Another Concession by Rome

JMJ

Bishop de Galarreta ordains a priest for the Chaldean right and Rome said that the SSPX can proceed with ordinations even without the local ordinaries permission (see red section below).

This appears to be another concession by Rome - along the lines of accepting the SSPX as they are - ordinations outside of the normal structures of the Church.

As the centenary of Fatima approaches, these are indeed interesting times!

P^3

« Ceux qui veulent vivre pieusement dans le Christ Jésus souffriront persécution ».
Et alors certains, évidemment, disent que nous avons tort et que nous sommes des schismatiques, que nous sommes des illégaux dans l’Eglise, et déjà, cher Abbé vous avez eu un peu à rentrer, comme un bon soldat du Christ, dans les combats de Dieu. Donc vous avez dû donc souffrir cette persécution dont nous parle saint Paul : « Ceux qui veulent vivre pieusement dans le Christ Jésus souffriront persécution ».
Et alors le Patriarche de Babylone, qui est chaldéen, dit que nous sommes schismatiques. Et l’Ordinaire en France pour les Eglises orientales dit que nous sommes des illégaux. Or le Pape lui-même dit que la Fraternité, nous sommes des catholiques. Alors nous sommes des catholiques ou nous sommes des schismatiques ? J’ai avec moi la lettre qui m’a été donnée par Son Excellence Monseigneur Fellay, où la Congrégation de la doctrine de la Foi nous dit, a dit à Monseigneur, que nous pouvons procéder aux ordinations sans demander la permission des Ordinaires du lieu ; qu’il suffit de leur donner les noms des ordonnés, chose que nous ferons bien sûr, opportunément. Alors nous ne sommes ni schismatiques, ni des illégaux.
Alors pourquoi agitent-ils cet épouvantail, vous voyez de la légalité, si nous sommes en règle canoniquement ou pas, du schisme alors qu’il n’y en a pas et que Rome même le reconnaît ? Et bien parce que ce qui nous sépare c’est la doctrine, c’est la Foi, c’est la rupture avec la Tradition. Or ils ne veulent pas assumer que le problème est là. Car ils savent bien que là ils ont tort. Ils ne pourront jamais, même s’ils arrivent pour ainsi dire à tout coiffer, ils ne pourront jamais arriver à détruire la Foi, ni la Tradition, ni l’Eglise. ( http://laportelatine.org/mediatheque/sermonsecrits/galarreta_160702_st_nicolas_sabur/galarreta_160702_st_nicolas_sabur.php )

Comments

Is it sinful to attend the Novus Ordo (New Mass) - Is it Sinful to Not Attend the Novus Ordo on Sunday?

+ JMJ A non-SSPX Catholic is upset over the SSPX statements on not attending the Novus Ordo Missae. Ladies and gentlemen, what the SSPX, or at least its website editor, is advocating is a mortal sin against the Third Commandment. Unless the priest deviates from the language of the Sacramentary, the consecration, and thus the rest of Mass is to be considered valid. No one may elect not to attend Mass simply because abuses are occurring therein. Might I suggest that such absenteeism is its own abuse? The Third Commandment binds under mortal sin. Father So-And-So from the SSPX has no authority whatsoever to excuse attendance at Mass, be that Mass ever so unpalatable. Source:Restore DC Catholicism Well, this is interesting. First why does the SSPX issue this statement? Because it is sinful to put your faith in danger by attending a protestant service. It is likewise dangerous to put your faith in danger by attending a protestantized mass (ie the Novus Ordo Missae

Morning and Evening and other sundry Prayers

+ JMJ Along the theme of P^3 (Prayer, Penance, Patience), and for my own reference ... here is a collection of Morning and Evening prayers from the Ideal Daily Missal along with some additional prayers. In this crisis of the Church, I do not think it is possible to do too much prayer, penance and have patience. P^3

Regarding Post: Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer no longer ... now Bishop Joseph Pfeiffer (Can't see this being a problem...)

+ JMJ I've been watching the popularity of the post about Fr. Pfeiffer's attempted episcopal consecration and its continued top listing on the 'popular posts' list at the bottom of posts. After some thought, I decided that I don't want to be responsible for anyone joining Fr. Pfeiffer's 'group', however unlikely that would be at this time. So I have reverted the article to the draft state. If anyone wants it reinstated, I would ask that they comment on this post with a rationale for reinstatement. P^3

Fr. Burfitt on Fr. Pfeiffer's Attempted Consecration

+ JMJ Amidst the shadows cast by the publication of Traditionis Custodes, I am working on a map of the 'resistance' splinters to put their reaction in contrast with that of the SSPX. In the midst of this, I just came across Fr. Burfitt letter on the attempted consecration. Breaking it down (see below) items 2 and 3 are key. Just as the consecrating bishop is 'doubtful', even if he hadn't muffed the first attempt, Fr. Pfeiffer remain doubtful and therefore this impacts those men is attempts to 'ordain'. There were rumours that Fr. Pfeiffer was seeking episcopal consecration for years as he cast about for various bishops (also doubtful) to help him achieve this goal. I wonder how he convinced the 'doubtful' bishop to provide (twice) the doubtful consecration. What a mess! This creates a danger to the souls of his followers and wonder where it will end. Will he go full sede and have himself 'elected' pontiff as others have done before him

The Vatican and SSPX – An Organizational Culture Perspective

Introduction The recent and continuing interactions between the Vatican and the SSPX have been a great opportunity for prayer and reflection. The basis for the disagreement is theological and not liturgical. As noted by Dr. Lamont (2012), the SSPX theological position on the four key controversial aspects of the Second Vatican Council are base on prior theological work that resulted from relevant magisterial pronouncements. So it is difficult to understand the apparent rejection of the theological position of the SSPX.

Tradicat

Search This Blog