POPE FRANCIS FOR YEAR OF MERCY GRANTS THAT SSPX PRIESTS CAN VALIDLY ABSOLVE!

Huge news. This was under embargo till noon, Rome time, which must be honored. [UPDATE: The Bollettino is now available HERE]

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:

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.

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!

The Fishwrap has posted on this now. They get it wrong, of course. They openly call the SSPXers “schismatic”.

Do you disagree with what I stated his intentions were?

The text either stands on it's own or it doesn't.

” . . . there are many other things which most justly keep me in her (the Catholic Church’s) bosom . . . The succession of priests keeps me, beginning from the very seat of the Apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection, gave it in charge to feed His sheep, down to the present episcopate. (Against the Epistle of Manchaeus Called Fundamental [Contra Epistolam Manichaei Quam Vacant Fundamenti.]

http://www.gnosis.org/library/contfe.htm

When; in the timeline of things; was this quote located as compared to the first ones I posted?

These folks await your deft touch...

Basil, Bede, Cassiodorus, Chrysostom, Cyril, Origen, Hilary

To be honest, it does not really concern me whether Peter is called Rock, or little rock, or pebble, or whatever else. I believe what the Church has always taught, that Christ is the only TRUE Rock. Compared to Christ, Peter, like the rest of us, is not even a grain of sand.

My point is that whatever name Augustine called Peter, it is undisputed that Augustine believed that Jesus appointed Peter to be the first leader of His Church.

Somebody named Mark Bonocore wrote: It is true that some of the Church fathers do speak of Christ or of Peter’s confession as “the Rock” of Matt 16:18. However, all of these same Church fathers also speak of Peter himself as the Rock. This was not an either-or proposition for our ancient Christian forefathers, but a “both-and” proposition.

I’ll leave to you whether you want to try to disprove that statement. I got the statement from the following:

http://www.catholicbridge.com/catholic/pope_peter_rock.php

If an unknown number of professed Catholics are actually excommunicated due to unconfessed "mortal" sin (hint: all sin is "mortal"), then how big is True Catholicism?

First of all, your "hint" that all sin is mortal is erroneous. Matt. 5:19

Whoever then relaxes (breaks) one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Our Lord here teaches that there are “least commandments” a person can break and even teach others to do so yet still remain “in the kingdom of heaven.” That is both a good definition of venial sin and perfectly in line with paragraph 1863 of the Catechism. Then, Jesus goes on to warn us in no uncertain terms that there are other sins that will take us to hell—if we do not repent, of course.

In Matt. 5: 22, Jesus says, “… whoever says ‘You fool!’ shall be liable to the hell of fire.” In verses 28-29, he says:

But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell.

Clearly Jesus teaches there are some sins that will separate us from God for all eternity and some that will not–mortal and venial sin.

Clearly Jesus teaches there are some sins that will separate us from God for all eternity and some that will not–mortal and venial sin.

If that is correct (and it is not), then James is in contradiction to Jesus, here:

For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law.
(James 2:10-11)

The point here is very clear. While some sins may have a greater or lesser effect on those around you, all sin is rebellion against God, and that is what makes it indistinguishable from other violations of the law. You see in the passage that James says the violator of one law is guilty of all.

Which leads to a legitimate question. In the passage on Jesus' teaching on the kingdom, does Jesus in fact talk about "least sins?" No he does not. Look again at the language:

Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
(Matthew 5:19)

So there were great commandments, and there were lesser commandments. The greatest commandment, to love God, and next to it, to love your neighbor as you love yourself. And what are these "least commandments?" Perhaps such things as these:

If a bird's nest chance to be before thee in the way in any tree, or on the ground, whether they be young ones, or eggs, and the dam sitting upon the young, or upon the eggs, thou shalt not take the dam with the young: But thou shalt in any wise let the dam go, and take the young to thee; that it may be well with thee, and that thou mayest prolong thy days.
When thou buildest a new house, then thou shalt make a battlement for thy roof, that thou bring not blood upon thine house, if any man fall from thence.
Thou shalt not sow thy vineyard with divers seeds: lest the fruit of thy seed which thou hast sown, and the fruit of thy vineyard, be defiled.

From Deuteronomy 22:6-9

The bird situation is particularly interesting. It's not likely to come up very often. But when it does, apparently God takes it quite seriously, "that thou mayest prolong thy days." Yet it would be very easy to be dismissive of such fine points of the law. But what does James say? In effect, if you break the law in one point, you've broken the whole thing.

But how can that be? Because the whole sense of the law is about the love of God and the love of each other. If you break the law at any point, you have rejected the supreme law of love, you have rejected the will of God and made your own will into a god. Every act of willful sin is idolatry of self, the antithesis of love. They are all so intertwined in this way it is impossible to think that any of them do not merit the full penalty of sin:

For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
(Romans 6:23)

Read the text. What does it say? Does it say "the wages of mortal sin is death?" No, it does not. Sin causes death. Period. Therefore, sin is mortal by definition.

Then how is it, someone might ask, that the breakers of "least commandments" are themselves spoken of as "least" in the kingdom? A fair question. How does one enter the kingdom? What does Jesus say?

Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
(John 3:3)

Paul is very clear there will be those who are saved, but whose works will perish in the testing fire, wood, hay, stubble. They will still be forgiven of all their sins, because that accounting was done at the cross. But they will truly be least in the kingdom.

So you see, it isn't that there are two categories of sin with radically different consequences. That is an invention of the sinful human mind. Some sin does more harm than others, and perhaps deserves a greater quantity of punishment, but not a different kind of punishment. The wages of sin is death.

Unjustified anger. A single lustful thought. Any act that falls sort of the divine love of God. That, of course, is why we need grace. No one can live to that standard. If we would be justified before God, we must not rely on avoiding the "really bad" sins, as if that will save us. It will not. Only faith in the crucified and risen Christ can possibly save us. We must be that man in the back row, who cries out to God, have mercy on me a sinner.

Peace,

SR

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.