Inquiry regarding Tridentine Mass
#11
(05-25-2018, 12:11 AM)Poche Wrote: Where are you planning on moving to?

Poland. A location with no FSSP and maybe one Tridentine mass in a remote location at very restrictive hours. That is what I always liked about SSPX - they are nearly everywhere, they specialize in the old rite, they have several masses everyday (unlike FSSP people who I think have to go from parish to parish, at least here in Europe), etc.
Reply
#12
(05-25-2018, 03:28 AM)vpanno Wrote: Now even though SSPX are not officially schismatic (which would make their sacraments valid but illicit), they are still not in full communion with the Church... 

The very concept of 'partial communion', of not being 'in full communion with the Church' is nonsensical in the strictest definition of the word. In other words the concept is completely lacking in any sort of sense and totally void of logic.

You can read the Code of Canon Law, 1983, the Code of 1917, or the Corpus, without ever finding such an idea. Either an individual or a group is 'in communion' with the Church, or they are heretical and/or schismatic, and 'out of communion' with the Church. There is no grey area in between. There is no 'partial communion' with the Church of Christ. Either you're in or you're out. The SSPX has never been defined as in schism, and no one has ever dared to accuse them of heresy. 

The very fact that they have been granted faculties for confessions and to witness marriages is stark evidence that they are in communion with Rome. The Pope cannot grant faculties to those who are not in communion with him.
Jovan-Marya of the Immaculate Conception Weismiller, T.O.Carm.

Vive le Christ-roi! Vive le roi, Louis XX!
Deum timete, regem honorificate.
Kansan by birth! Albertan by choice! Jayhawk by the Grace of God!
  “Qui me amat, amet et canem meum. (Who loves me will love my dog also.)” 
St Bernard of Clairvaux

My Blog 'Musings of an Old Curmudgeon'


[-] The following 2 users Like jovan66102's post:
  • Dominicus, karl
Reply
#13
(05-25-2018, 02:14 PM)jovan66102 Wrote:
(05-25-2018, 03:28 AM)vpanno Wrote: Now even though SSPX are not officially schismatic (which would make their sacraments valid but illicit), they are still not in full communion with the Church... 

The very concept of 'partial communion', of not being 'in full communion with the Church' is nonsensical in the strictest definition of the word. In other words the concept is completely lacking in any sort of sense and totally void of logic.

You can read the Code of Canon Law, 1983, the Code of 1917, or the Corpus, without ever finding such an idea. Either an individual or a group is 'in communion' with the Church, or they are heretical and/or schismatic, and 'out of communion' with the Church. There is no grey area in between. There is no 'partial communion' with the Church of Christ. Either you're in or you're out. The SSPX has never been defined as in schism, and no one has ever dared to accuse them of heresy. 

The very fact that they have been granted faculties for confessions and to witness marriages is stark evidence that they are in communion with Rome. The Pope cannot grant faculties to those who are not in communion with him.

Thanks a lot for your input. And thanks for pointing out that no 'partial communion' or 'partial liceity' exists. However, there is the possibility of a case where sacraments can be valid and licit but the body to which the priest administering these sacraments belongs is not in full communion with the Church (yet not in schism). Which does create a grey area. Let me back this up. The latest official Vatican document mentioning and updating the status of SSPX is Pope Francis's Misericordia et miseria. Taken straight from the letter:

For the Jubilee Year I had also granted that those faithful who, for various reasons, attend churches officiated by the priests of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X, can validly and licitly receive the sacramental absolution of their sins. For the pastoral benefit of these faithful, and trusting in the good will of their priests to strive with God’s help for the recovery of full communion in the Catholic Church, I have personally decided to extend this faculty beyond the Jubilee Year, until further provisions are made, lest anyone ever be deprived of the sacramental sign of reconciliation through the Church’s pardon.

Literally: their confessions are perfectly valid and licit and have equal status to confessions done by regular Catholic priests but SSPX is not in full communion with the Church. How do you explain this? Is Pope Francis in the wrong here? If so, does that mean their sacraments are valid and they are indeed in full communion with Rome, or does that mean their sacraments are not valid and they are not in communion? Sorry for insisting - I haven't read the Code and know only what the Catholic media has reported on the matter. All points to a grey area despite the impossibility of such a situation ever existing (based on what you have written). God Bless.
Reply
#14
My point is proven by the letter you quote. Here is the syllogism:

1) The Pope cannot grant faculties to individuals or bodies that are not in communion with him.

2) Francis granted faculties to the SSPX.

3) The SSPX is in communion with Francis.

QED!
Jovan-Marya of the Immaculate Conception Weismiller, T.O.Carm.

Vive le Christ-roi! Vive le roi, Louis XX!
Deum timete, regem honorificate.
Kansan by birth! Albertan by choice! Jayhawk by the Grace of God!
  “Qui me amat, amet et canem meum. (Who loves me will love my dog also.)” 
St Bernard of Clairvaux

My Blog 'Musings of an Old Curmudgeon'


[-] The following 1 user Likes jovan66102's post:
  • Dominicus
Reply
#15
You just admitted that there is no such thing as partial communion yet you keep referring to it...
Surréxit Dóminus vere, Alleluia!
[-] The following 1 user Likes Dominicus's post:
  • jovan66102
Reply
#16
(05-25-2018, 05:42 PM)Dominicus Wrote: You just admitted that there is no such thing as partial communion yet you keep referring to it...

The documents of Vatican II also refer to partial communion.
Reply
#17
The Documents of Vatican II refer to lots of things that don't exist. I wouldn't be surprised to find references to unicorns and the tooth fairy in them.
Jovan-Marya of the Immaculate Conception Weismiller, T.O.Carm.

Vive le Christ-roi! Vive le roi, Louis XX!
Deum timete, regem honorificate.
Kansan by birth! Albertan by choice! Jayhawk by the Grace of God!
  “Qui me amat, amet et canem meum. (Who loves me will love my dog also.)” 
St Bernard of Clairvaux

My Blog 'Musings of an Old Curmudgeon'


Reply
#18
(05-26-2018, 05:22 AM)Poche Wrote:
(05-25-2018, 05:42 PM)Dominicus Wrote: You just admitted that there is no such thing as partial communion yet you keep referring to it...

The documents of Vatican II also refer to partial communion.

This is a novel concept created by the Neo-Modernist Novelle Théologie. Essentially it is de Lubac's erroneous theories on grace combine with Rahner's theories on membership in the Church, and founded on a false notion of the cause of the bond of unity in the Church by Journet, helped by Congar.

The traditional notion of the Church is that it is defined as a Society. A society is a permanent union of individuals under an authority who use common means toward a common goal. That gives it's four causes : 

Material cause : individuals
Formal cause : a union (thus the bond of unity of these individuals)
Efficient cause : the authority (he who causes this bond of unity)
Final cause : common means (proximate) to a common goal (remote)

This makes the Church a visible society , and not just a spiritual union (the Protestant error).

Cardinal Journet started his erroneous ecclesiology by an overanalysis of the Body of the Church/Soul of the Church metaphor, used originally by St Robert Belarmine to describe early Protestants who did not know any better because of the dramatic shift toward Protestantism which swept them up without their ability to adequately deal with the changes and refuse them. These, he said, were not visibly part of the Church because in schism, but could be attached to the "Soul of the Church" if they were validly Baptized and did not reject unity with the Church. The point of the comparison was the invisibility of this particular and exceptional link.

In a sense this "Soul of the Church" is better terms "the Communion of the Saints" because one could be saved (like the Jews before Christ) yet never be a member of the Catholic Church, so a member of this invisible "society" of the Saints, yet not a member of the Church.

To try to deal with this Cardinal Journet stretches the original analogy ("invisible") and says that since they are "members" of this "Soul" and other theologians speak of the "Soul of the Church" being the Holy Ghost, to reconcile these ideas, there must be some link with the Holy Ghost. This invisible bond, then, between the members, must be Charity. Thus, he theorizes that Charity is the cause of the Church. (This is easily disproven when we consider that a Baptized Catholic in mortal sin does not have Charity, yet remains a member of the Church).

Combine this with de Lubac's notion that men naturally have supernatural graces (a confusion of the distinction between nature and supernature) and you get the idea that whoever has not debased his nature, must also be a member in some way of the Church. This is Rahner's "anonymous Christian".

But because that would make the Church pointless if everyone is already a member and human nature itself has been redeemed, and would be rejected out of hand, the New Theology proposed that in fact the bond of unity is not a link in a chain to the source of unity (which is either intact or broken), but rather it is by degrees and steps.

This new theology of "partial communion" means that the Church of Christ is larger and more extensive than the Catholic Church, which is merely the perfection of what a Church is. Other "churches" will possess what the Catholic Church has in lesser degrees, and thus be in "partial communion". So the Orthodox have Apostolicity, an ancient liturgy and share most of the Catholic doctrine, thus are in a high degree of partial communion. The Lutherans have no apostolicity, but at least the Bible and some doctrines, thus are in a letter degree of partial communion. Evangelical Protestants have no liturgy but do accept the Bible and a few doctrines, The Jews are in a fairly remote communion because they have the Torah and were specially chosen by God, etc. 

Some of the most radical liberal theologians would even claim that Muslims are part of the Church in this way because they accept the notion of a single God to whom some worship is due!

Even Cardinal Journet saw Rahner's theology, hated it, but admitted that if his theories on Charity as the Cause of the Church was correct, then Rahner's conclusions follow.

That is "partial communion", but never was spoken of before 1960. It is a canard, and is merely a way to try to make non-Catholic part of the Church without making them convert or recant their errors.

The truth is the theology of the preceeding 1900 years, in which you find that one is either a Catholic or not, thus one is a member of the Church or is not, so one is in communion or is not.

If you look at the SSPX situation you find only one thing lacking in them, since they have a Catholic liturgy, recognize the authority of the Papacy and defend it, profess all Catholic doctrines and defend them, pray for the Pope and local bishop, and were a Society which had approval by the Church. That one thing lacking an officially-recognized canonically-approved structure for their Society.

They would claim it exists as it was founded properly in 1970, and illegally and invalidly suppressed in 1976. The Holy See since 1976 has de facto never addressed that, but treated the SSPX as if that suppression was valid. At best with the Society, we have a group which was approved by the Church, suppressed, but which rejects their suppression and is waiting for a judgement on it. That means it is a Catholic group which is in limbo, not a non-Catholic group which is refusing to enter the Church.
Reply
#19
(05-25-2018, 04:59 PM)jovan66102 Wrote: My point is proven by the letter you quote. Here is the syllogism:

1) The Pope cannot grant faculties to individuals or bodies that are not in communion with him.

2) Francis granted faculties to the SSPX.

3) The SSPX is in communion with Francis.

QED!

Yet Francis says: 'strive with God’s help for the recovery of full communion in the Catholic Church'. Clearly implying they are not in full communion. What you have said coupled with excerpts from Latae sententiae and Misericordia et Misera so far made me understand that their is no canonical basis for 'partial communion' or 'partial liceity' but the post-Vatican II magisterium still uses the concept to define the Society of Saint Pius X.
Reply
#20
(05-26-2018, 02:51 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: If you look at the SSPX situation you find only one thing lacking in them, since they have a Catholic liturgy, recognize the authority of the Papacy and defend it, profess all Catholic doctrines and defend them, pray for the Pope and local bishop, and were a Society which had approval by the Church. That one thing lacking an officially-recognized canonically-approved structure for their Society.

They would claim it exists as it was founded properly in 1970, and illegally and invalidly suppressed in 1976. The Holy See since 1976 has de facto never addressed that, but treated the SSPX as if that suppression was valid. At best with the Society, we have a group which was approved by the Church, suppressed, but which rejects their suppression and is waiting for a judgement on it. That means it is a Catholic group which is in limbo, not a non-Catholic group which is refusing to enter the Church.

Isn't their structure similar to what it was before the illicit consecrations? From what I have read on the subject, what they lack is simply full recognition from the Vatican. Meaning the liceity of the administration of the sacraments by SSPX priests is in question (except for confessions and I believe marriages). I am very grateful for Pope Benedict XVI and his recognition of the Society - but their status is still not quite clear, which is distressing for people wanting to attend SSPX masses and receive sacraments. It seems to be a unique case occurring at unique times... It appears that even priests and experts do not all agree on this. Based on your understanding of the situation, would you have any objections to receiving sacraments from SSPX priests?
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)