Edit: Isn't the presence of the Vienna Cardinal at these deliberations stretching credulity a little much?
Society of St. Pius X is having its answer to the Vatican for reconciliation looked over.
Rome (kath.net/KAP)The Vatican Congregation for Doctrine and the Faith is beginning its plenary meeting in the Vatican. The plenum will be led by the Prefect of the Congregation, Cardinal William Levada. The meeting of the Congregation for Doctrine and the Faith will take place with Cardinals Kurt Koch and Kasper as Ecumenical experts as well as Vienna's Christoph Schönborn among the three German speaking Cardinals. Even the 64 year old Regensburg Bishop Gerhard Müller is a member and is listed as one of the three favorites to succeed Cardinnal Levada after his foreseen retirement in April.
One of the themes of the plenary meeting is the addressing of the Society's answer to the Doctrinal Preamble. The CDF is standing on a historical decision. In schism from Rome since 1988 [sic] the Society has made its answer to the Levada Congregation, accompanying it with qualifications for reconciliation.
Between October 2009 and April 2011 three experts of the Vatican Commission "Ecclesia Dei" had and the Society of St. Pius X sounded out differences in existing teaching and arranged for the possibility of unification in eight meetings. In the middle were the different positions on the Second Vatican Council and its statements on Ecumenism, Religious Freedom and Interrelgious Dialogue.
At the conclusion Cardinal Levada reached out in last September to the Superior of the Society, Bernard Fellay, with a "Doctrinal Preamble". It contained a communique "some principles and criteria for interpretation of Catholic doctrine, which are necessary, in order to guarantee the true teaching office of the Church."
Till then the Preamble has been neither published, nor has the content of the Society's letter. Clearly the society desires textual alterations, it has been maintained in well-informed circles. New negotiations over the content of the clarification had been categorically ruled out by the Vatican. [?]
New negotiations or final break?
The really decisive question, whether the requested alterations by the Society are as changes in the subject or will merely be restatements. In the first case the Roman answer would probably mean a final break. Should in any case the majority in the CDF be prepared, to allow additional readjudication, then this would mean a new round of negotiations.
The middle way would be to freeze the current situation. The CDF would determine any lingering points of dissent and next declare any present further integration of the Society in the Church impossible. With that, both sides could save face.
Link to kath.net...
Meanwhile souls could be lost because of the FSSPX invalid confessions.
Their arguments for "supplied jurisdiction" aside, because the Holy See does not agree with them.
Ecclesia supplet. I'm more worried about the necessary intention of the average Catholic priest today than I am about the validity of SSPX Sacraments, but I still trust in Christ above all, who gave us His Church for our good.
My spiritual director, who is an FSSP priest, told me that since we cannot read minds, valid intent to do what the Church does, is shown by the priest saying the valid words of Consecration, no matter what he privately thinks.
've frequently gone to priests while travelling who aren't afraid to let you know what they thing, but what you're saying really misses my point.
If the SSPX is a problem, it's considerably less problematic than what exists in most parishes, where you have to jackhammer a priest out of his personal social commitments and private home away from the parish, to get him to hear confessions for an hour on Saturday once a week...
I agree that it is hard in many cases to get regular priests to hear your confession and this is very unfortunate, I know.
However this does not take away from the fact that they definitely have faculties to absolve sins.
Of this I am sure.
But, I am not 100% positive that SSPX priest have the ability to absolve sins except in cases of imminent death or complete ignorance on the part of the penitent.
I do not want to risk my immortal soul on this.
Fortunately I have never had a problem getting a priest to hear my confession no matter where I travel to.
I respect other people's conscience, especially when they respect my own.
Cardinal Hoyos has explained the situation with respect to sacraments at the SSPX, and even admits marriages consecrated there are valid, so I'm eager to dispel any idea that the SSPX is somehow problematic when most of the priests in this or that Diocese in the Western World are confused about the nature of the Priesthood itself and believe any number of flagrantly heretical propositions from supporting homosexual unions to denying the reality of Christ in the Sacrament.
I fully respect your conscience.
That having been said, please cite me the reference where Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos said SSPX marriages are valid?
He has said that a Catholic may fulfill his Holyday obligation at SSPX Mass's, but I have never seen where he or the PCED said that SSPX confessions or marriages are valid.
I would love for this to be the case but I have never seen this.
NB: I myself go to SSPX Mass's frequently but cannot go to their absolutions, right now.
Here's the ruling from PCED on Marriages. http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/mershon/070410
I have read that communique from Mr Mershon on his interview with Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos in the past and just now reread it and unfortunately it says nothing about SSPX marriages being valid.
I wish it were so but I have read nothing there.
Perhaps I have overlooked it.
Could you please give me the Cardinals quote where he says SSPX marriages are valid?
SSPX marriages and confession are valid, you can google this. Its based on sound principles of canon law and moral theology namely common error, probable and positive doubt as well as necessity and several other canons.
Aside from that the SSPX is not in schism something that was stated quite clearly stated by Rome and is nevertheless true.
Correct that Rome has stated that the SSPX are not in schism.
The PCED has also stated that the SSPX cannot validly absolve sins or witness marriages, in most cases.
I shall stick with what the Holy See states and not some canonists opinion on the canon pertaining to "ecclesia supplet".
Cruise the Groove, I can only assume that if the Cardinal and the PCED are willing to acquiesce about the validity of Marriages in Salzburg after 2009 and if Cardinal Hoyos has made no specific prescriptions in the wake of the lifting of the Excommunications, I can't imagine they're going to rule that the Sacrament of Penance is going to be invalid when they've already ruled that Matrimony is validly obtained there.
You may be right.
I am not completely sure though since many priests and several bishops have told me otherwise.
Maybe they are wrong.
I pray so.
I've noticed that more recently, there's a tone of increased hostility on the part of Catholic officials towards the SSPX, whether this is part of an official policy of distancing or just local Liberals running down the SSPX, I don't know.
One local priest is recently lying, telling people that they can't attend the Society Chapels, but they've been doing that for years. This particular priest has been significantly hostile to the SSPX in the past.
Right so during those 30 years when Rome said that no one could say the TLM you would have agreed? Except of course that they were wrong and it was the SSPX and their supporters that were right. Rome also doesn't see any problem in Assisi or the neo catechemunal way are you going to agree with them about that? And what abou the NO, Communion in the hand and femal altar servers do you agree with them about that? I fear for you if you do and if not you are simply picking and choosing. At least the SSPX and others can refer to theological principles and facts rather than 'whatever Rome says goes', thats not a very logical position.
I tend to agree.
I wrote my bishop and asked him if he could extend a kind hand to the local SSPX priest.
He responded that he can have nothing to do with him as long as they are irregular.
That's a more defensible and honest position than what the Chancery Officials are telling us.
And which Rome? Sometimes Dicastries and Congregations contradict one another.
There are Bishops and Cardinals in Rome who love what the SSPX is doing and support them either secretly or not, and then there are many who despise the SSPX, like the Devil takes to Holy Water.
Thank God for the Blessed Mother and the promises of the Rosary.
What are the chancery officials telling us?
They're saying you can't go at all and that the SSPX is schismatic.
But Protestants services are fine...
haha not exactly but then again they do like to attend them in the spirit of 'ecumenicism'
If they're going to be ecumenical, they should be consistent about it and cut the SSPX some slack.
You are so right. I cant think of many priests that I have known in the last 40 years that taught the faith as the mind of the church intended. I have raised my children without sending them to any regular faith formation classes because most of the teachers have no clue at what the church teaches. I have had conversations with members of the SSPX and there have been some really odd doctrinal ideas, such as Pope JPII and Pope B XVI are not valid because Vatican II was not valid. Some have had pretty balanced ideas, just wanting their kids to experience a reverent, Holy Mass, so they chose SSPX because their local catholic churches were so apostate. I would not want the responsability of the CDF but I do pray that a final split with Rome does not occur. Please Holy Spirit rule over the process.
Cruise the Groove is right, SSPX absolutions are invalid except in case of death, or arguably in the case of a penitent who through no fault of their own was unaware the SSPX priest is suspended and without faculties.
You may be interested in this article on SSPX confessions from a non-SSPX POV:
It's always been amazing to me how the liberality of certain "experts" becomes exhausted and intransigent when faced with the pastoral activities of the SSPX.
Post a Comment