Ping
Just because he's a priest and goes for the old Latin Mass (which I prefer as well) doesn't make him right.
I hope he's happy with his defection -- just what the Church needs now. < sarcasm >
The Church supplies jurisdiction according to her law. Can anyone cite the law which corresponds to this statement?
In fact, according to St. Thomas, one should rather confess to a layman then to a priest without ordinary jurisdiction, specifically one who is not his own parish priest (as the current law gave ordinary jurisdiction only to the parish priest, which is no longer true):
Now confession, which was instituted for the sake of charity, would militate against charity, if a man were bound to confess to any particular priest ... Therefore it seems that one need not always confess to one's own priest. ... (Reply:) In those cases wherein the penitent has reason to fear some harm to himself or to the priest by reason of his confessing to him, he should have recourse to the higher authority, or ask permission of the priest himself to confess to another; and if he fails to obtain permission, the case is to be decided as for a man who has no priest at hand; so that he should rather choose a layman and confess to him. (Supplement, q. 8 a. 4 ad. 5)
The only exception made is when the penitent is in danger of physical death (q. 8 a. 6), and St. Thomas notes:
Since, therefore, the Church recognizes absolution granted by any priest at the hour of death, from this very fact a priest has the use of jurisdiction though he lack the power of jurisdiction.
Does the Church recognize the absolution of Fr. Sretenovic? What law recognizes this? According to Canon 144.1, jurisdiction is supplied only "In factual or legal common error and in positive and probable doubt of law or of fact". What is common error? To quote one author,
the Church supplies jurisdiction in a case of common error. The error may be due to a false conviction concerning the possession of the required jurisdiction. It is necessary, however, that this conviction arise from a positive fact which would cause the faithful reasonably to assume that the priest had the required jurisdiction. A case in point might be . . . that of the priest who, acting as if he had jurisdiction, occupies the confessional or imparts absolution, when in fact he has no jurisdiction (Pugliese, in Palazzini's Dictionary of Moral Theology, 1962, article Jurisdiction, Supplied)
What is doubt? (these quotes are from Ramon Angles' article on the matter: his quotes are good, even if his conclusions don't follow...)
Generally speaking, a negative doubt means that one has no reason to serve as a basis for deciding a question, and it is about equal to ignorance on that question. A positive doubt means that one has a good reason for deciding a question one way, but that there is also a reason in favor of a contrary decision of the question. For example, the reasons for and against the existence of jurisdiction in a certain case create a positive doubt; and if the reasons on both sides are of such weight so as to create a bona fide doubt, the Church supplies the jurisdiction, even though actually the person did not possess it. (Woywood-Smith, A Practical Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, 1962, # 162)
So, Fr. Sretenovic has jurisdiction only if there is doubt whether he has jurisdiction from the Ordinary of the diocese (no doubt here - he openly declares that he's relying on extraordinary supplied jurisdiction), or if the faithful would reasonably assume that Fr. Sretenovic has ordinary jurisdiction in his present diocese. How can such an assumption exist, when Fr. openly proclaims that he does not have such jurisdiction, and acts as priest in an irregular, and unapproved, church?
Please pray that more and more priests will follow the brave example of Father Sretenovic and refuse to offer the Novus Ordo Missae, which is harmful to the Faith
Can anyone explain how the Novus Ordo Missae, the Roman Missal promulgated by Paul VI in 1969, is "harmful to the Faith"? Not the ICEL translation, but official books, the Novus Ordo, not the New Order. This is still in the Roman Gradual, after all:
| Dogma datur christianis, quod in carnem transit panis, et vinum in sanguinem. Quod non capis, quod non vides, animosa firmat fides, praeter rerum ordinem. Sub diversis speciebus, signis tantum, et non rebus, latent res eximiae. Caro cibus, sanguis potus: manet tamen Christus totus sub utraque specie. |
Words a nature's course derange, that in Flesh the bread may change and the wine in Christ's own Blood. Does it pass thy comprehending? Faith, the law of light transcending, leaps to things not understood. Here beneath these signs are hidden priceless things, to sense forbidden; signs, not things, are all we see. Flesh from bread, and Blood from wine, yet is Christ in either sign, all entire confessed to be. |
I can understand why some would think the Mass, as it is in English, harmful to the Faith. Yet the Novus Ordo itself can hardly qualify.
*Please pray for schism? I didn't realize that was part of Tradition. I was also unaware the Christian Church could approve a Rite which is harmful to itself. Mr. D has "interesting" ideas.
Cooperatio materialis immediata illicita est
I guess the liberal traditionalists have neo-ideas about Traditional Morality. It always used to be true that one could not licitly cooperate with another/aprove of another's sin. And schism is still a sin even if done for "good" reasons.
But, Mr. D. does worse than that. He not only publicly approves of and praises schism he prays for more of it.
This is too evil to be called crazy.
This is a great post. Many thanks.
Fr. Stretenovic seems like a very deep-thinking priest, whose actions have not been made in haste. He says he has not severed his relationship with his bishop, whom he holds in high esteem, although he is aware other priests who are still in the situation from which he has removed himself are subject to bishops of much less virtue (my own word).
Having first heard of his trip across country, it was not clear to me why he would have been in such a hurry to leave, but then he explained that sometimes priests who are showing signs of resistance to the NO liturgy are "kidnapped" and put through sensitivity training to break their will. This is a Communist tactic, better known as BRAINWASHING. Fr. is too kind to use such terminology, but I'm sure he knows what I mean.
I have a friend who is Communist and he denies that anything exists that fits the description of "brainwashing." I want to tell him that he has been brainwashed to think so, but I know him well, and he would just tell me that I am the one who is brainwashed. Hey. Wait a minute. That would prove I'm right! Or would it?
But seriously, Fr. Stretenovic knows that the "Errors of Russia" are now all over the world, as was fortold at Fatima, and it should not come as any surprise that they are being used in the NewChurch system of propping up the Great Facade for as long as it lasts. Communism they say collapsed. But it still exists in several countries. The problem is, its principles (its errors) are now part of other would-be non-Communist governments and organizations.