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”.
Now I'm going to get some eye drops in: small screen; long posts, LOL!
My apologies: Reinhad Mark.
“Here’s a satirical article regarding your heroes, Vlad.”
When did I ever say they were my heroes? Oh, that’s right - I never did. You made it up.
You still haven’t explained your “essentially schismatic” accusation. Are the Eastern Orthodox “schismatic” or “essentially schismatic”?
If you truly understood schism, you would have known of Cardinal Ratzinger’s ruling in the case of the Hawaii Six.
As I said before, you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Once again, you don’t know what you’re talking about:
Fr. Gerald E. Murray, J.C.D.
Doctoral thesis
An excerpt from the doctoral thesis (Fr. Murray had his licentiate in Canon Law at this time) that was accepted and approved by the Pontifical Gregorian University, titled, “The Canonical Status of the Lay Faithful Associated with the Late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and the Society of Saint Pius X: Are they Excommunicated as Schismatics?” which was subsequently printed in the Fall 1995 issue of The Latin Mass magazine:
They’re not excommunicated as schismatics, because the Vatican has never said they are.... You can ... show that Lefebvre himself was not excommunicated and therefore no one else was.... I come to the conclusion that, canonically speaking, he’s not guilty of a schismatic act punishable by canon law. In the case of the Society of Saint Pius X, the Vatican never declared any priest or lay person to have become a schismatic.
Why didn’t Francis given permission to Catholics to confess their sins to Eastern Orthodox priests and to validly and licitly receive absolution?
Is Francis afraid of offending the real schismatics?
“You still haven’t explained your “essentially schismatic” accusation.”
I don’t have to. It’s obvious to any intelligent Catholic.
“Are the Eastern Orthodox “schismatic” or “essentially schismatic”?”
According to the Catholic Church, neither, unless they commit an actual act of schism. Most EOs are born into families which have been EO for generations so the term “schismatic” is not applied to them by the Catholic Church.
“Why didn’t Francis given permission to Catholics to confess their sins to Eastern Orthodox priests and to validly and licitly receive absolution?”
Because that permission already exists in time of need.
“Whenever necessity requires it or true spiritual advantage suggests it, and provided that the 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” (canon 844 §2).
Is this yet another example of just how much you don’t know about the Catholic Church?
“Is Francis afraid of offending the real schismatics?”
I doubt Francis even knows about you.
Jeff, as noted earlier, I’ve forgiven your “mistype”’. All is good here.
; )
That's poppycock! If today's Eos still deny the primacy of Peter, they are themselves, schismatic. There's no two ways about it.
The above faulty logic that you cite can also be applied to the Anglicans; after all, it was their Catholic ancestors who became heretics. Why blame the sins of the their fathers on them, even though they persist in their heresy?
And lets take that faulty logic you quote one step farther: Why should anyone be burdened with Adam and Eve's original sin?
For the third time, you don't know what you're talking about. You sources prove it.
I would hope not; I'm not a homo.
Is that a confession to there being at times, complex excuses offered as explanation? Not that any of that is your own fault, since you didn't invent the excuses and complex explanations.
More like had it programmed into them that there is no other proper way to think, so buy in, for they must.
Keep that up and somebody might be able to make an Apple fanboy out of you too, in addition.
I do think you may be mixing up your 'anti-Catholicism' with my own pro-Jesus Saves sort of thinking, but those two don't go as well together like say, peas and carrots, or chocolate and peanut butter.
“There’s no two ways about it.”
The Church believes differently than you do. That’s not the first time either.
“The above faulty logic that you cite can also be applied to the Anglicans;”
Their ancestors were schismatics and heretics. Present day Anglicans are not called such.
“Why should anyone be burdened with Adam and Eve’s original sin?”
How could it be otherwise? By the way, have you read CCC 405? You might want to.
“For the third time, you don’t know what you’re talking about.”
No, actually there is no “third time”. If I am talking about it, then I know about it.
“You sources prove it.”
As if you would know.
“...for whom it is physically or morally impossible”
As I said, “time of need”. Struggling with basic reading comprehension, again?
Paul wrote, "but my boast is Christ".
Imagine St. Peter saying, "we don't take Master Card, here" (or American Express, or Visa, or...)
But what was that you were saying about salvation in Mary?
...here all this time I thought the boy had grown up, and could speak for Himself.
Ever heard Him talk? (i have, whoa baby, there is nothing comparable to Him)
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.