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”.

“Again, anyone who claims the Church no longer teaches that Anglicans are heretics needs to provide Church teaching to support that.”

Again, anyone who mischaracterizes the issue as being about what the Church teaches about heretics rather than what the Church calls Anglicans needs to get a clue.

“That means you.”

No, that means you. How do I know? Because I know what I did and did not say and I know what the Church does and does not teach. The fact that you can’t even get the dates right about the time period we’re talking about is indicative of your grasp of the matter at hand.

“Until you can do that, then what Leo XIII stated in 1896 still holds true.”

Except nowhere in what Leo XIII wrote in 1896 did Leo say that Anglicans are heretics. That wasn’t the point of the Apostolicae Curae. Apparently neither you nor ebb tide have actually read the document. Sorry, but I, unlike you faux traditionalists actually have read thousands of pages of the Church’s teachings from centuries past. You faux traditionalists are rarely actually all that familiar with the Church’s teachings or history. Ebb tide proves that all the time.

“However, it sure would be odd for Church teaching to contradict itself.”

It doesn’t. And the Church - for quite some time - has referred to Anglicans as Anglicans and not as heretics - even Leo XIII’s Apostolicae Curae does so. Hence, Leo XIII wrote:

“The former have been moved by an awareness of the excellence of the Christian priesthood and a desire that their ministers should not be without its twofold power concerning the body of Christ, while the latter have been prompted by the wish to remove an obstacle in the way of the Anglicans’ return to unity.”

Wow, that’s Leo almost complimenting Anglicans in a way and notice he calls them ANGLICANS and not heretics?

And again:

“25. Now the words which until recent times have been generally held by Anglicans to be the proper form of presbyteral ordination...”

Anglicans. Again. Why didn’t he call them heretics there? Why didn’t he call them “Anglican heretics” at the very least?

And again:

“26. It is true that this form was subsequently amplified by the addition of the words ‘for the office and work of a priest’; but this rather proves that the Anglicans themselves had recognized that the first form had been defective and unsuitable.”

Defective and unsuitable - but he doesn’t just call them heretics? Why not?

And again:

“...; and equally vain is the contention of a relatively small party among the Anglicans, formed in more recent times, that the said Ordinal can be made to bear a sound and orthodox sense.”

Leo is not mincing words: “vain”. But he doesn’t call the Anglicans heretics? Why not?

And again:

“32. The majority of Anglicans themselves, more accurate in their interpretation of the Ordinal...”

Another almost compliment to Anglicans. And he doesn’t call them heretics. Why not?

So, we can see that EVEN Leo XIII - in this all important document about Anglican orders does not refer to the Anglicans as heretics when he easily could have done so. Why not? Why would he do that when it is just so easy to toss the word “heretics” out there like you two faux traditionalists do all the time?

Perhaps I wasn't speaking of AC. You're right. AC's purpose was not to condemn Anglicans of their heresy. That was already understood in the Church at the time. It was known for hundreds of years. His not using the word heretic in that document proves nothing.

However, three months earlier in 1896, Leo XII also wrote Satis Cognitum which clearly speaks of heretics. Does he enumerate all of the groups? No, but he does make it quite clear who he considers heretics:

The Arians, the Montanists, the Novatians, the Quartodecimans, the Eutychians, did not certainly reject all Catholic doctrine: they abandoned only a tertian portion of it. Still who does not know that they were declared heretics and banished from the bosom of the Church? In like manner were condemned all authors of heretical tenets who followed them in subsequent ages. "There can be nothing more dangerous than those heretics who admit nearly the whole cycle of doctrine, and yet by one word, as with a drop of poison, infect the real and simple faith taught by our Lord and handed down by Apostolic tradition"

If you think that Leo XIII or the Church universal did not believe Anglicans were considered "heretics", then again YOU must provide Church teaching that supports your belief. So far you have done nothing of the sort. Don't bother to reply until you have done so.

“If you think that Leo XIII or the Church universal did not believe Anglicans were considered “heretics”, then again YOU must provide Church teaching that supports your belief.”

You keep making the same mistake over and over again - but at least you admitted what anyone with two eyes and the ability to read (and good will) would admit: Apostolicae Curae is not about condemning Anglican as heretics. Again, the question has to be asked: Why didn’t Leo XIII bother doing it as some people here keep insisting should be done?

“So far you have done nothing of the sort.”

Because that was never the issue in this thread and still isn’t. Also, you - as would befit a faux traditionalist as opposed to a real traditionalist mention nothing about the difference between formal and material heresy, nor do you bring up the culpability factor or how it might be viewed as mitigated in some circumstances. Simply put: Leo XIII knew what you apparently don’t about theology and judging these matters. Trust him.

“Don’t bother to reply until you have done so.”

I’ll reply as I like. And I did.

Give it up pius. Some nuevo-catholics will never recognize the encyclicals of pre-Vatican popes, even Pope St. Pius V.

Regnans in Excelsis

Excommunicating Elizabeth I of England
Pope St Pius V - 25 February1570

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius05/p5regnans.htm
Pius Bishop, servant of the servants of God, in lasting memory of the matter.

He that reigneth on high, to whom is given all power in heaven and earth, has committed one holy Catholic and apostolic Church, outside of which there is no salvation, to one alone upon earth, namely to Peter, the first of the apostles, and to Peter’s successor, the pope of Rome, to be by him governed in fullness of power. Him alone He has made ruler over all peoples and kingdoms, to pull up, destroy, scatter, disperse, plant and build, so that he may preserve His faithful people (knit together with the girdle of charity) in the unity of the Spirit and present them safe and spotless to their Saviour.

1. In obedience to which duty, we (who by God’s goodness are called to the aforesaid government of the Church) spare no pains and labour with all our might that unity and the Catholic religion (which their Author, for the trial of His children’s faith and our correction, has suffered to be afflicted with such great troubles) may be preserved entire. But the number of the ungodly has so much grown in power that there is no place left in the world which they have not tried to corrupt with their most wicked doctrines; and among others, Elizabeth, the pretended queen of England and the servant of crime, has assisted in this, with whom as in a sanctuary the most pernicious of all have found refuge. This very woman, having seized the crown and monstrously usurped the place of supreme head of the Church in all England to gather with the chief authority and jurisdiction belonging to it, has once again reduced this same kingdom- which had already been restored to the Catholic faith and to good fruits- to a miserable ruin.

2. Prohibiting with a strong hand the use of the true religion, which after its earlier overthrow by Henry VIII (a deserter therefrom) Mary, the lawful queen of famous memory, had with the help of this See restored, she has followed and embraced the errors of the heretics. She has removed the royal Council, composed of the nobility of England, and has filled it with obscure men, being heretics; oppressed the followers of the Catholic faith; instituted false preachers and ministers of impiety; abolished the sacrifice of the mass, prayers, fasts, choice of meats, celibacy, and Catholic ceremonies; and has ordered that books of manifestly heretical content be propounded to the whole realm and that impious rites and institutions after the rule of Calvin, entertained and observed by herself, be also observed by her subjects. She has dared to eject bishops, rectors of churches and other Catholic priests from their churches and benefices, to bestow these and other things ecclesiastical upon heretics, and to determine spiritual causes; has forbidden the prelates, clergy and people to acknowledge the Church of Rome or obey its precepts and canonical sanctions; has forced most of them to come to terms with her wicked laws, to abjure the authority and obedience of the pope of Rome, and to accept her, on oath, as their only lady in matters temporal and spiritual; has imposed penalties and punishments on those who would not agree to this and has exacted then of those who persevered in the unity of the faith and the aforesaid obedience; has thrown the Catholic prelates and parsons into prison where many, worn out by long languishing and sorrow, have miserably ended their lives. All these matter and manifest and notorious among all the nations; they are so well proven by the weighty witness of many men that there remains no place for excuse, defense or evasion.

3. We, seeing impieties and crimes multiplied one upon another the persecution of the faithful and afflictions of religion daily growing more severe under the guidance and by the activity of the said Elizabeth -and recognizing that her mind is so fixed and set that she has not only despised the pious prayers and admonitions with which Catholic princes have tried to cure and convert her but has not even permitted the nuncios sent to her in this matter by this See to cross into England, are compelled by necessity to take up against her the weapons of justice, though we cannot forbear to regret that we should be forced to turn, upon one whose ancestors have so well deserved of the Christian community. Therefore, resting upon the authority of Him whose pleasure it was to place us (though unequal to such a burden) upon this supreme justice-seat, we do out of the fullness of our apostolic power declare the foresaid Elizabeth to be a heretic and favourer of heretics, and her adherents in the matters aforesaid to have incurred the sentence of excommunication and to be cut off from the unity of the body of Christ.

4. And moreover (we declare) her to be deprived of her pretended title to the aforesaid crown and of all lordship, dignity and privilege whatsoever.

5. And also (declare) the nobles, subjects and people of the said realm and all others who have in any way sworn oaths to her, to be forever absolved from such an oath and from any duty arising from lordship. fealty and obedience; and we do, by authority of these presents , so absolve them and so deprive the same Elizabeth of her pretended title to the crown and all other the above said matters. We charge and command all and singular the nobles, subjects, peoples and others afore said that they do not dare obey her orders, mandates and laws. Those who shall act to the contrary we include in the like sentence of excommunication.

6. Because in truth it may prove too difficult to take these presents wheresoever it shall be necessary, we will that copies made under the hand of a notary public and sealed with the seal of a prelate of the Church or of his court shall have such force and trust in and out of judicial proceedings, in all places among the nations, as these presents would themselves have if they were exhibited or shown.

Given at St. Peter’s at Rome, on 25 February1570 of the Incarnation; in the fifth year of our pontificate.

Pius PP.

Me: “Are the existing Anglicans now better than the first ones?”

You: How would “better” or “worse” have any bearing on the issue at hand?

I do remember you making the following statement.

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.

238 posted on ‎9‎/‎2‎/‎2015‎ ‎10‎:‎15‎:‎06‎ ‎PM by vladimir998 (Apparently I'm still living in your head rent free. At least now it isn't empty.)

[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 234 | View Replies | Report Abuse]

You; my FRiend, have made the claim of a DIFFERENCE between them.

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.