|
Post by Pacelli on Dec 28, 2019 14:32:13 GMT -5
A Catholic who “somewhat” holds the home-alone position has put forth a question regarding the sacrament of confession by traditionalist priests. Here is the relevant portion: I am not convinced that traditional priests receive jurisdiction through canon 209, supplied jurisdiction, therefore I do not go to confession to them. I am not telling others what to do, but I remain unconvinced and find the argument weak at best. The most well thought out argument that traditional priests receive supplied jurisdiction for confession can be found HEREThere is no doubt, however, that traditional priests have jurisdiction delegated to them, (not supplied) by canon 882 when there is a danger of death. There has been some debate about how far this danger extends, and for myself, I remain unconvinced that this danger extends so far that any priest can hear regular confessions in our time for a healthy Catholic, based on the idea that one could die anytime and may not find a priest again. If the Pope intended such as interpretation of the canon, then healthy Catholics who are not in any danger of dying could regularly go to a nearby schismatic orthodox priest for regular monthly confessions, as canon 882 delegates jurisdiction to any validly ordained priest. even to schismatics. I think such an interpretation is not at all in line with the lawgiver. In my opinion, if there is an actual danger of death, cancer or other grave sickness, or some other grave concern that death may occur, I am certain, as canon 882 is clear, that all validly ordained priests, including traditional priests have the jurisdiction to absolve. For those not in a danger of death, old validly ordained Roman rite priests ordained pre-June 68 who have received faculties to hear confessions would in my opinion have jurisdiction as the Novus Ordo bishop who is believed by Catholics to be the bishop of the diocese has given these priests jurisdiction and his act of granting jurisdiction would be supplied by canon 209 as there is a common error about his being the legitimate bishop. Eastern rite priests have jurisdiction which is given to them from their diocesan bishops, so we can be certain that they have the jurisdiction to absolve. Fwiw, I only go to eastern rite or old pre-June 1968 priests for confession. If I was seriously sick and in a danger of death, I would have no problem going to any priest, as I would know that jurisdiction is delegated to the priest (canon 882).
|
|
|
Post by wenceslav on Dec 29, 2019 17:18:14 GMT -5
Merry Christmas Pacelli!
Since the SSPX has been given faculties to hear confessions by the man who they think is the pope, wouldn't canon 209 apply as it would for the Ukrainians. I realize this would not apply to (sedevacantist) Catholic priests. That’s a different discussion.
Therefore anyone attending a SSPX chapel with a validly ordained priest need not fear. In fact preferable, to the Eastern rites in my area i.e. the Ukrainians here have female acolytes, the Armenians hand out Holy Communion in the hand and the Syro-Malabars have a modified Eastern NO.
Just my two cents worth.....
|
|
|
Post by wenceslav on Dec 29, 2019 17:45:15 GMT -5
Also note that forgiveness of venial sins is valid by any priest (with jurisdiction or without). The Casuist (Vol. 4, p. 234)
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Dec 29, 2019 20:15:44 GMT -5
Merry Christmas Pacelli! Since the SSPX has been given faculties to hear confessions by the man who they think is the pope, wouldn't canon 209 apply as it would for the Ukrainians. I realize this would not apply to (sedevacantist) Catholic priests. That’s a different discussion. Therefore anyone attending a SSPX chapel with a validly ordained priest need not fear. In fact preferable, to the Eastern rites in my area i.e. the Ukrainians here have female acolytes, the Armenians hand out Holy Communion in the hand and the Syro-Malabars have a modified Eastern NO. Just my two cents worth..... Merry Christmas to you as well, Wenceslav! I don’t believe the eastern Catholics need to rely on supplied jurisdiction , unless they have a bishop who is certainly a malicious public heretic and due to that is not a member of the Church and due to that has no office in the Church. The Eastern Catholic bishops who have offices in the Church grant jurisdiction to their priests in the ordinary manner, with no reliance on supplied jurisdiction. If the eastern bishop has lost his office, then I agree that supplied jurisdiction would apply and the priests would still obtain faculties through supplied jurisdiction due to the common error. I agree with you about the SSPX and Canon 209 applying to their priests from Francis’ granting of faculties to their priests. Francis is generally believed to be the lawful office holder to the Papacy, and this belief by most Catholics creates a common error as to his laws. If those laws serve the common good, as the granting of faculties does to SSPX priests to hear confessions then it seems to me to be a classic case of jurisdiction being supplied due to common error. There can be no doubt that SSPX priests having the jurisdiction to hear confessions throughout the world serves the common good. My comments above should only be understood as applying to the SSPX prior to the “granting” of faculties to absolve sins by Francis, and also applying to other groups of traditional priests and independent priests. I of course agree that it is probable that any priest may absolve one of venial sin. Venial sin does not sever one from God, and there are many remedies to be forgiven for such sins, even just the reception of Holy Communion. Since most serious Catholics receive Holy Communion frequently, these sins are regularly remitted by this practice alone. In my opinion, however, the practice of publicly going to a priest that has no jurisdiction to hear confession or any reasonable claim to supplied jurisdiction should still be avoided even for confession of venial sins, as it gives the false appearance of normalcy to the priest’s hearing of confession, and those who see what appears to be normal and acceptable and are ignorant about Catholic teaching on jurisdiction and supplied jurisdiction, may confess their mortal sins to him, and may not be absolved.
|
|
|
Post by wenceslav on Dec 30, 2019 14:25:52 GMT -5
Pacelli said ( in opening post) Here, I mention Bp. Vasyl Velychkovsky (a clandestinely consecrated Bishop in Ukraine and leader of the Catacomb church beginning in the early 1960s) allowing the faithful to partake of Sacraments from Orthodox churches due to the “ lack of priests”. See below- p. 19 of article “ THE LITURGICAL AND PASTORAL LIFE OF THE UKRAINIAN GREEK CATHOLIC CHURCH IN THE CATACOMBS” by UGCC priest Fr. Marko Yaroslav Semehen, OCCASIONAL PAPERS ON RELIGION IN EASTERN EUROPE (Augest 2014) Vol.XXXIV No. 4. This was authorized pre-VII by a certainly “orthodox” (i.e. little “o”) Ukrainian Catholic Bishop, the successor of Cardinal Slipyj. So (at least for the pre-VII Ukrainian Catholic hierarchy) the “ lack of priests” is equivalent to a “ danger of death” scenario. Also note that there was no confusion by the Catholic faithful about who was a Catholic and who was a schismatic priest. Below is a newspaper article illustrating Catholics (i.e. the mother of Bp. Borecky of the Toronto Eparchy) did indeed make use of the Sacraments from schismatic priests. arc.stparchive.com/Archive/ARC/ARC01081960p05.phpText from Newspaper article: Therefore, in today’s situation why not take advantage of certainly respectable priests like the CMRI, who are thoroughly Catholic and much better than the schismatic priests available to Ukrainian Catholics during the Communist era. We certainly have precedence in the interpretation of Canon 882 and a scenario where it was applied when there was a lack of priests. I would argue that in some cases, there is a greater lack today than in Ukraine during the Communist era.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Dec 31, 2019 14:21:26 GMT -5
Hi Wenceslav, I read your post many times, and I do not see where it specifically mentions confession. In Fr. Semehen’s paper he said that Catholics were allowed to go to Orthodox churches and it sounds like he was specifically referring to attendance at the Divine Liturgy. Just an FYI, Catholics were never allowed to attend the Divine Liturgy of the Orthodox, so this practice that Fr. Semehen is mentioning is clearly wrong, whether or not they were aware of that. Fr. Semehen states, “these principles (permitting Catholics to go to Orthodox churches when there weren’t enough Catholic priests) were not based on the principles of the Council,” so what principles were they based on? I am not aware of any pre-Vatican II teaching which would permit Catholics to participate in an act of communicatio in sacris by attending Orthodox churches and worshipping with them, which it seems to me to be what Fr. Semehen is saying. It is worth saying that I am not making any judgment about these Catholics, the bishops who permitted this or the Catholics that obeyed them, as in the fog of battle mistakes can be made even by good people, but it still does not objectively mean that such mistakes can be justified when things are made clear. I posted this article which explains the teaching from the Holy Office which gets into detail about the subject of communicatio in sacris with the so called Orthodox, what is permitted, what is not: tradcath.proboards.com/thread/509/holy-office-communicatio-sacris-1622
|
|
|
Post by wenceslav on Dec 31, 2019 16:36:17 GMT -5
Hi Pacelli,
Thanks for the post and the link. I remember reading it before and I agree with it. My close friend who lived through this era in Western Ukraine did indeed confirm that some Catholics availed themselves of all the sacraments from “Orthodox” priests, including confession. I am not completely sure (although I think I would’ve heard about it), those same Catholics were not asked to re-confess their mortal sins. That being said, the fog of battle and extreme hardship faced by the hierarchy may have clouded their judgement. For the record, there were also many Catholics who would have rather died than attend an “Orthodox” liturgy. They instead waited for a “Catacomb” priest and many such priests died as martyrs or languished in the gulag until they died.
We do have the opinion of the French missionary priest Fr. Souarn mentioned in Fr. Szal’s thesis on p. 92 (For a pdf of Fr. Szal’s thesis, I posted it on the Trad Forum).
Availing oneself of the sacraments (i.e. confession) from CMRI, SSPV etc does not involve a violation of the divine law as it would with schismatic “Orthodox” priests. But as Fr.Szal alludes to, conditions for Canon 209 would still have to be present. Although, in my opinion Canon 882 could also apply based on St. Alphonsus. i.e. see Fr. Harty IER article that you posted before.
Notwithstanding, Fr. Miaskiewicz gives such an example (of the application of canon 209) using interpretative theory that could apply to Sedevacantist priests even in much less dire circumstances (Note, I realize that Fr. Miaskiewicz was not a proponent of the application of Interpretative theory to Canon 209):
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Dec 31, 2019 18:01:30 GMT -5
Hi Wenceslav, For the Catholics that lived in the Iron Curtain, it might also be argued that there was a constant concern of never seeing a Catholic priest again, of being imprisoned or even killed. It was a very dangerous place, and this real danger of death at the hands of this godless and aggressive state may have justified the the reliance on canon 882 in seeking absolution from an “Orthodox” priest. For myself, I wouldn’t have gone to any of them, unless I was actually dying from disease or under the certain belief that the communist state would end my life very soon. The article from Fr. Harty (posted HERE for easy reference) was narrowly dealing with the question of whether jurisdiction would be supplied in remote lands where the penitent: Fr. Harty answers this question by saying that his view, in line with the teaching of the Council of Trent and the Roman Ritual, that the danger of death must be imminent, also concedes that the opinion of St. Alphonsus is safe, and the Church will supply based on this opinion, meaning that a priest: My issue with applying this to our times is this: I do not believe we (at least most of us) are in an identical the scenario answered by Fr. Harty. In my opinion, there are plentiful approved confessors in the world, both in the Roman Rite and in the Eastern Rites. Since I am not in a remote region, and can easily reach an approved confessor with very little difficulty, I am morally certain that I am not in an identical situation that St. Alphosnus described and Fr. Harty wrote about in his response to the questioner. In my opinion, the vast majority of Catholics going to traditional priests for confession either don’t understand supplied jurisdiction or have concluded that there are no longer approved confessors based solely on incorrect principles and assumptions built on those principles. For example. John Smith who goes to traditional group X, says, “there are no more priests to confess my sins, except my chapel priest,” but at the same time John has failed to even both to look up old Roman rite priests (which is not hard to do in the Internet age) or to find any eastern rite priests anywhere close to him, or has potentially wrongly assumed, without any evidence, that all of the authorized confessors are no longer Catholic or a danger to go to for confession. In your article from Fr. Szal, I see the same difficulty as with Fr. Harty. He is specifically discussing the scenario of a Catholic who lives in an area without Catholic priests where there are Orthodox priests. I do not believe many of us fall into an identical situation, as I believe most of us have access to approved confessors. Fr. Szal also says right after the section you boldfaced: Fr. Szal does not answer us on how the conditions can be verified in this situation, but I am of the view that this is not an easy task, as most Catholics know that the keys of binding and loosening were given by our Lord Jesus Christ exclusively to the Pope and the bishops in union with him, and that priests may only use these keys if they are authorized to to so by their lawful bishop or the Pope. To apply it to the Orthodox, I don’t think there is any common error that they (the Orthodox) have received the power from the Church to absolve sins. The same, in my opinion exists today with Catholics who attend traditional chapels. I think every Catholic knows that these chapels are not under the jurisdiction of a lawful diocesan bishop, who then gives to the priest the power to absolve sins. By the way, fwiw, if you are convinced of the arguments put forth by SSPX in the article I cited in the previous post, or other such similar arguments, then I leave you in peace. I am merely saying what my opinion is, what I personally do, and what I consider safe. I am not telling you or anyone else what they must do.
|
|
|
Post by wenceslav on Jan 1, 2020 18:45:01 GMT -5
Pacelli said:
And yet we have this paragraph from Fr. Szal’s thesis which shows that “the Church by its very purpose must look to the salvation souls” and the willingness of Pope Pius XI to supply jurisdiction to whatever extent was required. In my opinion (and with all due respect), your conclusions(especially wrt the Traditional priests) are too harsh - based on the Cappello’s description of the situation in the quote below.
Pacelli also said:
I think that this is a very subjective point(i.e. do I have access to an approved and suitable confessor) and I personally have researched this along with my family for most of my adult life. I say “subjective” because how far am I required to travel to find that confessor. My elderly mother can’t handle more than 60 miles one way before complete exhaustion sets in. I live in Southern Ontario and as far as I can tell there isn’t any Roman rite priest ordained before 1968 who is orthodox. Any such priests are at best in their late 70s and are soon going to disappear.
The Eastern rites (Ukrainians) at least here in this Eparchy and I suspect across Canada (and many parts of USA)are not “suitable”. One of the reasons, is that many completed part of their seminary education in Novus Ordo seminaries and Modernist institutes like the Sheptytsky Institute. I know many do not have a healthy and orthodox concept of sin. And even if the confessor/priest is Catholic, am I obliged to utilize him as a confessor if he uses female acolytes etc and thereby giving scandal by joining the parish. Moreover , how is a simple Catholic who is not well versed in the Faith supposed to make such a determination as this, conclusively. Where does one’s obligation end. To be blunt and honest, just because a priest went to an authorized Ukrainian seminary means nothing today. I rather trust Archbishop Lefebvre’s unauthorized seminaries which produce thoroughly Catholic priests rather than the Ukrainian priests I have met here, who deny Vatican I and the filioque(among other things), as something we are not obliged to believe.
As my parents say (who escaped from Czechoslovakia which was just as bad as Ukraine) the situation wrt the access of Catholic priests for the sacraments is a lot worse here in Canada. I honestly do think that the scenario described by Fr. Harty ( and St. Alphonsus) does apply to most (Traditional) Catholics.Although, I am truly glad that you were able to find solidly orthodox priests.
Note, I do respect you to make your own assessment of your situation but I do respectfully disagree with your conclusions about application of canons 209 and 882.
|
|
|
Post by wenceslav on Jan 2, 2020 9:20:59 GMT -5
Hi Pacelli, Below is a link to the Cappello reference ( De Sacramentis) that Fr. Szal cited regarding Pius XI. It’s basically the same as what Fr. Szal related and unfortunately no further details about the Pius XI statement.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Jan 2, 2020 13:16:40 GMT -5
Wenceslav,
I will write you more later, but let me quickly as I don’t have much time reiterative to you that I am not an authority over you or your mother, and if you believe that the danger of death scenario applies to you and you are morally certain that there are no approved confessors in your area, and you are unlikely to meet one again, then it’s not for me to say otherwise to you.
You ask how far the obligation goes to find an approved confessor. As with all things one should have a moral certainty. We can’t know everything, but we rely on good judgement. If a Catholic lives in Greenland in 1950 and to the best his knowledge there are just occasional visiting priests who may or may not ever come again, then he can be reasonably certain that if he actually meets a priest, it might be for the last time.
The crisis in the Church has certainly reduced the amount of priests we have available. I am not living in a vacuum and I aware of that, which is why in my post I did not say things in absolute terms. The facts on the ground may differ and most likely do differ in one place verse another.
In my OP, I stated what I believe to be the safest practice during this crisis, to find approved Catholic confessors in one’s area if such confessors exist and can be found. If one tries to find an approved confessor and is not able to, then obviously I am not telling anyone that he cannot rely on canon 882. I just am not convinced that many do this, and just go to confession to unapproved confessors without even trying to find an approved confessor. I believe this based on my communications with people for decades, talking, letters, email, and reading peoples public posts on forums. From my experience, people go to the traditional chapel, get into the confession line and don’t think much about it beyond that.
I have been going to old Roman rite priests for decades, well over 30 years, and although these priests say the Novus Ordo, they in my judgement were not heretics. The same goes with some eastern rite priests I have found here and there over the years. I take the time to meet them, learn about them, and see if there are any red flags as to whether they may not be a Catholic. I never gave up on seeking approved Catholic priests for confession, and will continue to do so until my time is up here. I can even tell you that I knew an elderly priest living in a Catholic retirement home for priests who was a sedevacantist, amazingly enough, so the world is full of strange situations.
There are many matters that I take issue with that are practices of different traditionalist groups, so this isn’t a stand alone issue. Do you believe annulments can be given by these groups? They do, at least some of them. Would Catholics suffer when they have grounds for an annulment but cannot get one because we have no Pope to grant it? Yes, they would, but does that justify some private non-authority stepping in and granting it in his place.
Anyway, I am surprised there seems to be any disagreement between you and I on this. Do you believe Catholics should at least try to find approved confessors in their area, and if they find them, to go to them prior to relying on an argument of supplied jurisdiction or applying the remote region scenario of canon 882 to their situations? If you do, then I don’t see any disagreement here as this is what I am advocating.
|
|
|
Post by Wenceslaus on Jan 4, 2020 0:13:55 GMT -5
Hi Pacelli,
Yes, sorry for any confusion on my part. I agree with what you said above. My only point of contention, and this is only my opinion, is one of degree i.e. the crisis is so serious that it’s extremely difficult to find an approved confessor.
I appreciate your responses and your time. Please accept my (belated) best wishes for a Happy New Year!
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Jan 4, 2020 14:28:18 GMT -5
Hi Pacelli, Yes, sorry for any confusion on my part. I agree with what you said above. My only point of contention, and this is only my opinion, is one of degree i.e. the crisis is so serious that it’s extremely difficult to find an approved confessor. I appreciate your responses and your time. Please accept my (belated) best wishes for a Happy New Year! I was going to say more, but with your post, I think it best to leave it here. I will say this last point not really addressed to you, but just about Divine Providence. Throughout this crisis, I was never left without a confessor, and ones that I believed had jurisdiction. When a priest died or was no longer able to hear confessions, I always came across another, so I was never left without an authorized priest. Some of the Roman priests I have gone to confession to have lived extraordinarily long lives, and thanks to them I have never been in want in having old Roman priests to hear my confession, but recently the last ones have passed away, moved or have gotten too sick to hear confessions any longer, so it is the first time in my life that I can no longer rely on the old Roman priests. I suspect many other Catholics are also in the same boat, as these priests are now getting very old, but in a bizarre and strange act, (text linked HERE ) Francis has given all SSPX priests throughout the world faculties to hear confessions, and as I stated above, I believe this act has created a clear case of common error, and in my view canon 209 would certainly apply, as Francis is believed to be the Pope. Due to this, we now we have another massive source of certain approved confessors of the Roman rite throughout the world on every continent. It shows that God does work in mysterious ways, and He can even use an evil and foolish man to achieve something good. So, as of September 1st, 2015, Catholics of the Roman Rite do not have to be concerned about finding old priests in retirement or relying on what I think are not always strong arguments based on canons 209 0r 882, but can now rely on a very strong, and in my opinion, iron clad argument, that (validly ordained) SSPX priests have jurisdiction as the perceived authority gave them faculties, and this act by Francis is exactly what canon 209 clearly covers. Even someone like me who is and has been been very concerned about the jurisdiction of the confessor will confess to SSPX priests with no doubt about their jurisdiction. I wish you also a happy New Year and good health and God’s blessings on you and your family.
|
|
|
Post by wenceslav on Jan 13, 2020 19:09:24 GMT -5
Hi Pacelli, I saw that you posted the Fr. Rodriguez paper published in the Jurist. I hesitate to comment in the Catholic Resource section so I hope it’s OK to continue my response in this thread which is based on the same topic. Below is an interesting Question and Answer segment by Fr. Francis Connell of AER fame in the same journal (Vol. CXXXXVIII, pp. 207-208, March 1958). Fr. Connell repeats the opinion of Cappello who requires no more than an act which by its nature is capable of giving many people the impression that the priest is empowered to hear confessions, such as the act of entering a confessional in a public church even if only one person is present.I grant that a CMRI chapel(for example) is not a public church but the overwhelming majority believe it to be. Most believe this because all the formerly Catholic church buildings are occupied by the Modernist heretics with the “abomination of desolation” at the main “table” in the sanctuary. I do not think Fr. Rodriguez entertained the idea that all Catholic Churches would be occupied by modernists and that there would not be any public churches left in a given diocese let alone the entire world (notwithstanding the relatively very few Eastern rite parishes that may have remained orthodox). Even Fr. Rodriguez admits that his list is not exhaustive so it remains uncertain how he would judge the present circumstances. I believe Cappello’s interpretive opinion would apply to our Traditional priests(SSPV & CMRI) and the application of Canon 209 for the supply of jurisdiction for the Sacrament of Penance. drive.google.com/file/d/1QOT3_WRHHqMJpilz5efKA_WmkPpk_XFd/view?usp=drivesdk
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Jan 14, 2020 15:38:07 GMT -5
Hi Pacelli, I saw that you posted the Fr. Rodriguez paper published in the Jurist. I hesitate to comment in the Catholic Resource section so I hope it’s OK to continue my response in this thread which is based on the same topic. Below is an interesting Question and Answer segment by Fr. Francis Connell of AER fame in the same journal (Vol. CXXXXVIII, pp. 207-208, March 1958). Fr. Connell repeats the opinion of Cappello who requires no more than an act which by its nature is capable of giving many people the impression that the priest is empowered to hear confessions, such as the act of entering a confessional in a public church even if only one person is present.I grant that a CMRI chapel(for example) is not a public church but the overwhelming majority believe it to be. Most believe this because all the formerly Catholic church buildings are occupied by the Modernist heretics with the “abomination of desolation” at the main “table” in the sanctuary. I do not think Fr. Rodriguez entertained the idea that all Catholic Churches would be occupied by modernists and that there would not be any public churches left in a given diocese let alone the entire world (notwithstanding the relatively very few Eastern rite parishes that may have remained orthodox). Even Fr. Rodriguez admits that his list is not exhaustive so it remains uncertain how he would judge the present circumstances. I believe Cappello’s interpretive opinion would apply to our Traditional priests(SSPV & CMRI) and the application of Canon 209 for the supply of jurisdiction for the Sacrament of Penance. drive.google.com/file/d/1QOT3_WRHHqMJpilz5efKA_WmkPpk_XFd/view?usp=drivesdkHi Wenceslav, I am not convinced that the view that traditionalist privately owned chapels are actually canonically erected parishes of the Catholic Church is common. I’ve never believed that, even when I was young and much more ignorant. I always knew that these were not churches, but I do concede that as this crisis goes on, and more Catholics find the old Faith and come to one of these chapels, they are in many cases ignorant on the status of these groups, bishops, priests and chapels, and may erroneously buy into the idea that these are parishes governed by pastors and that the bishops of these groups have authority to rule over the Catholics that attend these chapels. It seems to me that you and I have very different understandings along with experiences that have shaped our views on traditionalism. While I am a “traditional” Catholic in my Faith, as we all must be to be a Catholic in the first place, and I reject the Conciliar sect, with it’s heresies, errors, and doubtful sacraments, this does not mean that I embrace “traditionalism” with its groups, bishops, priests, “parishes,” “pastors” etc. I have witnessed in my time with traditionalism many actions by so called “pastors” that were clear violations of canon law, expelling persons from these “parishes,” or denying Catholics who were assisting at mass, Holy Communion, based on spurious grounds. Catholics have no true rights at these “parishes,” and this shows when they are expelled or denied Holy Communion, which serves as a reminder to those who go to mass at these chapels that these are indeed private organizations that have their own rules which are not the same as the Canon law of the Church. So, does the error of some, maybe many, which exists today on the belief that the status of these chapels are actually parishes of the Catholic Church establish a common error which would supply jurisdiction to the absolutions at these chapels based on canon 209. Maybe, I’m not sure. I am not convinced of this, but as we discussed above, if you are, then I leave you in peace. I still stand by my view that we should be trying to find priests who are authorized confessors or have air tight claims to jurisdiction, and I agreed with you in the above discussion that this includes priests of the SSPX as it stands today. I was posting some more references in the library without commenting, to give our readers more access to research this issue, not to continue this discussion which I thought we had concluded. I do appreciate the spade work you have done in finding and posting these excellent articles on the subject. I will also post the article from Fr. Connell to the library, which is another good source on this matter, and I do appreciate the work you have done in getting many of these good resources on so many topics posted on the internet.
|
|