TRUE FAITH.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Joe B4:12 PM

    Along those lines, I've never quite understood the marriage suspension issue, since I thought the church even recognizes the validity of marriages by Justices of the Peace. I've not heard anyone told they would have to be remarried before they could receive communion, not even Jewish or pagan converts, and certainly not protestant converts. Are SSPX faithful told they will have to be remarried when they go to Novus Ordo parishes? Or is this another one of those licitness issues, the penalty for which (in my view) falls in the zero bin for reasons addressed by Paul Haley and others? I mean, if you're not married and are living together, that would scream absolute necessity for priests to council converts on, the potpourri of sins in those cases being so profound.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Paul Haley,

    No Priest needs supplied jurisdiction to celebrate Mass validly. A Mass said by any Priest according to the books is always valid, though it may be illicit.

    The same is not the case for the sacraments of Penance & Matrimony, whose validity is dependent upon jurisdictional powers (faculties), which can only be supplied by an Ordinary of a diocese (except, as far as I recall, as regards Penance in the case of danger of death).

    You're right about supplied jurisdiction: we don't know for sure whether it is licit or not to apply such a principle and in what circumstances. Faced with such a situation, is it not a good Catholic principle to act within the confines of clearly established law and custom?

    I do understand your predicament - it may be hard in your area finding a diocesan Priest who administers Penance validly (I've received absolutions of doubtful validity myself). But in some places in the world, the faithful only see a Priest - any Priest - once or twice a year. I would certainly consider it worthwhile to drive for a couple of hours to be absolutely sure the absolution I received was valid in the eyes of the Church.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Peter4:57 PM

    Paul Haley:
    So, in other words, "supplied jurisdiction" does not cover all the sacraments?

    It is a question of the nature of these sacraments. When you want a sacrament of matrimony or penance you must have:
    1. validly ordained minister (not in every case of matrimony, but that's a different story),
    2. proper form,
    3. proper matter,
    4. proper intention (of the minister),
    5. jurisdiction.

    To have all other sacraments points 1-4 are enough. It is because in the sacrament of penance you are judged, and the power to judge must be delegated by the local ordinary (or the Pope), and in the sacrament of matrimony the minister acts as a witness in the name of the Church, so obviously the Church has to delegate him.

    ReplyDelete
  23. "because the neomodernist bishops are afraid that the failed experiment of the Second Vatican Council may be abandoned."

    I don't think +Müller is a 'neomodernist'. From what the commenters here who have met him are saying, he's a good, orthodox Bishop who gives paramount priority to the virtue of obedience to authority - so much so that it clouds his judgment.

    Remember that +Bruskowitz, by far the most orthodox as well as the most traditional Bishop in the US, has also threatened any of his subjects who would become a member of the FSSPX with excommunication.

    I have the distinct impression that the most orthodox Bishops are particularly inclined to be suspicious towards the FSSPX because they feel their own orthodoxy called into question.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Anonymous5:08 PM

    Anonymous wrote:

    "To anonymous P.K.T.P.
    Almost all German dioceses had regular ordinations to the priesthood, this year as well as the years before. The numbers might not be large, but it is simply wrong to say, ordinations have not been done in years and nobody remembers how to do them."

    Well, of course I know that there has been a trickle of ordinatinons. I see that sarcasm and hyperbole are foreign concepts on this blog.

    P.K.T.P.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Anonymous5:14 PM

    Dear Salvatore Guiseppe:

    Rome knows full well that the S.S.P.X continues to claim a right to act under supplied jurisdiction. Did Müller really believe that the Society would stop administering the Sacraments and saying Mass just because Bishop Fellay thanked the Pope for remitting a censure which Fellay, at the same time, said that the Society had never acknowledged in the first place? This is fanstasyland. Never did Fellay suggest or even hint that ordinations would stop. Are the young men in training supposed to sit on their hands until these bureaucrats figure out what to do? And who will pay their bills while they look out the window and wonder when they can be ordained?

    P.K.T.P.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Anonymous5:20 PM

    On Mr. Haley's question:

    The P.C.E.D. has referred to the rights of faithful, whereas you are referring to the rights of clerics. The two are different. The faithful may indeed fulfil the Sunday and holyday obligation at a Society Mass; nevertheless, the Society priest who celebrates that Mass acts illicitly. It's a bit like saying that you can keep the car you bought even though the salesman broke the law in selling it to you: he broke the law in selling but you did not break the law in buying.

    The reason for this separate right of faithful is a separate Canon in the Code.

    P.K.T.P.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Along those lines, I've never quite understood the marriage suspension issue, since I thought the church even recognizes the validity of marriages by Justices of the Peace.

    The issue is that Catholics must be married according to the canonical form, which requires a witness delegated by the bishop.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Peter5:57 PM

    But definitely, supplied jurisdiction DOES exist. The problem is WHEN jurisdiction is supplied to the SSPX. I personally think that in many cases it is supplied - for example, would somebody give an absolution to a SSPX priest? Of course not. So they HAVE to confess to each other.

    I myself just don't confess to SSPX priests unless I have to. Which, for the time being, didn't happen. But I heard they're good confessors.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Joe B6:43 PM

    So the SSPX marriage issue is a penalty only to Catholics - pagans can be validly married by pagan Justices of the Peace, but a Catholic married by the same is not married, is committing adultery every time he engages in the marital act, and will be required to get remarried if he wants to save his soul, all other things being equal? And when the pagan converts, he doesn't have to get remarried because his marriage was valid. Only the Catholic does.

    I don't think so. So far, I'm thinking the SSPX marriage issue is a canard. But I'm still waiting.

    ReplyDelete
  30. pagans can be validly married by pagan Justices of the Peace, but a Catholic married by the same is not married, is committing adultery every time he engages in the marital act, and will be required to get remarried if he wants to save his soul, all other things being equal? ***

    The way it’s been explained to me (if I recall correctly) is that the pagan marriage is lawful but not sacramentally valid, being only a natural union, which was the only kind of marriage that existed before Christ: but if the pagan couple later converts, when they are baptised and confirmed their marriage would then become sacramentally valid without requiring a separate ceremony of convalidation. I think the same goes for validly baptised non-Catholics who convert, or so I recall when the Church informed me and my wife that we did not need convalidation of our marriage. However, when Catholics who are otherwise free to marry do so without proper sacramental form, that marriage is invalid although it otherwise is a lawful natural union and thus not adultery. Such couples must have their marriages convalidated to raise their lawful natural union to the level of a sacrament, which is not the same as “getting remarried.”

    ReplyDelete
  31. Jurisdiction is supplied in a state of necessity is it not? To say that it is not would be against the supreme law of the Church, the salvation of souls. The number of differing posts in regards to this question and the doubts expressed on this subject lead me to believe that the intervention of the holy father is necessary.

    By the way I am not an SSPX adherent but I do sympathize with their situation, i.e., they are welcomed back into the good graces of the Church by virtue of having their excommunications lifted but, hold on, they are denied jurisdiction for two of the most important sacraments, Penance and Matrimony. How can they live in the state of grace without Penance? As for Matrimony, I'm being told that Cardinal Mahony's jurisdiction is licit whereas Bishop Fellay's is not? And not just Mahony but every NO bishop who claims rightful jurisdiction but practices the most heinous liturgical abuses in his diocese and refuses to implement Summorum Pontificum and gives the holy father only the barest minimum of support.

    As for one canon law for clerics and a different one for faithful, I can only say the supreme law trumps them all and that is the salvation of souls. It is my opinion that the continued lack of providing canonical status and temporary jurisdiction to the SSPX is the gravest of offenses against Almighty God and one which could engender the salvation of those responsible for placing doubt in the minds of the faithful.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Anonymous8:41 PM

    We have 2 informations :
    - one is a hurricane in a small cup of German tasteless coffee. It is drawing all attention when it is probably of minor importance. I doubt Bp Müller would be upfront to slap the pope's face if he is warned to keep a lower profile by Rome.

    - the extraordinary meeting of the infamous and felonious Austrian bishops IS the major information, so far.

    I was waiting for a papal reaction after the incredible and heretical Austrian "declaration" a few months earlier that was smelling furiously the rot of the famous "Punctation of Ems" at the end of XVIIIth century.
    In 1938, Pius XI, of blessed memory, summoned in Rome the von Schönborn of his time, the idiot "Heil Hitler Kardinal" to receive a sound papal spanking because he was going nuts, in love with the nazi Führer.
    After the nazi Idol, the modern Austrian bps are going nuts, in love with the Liberal Idol. I hope, without believing it in fact, that Benedict XVI will be as tough on Austrian episcopal foolishness as his glorious predecessor was.
    May God help the pope to save the Austrian Church in great danger these days.
    The Wagner case is probably the most serious affair in the whole buzz of the last months. If the Kappelari-Kothgasser clique wins, the papal authority will be weakened for a long, long time.

    Alsaticus

    ReplyDelete
  33. Peter9:05 PM

    According to the newsletter of the SSPX seminary in Zeitzkofen there was a meeting of Fr Schmidberger and bishop Muller scheduled to June 13. Any news about that?

    ReplyDelete
  34. Peter9:22 PM

    There's a press statement about the ordinations on the seminary page:

    http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=pl&langpair=de|en&u=http://www.priesterseminar-herz-jesu.de/index.htm#1

    should not be together all efforts are made, the causes of the crisis of faith and to explore the means to remedy the same apply? In diesem Sinne erneuern wir unsere Bereitschaft zum Dialog mit den deutschen Bischöfen in einer Atmosphäre des Friedens und der intellektuellen Redlichkeit fernab von aller Polemik und unfruchtbaren Schuldzuweisungen. In this sense, we renew our willingness to dialogue with the German bishops in an atmosphere of peace and intellectual honesty away from sterile polemics and all the blame.

    Translated by Google :)

    ReplyDelete
  35. Jordanes, got it. Thanks. I think I'll leave it there, as a convalidation ceremony implies that God had validated while the church had not and it is therefore necessary to conform the two - a statement which sure sounds like it contains an error somewhere. Not worth chasing on this forum. More internet work for me to do.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Alsaticus, you are right, as usual, which explains the title of our post: first things FIRST.

    It seems the Pope will have some public words on the matter tomorrow. Let us wait and see.

    NC

    ReplyDelete
  37. I only hope that the Holy Father does not order anything to the SSPX and the planned ordinations continue. I say this because it wouldn't be completely out of place to think that the Pope does not want confrontation, and might concede something to these German bishops.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Please, may the Holy Father remove the bishops responsible for the abominations in Linz, not excepting Cardinal Schoenborn in Vienna.

    Once this is done, or- alternatively- once the Diocese is placed under interdict, I think the minds of all concerned will be concentrated wonderfully.

    An atmosphere much more amenable to reconciliation will be established, once we see and hear a few large wolves howling, loping off into the shadows while spilling their broken teeth out behind them.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Anonymous12:52 AM

    Why all this German? You'd have thought they won the war.

    Let's keep everything here in English or French or in Latin.

    Dan, take down that Pearson Pennant--that 'bloody nose flag--and put up the *real* Canadian flag: the Canadian Red Ensign.

    P.K.T.P.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Dan said:

    "I only hope that the Holy Father does not order anything to the SSPX and the planned ordinations continue."

    In the mean time there will be THIRTEEN men ordained this coming weekend at the SSPX Seminary in Winona in the good old U.S.A.!!

    This really WILL be the YEAR OF THE PRIEST! Deo Gratias!!!

    WINONA’S WOMB

    Up the raging Mississip
    And at the St. Paul’s source,
    South below the ragged cliffs
    There is a fiercer force

    A force which surges
    Human blood between her banks each June
    Then tears and rents herself for all
    She is…Winona’s womb!

    And like the raging Mississip
    Her channels open wide
    And birth the men who are the priests
    The source of Mother’s pride.

    And from that raging Mississip
    And at that St. Paul’s source
    South below the ragged cliffs
    Push priests from land of Norse.

    Who ride the river far and wide
    For souls from shore to shore
    And bring them home to Mother’s side
    To leave Her never more.

    And up where current’s all the rage
    And sin is sorrow’s source,
    Still south below the ragged cliffs
    WINONA STAYS THE COURSE!!!

    ReplyDelete
  41. Salvatore Giuseppe12:59 AM

    P.K.T.P
    Even if +Fellay thinks the censure never existed doesn't matter the fact is they as a Society of priests do not seem to get their faculties from anybody. I don't know how the fact that they have bishops affects the matter, but as those Bishops have not bishopric, I don't know that they can give faculties for their priests to celebrate sacraments in that area.

    I suppose my point is that whether or not the SSPX thinks they can preform sacraments is irrelevant, it is really up to the Pope to decide, and for the SSPX to obey, and if they disagree, to express that through talks with His Holiness, not through acts of defiance.

    As much as I want to welcome the SSPX back, their continuing statements and actions dishearten me. I feel better sticking with the FSSP and ICK

    ReplyDelete
  42. Anonymous1:03 AM

    From the translation of what Fr. Frey says in the link, it appears to me that the "temporary legal status" is something Rome agreed to as 'part of the roadmap' during the doctrinal discussions. Since the discussions have just begun, the status is presumably there. This may mean that the Society has full faculties recognised by Rome throughout the world, and not just in its pre-1975 dioceses, but that this is a temporary and provisional situation.

    Frey does not mention any appeal of the 1975 suppression; nor does he deny one.

    Someone wrote here that the Pope is speaking about this issue tomorrow. Where does that information come from?

    P.K.T.P.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Anonymous1:13 AM

    Paul Haley writes:

    "As for one canon law for clerics and a different one for faithful, I can only say the supreme law trumps them all and that is the salvation of souls."

    Mr. Haley, Rome has a special canon designed to make it possible for as many people as possible to fulfil the Sunday obligation. 1248.1: "The obligation of assisting at Mass is satisfied wherever Mass is celebrated in a Catholic rite either on a holyday itself or on the evening of the previous day."

    Rome recognises that the Society is Catholic, and it certainly celebrates Mass in a Catholic rite. So its Masses fulfil the obligation.

    But, in the eyes of Rome, they are not licit, since their priests are not incardinated anywhere. Again, suppose the car salesman is a foreigner not having residency status and not being allowed to work in your country. His sale of the car to you is illegal and yet it is not illegal for you to buy it. Here, attendance at these 'illegal' Masses is not illegal: only the celebrant violates the law.

    P.K.T.P.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Anonymous3:47 AM

    I don't buy the "necessity" argument set forth by Paul Haley.

    There are already institutes that are in full communion with Rome that offer the 1962 Mass. There is no "need" for the faithful who prefer this Mass to seek it from the SSPX which is not in full communion with Rome yet.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Anonymous9:19 AM

    Dear Salvatore Giuseppe:

    I too support only approved Latin Masses and Societies. I have never even once attended a Society Mass or gone to a Society priest. But that is irrelevant here.

    You write this:

    "I suppose my point is that whether or not the SSPX thinks they can preform sacraments is irrelevant, it is really up to the Pope to decide, and for the SSPX to obey, and if they disagree, to express that through talks with His Holiness, not through acts of defiance."

    There is no question that the Society administers some Sacraments validly, some some don't require faculties for that. In the case of the others, they claim 'supplied jurisdiction in a case of necessity'. This is an accepted principle in the Church. It applied, e.g., to some priests behind the Iron Curtain in the 1950s and 1960s. The only question is whether or not it applies to the S.S.P.X. I shan't get into that here. Rome does not recognise their application of this principle; they do.

    But if Rome recognises the Society or regularises it, even temporarily and provisionally, they will certainly have those faculties. It is arguable that the very fact of entering into official discussions confers a temporary legal status on the Society.

    I see no reason for a dispute here. We shall know VERY SOON if the two parties will agree on a temporary and provisional structure or status.

    By the way, the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest is properly abbreviated as I.C.R., not I.C.K. Traditionally, religious orders and apostolic societies take the abbreviation from the Latin, not the English. Another principle is to shorten abbreviations if they are over four letters. So I.C.R.S.S. becomes I.C.R.

    P.K.T.P.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Anonymous9:24 AM

    To the rescue of Mr. Haley:

    Anon. writes:

    "I don't buy the 'necessity' argument set forth by Paul Haley."

    Mr. Haley does not propose any necessity argument as far as I can see. He seems to be referring to a moral norm (which is also inscribed in the Code of Canons) that the salvation of souls is the highest law. Indeed, H.H. is respecting that principle, which is why he's moving heaven and earth to reach a temporary arrangement until the doctrinal talks can be concluded. It is not normal or good for any group of faithful to be separated from the Vicar of Christ. Such separations can sometimes be justified from necessity but not otherwise. It is the Pope here who is trying to make such a separation unnecessary. He doesn't want this pontificate to end with a continuation of the rupture.

    P.K.T.P.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Anonymous1:03 PM

    "There are already institutes that are in full communion with Rome that offer the 1962 Mass. There is no "need" for the faithful who prefer this Mass to seek it from the SSPX which is not in full communion with Rome yet."

    Mr Anonymous:

    There are many many parts of the country where the faithful have no access to I.C.R.S. or F.S.S.P Masses and have no choice but to assist at at an F.S.S.P.X. Mass.

    Believe you me if I had the option of assisting at the Institute or FSSP I would do so.

    Th "approved" Societies have not been set up in nearly as many places as the FSSPX.
    God bless you.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Anonymous1:05 PM

    If you want Mass only then you obviously don't have a state of necessity. But the need of Mass separated from true faith and the doctrine, not to mention whole ministry, is just ridiculous. Even the Russian Orthodox Church, which is not only schismatic but also heretic (they have their own definition of the primacy of Peter, they don't believe in purgatory, in the Immaculate Conception, the need of epiclesis for transsubstantiation etc. etc.) used to celebrate according to Tridentine Rite, in Latin, using Latin vestments. Would you go to their church claiming that now you have Mass and everything is OK? Remember that until the Ecclesia Dei institutes operate under local ordinary, they have their hands tied and mouths laced up. It's a crippled ministry.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Folks, let's remember that the SSPX claims "supplied jurisdiction" due to a state of necessity and that necessity is THE SALVATION OF SOULS. Both supplied jurisdiction and the salvation of souls are recognized as legitimate functions within the Church but the salvation of souls is the highest law of the Church.

    Let's also remember that the SSPX had absolutely no luck getting their priests incardinated in local dioceses in the years leading up to the 1988 consecrations. I have personal knowledge of this so please don't try to tell me otherwise. It is precisely this attitude on the part of local bishops that I believe caused ABL to act as he did.

    Many do not know of the "desert" experienced by traditional Catholics in those preceding years due to the utter recalcitrance of local bishops. They had an agenda to be sure and that was to institute the new mass and suppress the old and venerable mass and wait for the "old codgers" to die out. Not so, you say. But this very fact was admitted to me by one local bishop who shall remain nameless.

    On top of this recalcitrance came abuses in the liturgy that utterly defy explanation except to say the intent was to profane what "previous generations held as sacred" using the words of Pope Benedict XVI.

    So, if a person decides to attend SSPX liturgies and receive sacraments from them because of an inability due to time, distance and other factors (abuses in the liturgy) who can say that person is in the wrong? Certainly, not me and neither do I believe the Ecclesia Dei Commission would do so. The intent of that person is not schism but to receive valid sacraments and the state of necessity, even if only perceived by that person as stated in canon 1423, applies.

    But as I have said repeatedly, only the holy father himself can clear up this entire matter and I continue to hope and pray that he will do so.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Correction to my last post - it canon 1323 that applies to the situation I was describing not 1423.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Anonymous8:35 PM

    Sorry, but if the "salvation of souls" trumps every other law then the Church would be an anarchy. One person could claim that the "salvation of souls" depends upon ordaining women or some other such nonsense...

    I also don't buy the argument that "abuses in the liturgy" (i.e. in the N.O. Mass) justify attendance at a schismatic liturgy (such as SSPX).

    What kind of abuses do we mean here? Unless the priest just botches the words of consecration of the Eucharist, it is still a valid Mass no matter what abuses are present.

    Again, for one person maybe an "abuse" is a folk song with a guitar, or shaking hands for too long at the Sign of Peace. Is this the "state of emergency" that is being declared here? If so, I am not convinced of its "necessity."

    ReplyDelete
  52. Anonymous10:04 PM

    SSPX liturgy is obviously not schismatic, as there's no will to break communion, nor to disobey Pope as a general rule.

    A state of necessity is when you can't get what the law is for by obeying that law.

    If you don't buy it, it's your problem. But remember that you are obliged to care for the salvation of your soul, which is contrary to the condemned long ago postconciliar mess.

    ReplyDelete

Comment boxes are debate forums for readers and contributors of RORATE CÆLI.

Please, DO NOT assume that RORATE CÆLI contributors or moderators necessarily agree with or otherwise endorse any particular comment just because they let it stand.

_______
NOTES

(1) This is our living room, in a deeply Catholic house, and you are our guest. Please, behave accordingly. Any comment may be blocked or deleted, at any time, whenever we perceive anything that is not up to our standards, not conducive to a healthy conversation or a healthy Catholic environment, or simply not to our liking.

(2) By clicking on the "publish your comment" button, please remain aware that you are choosing to make your comment public - that is, the comment box is not to be used for private and confidential correspondence with contributors and moderators.

(3) Any name/ pseudonym/ denomination may be freely used simply by choosing the third option, "Name/URL" (the URL box may be left empty), when posting your comment - therefore, there is no reason whatsoever to simply post as "Anonymous", making debate unnecessarily harder to follow. Any comment signed simply as "Anonymous" will be blocked.

Thank you!