This is an old, but good article about the Rosary and quite apropos as we wait in the wings of the second half of the Synod of the Family.
Courtesy of The Remnant
Satire: a way of using humor to show that someone or something is foolish, weak, bad, etc. : humor that shows the weaknesses or bad qualities of a person, government, society, etc.The dogmatized positions (principles?) of Michael Voris are nicely exposed in this piece from A-CNN. I think that similarity between Michael's coif and that of a recent political aspirant is a nice touch and a reminder to keep one's sense of humour.
Auxiliary Bishop Schneider has affirmed the SSPX thinks with the Church's mind. Hence, there should be no serious reason for denying the priestly society full canonical recognition.(sspx.org)That seems to be pretty clear and concise. The rest of the post on SSPX.org is simply a quote of the remainder of the interview.
Many Catholics who attend these chapels think they are receiving absolution in "confession" and are validly being "married" but they are not and thus when they go to Holy Communion they are doing so in a state of mortal sin compounded by their illicit civil union which is an invalid sacrament.My comment -
If the Catholic thought they were receiving absolution, then they were absolved and married because of their error - following Canon Law.
As an aside, the SSPX does not claim to have 'ordinary jurisdiction' - although I understand that some dioceses have provided them with faculties (don't know which - just heard on a forum ...). If they did make that claim, then they would truly be schismatic.
If this is true:
"... Many Catholics who attend these chapels think they are receiving absolution in "confession" and are validly being "married" but they are not and thus when they go to Holy Communion they are doing so in a state of mortal sin compounded by their illicit civil union which is an invalid sacrament. ..."
Then the Church supplies due to error and the noted sacraments are valid.
That the SSPX does not have hierarchical jurisdiction is not in question. If they made that claim, then they would be schismatic. They generally rely upon supplied jurisdiction due to the state of necessity in which the faithful find themselves. However, the suppliance of jurisdiction in the case of error would also suffice.
In fact it would be better to go to an Eastern Orthodox priest, since they are in true schism and do not require canonical approbation for the validity of their Sacrament of Penance and Holy Matrimony.Which is cute, Fr. Zed indicated that this was due to the Orthodox bishops having ordinary jurisdiction before the schism. This however falls down when they entered areas that are outside of their territorial jurisdiction.
"Canon 844 - §2. Whenever necessity requires it or true spiritual advantage suggests it, and provided that danger of error or of indifferentism is avoided, the Christian faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister are permitted to receive the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick from non-Catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid."In all cases validly ordained priests have the power, from ordination, to administer the sacrament of penance. In the Latin Church this exercise is controlled by the requirement that the priest receive the faculty to administer the sacrament. This faculty is conceded to Orthodox priests in certain circumstances as noted in the cited canon and in the guidelines provided in the "Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms on Ecumenism (Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, March 25, 1993). (Source: EWTN)So, if a Catholic finds themselves in a morally impossibility to approach a Catholic minister (with ordinary jurisdiction) - for example perhaps he's spreading heretical doctrines, malforming the words of consecration and absolution ... - would the Church not also provide jurisdiction for an SSPX priest as she does for the Orthodox (note well - this is stating something different that Fr. MacDonald). How is the moral impossibility judged?
They have more in common with the fullness of the Church surrounded by Saint Peter than the Orthodox and Anglicans.Vatican II 'speak' is lots of fun. Frankly, the SSPX is Catholic and just lacks a canonical regularity that it 'lost' earlier in its history.
|I was surprise to read that Triumph Communications had resumed its interviewing of Bishop Williamson. |
Looking at the advertisement, I'm surprised that Bishop Williamson 'tackled' the hot questions since the answers are for the most part either within the reach of most rational people or probably require him to rely upon knowledge that Bishop Williamson gathered when he was still a member of the SSPX.
The 50 years since the close of the Second Vatican Council have been tumultuous for the Church. Forces both inside and outside of the Church tried to distort and exploit the council and the post-conciliar liturgical reforms to create a new Church after their own image.
The life of a good religious man ought to be eminent in all virtues, that he may be such interiorly as he appears to men in the exterior.
And with good reason ought he to be much more in his interior that he exteriorly appear; because he who beholds us is God, of whom we ought exceedingly to stand in awe, wherever we are, and like angels walk pure in His sight. Imitation of Christ Book 1, Chapter 19
Cardinal Seper came in with these words: “Holy Father, they make a banner of the old Mass, we can not grant what they ask for like this.” Source: SSPX.orgTo my knowledge, every Ecclesia Dei congregation has had to 'accept' the New Mass along with the Council.
... anyone who “without a real impediment” fails to hear Mass on days of obligation commits a mortal sin; otherwise, “[a]ny moderately grave reason suffices to excuse one from assistance at Holy Mass, such as considerable hardship or corporal or spiritual harm either to oneself or another”(Fr. Heribert Jone, Moral Theology, No. 198).