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”.
“Then, I recommend you find one ASAP!”
I’m glad you’ve admitted that person is not you.
To quote your juvenile responses:
“Where did I say that?”
P.S. What’s your problem with Pope Leo’s X and XIII?
Anglicans are just as protestant and heretical as Lutherans.
You just don’t get it. As usual.
From the Catholic Encyclopedia. Ever heard of it, Vlad?
Are you proposing that Lutherans are heretics while Anglicans are not?
Your arguments sounds like you are. If not, please clarify.
“Are you proposing that Lutherans are heretics while Anglicans are not?”
Where did I say that? Oh, that’s right – you made it up!
“Your arguments sounds like you are. If not, please clarify.”
Not even remotely does it sound like that – since I NEVER EVEN MENTIONED LUTHERANS! No clarification therefore could possibly be needed.
“From the Catholic Encyclopedia. Ever heard of it, Vlad?”
Doesn’t matter if I have or not since it doesn’t satisfy this: “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?” The 1909 [American] Catholic Encyclopedia is not an official document of the universal Church.
“Anglicans are just as protestant and heretical as Lutherans.”
Do you have anything that satisfies this or not: “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?”
“You just don’t get it. As usual.”
1521 – Pope Leo X dies. 1534 – Henry VIII seizes control of the Church in England. It’s you who doesn’t get it and you keep demonstrating that.
“P.S. What’s your problem with Pope Leo’s X and XIII?”
Where did I say I have a problem with them?
Once again, the Catholic Church has always considered all protestants to be heretics. What part of this do you not understand? Why do you single out Anglicans? Do you somehow think they are Catholic? And Lutherans are not?
Why do you ignore the pontificate of Leo XIII? Are you a schismatic?
“Once again, the Catholic Church has always considered all protestants to be heretics. What part of this do you not understand?”
Once again, can you produce even one document from the Church after Pope Leo XIII that refers to Anglicans as heretics or schismatics rather than as Anglicans? What part of that do you not understand?
“Why do you single out Anglicans?”
I mentioned them in post 316. I made a perfectly valid and clear point - irrefutable really. And then those who ignorant about the subject showed up.
“Do you somehow think they are Catholic?”
Where did I say that?
“And Lutherans are not?”
And where did I say that?
“Why do you ignore the pontificate of Leo XIII?”
Where did I say I was ignoring it? I specifically referred to his time as pope on several occasions so clearly I am NOT ignoring it.
“Are you a schismatic?”
Nope. Keep flailing uselessly.
I did not make up anything. I'm asking you why you make it a point to differentiate Anglicans from Lutherans. You continually refuse to answer that question. After all, we are talking about heretics.
P.S. Did you know Walter Cardinal Kasper, Francis' favorite, is a heretic himself? Kasper has questioned the historicity of Christ's Resurrection, ergo he is a heretic.
Heresy comes in all flavors, Vlad; some as "religions" and others in individuals. Try not to join the crowd.
You are ignoring Pope Leo XIII, it's been the whole basis of your silly logic.
All questions that you fail to address.
Your silence speaks volumes.
“All questions that you fail to address.”
Your questions don’t have anything to do with the original issue.
“Your silence speaks volumes.”
Mostly about how poorly thought out your questions are.
“You are ignoring Pope Leo XIII, it’s been the whole basis of your silly logic.”
I have mentioned him numerous times. I clearly can’t be ignoring him if I am the one who first mentioned him and have repeatedly mentioned him since. That is logical and irrefutable. You’ll demonstrate that yourself.
“I did not make up anything.”
Sure you did. Here’s an example: “You are ignoring Pope Leo XIII, it’s been the whole basis of your silly logic.”
If I am the one who first brought up Leo XIII and have mentioned a number of times since then, then I cannot be ignoring him. That is simple irrefutably true. There is no other way to look at it. Thus, you made that up.
“I’m asking you why you make it a point to differentiate Anglicans from Lutherans.”
Are Anglicans Lutherans or are they Anglicans? The very fact that you are using TWO DIFFERENT NAMES MEANS YOU ARE DIFFERENTIATING BETWEEN THEM on some level, right? If you can’t make proper distinctions, how on earth are you ever going to be able to discuss anything important?
“You continually refuse to answer that question. After all, we are talking about heretics.”
And again, I ask you, the very fact that you are using TWO DIFFERENT NAMES MEANS YOU ARE DIFFERENTIATING BETWEEN THEM on some level, right?
“P.S. Did you know Walter Cardinal Kasper, Francis’ favorite, is a heretic himself? Kasper has questioned the historicity of Christ’s Resurrection, ergo he is a heretic.”
Again, the kitchen sink. Whenever you really stick your foot into it you throw in Kasper like his name is some sort of face-saving talisman for you. Sorry, it doesn’t work.
“Heresy comes in all flavors, Vlad; some as “religions” and others in individuals. Try not to join the crowd.”
I never will. The issue remains, however. The Catholic Church calls Anglicans Anglicans and has done so for a long time. No teaching has changed. What needs to change is your apparent lack of knowledge about the Church’s teachings.
What part of this did you miss?
Once again, the Catholic Church has always considered all protestants to be heretics. What part of this do you not understand? Post 387
As far as Pope Leo XIII, why do you reference him. He declared Anglicans to be heretics. Yet, you claim they aren't.
Enjoy your cafeteria.
The only thing that is irrefutably true is that you ignore Pope Leo XIII and demand a double negative.
Popes Paul VI, JPII and Benedict XVI, each, either gave episcopal rings or pectoral crosses to heretical lay Anglicans, who had no valid priestly orders.
I'll go with Pope Leo XIII, I don't care who you'll side with. I never have. I'm Catholic.
Are the existing Anglicans now better than the first ones?
I’ve just noticed that I have tar all over me!
I’ll smell like mineral spirits the rest of the day!
I’d best get cleaned up before lighting the grill this afternoon!
So you’re being asked to look for a Church document between the years 1896 and Vatican II. As far as I know there isn’t even a document about the Anglicans during that short period of time, probably because there was no need.
Meanwhile traditional Church teaching has always considered the Anglicans heretics. Anyone who believes otherwise needs to offer up Church teaching that teaches otherwise.
“The only thing that is irrefutably true is that you ignore Pope Leo XIII and demand a double negative.”
You’re wrong – again – on both counts. If I am the one who first mentioned Leo XIII and have mentioned him repeatedly since, then I cannot possibly be ignoring him. Also, your lack of understanding about the use of a negative does not mean I “demand a double negative”.
“Popes Paul VI, JPII and Benedict XVI, each, either gave episcopal rings or pectoral crosses to heretical lay Anglicans, who had no valid priestly orders.”
Which is completely irrelevant to anything I said. Again, kitchen sink. For some reason you seem to think your pet peeves actually pass for logical argument.
“I’ll go with Pope Leo XIII, I don’t care who you’ll side with. I never have. I’m Catholic.”
So you claim. But you are unable – apparently – to deal with the issues at hand. If you could then you would be able to talk about why the Church refers to Anglicans as Anglicans.
“What part of this did you miss?”
You’re the only one missing anything – as is clear from your apparent inability to deal with the actual issue at hand.
“As far as Pope Leo XIII, why do you reference him.”
Why not reference him? Also, if you’re admitting I reference him, then I cannot possibly be ignoring him as you earlier – and repeatedly - claimed. Your own words do you in, again.
“He declared Anglicans to be heretics.”
In what document? If you actually read Apostolicae Curae – which you’re probably never read in your life – you’ll see Leo XIII used the word “heretic” once:
“This principle is the basis of the doctrine that a sacrament is truly a sacrament even if it is conferred through the ministry of a heretic, or of one who is not himself baptized, provided the Catholic rite is used.”
He never used the word “heresy” in that document even once. He did use the word “error” three times – and not always in regard to Anglicanism in itself. Leo XIII carefully used the word “error” and not “heresy”. Do you know why? Do you know the theological distinction between “error” and “heresy” that the Catholic Church has used since at least the time of St. Augustine? And do you have any idea what movements were going on in the nineteenth century that would convince Leo XIII it was better to say “error” rather than “heresy” or “heretics” in regard to Anglicans?
“Yet, you claim they aren’t.”
No, I did not claim that. I said, “Their ancestors were schismatics and heretics. Present day Anglicans are not called such.” So, there you go again, making something up.
“Enjoy your caféteria”
It’s your caféteria and you keep serving things you’ve cooked up out of no where based on nothing and no one is sitting at any of the tables but you.
“Are the existing Anglicans now better than the first ones?”
How would “better” or “worse” have any bearing on the issue at hand?
“So you’re being asked to look for a Church document between the years 1896 and Vatican II.”
No. I asked for a Church document from after Leo XIII until now. Vatican II ended in 1965.
“As far as I know there isn’t even a document about the Anglicans during that short period of time, probably because there was no need.”
The “As far as you know” is pointless since you did not even get the time period correct.
“Meanwhile traditional Church teaching has always considered the Anglicans heretics.”
So you’re de facto suggesting tradition stopped after Leo XIII?
“Anyone who believes otherwise needs to offer up Church teaching that teaches otherwise.”
Maybe you need to read more. Remember, you got the time period wrong.
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.