Posted on 09/01/2015 3:53:50 AM PDT by NYer
Huge news. This was under embargo till noon, Rome time, which must be honored. [UPDATE: The Bollettino is now available HERE]
The Year of Mercy begins 8 December 2015 until 20 November 2016.
It is about to be announced that the Holy Father has sent a letter to Archbishop Rino Fisichella, President of the Pontifical Council for the Promotion of the New Evangelization about the upcoming Extraordinary Year of Mercy.
In this letter the Pope says that he is granting to all priests the faculty to absolve from the sin of abortion. He writes: “I have decided, notwithstanding anything to the contrary, to concede to all priests for the Jubilee Year the discretion to absolve of the sin of abortion those who have procured it and who, with contrite heart, seek forgiveness for it.” Interesting way to word it.
He also says that the faithful may go to … well… read it yourself. Here is a screenshot from the doc:
This is HUGE news.
Let’s examine this.
First, note the language. This letter says that he hopes that the SSPX will be reconciled. He says that he hears good things about the priests of the SSPX. But he says that the faithful may approach the priests of the SSPX for the Sacrament of Reconciliation (Penance) and that they shall validly and licitly receive absolution. He doesn’t say that he is granting the priests the faculty to receive sacramental confessions. He places the emphasis on the faithful. In effect, the priests are being given the faculty to hear confessions, but there is a different emphasis. I have the sense that it is the need of the faithful who otherwise might not go to a non-SSPX priest that the Holy Father is stressing. Think about the case of a person who is dying and there is, say, an ex-priest -a guy who was “laicized” because he committed certain crimes, present, the Church’s laws says that in the circumstances of the person’s danger of death any validly ordained priest automatically has the faculty validly to absolve. The need of the dying person is of such overwhelming importance that the law itself grants the ex-priest (or suspended priest, etc.) the faculty. The stress is on the need of the dying person, not on the priest. I think this is an analogous situation.
Along with this, the fact of Pope Francis’ move, together with the wording, confirms what I have been saying all along about the priests of the SSPX: they do not and have not had the faculty validly to absolve sins! The fact that this is being granted for the Year of Mercy bears out what I have been saying.
That said, if the Holy Father is willing to go this far with the priests of the SSPX, is it hard to imagine that this merciful concession might not be extended beyond the Year of Mercy? I would like to think so!
Next, this concession also underscores a point I have been making all along. If only Nixon could go to China, perhaps Pope Francis is the Pope who will reconcile the SSPX!
Additionally, this could irritate some bishops in, say, France… Germany…. And even though this may not be well received in certain circles, the Pope is doing it anyway.
Moreover, earlier in his pontificate, this Pope was pretty hard on priests. He seemed to be bashing them on a daily basis. This move to grant all priests in the world the faculty to lift the censure which results from procuring an abortion is a sign of his confidence in priests… for a change.
I take heart from this bold move – which makes so much sense (to me at least) – in favor of the access the faithful will have to sacrament of penance. I hope that it will also spark a wider discussion on the positive things that will come from the reconciliation of the SSPX. I hope that discussion takes place even among the SSPXers themselves.
May all the followers of the SSPX , please God, look at this move with joy and with gratitude for the concern the Pope is showing to them.
And… to everyone… GO TO CONFESSION!
But… remember, the Year of Mercy hasn’t started yet and the SSPX does not yet have their faculty. GO TO CONFESSION with priest with faculties!
UPDATE 1020 UTC:
The Fishwrap has posted on this now. They get it wrong, of course. They openly call the SSPXers “schismatic”.
True.
Veering has been deemed wrong.
I forgive you; for entering my early morning ELSIEthon.
To hear him tell it, it's his wife who may well be the desperate one. ;^')
But no matter what, the critters will most always look up to, and respect a guy. A little. Cats and goats though, they could be running an elaborate con.
It can hard to pin them on it.
Even when catching them in the act, they suddenly smile, "who? me?" as I'm sure you've noticed, and further suspected.
Are we sure you can do that?
It may not be valid.
Or even if it is valid, it may be 'illicit', not 'Church' approved.
But wait! It is approved by that 'Church' over there, and everything all around down to the 17th (and one-half) Baptist Church of Okmulgee, so it must be OK.
Why some people are still mad at me now, I dunno.
Just your opinion, that is all.
In the future say IMO.
And there I was, driving along one of the back roads, windows down, radio on, veering wheel in my hands, lazily rolling along, first towards one bar ditch, then visiting towards the other...
And the guy said that was against the law.
How was I supposed to know?
Read your quotes from Augustine again.
-No; you post them and highlight what you’ve discovered.
If you don’t want to read them again, fine. I provided the following example that was reiterated in your other quotes:
(in this representation Christ is to be understood as the Rock, Peter as the Church)
My point is that, regardless of whether Augustine considered Peter to be Rock or Church, he did believe that the Catholic Church began with the seat of the Apostle Peter, and the succession of priests beginning with Peter is what kept him in the bosom of the Catholic Church.
My job is done here.
Peace,
Rich
What you 'provided' was YOUR interpretation of what you've think Augustine's intentions were.
You are fast approaching V1 speed.
True dat!
You guys only have my brilliance for a few hours a day.
Cats?
They just ignore you.
But GOATS?
They openly defy you and dare you to do something about it!
I got the two big boys down yesterday and trimmed their toenails (hooves)
Oh?
Just which of these two statement are 'opinion'? (In your opinion...)
GOD's 'children' are a bit narrowly defined by Rome; so until IT changes it's ways; I doubt it.
Although Francis is sure trying; much to the displeasure of 'some' Catholics.
The things some folks believe never surprise me.
• Basil of Seleucia, Oratio 25:
'You are Christ, Son of the living God.'...Now Christ called this confession a rock, and he named the one who confessed it 'Peter,' perceiving the appellation which was suitable to the author of this confession. For this is the solemn rock of religion, this the basis of salvation, this the wall of faith and the foundation of truth: 'For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Christ Jesus.' To whom be glory and power forever. — Oratio XXV.4, M.P.G., Vol. 85, Col. 296-297.
• Bede, Matthaei Evangelium Expositio, 3:
You are Peter and on this rock from which you have taken your name, that is, on myself, I will build my Church, upon that perfection of faith which you confessed I will build my Church by whose society of confession should anyone deviate although in himself he seems to do great things he does not belong to the building of my Church...Metaphorically it is said to him on this rock, that is, the Saviour which you confessed, the Church is to be built, who granted participation to the faithful confessor of his name. — 80Homily 23, M.P.L., Vol. 94, Col. 260. Cited by Karlfried Froehlich, Formen, Footnote #204, p. 156 [unable to verify by me].
• Cassiodorus, Psalm 45.5:
'It will not be moved' is said about the Church to which alone that promise has been given: 'You are Peter and upon this rock I shall build my Church and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.' For the Church cannot be moved because it is known to have been founded on that most solid rock, namely, Christ the Lord. — Expositions in the Psalms, Volume 1; Volume 51, Psalm 45.5, p. 455
• Chrysostom (John) [who affirmed Peter was a rock, but here not the rock in Mt. 16:18]:
Therefore He added this, 'And I say unto thee, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church; that is, on the faith of his confession. — Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel of Saint Matthew, Homily LIIl; Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf110.iii.LII.html)
• Cyril of Alexandria:
When [Peter] wisely and blamelessly confessed his faith to Jesus saying, 'You are Christ, Son of the living God,' Jesus said to divine Peter: 'You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church.' Now by the word 'rock', Jesus indicated, I think, the immoveable faith of the disciple.”. — Cyril Commentary on Isaiah 4.2.
• Origen, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Book XII):
“For a rock is every disciple of Christ of whom those drank who drank of the spiritual rock which followed them, 1 Corinthians 10:4 and upon every such rock is built every word of the church, and the polity in accordance with it; for in each of the perfect, who have the combination of words and deeds and thoughts which fill up the blessedness, is the church built by God.'
“For all bear the surname ‘rock’ who are the imitators of Christ, that is, of the spiritual rock which followed those who are being saved, that they may drink from it the spiritual draught. But these bear the surname of rock just as Christ does. But also as members of Christ deriving their surname from Him they are called Christians, and from the rock, Peters.” — Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Book XII), sect. 10,11 ( http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/101612.htm)
• Hilary of Potier, On the Trinity (Book II): Thus our one immovable foundation, our one blissful rock of faith, is the confession from Peter's mouth, Thou art the Son of the living God. On it we can base an answer to every objection with which perverted ingenuity or embittered treachery may assail the truth."-- (Hilary of Potier, On the Trinity (Book II), para 23; Philip Schaff, editor, The Nicene & Post Nicene Fathers Series 2, Vol 9.
According to some RCs on FR, former RCs as myself are still Catholic, as we cannot get rid of the "indelible mark" left on our souls thru sacramental RC sprinkling. And (as needed for promotion) or they cite the billions whom Rome counts as members, which include Teddy K Catholics. Thus RCsm is very big.
However, according to these or others, then Teddy K Catholics are Catholic in name only, being self-excommuinicated. Even if Rome trears them as members in life and in death.
Others go even further, and excommuinicate even V2 era popes from being popes, and V2 RCs as being Catholic, while other RCs say such RCs are essentially Prots.
If RCs follow their current pastors, and their interpretation of Rome, then the large number is the claim. But if they judge according to historical teaching, then a much lower number is valid, but trad. RCs may use both as needed.
“Then what does Vlad call them?”
Generally I call Anglicans Anglicans.
“Catholics?”
Nope.
“Like yourself and the Marx -Kasper couple?”
Desperation on your part again?
“So you are saying the Eastern Orthodox are not schismatic; but the SSPX “essentially” are?”
What does the Church say ebb tide? Do you even know?
“For the fourth time, you don’t know what you’re talking about.”
ebb, you have demonstrated numerous times that you do not know what you’re talking about. You’re doing it again.
What you ‘provided’ was YOUR interpretation of what you’ve think Augustine’s intentions were.
Do you disagree with what I stated his intentions were?
“Another idiotic statement. Every Catholic is always in a need to confess his sins.”
In need of confession, yes, but not necessarily in stark want of a confessor if they are living in normal circumstances. Someone in a situation - such as being close to death - in a place where there is no Catholic priest would certainly be a person in need.
“Why do you ignore the qualifications of “physically or morally impossible”?”
I didn’t ignore it. I’m the one who posted it.
“Under what absurd conditions do you think a Catholic cannot morally confess his sins to a Catholic priest, Sherlock?”
That’s simple:
1) “physically”
- no priest available
- approaching death
- person who wishes to confess is denied chance to by someone else (e.g. EO husband who refuses to allow Catholic wife to attend Catholic services with threats of violence)
2) “morally”
- priest is a relative (confessing might cause greater scandal within family)
- priest is known to commit sigilism: http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/filipino_priest_excommunicated_for_violating_the_secrecy_of_confession/
- priest has abused the person who wants to confess
- person who wishes to confess is denied chance to by someone else (e.g. EO husband who refuses to allow Catholic wife to attend Catholic services with threats of violence)
“Could it be that his confessor is Marx or Kasper?”
So desperate.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
