Criticize Fellay and be DENIED communion??
#61
(10-20-2012, 06:40 PM)TrentCath Wrote:
(10-20-2012, 05:35 PM)kingofspades Wrote: BTW the seal of confession is in fact mutual. I understand Jayne wanting to give an example, a case, but understand that we don't need to hear her confession! When making a case about a confession, better not relate it to yourself of any person who can be known. Better say: "I once heard about someone who was a liberal and he/she did... When he/she confessed it... "

True enough, although I don't understand what you mean about "not having to hear her confession" of course a priest doesn't necessarily have to hear an individuals confession but if they refused a particular confession 3 times without just cause St Alphonsus says they would sin mortally, the same if they didn't hear confessions in their parish for x time etc...

It makes sense if "we" refers to "we the forum readers" rather than "we priests".
Reply
#62
(10-20-2012, 05:46 PM)verenaerin Wrote:
(10-20-2012, 05:35 PM)kingofspades Wrote: On topic: I read the whole story about denying Holy Communion - if it would be true - with open mouth  :O. Never imagined such things could exist, in the SSPX or outside.


I can Father. I have been denied Holy Communion in the past because I was kneeling .If I can be denied Holy Communion, by a priest, for this, then it is not so hard to imagine other reasons.

That is also  :O . Oh yeah, I know a lot of reasons, but I am always flabbergasted how a priest can keep faithful away from Christ, if there is no legitimate reason, from law... I don't want to share his fate when he faces the Lord at the end of his life...  :crazy:
Reply
#63
(10-20-2012, 08:51 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(10-20-2012, 06:40 PM)TrentCath Wrote:
(10-20-2012, 05:35 PM)kingofspades Wrote: BTW the seal of confession is in fact mutual. I understand Jayne wanting to give an example, a case, but understand that we don't need to hear her confession! When making a case about a confession, better not relate it to yourself of any person who can be known. Better say: "I once heard about someone who was a liberal and he/she did... When he/she confessed it... "

True enough, although I don't understand what you mean about "not having to hear her confession" of course a priest doesn't necessarily have to hear an individuals confession but if they refused a particular confession 3 times without just cause St Alphonsus says they would sin mortally, the same if they didn't hear confessions in their parish for x time etc...

It makes sense if "we" refers to "we the forum readers" rather than "we priests".

Indeed, that's what I meant to say.

It's a particular popular way for (evangelical) christians nowadays, to play St. Paul and St. Augustine and publicly tell others not only that they are sinners, but also what they did.
However, this is not the catholic way when we have said it in confession. We keep a seal, not only because it's confidential, but also because after confession and absolution, the sins don't exist anymore. In our minds, yes. In our penance. The temporary penance. But God doesn't even remember them. They are gone, completely. We are no protestants, who believe that God only puts a veil over them, while they really exist for ever. We are forgiven and free. Keep it like that.

Of course the acts of penance are related to sin. But more to the repair towards God and the Church, than to sin as such. Or?
Reply
#64
This type of bickering demonstrates very clearly the need for an authority like the Pope and the Vatican to intervene when this type of pettiness manifests itself. 
Reply
#65
This is hard for me to read. Honestly, I've been scandalized by the fall out within the SSPX after Rome's offer became known. To think, I was encountering the Society for the first time in real life when this all started. I remember being in the room when the "ultimatum" came down and was read to us by the priest before the start of the conference that morning during the second day of the Ignatian Retreat. Then all the fighting started soon after. Mind you, I had been wanting to discern a vocation with the Society, but after everything that has happened and is happening, I'm afraid to have much of anything to do with them. I mean that literally. Who would want to get in the middle of all that? I hope and pray that things stabilize. Otherwise... well, I'd prefer not to think about otherwise...
i'll be praying as hard as I can.
Reply
#66
(10-22-2012, 04:59 AM)tradne4163 Wrote: This is hard for me to read. Honestly, I've been scandalized by the fall out within the SSPX after Rome's offer became known. To think, I was encountering the Society for the first time in real life when this all started. I remember being in the room when the "ultimatum" came down and was read to us by the priest before the start of the conference that morning during the second day of the Ignatian Retreat. Then all the fighting started soon after. Mind you, I had been wanting to discern a vocation with the Society, but after everything that has happened and is happening, I'm afraid to have much of anything to do with them. I mean that literally. Who would want to get in the middle of all that? I hope and pray that things stabilize. Otherwise... well, I'd prefer not to think about otherwise...
i'll be praying as hard as I can.

I understand where you're coming from, but if thats what God wants you need not be concerned with any human concerns, what will happen to you will be as God planned it, naturally of course such a situation puts people off but supernaturally it should not, Gods works are always marked with contradiction and suffering. However I will admit i have been put off by certain extreme positions within the society for example regarding the non infallible canonisation of saints and so on, but I am probably wrong to be so put off.
Reply
#67
All of this is remarkable for many reasons. 

It seems obvious to me that witholding communion is legal in this case (witholding in the event that superiors think any laity are fallen into public, grave sin).  The million dollar question is whether it should be done.

I do think we should reserve commentary until at least the full story is out.

The unity of the Society is under attack, no matter your stance on the leadership of the Society.  We should pray all the more.
Reply
#68
(10-22-2012, 02:41 AM)Poche Wrote: This type of bickering demonstrates very clearly the need for an authority like the Pope and the Vatican to intervene when this type of pettiness manifests itself. 

Right, because they've done such a great job maintaining the unity of Faith these last 40 years.
Reply
#69
(10-22-2012, 02:41 AM)Poche Wrote: This type of bickering demonstrates very clearly the need for an authority like the Pope and the Vatican to intervene when this type of pettiness manifests itself. 

This sort of bickering has been happening on at least this level for years between Rome and the German bishops.
Reply
#70
(10-20-2012, 03:44 AM)ggreg Wrote: I've seen parishioners denied communion for all sorts of disagreements with SSPX priests.  I can think of at least 3 cases in UK and US where I can name the people and I've heard of others from SSPX and ex-SSPX laity.

This is par for the course.  Most long term SSPXers have seen this sort of control freakery happening before.  It gained momentum after Archbishop Lefebvre died.

The ironic thing in this case is that it is the "moderates" who are using these threats against the hard right.

Essentially what has happened in the SSPX since Lefebvre died is that successive diktats and mini-purges and denouncements over women wearing trousers and other such stuff has caused the moderates to find a TLM somewhere else.  Check out the faces of any FSSP mass in London or Sydney and I can show you a bunch of former SSPX laity making up a sizeable minority and sometimes a majority of the crowd at mass.

Naturally when many of the reasonable people have left the SSPX takes on a different character.  There are fewer dissenting voices.  Those who would stand up find they have no moral support.  The sycophantic types who are not kept busy with children and families form a cabal around the priest and get positions of influence by default.   We've seen this dynamic in the forums.  Fisheaters used to be more conservative and now it is more liberal.  Cathinfo has absorbed those "hard liners" who no longer felt useful here or were "scandalised".  People are forced to choose between the Judean Peoples' Front and the Peoples' Front of Judea.

I am not saying that the SSPX in all countries are as bad in this regard as others.  Much depends on the wisdom and maturity of the District Superior.  But it is a general trend.

As for criticism of the SSPX, or any other group of humans with human errors....get used to it.  Short of a total collapse of society it is not going away.

Good leaders listen to their critics, take what is good, reject what is bad and change accordingly.  Weak leaders threaten.

These sort of "interdicts" have also been dished out in SSPX-Asia.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)