|
Post by Didymus on May 20, 2023 10:59:28 GMT -5
I would like to read the opinions of the members of this group on these contingent issues. I know the canonical problem of traditional groups, the problem of the jurisdiction provided in many of these groups. I understand that there are different points of view on this problem however I do raise some practical questions: 1) If the person decides to enter an Eastern seminary, are there missals or pre-conciliar books that help to know if there are heresies in the rite or if they have been infected with modernism in doctrinal and essential aspects or if there are doctrinal dangers in the seminary? Is anyone aware of a safe place today in the East to enter?
2) Could the person receive the priestly order in an Eastern rite and then celebrate the Tridentine mass? I think this has already been answered in other articles and I think the answer is -no- however if it were done, what would be harmful, would there be some kind of excommunication or something like that given the emergency?
3) The FSSPX obtained approval from the Church at first, then it was excommunicated but Monsignor Lefebvre himself said that all this had been invalid. Was that excommunication really valid? Could they really strip the SSPX of their canonical status and turned them into lazy priests? I can't imagine God saying, “well now they are no longer canonical because the modernists excommunicated it” don't you think that God is certainly working in the SSPX despite their mistakes and all the "official" conflict and providing jurisdiction even without the "common mistake"?
4) Would it be correct for a postulant to the priesthood who is aware of what we are talking about here, knowing that they are not popes and appointing them? I am not talking about a priest who prefers to wait for the judgment of the Church out of ignorance or because he has doubts about the status of these men like most of the cases of the priests of the SSPX, but one who is aware of the Eastern rites, the jurisdiction, the canonical state, the question cum etc and everything that is discussed here.
5) Having an even greater certainty today that canon 209 is working in the FSSPX and that there is jurisdiction provided, would it be the safest place to enter? even knowing that they are not "canonical", there is jurisdiction and I think it would be something in favor. Even is it correct to accept that they do not have a canonical mission, but that God would be giving them a mission to resist apostasy? , I know that this must be demonstrated, but being something supernatural or a Divine instrument, perhaps the contingent fact itself could be a proof of that? (I'm speculating). This was at least what I understand John Lane to have considered, since the traditional answer was not the correct one, but the very contingent fact that the faithful are happy with it shows that it might be.
6) What would happen if the applicant enters a seminary of the FSSPX as a sedevacantist and then tries to enter a diocese or work with a diocese to save souls knowing that they have valid orders, would he commit any fault? The problem I see is that he would be forced to be double and consider the modernist bishop or priest as valid. Would it be harmful? Is it correct in this case that he is white or black? (The focus is for the salvation of souls, without generating scandals in complex things for simple people)
I've asked this before, but I want to make sure I've understood it correctly.
7) If a conciliar bishop or diocesan priest who realizes the crisis in the Church and decides to be consecrated or ordained under the condition of some bishop of the SSPX, would he still be a diocesan or bishop of a territory? Would he serve the "common good"? Would it be a valid strategy to save as many souls as possible without creating scandal or would it be a way of approving the mistake?
8) Would it be lawful to enter a conciliar "canonical" seminary and be conditionally ordained by some reliable sedevacantist bishop or bishop of the fsspx to continue being "diocesan" but with valid orders?
Those are my questions, I am seeing the panorama almost as a "military strategy", the enemies infiltrated the Church.
9) Could one infiltrate the enemy so as not to become a priest 100% detached from Rome? Should a sedevacantist priest separate himself 100% from current Rome?
10) FSSPX, CMRI, Orientals?
In JMJ
|
|
|
Post by Clotilde on May 20, 2023 17:12:48 GMT -5
If it matters, I think the safest thing to do would be to enter the CMRI seminary and become a secular priest, work with them for the agreed number of years and if one was inclined to move on, working in conjunction with other likeminded priests would probably be the best fit.
Btw, there are bi-ritual priests who can say the Roman rite and another rite. I do not know how that works canonically, but I have known of them.
|
|
John Lewis
Full Member
Reviewing the Knowledge
Posts: 372
|
Post by John Lewis on May 21, 2023 15:48:44 GMT -5
If it were me, I would try and become an Eastern Rite Priest, work my way up to Bishop with ordinary jurisdiction over a see established by Pius XII or one of his predecessors and then declare the Holy See Vacant and try to elect a new Pope
|
|
|
Post by Didymus on May 21, 2023 18:08:36 GMT -5
If it were me, I would try and become an Eastern Rite Priest, work my way up to Bishop with ordinary jurisdiction over a see established by Pius XII or one of his predecessors and then declare the Holy See Vacant and try to elect a new Pope That sounds pretty military well said John
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Jun 15, 2023 15:10:02 GMT -5
Hello Didymus, Sorry for delay in writing an answer to this, life has been busy lately, and I am far behind on many things right now and I am trying to go through old posts and emails to get caught up. Didymus wrote:If there are any heresies or errors in the eastern rite, they would have entered into usage probably in the 1970's or later, so that's where I would start. Rome, that is real Rome, not occupied Rome would never tolerate heresy or error to be used in any approved Catholic rite, so if any infection happened to the Eastern rites from the Conciliar sect, it would have seeped in sometime later than that which occurred in the Roman rite. The only way you could find this out is to get an older missal, say from the early 1960's and compare it with the current missal to see what the changes were, and then see if they contained error, or very carefully read the current missal, and see if you find any problems. I don't know which eastern rite seminaries are safe. From my knowledge, I think the Syro-Malankara may be the best ones, as they seem firm about not changing anything, but even then, everything is in flux right now, so even with them, use caution. I was very surprised the other day to read Marcellus Faber's post on the Coptic Rite in England. Nothing is completely safe right now, in my opinion, neither the Eastern rites or traditionalist groups. What you can find are safe priests who you may get to know and trust. Didymus wrote:This is forbidden by the law of the Church unless bi-ritual faculties are given. In my opinion, the answer is no. The constant precedent we have from the Church is that the rites must remain separate, and any crossover, such as your question, must be explicitly permitted. How far can the law cease to be operative in this emergency? For myself, I am very reluctant to think that violating the law is generally permissible, unless a very solid case can be presented on why the law ceases to bind, while also looking at all of the potential harm that may arise. Keep in mind, for example, that Rome has not yet decided on whether any of the actions of the Traditional bishops consecrating new bishops in this situation is a lawful act. Everything being done is all based on various opinions. Didymus wrote:The SSPX does not have a canonical status to do what they are doing. Everything they are doing and have been doing since the beginning is based on the idea that such actions are permissible and justifiable due to the crisis, and the emergency allows for what they are doing. Fr. Cekada to his credit did a good job analyzing the canonical status of SSPX: www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/SSPXLegStat.pdfI do not believe that John Paul II's excommunication of Archbishop Lefebvre was valid, but not for the reasons that the SSPX believe. I believe that it was invalid due to John Paul II not being a Pope, and do not believe his act would have been supplied by the Church. Didymus wrote:A priest is not given his canonical appointment by the pope, unless he is a Roman priest for the diocese of Rome. The canonical appointment comes from the local diocesan bishop. It would not be a problem, in my opinion, for a man who was an eastern rite Catholic, who figured out sedevacantism to be ordained and assigned a parish by his bishop. Didymus wrote:I am not sure if things have changed, but I believe SSPX is requiring potential seminarians to sign a very specific statement indicating that one is not a sedevacantist. Didymus wrote:I won't tell you what to do, but I will tell you what I would do if I were a young man and of a good age to become a priest. I would not join any traditionalist order. I would not be ordained under this circumstance. I would consider an eastern rite, but let's face it, there are problems there as well, although a different set of problems. Regarding John Lane, he always carefully separated the matter of the lawfulness of traditional bishops and priests from the issue of mass attendance, which is a critical distinction, in my opinion. Regarding the latter, I, like him, agree that the most liberal (in the good sense of the word) interpretation favors the right of attendance at mass with these priests. Regarding the former, it's not a settled question by the Church. If others are convinced it's licit to be ordained a priest or consecrated a bishop in this situation, that is their opinion, I just would never do it myself, and I will never advise anyone to do it. More later
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Jun 15, 2023 19:18:14 GMT -5
Didymus wrote:
Well, as I said above, I don't believe it's possible for a Catholic who holds the sedevacantist position to enter SSPX, and it has been that way for a long time, to the best of my knowledge.
It's an interesting question, and I see what you are getting at, that since the Conciliar ordinary is considered the lawful ordinary, that if a validity ordained priest requested incardination into his diocese, that the act would be supplied. It's a good argument, but the problem is that this priest would then be forced to work in parishes with men who have the doubtful Paul VI orders, may be forced to say the Novus Ordo, may have to use doubtful other rites, etc.
Didymus wrote:
It possible. If the Conciliar diocesan bishop did not defect into heresy, it's possible. I am not as certain of their status as I am of the eastern rite bishops, who unlike the Latin rite bishops, have certainly valid episcopal orders. I don't know if the appointment of Latin rite bishops is supplied by the Church or not. Does it serve the common good if they are not validly consecrated bishops and are feeding the sheep invalid sacraments? I am willing to look at both sides on this, as I know some sedevacantists posit that they would take office, but I'm not certain of this.
Didymus wrote:
No, because you would still have to be ordained by the Conciliar bishop once completing seminary, the problems of which are obvious.
Didymus wrote:
I am going to assume you mean by separating from Rome," you are saying "to separate oneself from the sect." If that's what you mean, then yes, you must separate yourself from the sect. This gets to the bigger problem, as this sect is undeclared, therefore it's very difficult to judge who is a member of the sect and who is not. I believe that the best way to separate ourself from the sect is to (1) not participate in the Novus Ordo or any other rites that came from Paul VI, and (2) separate oneself from those who publicly, clearly and by all appearances knowingly and willfully embrace heretical or erroneous ideas against the Faith.
Didymus wrote: Prior to November of last year, if a man was going to enter a "traditional seminary" my opinion was that CMRI was best out of all of them, not because of any special or great training, but because they understood their place in the Church, and by all appearances seem laser focused on just being a sacramental bishop with sacramental priests, who just were doing what they were doing so Catholics could continue to receive sacraments during the crisis, nothing more, so I considered them to be the safest option. I am not sure about this any longer. I am waiting to see how things develop with the new idea, as published in the Adsum, Nov. 2022, that traditional bishops are the Apostolic successors. I am still hoping that this will be declared a mistake, but so far there has been no retraction.
(So, we are clear, I am not recommending to anyone to join any traditional group or get ordained in this situation, as I remain unsure about this matter, but until November of last year, I would have said, if you are morally certain of the morality this action of getting ordained without having a mission from the Church, that you are contemplating, and are going to do it anyway, the safest place to go was CMRI for any who hold the sedevacantist position.)
Regarding SSPX, to the best of my knowledge you can't join anyway, as they will make you sign a statement, and I don't see any way morally that you could sign, as the statement will leave no wiggle room in my opinion.
Eastern rites might be an option, I'm just not sure. I would certainly avoid the ones that have become more liberal, but regarding some of them, it might be possible. To consider it, one would have to visit the seminary, check it out, and be certain about it.
|
|
John Lewis
Full Member
Reviewing the Knowledge
Posts: 372
|
Post by John Lewis on Jun 16, 2023 4:11:29 GMT -5
The SSPX does not have a canonical status to do what they are doing. Everything they are doing and have been doing since the beginning is based on the idea that such actions are permissible and justifiable due to the crisis, and the emergency allows for what they are doing. Fr. Cekada to his credit did a good job analyzing the canonical status of SSPX: www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/SSPXLegStat.pdfHi Pacelli , Does any other traditional organisation have any canonical status and valid orders? For example Papa Stronsay, now re-attached to the Novus Ordo sect?
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Jun 16, 2023 6:18:51 GMT -5
The SSPX does not have a canonical status to do what they are doing. Everything they are doing and have been doing since the beginning is based on the idea that such actions are permissible and justifiable due to the crisis, and the emergency allows for what they are doing. Fr. Cekada to his credit did a good job analyzing the canonical status of SSPX: www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/SSPXLegStat.pdfHi Pacelli , Does any other traditional organisation have any canonical status and valid orders? For example Papa Stronsay, now re-attached to the Novus Ordo sect? In the Latin rite, no, if you count both, canonical status and orders, to the best of my knowledge. I highly doubt that any priest being ordained on Papa Stronsay since 2012 would be ordained both in the old rite and by a bishop who was consecrated in the old rite. The older priests, those ordained prior to 2012, would be validly ordained, however, those ordained by Archbishop Lefebvre or any of the other bishops of SSPX. Since they are not connected any longer with SSPX and have placed themselves under the Conciliar bishop, any ordinations would be done by their local bishop or another that is allowed to ordain for them. Here are some links to some ordinations (2012 or later) for them, all which are done by bishops consecrated in the Paul VI rite: papastronsay.blogspot.com/2012/11/ordinations.htmlpapastronsay.blogspot.com/2013/06/ordination-to-sacred-priesthood.htmlwww.lmschairman.org/2015/02/ordination-for-sons-of-most-holy.html
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Jun 17, 2023 7:40:13 GMT -5
The subject has come up on what does a traditional bishop or priest do if the above understanding is correct from my last posts. I believe that the bishop or priest in this situation should continue to say mass and administer the sacraments to the Catholics in need, by answering their requests, and may do so in good conscience, relying on canons 2261 and 2284.
|
|
|
Post by Didymus on Jun 17, 2023 18:18:11 GMT -5
Thanks for the answers Pacelli, I see that I was a bit repetitive in my previous queries, sometimes I don't have the time to formulate the questions well.
Given the importance of having a Mission within the Church, once the elderly priests and bishops died in the Latin rite, will the Latin orders commissioned by the Church have become extinct? Can this completely occur in a Church rite, would this violate indefectibility? , I am sure that this case is the same as if the diocese of Rome could not fall completely and at least 1 priest should remain. But I prefer to ask.
Another reasoning that I do is: how do we do it with current religious vocations? We clearly see that God continues to call people to that state of life in places where there are practically no priests sent by the Church and only have irregular traditional groups. Would God want them to only go to the rites that can still be commissioned like the Oriental ones? ...I only imagine God bringing out a greater good even in these irregular groups and that they are not the hierarchy of the Church, all of these are hypotheses of course.
My last question is: are the vows taken by the religious who enter the traditional monastic orders valid? (Dominicans from Avrille, Benedictines Brazil from Bp Williamson) etc.
Are they equally null and void in modernism? For example, if a woman enters a Carmelite convent and makes a profession of vows before a conciliar bishop?
Are all of them void for lack of jurisdiction? Would there be some kind of subjective religious link or would there be sacrilege if that nun leaves the order in the future and decides to lead a secular life or decides to get married?
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Jun 18, 2023 10:25:49 GMT -5
Didymus wrote:
You're welcome. It is common when dealing with complex matters to ask things in different ways as there may be so many nuances and related issues, that what may appear to be repetition is not truly repetition, it's a questioning on similar matters, that are not identical. That seems to be more of what you are doing.
Didymus wrote:
The Church can exist without entire rites, such as the many eastern rites, which the Church did live without during the times when they were in schism. Regarding the Latin rite, entire regions could fall away, possibly every diocese, with the exception of Rome.
It seems reasonable that at least one cleric (take note that I did not say priest) must remain in the Roman diocese, but on this point, I cannot find any source to support it, so it would be an opinion, nothing more. How does a diocese cease to exist, such as the dioceses that were overrun by Muslims and became extinct and are now known only as Titular dioceses? I have tried to find the answer to this with no success. It seems that a diocese fails when all Catholics cease to live in its boundaries, thereby ending its legal existence, like death does to a man. What if 95 percent of the Catholics died or defected? Would the remaining 5 percent be sufficient to continue the legal existence of a diocese? It seems so to me.
In regards to clerics, it seems reasonable, as I said above that one must remain in the diocese, but as I said, I am not certain of this as a fact. Could the Roman diocese continue only with the laity, if all priests died or fell away into heresy? I cannot find any source that says one way or the other, so it's an open question.
Didymus wrote:
This crisis is a mystery, and these matters have not yet been settled by the Church. The entire justification for having traditionalist legal organizations of priests, along with the ordaining of traditional priests and the consecration of traditional bishops is all based on various opinions, not anything settled or taught by the Church. You will not find any Catholic source which states that what has been done in these matters can lawfully be done.
With that said, I recognize that my conclusion is that I would, if I were in this situation, a young man who believed I was meant to be a priest, that I would not enter a traditional seminary, and I would not seek ordination from a traditional bishop. Clearly, many, even most, think this is permissible, so I leave them in peace on the matter.
I do know that if God calls a man to the priesthood or the religious life, and the man cooperates, then God can and will lead the man, and any obstacle will be removed in accordance with His Will.
In regards to God calling Latin rite Catholic men to an Eastern rite to be priests during this crisis, so they may obtain both the mission and orders, it's possible, but I do not want to say for certain. What I can say with certainty is that in this particular time in Church history, this appears to me to be the only way to obtain both, order and mission, as far as I can see. For myself, as I said above, if I were a young man, and I believed I was called to be a priest, this would be the only road that I would follow so long as this crisis continued.
Didymus wrote:
The Code is clear on this matter. Only approved ecclesiastical orders may accept the religious profession. If the order was created without papal approval, then in my opinion, the answer is no, they would not be binding solemn vows.
If the order is a papally approved order, only the lawful superior or his designee may hear the vows, and accept the newly professed into the congregation. The lawful superior is brought to that position of authority according to the rules in the papally approved constitution, so if the order is papally approved, you would have to see what conditions are in the constitution to determine if the superior is truly the superior. For example, after an election, does the Pope need to approve of the religious elected as superior prior to him assuming office? If that is not the case, and the man elected becomes superior merely by the election, with no condition of papal approval, then he would truly be the superior, and may accept the vows.
Didymus wrote:
If the order has fallen into heresy, or the religious is forced to attend the Novus Ordo, I believe she would be justified to leave, and further, unless there is some extenuating circumstance, that she must leave, as the obligation to sever from known heretics is a Divine command and the other nuns would be a direct danger to her Faith if they were open and public heretics.
Didymus wrote:
For those in traditional orders that are not established by the Church, as I said, I do not believe the solemn vows are binding, so the answer is right there. If a vow is not binding, one is not bound, and is only there of one's free will, not an obligation.
|
|
|
Post by Didymus on Jun 18, 2023 11:50:50 GMT -5
Didymus wrote: Are they equally null and void in modernism? For example, if a woman enters a Carmelite convent and makes a profession of vows before a conciliar bishop?
Pacelli : If the order has fallen into heresy, or the religious is forced to attend the Novus Ordo, I believe she would be justified to leave, and further, unless there is some extenuating circumstance, that she must leave, as the obligation to sever from known heretics is a Divine command and the other nuns would be a direct danger to her Faith if they were open and public heretics. --------------------------------------------------- So, in conclusion to the above, before a modernist superior, there is no link with the solemn vows, they are null, therefore the nun or the monk would be free to adopt a married or secular life, right? Couldn't the Church somehow supply that jurisdiction for solemn vows outside the common norms in normal times, as it is an approved order but has fallen into heresy?
In the event that you were an elderly superior who got approval to be superior from a legitimate Pope Pius XII or perhaps John XXIII, for example, but who fell and embraced deluded modernism, would there be validity?
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Jun 18, 2023 17:33:00 GMT -5
Didymus wrote: Are they equally null and void in modernism? For example, if a woman enters a Carmelite convent and makes a profession of vows before a conciliar bishop? Pacelli : If the order has fallen into heresy, or the religious is forced to attend the Novus Ordo, I believe she would be justified to leave, and further, unless there is some extenuating circumstance, that she must leave, as the obligation to sever from known heretics is a Divine command and the other nuns would be a direct danger to her Faith if they were open and public heretics. --------------------------------------------------- So, in conclusion to the above, before a modernist superior, there is no link with the solemn vows, they are null, therefore the nun or the monk would be free to adopt a married or secular life, right? Couldn't the Church somehow supply that jurisdiction for solemn vows outside the common norms in normal times, as it is an approved order but has fallen into heresy? If the vows were solemnly made, they may only be dispensed by the Pope. If a professed religious had to leave the monastery or convent due to the place being overrun by heresy, in my opinion they would still be bound to at least try their best to live their professed vows as best they can while living in the world, and certainly not marry. When they are able, and things have stabilized in the Church, I would think they must approach the local bishop to get his direction on what to do next. Regarding the status of the approved orders that are now under the Conciliar sect, it's a complex question. If I were in that situation in which I was a member of one of these orders, made a solemn profession, and then realized that I must leave due to public heresy being rampant and other factors such as being forced to attend the Novus Ordo, etc., I would leave but live my vows to the best I could in the world until Rome is ruled by a Pope again, and I could approach the Church for direction on my status and what to do. If this person embraced heresy publicly, then I believe he would have lost his office. If he was a modernist in spirit, but did not actually deny a Catholic dogma, then I think it would be safe to say he continued on in his office.
|
|
|
Post by Didymus on Jun 18, 2023 18:18:01 GMT -5
Didymus wrote: Are they equally null and void in modernism? For example, if a woman enters a Carmelite convent and makes a profession of vows before a conciliar bishop? Pacelli : If the order has fallen into heresy, or the religious is forced to attend the Novus Ordo, I believe she would be justified to leave, and further, unless there is some extenuating circumstance, that she must leave, as the obligation to sever from known heretics is a Divine command and the other nuns would be a direct danger to her Faith if they were open and public heretics. --------------------------------------------------- So, in conclusion to the above, before a modernist superior, there is no link with the solemn vows, they are null, therefore the nun or the monk would be free to adopt a married or secular life, right? Couldn't the Church somehow supply that jurisdiction for solemn vows outside the common norms in normal times, as it is an approved order but has fallen into heresy? If the vows were solemnly made, they may only be dispensed by the Pope. If a professed religious had to leave the monastery or convent due to the place being overrun by heresy, in my opinion they would still be bound to at least try their best to live their professed vows as best they can while living in the world, and certainly not marry. When they are able, and things have stabilized in the Church, I would think they must approach the local bishop to get his direction on what to do next. Regarding the status of the approved orders that are now under the Conciliar sect, it's a complex question. If I were in that situation in which I was a member of one of these orders, made s solemn profession, and then realized that I must leave due to public heresy being rampant and other factors such as being forced to attend the Novus Ordo, etc., I would leave but live my vows to the best I could in the world until Rome is ruled by a Pope again, and I could approach the Church for direction on my status and what to do. If this person embraced heresy publicly, then I believe he would have lost his office. If he was a modernist in spirit, but did not actually deny a Catholic dogma, then I think it would be sage to say he continued on in his office. I asked this before a traditional sedevacantist priest and he told me that these solemn professions in modernism would be null, but perhaps it was a simplistic way of approaching the subject, so it would be interesting to ask, what are the factors that make this situation complex and leave a margin of doubt as to whether it may have been valid or not?
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Jun 18, 2023 21:32:11 GMT -5
The reason why is that terms need to be kept very clear, or else there is confusion. Was the religious superior liberal and modern, or was he an actual heretic, that lost his office? If he was a modernist, and actually denied a Catholic dogma on a particular matter, then it would be clear that the office holder lost his office, as he defected from the Faith.
With that said, what if the religious superior did not deny a dogma? What if he liked the Novus Ordo, but didn't deny the Faith? If he didn't profess heresy, the direct denial of a dogma, then how did he lose his office? Also, did he deny an actual dogma, a de fide proposition opposed to the Faith, or did he deny a Catholic teaching of a lesser note. If it was the latter, he would not ipso facto lose his office.
There are so many factors to this hypothetical situation, and it is not simple, but rather complex.
|
|