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”.
“And just WHAT would constitute one of these??”
It doesn’t surprise me that someone who attacks the Catholic faith incessantly is ignorant of what it teaches. Clearly that ignorance in an adult who uses the internet is a chosen and deliberate ignorance.
Since when did the Catholic Church teach that Anglicans are not heretics?
Did the Church change it's mind? Was It wrong at one time?
“So the NEW Anglicans are the GOOD ones; right?”
It DOES surprise me that someone who LOVES the Catholic faith unwaveringly is unwilling to pontificate on what it teaches.
Who are you to judge?
A member of the SCOTUS. I not only judge I make new laws, execute arrest warrants for people practicing their religion and sip tea with 8 other assholes in robes. So there!
“Since when did the Catholic Church teach that Anglicans are not heretics?”
Do you know of even a SINGLE Church document that refers to them as heretics rather than as Anglicans since after the pontificate of Leo XIII?
“Did the Church change it’s mind?”
Nope.
“Was It wrong at one time?”
Nope.
Now, a good, well educated Catholic - one who actually knows Church teaching - would be able to make the proper distinction. And that means you’ll fail to do so, right?
“So the NEW Anglicans are the GOOD ones; right?”
In what post did I say that? Oh, that’s right - no where.
“It DOES surprise me that someone who LOVES the Catholic faith unwaveringly is unwilling to pontificate on what it teaches.”
It DOESN’T surprise me that someone who HATES the Catholic faith unwaveringly is willing to pontificate on what he ignorantly thinks it teaches.
I stand (kneel) rebuked!
LOL
“So the NEW Anglicans are the same as the OLD ones; right?”
It DOESN’T surprise me that someone who HATES the Catholic faith unwaveringly is willing to POST; from Catholic documents; what it SHOWS it teaches!
"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
Catholics are generally unaware that they have millions of coreligionists who are not themselves part of the Roman Catholic Church. Indeed, even the term "Roman Catholic" isn't quite right it was actually a derogatory label assigned to us by Anglican Protestants, trying to legitimize their own use of the term "Catholic" over and against that foreign Church loyal to the pope of Rome.
In which post did I say that? Oh, that’s right - none of them.
It DOESN’T surprise me that someone who HATES the Catholic faith unwaveringly posts from Catholic documents while falsely implying those documents automatically mean something in regard to the subject at hand when they don’t.
What's wrong with Pope Leo XIII? Do you not consider him to be a Catholic pope? If not, you're making my point that the Church has digressed from it's past, true teaching.
“What’s wrong with Pope Leo XIII?”
Where did I say there was something wrong with him?
“Do you not consider him to be a Catholic pope?”
Where did I say he was not a Catholic pope? What other kind of pope would he be exactly?
“If not, you’re making my point that the Church has digressed from it’s past, true teaching.”
No and no. Since you were wrongfooted on every question you just asked no one made any point for you. Your constant errors, however, certainly make a point against you.
Then why did you use a Pope Leo XXXIII as benchmark for declaring Anglicans to no longer be heretics? You seem to be inferring that “things have changed” since 1896 A.D.
You could have used Pope Leo X. Why did you choose Leo XIII? Were both Leo’s wrong and Vlad be right? I doubt it; I highly doubt it. As of matter of fact, I know it.
Then, I recommend you find one ASAP!
“Then why did you use a Pope Leo XXXIII as benchmark for declaring Anglicans to no longer be heretics?”
Why not? After all you said, “Since when did the Catholic Church teach that Anglicans are not heretics?”
“You seem to be inferring that “things have changed” since 1896 A.D.”
No, I am simply showing that you repeatedly get things wrong and you are helping me - as always - by completely failing to supply “even a SINGLE Church document that refers to them as heretics rather than as Anglicans since after the pontificate of Leo XIII”.
“You could have used Pope Leo X.”
Why would I? He died before there were any Anglicans. He died in 1521. Again, we see that you repeatedly make errors. It’s as if you have no idea of what you’re talking about any time the topic is about the Catholic faith.
“Why did you choose Leo XIII?”
Why do you think?
“Were both Leo’s wrong and Vlad be right?”
So far - between you and me - I am the only one right and you’re the only one wrong. Wrong in post after post after post after post.
“I doubt it; I highly doubt it. As of matter of fact, I know it.”
Ha! Yeah, you “know it” like Leo X having anything to do with Anglicans who didn’t even exist when Leo lived.
Pathetic.
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.