|
Post by Clotilde on Jul 29, 2017 13:36:40 GMT -5
Very easy answer to this. You make a 'conditional' confession of your whole life doing as best you can to a priest ordained in the old rite---D/S, CMRI. This is what I did 2 years ago... Making a conditional confession to an Eastern Catholic priest or an SSPX priest may be difficult as they accept the rites of Paul VI as valid and may see no need for this. For a long time the SSPX conditionally re-ordained Novus Ordo priests that came into their order but they now consider it optional. LeFebvre would be mortified. I would like to do a general confession just to make sure it's all cleared up but I only have access to a Ukrainian and sometimes to an SSPX priest. I don't think the Eastern Catholics do general confessions like we do but I could ask. I will probably just wait until I can get to a CMRI or other traditional priest and in the meantime continue confessing to the Ukrainian priest as normal. Thank you for your responses everyone. I don't know who your SSPX priest is but there are only a few to really avoid, they are all familiar with general confessions and would be happy to hear yours. You don't even have to tell them why you are doing it. If you go during regular confession times or there is a line, just be courteous by being prepared to confess so that you are in and out. Some priests, when under time constraints, will decline to hear a general confession and ask that you do it at a different time.
|
|
turin
New Member
Posts: 45
|
Post by turin on Jul 29, 2017 13:55:56 GMT -5
I know he would be fine with it but I don't have a car and it's a long distance away. I only get there once a month or so on Sunday morning.
|
|
|
Post by kim on Jul 29, 2017 14:33:59 GMT -5
I know he would be fine with it but I don't have a car and it's a long distance away. I only get there once a month or so on Sunday morning. Just make sure he was ordained in the old rite and he's not a Novus Ordo transfer.
|
|
recusant
Approved Cath Resource contributor
Posts: 86
|
Post by recusant on Jul 29, 2017 17:52:31 GMT -5
The most important thing we should all do everyday, even multiple times a day, is to make an act of perfect contrition. Remember that all sins are forgiven when one makes an act of perfect contrition.
|
|
|
Post by wenceslav on Oct 10, 2017 16:50:41 GMT -5
Sorry for reopening this old thread. I don’t think anyone posted this link from the SSPX archives but I think it’s quite pertinent wrt licitness and validity of confessions from the SSPX ( the arguments put forth also apply to the CMRI and SSPV by extension). The well written article is by Fr. Peter Scott. URL: archives.sspx.org/miscellaneous/supplied_jurisdiction/supplied_jurisdiction.htmCommentsI will comment more from a historical perspective. In Ukraine, it is well known that underground priests, even those newly ordained clandestinely , and who found themselves in any region within the Soviet Union (due to forced migration or imprisonment) would hear confessions and witness marriages. The supreme law is the salvation of souls. Even bishops were consecrated without the requisite permission. This was the case in Czechoslovakia as well where priests without the requisite ordinary jurisdiction would hear confessions. My parents’ families benefited greatly from such priests and would find this doubt with regard to the Traditional priests of today as absolutely spurious. And everyone realized they did nothing wrong, even when some of the bishops were released from prison in the early 1960s. Since there is no difference between the heroic priests of Eastern Europe during the Bolshevik period and the Traditional priests of today : no visible authority that is accessible.
|
|
|
Post by semperfidelis on Oct 10, 2017 17:19:22 GMT -5
Sorry for reopening this old thread. I don’t think anyone posted this link from the SSPX archives but I think it’s quite pertinent wrt licitness and validity of confessions from the SSPX ( the arguments put forth also apply to the CMRI and SSPV by extension). The well written article is by Fr. Peter Scott. URL: archives.sspx.org/miscellaneous/supplied_jurisdiction/supplied_jurisdiction.htmCommentsI will comment more from a historical perspective. In Ukraine, it is well known that underground priests, even those newly ordained clandestinely , and who found themselves in any region within the Soviet Union (due to forced migration or imprisonment) would hear confessions and witness marriages. The supreme law is the salvation of souls. Even bishops were consecrated without the requisite permission. This was the case in Czechoslovakia as well where priests without the requisite ordinary jurisdiction would hear confessions. My parents’ families benefited greatly from such priests and would find this doubt with regard to the Traditional priests of today as absolutely spurious. And everyone realized they did nothing wrong, even when some of the bishops were released from prison in the early 1960s. Since there is no difference between the heroic priests of Eastern Europe during the Bolshevik period and the Traditional priests of today : no visible authority that is accessible. I think this is relevant. Callan posted this. The Delict of Heresy - MacKenzie, Rev. Eric F., A.M., S.T.L., J.C.L. (1932): - Selected quotes are from chapter six, "Heresy and Official Status and Actions" [referring to heretics] "...the second and third sections of canon 2261 provide for the delinquents administration of Sacraments in certain special cases. This provision is not intended as a favor to the delinquent himself, but rather as a means of making the Sacraments more available to the faithful, especially urgent cases… The provisions distinguish between those priests who have not and those who have received judicial sentences, and between the faithful whose case is urgent and those who are in ordinary need of the Sacraments." "...Canon 2261 is the logical complement of this legislation, in giving the faithful the right to seek the ministrations of priests so empowered… When the priest or other cleric is excommunicated, but has not received either a declaratory or condemnatory sentence, the faithful are permitted to ask and receive from him any Sacrament or Sacramental, especially if other ministers are absent. In these circumstances the said minister is free to administer to the faithful, and does not thereby violate the censure of which he is conscious. The faithful are required to have a just cause for their request, but canonists do not require that it be a serious (gravis) cause; the earlier conferring of Baptism, the dispelling of doubt concerning the gravity of a sin and the state of conscious, the desire for greater purity of soul when approaching the Holy Table, or the wish to communicate more frequently, have been recognized as just causes for requesting Sacraments even from priests known to be under simple censure. Meanwhile the minister is not required to investigate the reasons impelling the faithful to approach him, nor to verify the justice of their reasons. On being asked to administer a Sacrament, he is immediately free (ratione censurae) to do so. Even more, canonists do not require him to wait for an explicit request. Any implicit or reasonably presumed petition will be sufficient. Hence, when no other minister is available, a priest who is consiously guilty of a delict of heresy may go to Church, and show himself as ready to hear Confessions at the regular hours to distribute Communion and celebrate Mass when the faithful gather for these purposes."; (pp.78-79) --- MacKenzie, Rev. Eric F., A.M., S.T.L., J.C.L. (1932). The Delict of Heresy: In Its Commission, Penalization, Absolution. The Catholic University of America, Washington, D. C. Nihil Obstat: Patrick J. Waters, Ph.D. Imprimatur: William Cardinal O'Connell, Archbishop of Boston Read more: tradcath.proboards.com/thread/442/reception-sacraments-undeclared-heretics#ixzz4v989pZZU
|
|
|
Post by Clotilde on Oct 10, 2017 19:08:47 GMT -5
You are not safe anywhere that has a true risk of hurting your faith or sending you into schism.
Where are you more in danger of losing the faith?
At an independent chapel with a crazy priest or at an Eastern rite where people are innocently wrong about things but in good faith?
Where are you more at risk risk becoming a schismatic?
At an independent chapel where you are led to believe you are the only true Catholics, or an Eastern rite parish where there is no Catholic-sifting?
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Oct 10, 2017 20:14:53 GMT -5
Why do people insist in making this so complicated. clotilde had the best response citing Gods justice and mercy. Do your best to confess your sins as the Church teaches us....God will make sure its right.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Nov 5, 2017 19:24:47 GMT -5
Sorry for reopening this old thread. I don’t think anyone posted this link from the SSPX archives but I think it’s quite pertinent wrt licitness and validity of confessions from the SSPX ( the arguments put forth also apply to the CMRI and SSPV by extension). The well written article is by Fr. Peter Scott. URL: archives.sspx.org/miscellaneous/supplied_jurisdiction/supplied_jurisdiction.htmCommentsI will comment more from a historical perspective. In Ukraine, it is well known that underground priests, even those newly ordained clandestinely , and who found themselves in any region within the Soviet Union (due to forced migration or imprisonment) would hear confessions and witness marriages. The supreme law is the salvation of souls. Even bishops were consecrated without the requisite permission. This was the case in Czechoslovakia as well where priests without the requisite ordinary jurisdiction would hear confessions. My parents’ families benefited greatly from such priests and would find this doubt with regard to the Traditional priests of today as absolutely spurious. And everyone realized they did nothing wrong, even when some of the bishops were released from prison in the early 1960s. Since there is no difference between the heroic priests of Eastern Europe during the Bolshevik period and the Traditional priests of today : no visible authority that is accessible. I think this is relevant. Callan posted this. The Delict of Heresy - MacKenzie, Rev. Eric F., A.M., S.T.L., J.C.L. (1932): - Selected quotes are from chapter six, "Heresy and Official Status and Actions" [referring to heretics] "...the second and third sections of canon 2261 provide for the delinquents administration of Sacraments in certain special cases. This provision is not intended as a favor to the delinquent himself, but rather as a means of making the Sacraments more available to the faithful, especially urgent cases… The provisions distinguish between those priests who have not and those who have received judicial sentences, and between the faithful whose case is urgent and those who are in ordinary need of the Sacraments." ". ..Canon 2261 is the logical complement of this legislation, in giving the faithful the right to seek the ministrations of priests so empowered… When the priest or other cleric is excommunicated, but has not received either a declaratory or condemnatory sentence, the faithful are permitted to ask and receive from him any Sacrament or Sacramental, especially if other ministers are absent. In these circumstances the said minister is free to administer to the faithful, and does not thereby violate the censure of which he is conscious. The faithful are required to have a just cause for their request, but canonists do not require that it be a serious (gravis) cause; the earlier conferring of Baptism, the dispelling of doubt concerning the gravity of a sin and the state of conscious, the desire for greater purity of soul when approaching the Holy Table, or the wish to communicate more frequently, have been recognized as just causes for requesting Sacraments even from priests known to be under simple censure. Meanwhile the minister is not required to investigate the reasons impelling the faithful to approach him, nor to verify the justice of their reasons. On being asked to administer a Sacrament, he is immediately free (ratione censurae) to do so. Even more, canonists do not require him to wait for an explicit request. Any implicit or reasonably presumed petition will be sufficient. Hence, when no other minister is available, a priest who is consiously guilty of a delict of heresy may go to Church, and show himself as ready to hear Confessions at the regular hours to distribute Communion and celebrate Mass when the faithful gather for these purposes."; (pp.78-79) --- MacKenzie, Rev. Eric F., A.M., S.T.L., J.C.L. (1932). The Delict of Heresy: In Its Commission, Penalization, Absolution. The Catholic University of America, Washington, D. C. Nihil Obstat: Patrick J. Waters, Ph.D. Imprimatur: William Cardinal O'Connell, Archbishop of Boston Read more: tradcath.proboards.com/thread/442/reception-sacraments-undeclared-heretics#ixzz4v989pZZUThank you so much for this post. It actually takes a load off my mind or more precisely the LOAD off my SOUL.
|
|