|
Post by Pacelli on Nov 13, 2022 11:49:24 GMT -5
I have been corresponding with someone on this matter, so I thought this may be a good time to put my thoughts on here on a public forum as well. I have put up many resources on this forum on the necessity of mission for priests in the Catholic Church. This teaching was given right in the beginning of the Church, that priests must be sent. No one can self-generate a mission, it must be given to him by God, either directly or indirectly through the Church. Anyone that self-generates a mission or receives a mission from one not authorized to give it to him, or receives it from the people, his congregation, does not have a mission from God through His Church. If anyone disputes anything I have said above, so far, I urge you to read the numerous sources presented in the resource section. Most especially read St. Francis de Sales on this teaching, he explains it brilliantly. In the early 1970’s this teaching was not on the minds of Catholics as all priests who resisted the new sect had a legitimate mission from the Church, they were all sent by diocesan bishops and their status was not and could not have been taken away by heretics. But, the story did not end there. Archbishop Lefebvre began ordaining men in the mid 1970’s and soon after many priests of the Thuc line were being ordained. So, what are we to think of this situation? Can the Catholic teaching on the necessity of a mission be ignored due to this new situation? Of course not. Fortunately, by Divine Providence, the 1917 Code allows Catholics to request the sacraments from any priest regardless of his status if there is a need to do so, which I believe in our times, there is a grave and pressing need. The two canons are 2261 and 2284 specifically authorize any Catholic to make this request to any Catholic priest regardless of his status. This does not mean that these priests have any status in the Catholic Church. They are not office-holders, pastors, etc. They are men that have been ordained who answer the request for the sacraments, nothing more. The home-aloners present great and beautiful Catholic sources, many of which I also post in our resource section, but what they do not prove is that Catholics cannot request the sacraments from these “traditional priests.” They do not prove it, because they cannot prove it. The reason is that their belief is grounded in an unwarranted assumption, which they cannot prove, that the sources they have presented somehow show something different than what is specifically legislated in the Code of Canon Law. I would urge Catholics reading this to read the commentary on these two canons for themselves: tradcath.proboards.com/thread/2332/2261-2284-commentary-fr-augustineI am leaving unanswered in this post other matters, such as whether these men can be ordained under these circumstances or whether they can preach in these circumstances, and any other related matter. The only matter being presented in this post is whether the laity may request the sacraments from “traditional priests,” and whether the priest may lawfully answer that request for the sacraments. All other matters, although important, are irrelevant to the practical decision on whether laypeople can request the sacraments from these priests, which is certain, based on the 1917 Code.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Nov 13, 2022 12:58:58 GMT -5
I would also like to add to the post above, that this scenario of relying on canons 2261 and 2284 to request and approach “traditionalist” priests works best when the priest understands his situation in the Church, embraces the minimalist role that he has of answering the requests of the laity to provide the sacraments and doesn’t go beyond that.
There is no doubt that some priests, and even more so, some bishops have either forgotten to remain in a minimalist role or don’t believe or care about this role for them and think that they have some sort of office in the Church with all that it entails.
Catholics must think carefully when approaching such bishops and priests who incorrectly believe they have an office or authority in the Church, or who deny they have authority yet in practice exercise it, with the requests for the sacraments, especially those who go with families, as these situations where Catholics gather under an unauthorized leader can very easily lead to or already be undeclared schismatic sects.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Nov 13, 2022 13:12:53 GMT -5
Bishp Sanborn is opening a seminary in my nearby town. I had a thought about introducing myself and having some dealings. Im not sure...then I thought about going there for Mass ( of course keeping my una cum status to myself)...Ill pray about it. By dealings I mean peaceful confrontations...setting up debates etc.
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 13, 2022 17:13:38 GMT -5
Bishop Sanborn is opening a seminary in my nearby town. I had a thought about introducing myself and having some dealings. Im not sure...then I thought about going there for Mass ( of course keeping my una cum status to myself)...I'll pray about it. By dealings I mean peaceful confrontations...setting up debates etc. Their positions are outlined in their RCI theological position statement which contains the thesis and the no Una Cum position itself. All of their priests/bishops need to sign this document in order to be a member of the RCI. My experience is that they aren't open to discussion of these topics.
|
|
|
Post by Clotilde on Nov 13, 2022 21:11:42 GMT -5
Bishp Sanborn is opening a seminary in my nearby town. I had a thought about introducing myself and having some dealings. Im not sure...then I thought about going there for Mass ( of course keeping my una cum status to myself)...Ill pray about it. By dealings I mean peaceful confrontations...setting up debates etc. I encountered a couple of very awesome people this past summer. Their whole thing is that they just go to mass wherever and left them deny them Communion. It looks worse for those denying the sacraments and only reflects poorly upon them. They have to take that to their judgement. I have to say, I had never looked at it that way before, and I thought it was pretty great. It will inevitably happen to me someday and I will take this wisdom with me in that situation.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Nov 14, 2022 10:56:03 GMT -5
Bishp Sanborn is opening a seminary in my nearby town. I had a thought about introducing myself and having some dealings. Im not sure...then I thought about going there for Mass ( of course keeping my una cum status to myself)...Ill pray about it. By dealings I mean peaceful confrontations...setting up debates etc. It's up to you what to do, but for myself, even if they opened up next door to me I wouldn't have anything to do with them. In my opinion, their explicit use of authority, that they lack, in binding laypeople who attend their chapels to their opinion that they cannot go to "una cum," Masses of SSPX or others, is a proof that they are a schismatic sect. This policy through the use of a jurisdictional authority binds Catholics to refrain from worship with other Catholics at masses that use the Catholic rite said by validly ordained Catholic priests, and punishes violaters with the loss of Holy Communion. It's interesting that the SSPV also do the same thing, bind Catholics to their opinion on the Thuc lines, and pretending that they have authority over Catholics tell them that they cannot attend mass at these chapels, and punish violators with the denial of Holy Communion. This, like Sanborn's group, are the actions of schismatic sects, who usurp the binding and loosening power given by Our Lord to the successors of the Apostles, and by that separate Catholics from each other, which is schism. If Catholics choose to use their rights under canon law and request the sacraments from an SSPX priest, and that fact is discovered by RCI, the schismatic policy demands that they be denied Holy Communion, which is another ground for schism. I am sad for you Voxx that this trouble has come to your state, as Catholics will be separated from each other by this schismatic group.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Nov 14, 2022 13:18:27 GMT -5
I might tell them my status and dare them to deny me communion...are their consecrations Valid Pacelli?
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Nov 14, 2022 22:47:32 GMT -5
I might tell them my status and dare them to deny me communion...are their consecrations Valid Pacelli? To your first point, tell them what you want. When they deny you communion they will sin, so it's up to you. I'm not saying you are wrong, as they are the ones who will be violating the law of the Church and God's Law, not you, so if you go there and tell them you won't obey them on their illicit claim to authority and will keep requesting the sacraments from priests who have the Faith, are validly ordained, and who use the Catholic rite, and then they will deny you Holy Communion by exercising their made up authority over you, but one less sin in this world will happen if you just avoid them altogether. To your second point, I have no doubt about the validity of their holy orders.
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2022 4:16:17 GMT -5
Bishop Sanborn is opening a seminary in my nearby town. I had a thought about introducing myself and having some dealings. Im not sure...then I thought about going there for Mass ( of course keeping my una cum status to myself)...I'll pray about it. By dealings I mean peaceful confrontations...setting up debates etc. Their positions are outlined in their RCI theological position statement which contains the thesis and the no Una Cum position itself. All of their priests/bishops need to sign this document in order to be a member of the RCI. My experience is that they aren't open to discussion of these topics. I should point out that the position statement refers to a purely material hierarchy. "I furthermore hold that the members of the Novus Ordo hierarchy constitute the Catholic hierarchy only materially, that is, that they are in possession of legally valid designations to receive jurisdiction, although they remain deprived of this jurisdiction until such time as they recant the apostasy of Vatican II and its reforms."
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Nov 20, 2022 9:57:29 GMT -5
Their positions are outlined in their RCI theological position statement which contains the thesis and the no Una Cum position itself. All of their priests/bishops need to sign this document in order to be a member of the RCI. My experience is that they aren't open to discussion of these topics. I should point out that the position statement refers to a purely material hierarchy. "I furthermore hold that the members of the Novus Ordo hierarchy constitute the Catholic hierarchy only materially, that is, that they are in possession of legally valid designations to receive jurisdiction, although they remain deprived of this jurisdiction until such time as they recant the apostasy of Vatican II and its reforms." The term, “Novus Ordo hierarchy” is vague and could very easily lead to incorrect conclusions. It could easily give the reader the impression that all bishops who claim the office of diocesan bishop and at the same time continue to accept the claim of Francis are part of an undeclared sect that is in part, the so called “Novus Ordo hierarchy.” It certainly is a fact that some bishops have embraced the new sect, by accepting its heresies and have broken from the Church. It’s not true that all have done do. The term “Novus Ordo hierarchy” would give the impression that all bishops who accept Francis and claim an office are part of this group. The onus is always on the accuser, so if RCI believes and states that these men are part of this undeclared sect, they must prove the accusation against each and every man they are accusing. Anything short of that is rash. Catholics must never sign vague documents, especially on matters of Faith. Those that signed these documents should disavow them and retract their signatures.
|
|
|
Post by Clotilde on Nov 20, 2022 18:11:24 GMT -5
Pacelli Just a question and side note… Did the RCI require the priests trained for Dolan to sign? And if so, did they all sign? The reason I ask is because certain persons were upset about signing things against other Catholics with regard to SSPV and SSPX. If so, well, I’m sure you can see where I’m going with this. For the record, no one should be signing statements for any traditionalist organization. No one asked, but I will just keep saying it anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Nov 20, 2022 18:29:39 GMT -5
no more brother wars..I say
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Nov 20, 2022 18:48:28 GMT -5
no more brother wars..I say You are right, none of this should be happening. When certain men with absolutely no authority in the Church pretend that they have such authority it wreaks havoc and builds the groundwork for schism which is what we are witnessing.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Nov 20, 2022 18:52:17 GMT -5
Pacelli Just a question and side note… Did the RCI require the priests trained for Dolan to sign? And if so, did they all sign? The reason I ask is because certain persons were upset about signing things against other Catholics with regard to SSPV and SSPX. If so, well, I’m sure you can see where I’m going with this. For the record, no one should be signing statements for any traditionalist organization. No one asked, but I will just keep saying it anyway. I don’t believe the Dolan group of seminarians studying at Sanborn’s “seminary” had to sign to the RCI’s three “directories” since they were not joining Sanborn’s group. I think Catholics should never compromise to sign any statement that any of these unauthorized men are forcing them to sign. If your lawful diocesan bishop or a pope wants you to sign a statement to your Faith, fine, but don’t sign anything for these men.
|
|
|
Post by RitaMarita on Nov 20, 2022 19:07:48 GMT -5
On topic with Pacelli's original post:
I usually tell people who ask me the status of traditional Catholic priests that (in this irregular situation of the Church) traditional Catholic priests have no normal jurisdiction and so people are not bound under pain of sin to go to them for the Sacraments. Going to their Masses technically would not fulfill one's normal Sunday obligation as technically one is supposed to attend their local parish Mass for that.
Yet, in our day and age, it is allowable and even profitable to attend Mass and receive Sacraments from these irregularly started traditional groups because there is no other option (for most of us at least).
***
Concerning Bishop Sanborn's New seminary...
There are people I know who have said that his "break-up" with SGG and Dolan has mellowed him out a bit and that he has been more sympathetic towards people who don't agree with him on everything.
I would love to see the seminary if it was close by us. Our oldest son's godfather plans to join the seminary next fall and he is not strictly "non-una cum". I am quite sure that those who accepted him know this. It will be interesting to see how everything goes for him.
That being said... Vox, if you don't go out of your way to disagree with them, I think that they might be generally more agreeable and they might not even bother to ask you about your "non una cum" beliefs.
|
|