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

WDTPRS ^ | September 1, 2015 | Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

[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”.

[Elsie]

Circumstances not covered by Canon 844 § 2.

"One indeed is the universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved, in which the priest himself is the sacrifice, Jesus Christ, whose body and blood are truly contained in the sacrament of the altar under the species of bread and wine; the bread (changed) into His body by the divine power of transubstantiation, and the wine into the blood, so that to accomplish the mystery of unity we ourselves receive from His (nature) what He Himself received from ours." — Pope Innocent III and Lateran Council IV (A.D. 1215)

Therefore, if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole Church; or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema. — Vatican 1, Ses. 4, Cp. 1

[Elsie]

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.

I'll get the run around if I ask; but can you see if ANY of your FR buds here believe the same way?

[NYer]

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

The context of James 2 reveals St. James to have been talking about showing partiality for the first nine verses leading up to verses ten and eleven. In verse one St. James says, “My brethren, show no partiality as you hold the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ.” St. James then goes on to say that if we show partiality, for example, toward the rich at the expense of the poor, we fail to keep what he calls “the royal law, according to the Scripture, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself’” (verse 8). He then says, in verse nine, “But if you show partiality, you commit sin, and are convicted by the law as transgressors.” This is his lead-in to talking about keeping the commandments.

The point here is we cannot pick and choose who we are going to love as the Lord commands and who we are not going to love. On Judgment Day, we cannot say, “But I loved over six billion people as I love myself, Lord! I only hated that one guy!” It is an all or nothing proposition. In the same way, we cannot say to God on Judgment Day, “But I kept the other nine commandments, Lord!”

If you read the rest of verse 11, St. James explains a little more precisely what he means.

For he who said, “Do not commit adultery,” said also, “Do not kill.” If you do not commit adultery but do kill, you have become a transgressor of the law.

He never says anything remotely related to “all sins are equal.” He does not say, “If you commit adultery, you are guilty of murder, lying, stealing, etc.” as if there is no difference between these sins. The gravity of each sin is not his point. He simply points out that if you break any of these laws, you have become a transgressor of the law. Again, I believe he is saying you cannot pick and choose which of God’s laws you will obey and those you will not. You must obey all of them.

As noted in my previous post, Matt. 5:19, 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.”

[rwa265]

I’ll get the run around if I ask; but can you see if ANY of your FR buds here believe the same way?

---

Each of us believes in our own way. And each of us reacts differently to what others believe. I know many here respond in high dudgeon to posts saying that Peter is not the rock. I am not one of them. I would like to think that we all believe that Jesus is the TRUE rock, far above any human being, including Peter.

[Springfield Reformer]

It is not I but James who says the offender in one point of the law "is guilty of all." (James 2:10)  Escape to the broader context will not help your case.  Broad principles are often stated in support of specific claims.  Yes, James is focused on their partiality, but it is the very context you appeal to which secures the point that their error was thinking they could violate the law of love and not be law-breakers.  James is telling them their unloving partiality puts them in the same undesirable category, with reference to the law, as any murderer or adulterer, as long as we're relying on context.

He never says anything remotely related to “all sins are equal.”

Nor have I said that.  I agree with the premise that some sins have greater and some have lesser temporal consequences.  Adultery is damaging but there can be restoration of all parties.  Murder leaves no recourse in this life for the one who has died, and in certain respects for the one who did the killing.  

But that is not and has not been my point.  Sin kills.  The wages of sin is death.  Sin is by its very nature worthy of eternal punishment, what we would term spiritual death, and the cause also of our physical death, ever since Adam. Therefore all sin is mortal.  

And because all sin is mortal, our redemption in Christ must cure it, or we are lost.  There can be no half-measures here.  If as Jesus teaches even our thought life is subject to the law against murder and adultery, we cannot get relief from sacerdotal rituals.  Any honest person would never have time for anything but ritual confession.  Our thoughts do fall short of the royal law of love. I suspect it happens right here at FR on a regular basis.  The solution isn't in ritual but in resurrection:

But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;) And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus: That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.
(Ephesians 2:4-7)

There's that "dead in sins" theme again.  Sin kills even living people.  Folks dead in sin need a new life, need to be "born from above."  

As for the question about the "least" in the kingdom, I addressed that in my earlier post, so I will be brief here.  There are commandments of greater and lesser significance, but nothing in Matthew 5 suggests there are some sins that separate us from God and some that don't.  All sin is rebellion against the same law-giver.  All sin takes us into contradiction against the royal law of love, and therefore worthy of eternal damnation, unless we are washed in Christ. He who is guilty in one point is "guilty of all." Not just a law-breaker, but a breaker of all the law represents. Those are not my words. I know they are hard to process, but they are what they are.

Peace,

SR

[Elsie]

Each of us believes in our own way.

Poorly catechized or well catechized: that is the question...

[vladimir998]

Anti-Catholics are predictable in their behavior and lack of forethought.

[Grateful2God]

Wow! I never saw Paladin in color before- I thought he always wore black!

[Elsie]

Anti-Catholics are predictable in their behavior and lack of forethought.

Catholics are predictable in their behavior and lack of needing ANY thoughts of their own.

[Elsie]

So; V says that today’s As are just as BAD as the very first As.

[Elsie]

Perhaps...

Thank you for calling Heaven's Hotline!

Every call is important to us.

 

 

If you wish to access the Heaven's Hotline FAQ sheet, Press 1 to be connected to Catholic Answers

If you wish to access the Heaven's Hotline FAQ sheet en Espanol, Pulse 2 para ser conectado a Catholic Answers

If you wish to talk to GOD Himself, please realize His time is limited. Many other representitives and even His mother is available to handle your request, praise, plea, prayer and/or worship/adoration/veneration.

Stay on the line and one will be with you shortly.

Thank you for calling Heaven's Hotline! All lines are presently in use...

 

 

 

After receiving an answer from Heaven's Hotline, Press 3 to hear instructions for the correct amount of alms to be given to the poor.  (Or Hail Marys...)

(Cue background music: Ave Maria )

[piusv]

Here’s the thing ebb. Post Vatican II Catholics don’t believe that the Orthodox are schismatic anymore. They now just have “imperfect communion”. It’s what the Church always taught (since the “Great Schism”), but VII’s false ecumenism and new ecclesiology got in the way.

[piusv]

Is vlad accusing ebb of having two accounts here?

[rwa265]

Each of us believes in our own way.

- Poorly catechized or well catechized: that is the question...

---

Yes

[Elsie]

Post Vatican II Catholics don’t believe that the Orthodox are schismatic anymore.

Oh?

Why not??

What church teaching on the subject has CHANGED???

[Elsie]

It’s what the Church always taught (since the “Great Schism”), but VII’s false ecumenism and new ecclesiology got in the way.

Well...

...thanks be to Mary that none of the Only True Church's DOCTRINE has changed on the subject!