As a way of building up to questions about the validity of the administration of confirmation in SSPX chapels, a reader writes:
1) Does a schismatic bishop administer Confirmation validly, even if illicitly, when there is no danger of death?
Yes. Bishops can always confirm validly, regardless of whether they are in the Catholic Church or not. Bishops are the ordinary ministers of this sacrament and so they do not need to have faculties delegated to them in order to perform it validly. The ability to do this sacrament is one of the powers that is conferred on a bishop in his ordination.
2) Does a schismatic priest administer Confirmation validly, even if illicitly, when there is no danger of death?
The law is not entirely clear on this point. There are clearly at least some circumstances in which a priest who is not a member of the Catholic Church can confirm validly. Specifically: If he is part of a non-Catholic church (in the proper sense of the term "church" with a valid episcopacy) and that church authorizes him to perform confirmations then he can do so validly. Thus Eastern Orthodox priests confirm validly.
It is not clear, however, whether a priest can confirm validly on his own, without doing so under the auspices of a church, properly so-called.
3) Does a schismatic priest administer Confirmation validly, even if illicitly, when there is no danger of death and he has no faculties from his bishop?
This is not clear. The law does not presently address this point.
4) How would the anser to #3 apply to Lefebvrist priests, who technically do not have Ordinaries?
Let’s leave aside the question of whether the Lefebvrist bishops count as "ordinaries." They are not ordinaries in the sense of persons in authority approved by Rome, but in terms of their function within the society that term may be applicable to them (even if they would disavow it).
The real question is whether the SSPX is a church or not. If they are a church and if they empower their priests to perform confirmations apart from the danger of death then these confirmations would be valid. If they are not a church then it is unclear whether the confirmations would be valid.
The SSPX, presumably, would deny that it is a church and argue that it is a priestly society. Perhaps. But schismatics typically deny that they are in schism and that they are starting a new church. Refusing to own the title "church" does not mean that you aren’t one. If the Patriarch of Constantinople decided to stop referring to the church he heads as a church then that would not make it less a church, not would it makes its confirmations invalid.
It’s that whole "a rose by any other name" thing, y’know?
So what is required for there to be a church? Some light is shed on this by the CDF’s Note On The Expression "Sister Churches" and by the Catechism.
The Note notes that "in the proper sense sister churches are exclusively particular churches (or groupings of particular churches; for example, the patriarchates or metropolitan provinces) among themselves" (10). This points toward regarding as a church outside the Catholic Church any particular church or group of particular churches.
The importance of this for the present discussion is that EITHER a single, independent particular church OR a group of particular churches is sufficient for validity of the sacraments in it. The only grouping of particular churches that is of divine origin is the Catholic Church, which these groups are outside.
As a result of the non-divine origin of groupings of particular churches outside the Catholic Church, the power of valid confirmations cannot rest in them. Thus the power of validly confirming must rest in particular churches. You don’t need a whole group of them before this power is present. Thus, for example, if somehow all the Eastern Orthodox churches EXCEPT the particular church of the Russian Orthodox of Moscow suddenly vanished then it would not cause confirmations administered in the Moscow church to be invalid just because there were no other Orthodox for them to be in communion with.
This means that if the Lefebvrists meet the qualifications for being a single particular church are met then they would have the ability to authorize their priests to do confirmations validly.
(Sorry if that seemed like a digression, but I wanted to close off a potential objection that the SSPX isn’t part of a big communion of churches like the Eastern Orthodox.)
So what do you need to be a particular church? The Catechism says:
833 The phrase "particular church," which is the diocese (or eparchy), refers to a community of the Christian faithful in communion of faith and sacraments with their bishop ordained in apostolic succession. These particular Churches "are constituted after the model of the universal Church; it is in these and formed out of them that the one and unique Catholic Church exists."
Now, the Lefebvrist bishops are ordained in apostolic succession, and if they are "in communion of faith and sacraments" with "a community of the Christian faithful" then they would seem to count as a particular church even if they don’t use this title for themselves–at least according to the definition offered by the Catechism.
If we turn to other documents, like Pius XII’s encyclical Mystici Corporis and look at what he says about the Catholic Church, we might come up with an extra criterion. In that encyclical he identifies there are being three bonds that fully unite one to the Catholic Church: faith, sacraments, and governance. If that is what is needed to be united to the Catholic Church then presumably any other body that had a common faith, valid sacraments (including the episcopacy), and a common governance would also be a church.
These the Lefebvrists seem to have. They have the Catholic faith, they have a valid episcopacy allowing for the valid exercise of all the other sacraments in at least some cases (e.g., when an SSPX bishop himself confirms), and they have their own internal governance.
So they’re looking pretty church-like, even though (I assume) they would deny this title to themselves.
Thus if they are a church and they empower their priests to confirm outside of danger of death then these confirmations will be valid.
If they’re not a church then it is unclear whether their priestly confirmations would be valid.
5) Do Confirmed Lefebvrists have to be re-Confirmed?
Pending further clarification from Rome, it is unclear whether confirmations done by SSPX priests are valid and, in the presence of the doubtful administration of a sacrament that can be administered only once, the pastorally prudent thing to do would be to administer conditional confirmations to such people.
If Rome clarifies (perhaps as part of regularization of the SSPX) and says, "No, the first confirmations were valid" then we go with that.
6) If Levebvrist Confirmations are not valid, then why are those done by Eastern Orthodox and other schismatic Christians? (Ditto with Marriages and Confessions?)
If Lefebvrist priestly confirmations are not valid then it is because SSPX priests do not have faculties because they have not been granted them by a particular church. Eastern Orthodox and other, similar groups do have particular churches that have empowered their priets to confirm (and perform marriages and hear confessions) and so their validity would not be in doubt.
Jimmy, while your expostion on this is pretty clear, I have an additional question: would an SSPX priest every attempt a confirmation? I thought (and am open to correction) that under the old rites, only bishops in the Latin Church performed confirmations (i.e., outside of situations where there was a danger of death). My impression was that this was something that followed the liturgical reforms of Vatican II, and therefore a use which I would be surprised to find the SSPX following.
Jimmy,
The SSPX doesn’t have “bishops” as their rulers, in the sense of exercising their episcopal perorgatives. Thus, no SSPX bishop is claiming the powers of a diocesan ordinary.
This is exceedingly relevant for the more basic question of whether the SSPX is “in the church” or out. I fail to see how disobedience alone makes them a particular Church.
Many of the arguments made seem to apply equally to a priestly society as to a schismatic church body. This ought to be indicative that the principles being applied are too broad. Every institution in the church has common governance, the question is whether that governance excludes the unifiying governance of the Holy See.
And has been pointed out time and time again, disobedience, even persistent sinful disobedience, is not the same as schism.
A think it pretty clear that a “chuch” would require something akin to a bishop and a bunch of parishes he has authority over as ordinary. That situation does not exist in the SSPX. Their situation is a canonical anomaly.
For instance, they don’t claim jurisdiction from their members who are bishops, who simply exist to provide the sacraments of ordination and confirmation. Rather, they claim jurisdiction from “a situation of necessity.”
If the SSPX were just a Church, we would expect that they would be treating their bishops would be exercising diocesan ordinary-like powers. This is manifestly not the case.
Is there any “church” that does not assume territorial jurisdiction?
Breier,
And has been pointed out time and time again, disobedience, even persistent sinful disobedience, is not the same as schism.
May I ask what your understanding of Ecclesia Dei and when it says Hence such disobedience – which implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy – constitutes a schismatic act?
and later in the document:
Everyone should be aware that formal adherence to the schism is a grave offence against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church’s law.?
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Inocencio,
I take it just as Ed Peters takes it, that the bishops who were consecrated are excommunicated, but that the SSPX as an institution (priests, bishops, lay people, etc.) is not in formal schism, but an undesirable “imperfect communion,” as Cardinal Hoyos has remarked.
Namely, that the SSPX as a group doesn’t not become a “schismatic church” just because some of its leadership goes into schism.
By the same token, the American Church is not in schism even though some its leadership is undoubtedly shot through with heresy and material schism.
Innocencio,
Take another example. Your diocesan bishop, against Rome’s wishes, consecrates an auxiliary bishop. Excommunication, schismatic act. Does that automatically put the entire diocese into schism?
If that consecration is applauded by laypeople unversed in canon law, are they now schismatics?
And isn’t disobedience a “schismatic act” of itself? Yet it’s agreed that rampant liturgical abuse is not schism.
Breier
Brier, I unerstand the distinction you are making, but what about the parishoners who choose to follow the schismatic bishop rather than the pope? I doubt they qualify as schismatic, but their position does seem precarious to me.
Brier,
Thank you for answering my question.
Does anyone know how many “bishops” the SSPX has?
I wish Cardinal Hoyos would clarify his postion based on Ecclesia Dei.
In the present circumstances I wish especially to make an appeal both solemn and heartfelt, paternal and fraternal, to all those who until now have been linked in various ways to the movement of Archbishop Lefebvre, that they may fulfil the grave duty of remaining united to the Vicar of Christ in the unity of the Catholic Church, and of ceasing their support in any way for that movement.
Especially what constitues formal adherence. Because reading that document sure makes it seem as though Catholics are in grave danger with any support of the movement.
I know Bishop Bruskewitz, “on March 19, 1996, using his legitimate authority to make laws which bind members of his flock, published a legislative pronouncement naming twelve organizations, membership in which was defined to be “always perilous to the Catholic Faith and most often is totally incompatible with the Catholic Faith.” The list of organizations contained in the law includes: the Society of St. Pius X and a chapel served by its priests..”
An appeal was made and Rome rejected the appeal.
“The Vatican has let stand a 1996 order from Lincoln Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz that his parishioners must sever ties with 12 groups or face possible excommunication, the Lincoln Diocese said.
I hope and pray that Pope Benedict XVI will shed some light on the matter for us.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Brier,
If the bishop in your example had been warned, as the SSPX was, and then the Pope publicly stated that Catholics were to cease any support of the that bishop or movement, I would say that the parishioners, if aware of the public declaration would be in schism or at least in grave danger.
That is my unversed in canon law opinion of course.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Inocencio,
I’m not advocating attending SSPX churches, although if we’re allowed to attend Eastern Orthodox churches, receive communion, and fulfill our Sunday obligation, it’s hard to see why not the SSPX.
I don’t think schism is the real issue about why to avoid the SSPX. The reason I always thought was that they don’t have jurisdiction, so confessions and marriages are invalid, and all the priests are suspended from using their faculties. So objectively, every time they celebrate Mass, for instance, they’re violating that suspension and commiting a sin.
Why would I want to go to Mass where the priest is sinning mortally every time he says Mass? It seems me I’d be kind of assenting to it. And assuming everyone’s in good faith, it’s still objectively wrong, no? Even though the secretary of the Ecclesia Dei commission says you can go to an SSPX, from motives of devotion to the liturgy, without sin, I’m leery.
This situation of suspended faculties was the case long before 1988.
So why is *schism* the big issue here? Was it OK to go to the SSPX before 1988?
Addressing schism specifically, the concept seems nebulous to me. Are only individual people in schism? If so, what do we mean when we say *that group* is in schism? Just that it has some members who are schismatic? What does it mean for a group, apart from its individual members, to be in schism?
“Namely, that the SSPX as a group doesn’t not become a “schismatic church” just because some of its leadership goes into schism… By the same token, the American Church is not in schism even though some its leadership is undoubtedly shot through with heresy and material schism.”
Breier-
The American Church? What’s that? It doesn’t exist as a body, that I know of. Even the USCCB has no ecclesial authority.
I don’t think such a comparison can be made to the SSPX. You have to look at whether the group is fundamentally schismatic in it’s origins.
There is a huge difference between a diocese (which is founded on Papal authority, regardless of how bone-headed the Bishop may be) and the SSPX (which is founded on a fundamental choice of disobedience to that same authority).
That we have more than our share of kooky bishops and priests here in the U.S. is irrelevant to this question.
Brier,
I know I have many questions also that there just don’t seem to be answers for yet.
I just hope and pray that Pope Benedict XVI will give us some clear understanding of the matter soon. Especially since Cardinal Hoyos and Bishop Bruskewitz stances are completely at odds with each other.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
tim-
while, in essence, you are right, you are wrong about the USCCB.
Canon law designates a great number of obligations, rights, decisions, and responsibilities to episcopal conferences. Therefore, the USCCB does have “ecclesial authority,” assuming what you mean is some juridic role to play in church administration.
Tim,
I don’t think you caught my point. I’m simply saying that the actions of a few members of a group can’t be imputed to the group as a whole.
Thus even though some bishops or chancery staff in American may well be schismatic or heretical, we can’t impute their crime to the diocese, or the laypeople, as a whole.
Similarly, if four members of the SSPX are excommunicated for schismatic acts, we can’t automatically say that the whole SSPX is in schism.
That a diocese is more legal than the SSPX is irrelevent for purposes of this discussion. I’m simply saying that it’s an unfounded leap to jump from “those there four SSPX members are excommunicated” to “the SSPX is in schism.”
If we used that argument, the entire American church would be in schism, and there is perhaps a good argument that in many ways, it is in material schism. When Popes are afraid to discipline because of the fear that “the American Church will go into schism,” it seems legit to wonder what kind of unity really exists in America.
For my part, I feel more Catholic unity with the Eastern Orthodox or SSPX chapel goers that many liberal Catholics I know.
Brier,
Similarly, if four members of the SSPX are excommunicated for schismatic acts, we can’t automatically say that the whole SSPX is in schism.
Since Pope John Paul II specifically said in regards to those linked with the SSPX “that they may fulfil the grave duty of remaining united to the Vicar of Christ in the unity of the Catholic Church, and of ceasing their support in any way for that movement. Everyone should be aware that formal adherence to the schism is a grave offence against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church’s law.”
That seems like a pretty stern warning to avoid the SSPX or a person would knowingly enter into schism. Again, we need a clear definition of formal adherence.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Brier,
The point of my previous post is that if I knew my bishop was warned and then openly committed a schismatic act I would not support him and make my fidelity to the Pope my priority. Until the Vatican steps in we have to be obedient to our bishop, whoever we have.
Inocencio,
Clearly the situation has changed since the constitution Ecclesia Dei, and certain aspects of it have lapsed.
For instance, the Ecclesia Dei commission secretary said that one could attend Mass at an SSPX chapel, and put money in their collection plate, without sin! They didn’t encourage it, but if there was a grave moral duty to avoid any support, it’s hard to see how they could have allowed such support.
I think Ecclesia Dei included strong language, but perhaps some of it was too strong, since it was, apparently, a hasty response to the consecrations. Whoever drafted Ecclesia Dei wanted to discourage people from supporting the SSPX, surely. But “formal adherence” seems to be a standard that most people, including priests and lay people, do not meet.
At least, I have a hard time reconciling the prima facie reading of Ecclesia Dei, which would make me think going to Mass there is a sin, with later Vatican statements that are much more carefully circumscribed.
We may have a case of “talk loudly, but carry a small stick.”
Brier,
Not having read the vatican statements you are referring to do you have any links to them? I could be mistaken but Jimmy Akin seems to have the understanding that none of Ecclesia Dei has lapsed.
I will try googling Cardinal Hoyos and SSPX.
The hard part is that the vatican also rejected the appeal to Bishop Bruskewitz action which included severing ties with the SSPX. So we are left with so much confusion.
Any links or documentation you could provide would be greatly appreciated.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Inocencio,
Certainly, but the fact that next to nobody is punished in the Church today for heresy or schism doesn’t take away from the fact that orthodox Catholics are a small minority among “Catholics.” Nevertheless, we don’t say the Church in America is heretical or in schism.
Now if we say the SSPX structure is intrinsically schismatic, that’s one thing.
But noone is arguing that the SSPX was schismatic before 1988. And they were doing all the stuff they do today before 1988. The only difference is that they have a few members who are excommunicated for disobedience.
So if heretical Americans don’t make the Church in America heretical, I fail to see how a few schismatic SSPX’s make the SSPX schismatic.
In any event, as I pointed out earlier, I think “schism” is a red herring. The real issue is jurisdiction, canon law, etc.
Inocencio,
Here’s a link to a letter from Msgr. Perl:
http://www.unavoce.org/articles/2003/perl-011803.htm
A Google search for “perl sspx ecclesia dei” will undoubtedly yield more.
While “lapse” may be too strong a term, I think the trend is towards a less rigorous reading of Ecclesia Dei.
This is not to say the Ecclesia Dei encourages attending SSPX Masses. In fact they discourage it, because they think it’ll make people schismatic over the long run. Although it’s not clear to me how what they discuss as schismatic tendencies has any bearing to the “1988 episcopal consecrations.” It seems a hostility to Rome could exist well before that. But I digress. You’ll find a number of materials on your search.
Breier,
Thank you very much for the link. And maybe, God willing, the following story we be a trend.
Priest found guilty of heresy
INLAND DIOCESE: The verdict comes after what may have been the first trial of its kind in the U.S.
09:59 AM PST on Friday, January 20, 2006
By DAVID OLSON / The Press-Enterprise
The Diocese of San Bernardino has declared an Inland priest guilty of heresy, after what experts say may have been one of the first trials of its kind in U.S. history.
As a result, the Rev. Ned Reidy is formally excommunicated from the Roman Catholic Church.”
I agree that many American Catholics are heretical but I think the difference is the the Pope has spoken about this specific group and that to me is the difference.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Inocencio,
Certainly when the Pope speaks that makes an enormous difference. A judgment in low about the status of someone changes things. However, who is more a threat to the Catholic faith, the SSPX or a Catholic university?
That in times past the disobedient old-school Catholics are punished, while a thousand-times worse modernists ran free, is striking.
That is why I think SSPX reconciliation would be so good for the Church.
Bring the hard-core Catholics back fully into the fold and start disciplining the people who really need it. If the Western Church needs the Eastern Church back so that it can “breath with both lungs,” the Western church also needs the traditionalists, it can reconnect with its roots.
An interesting sidenote~when my wife and I were at Mackinac Island this summer, we visited St. Anne Catholic church on the island which happens to be one of the oldest continuous Catholic parishes in North America founded by Jesuit Father Jean De Brebeuf. They have baptismal and marriage records going back into the 1690’s. One of the historical notes that was in the museum was how a British commander, an Anglican, performed baptisms, marriages and (I believe) even confirmation for the Catholic community on the island when a priest was not present on the island. I do not know how the rules on the validity of a non-Catholic administering sacraments of initiation were different in the early 1700’s, but it was noted that commander realized that it was important to the welfare of the community to preserve the Huron inhabitants’ Catholic beliefs and went out of his way to protect them.
Breier,
I apologize for misspelling your name in earlier posts.
I also hope the SSPX will reconcile but not because it will reconnect us with our roots, union with the Pope does that.
Catholic Universities cannot ordain bishops and priests. Please do not misunderstand me, I want the Catholic Universities and theologians brought in line. Many people are waking up to the fact that they are not Catholic and choosing universities the teach authentic Catholic teaching. Even some of the heterodox orders of nuns and priests are graying and literally dying out.
I hope and pray the SSPX will reconcile but the fact that we owe obedience to the pope is clear even if we think it is not being enforced in the manner we expect or like.
“Now, therefore, we declare, say, determine and pronounce that for every human creature it is necessary for salvation to be subject to the authority of the Roman pontiff” Unam Sanctam by Pope Boniface VIII (1302)
The latest article about the talks with the SSPX does not make the situation sound promising.
http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=42289
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Inocencio,
Clearly the Church has the fulness of truth, but it’s also true that converts and reconciliations bring renewed fervor, insight, respect for tradition, etc. Most Catholics “in union with Rome” are Catholic in name only. An infusion of fervent devout canonically irregular Catholics, Catholics of a generation past, could only help us.
Similarly, connections with the Orthodox Christian East would do a lot to teach people respect for traditiion, patristics, and liturgy.
St. Paul persecuted the Church, and then was her greatest apostle. That doesn’t take anything away from the Church.
I don’t disagree with you that the SSPX situation is a scandal, or that they need to be reconciled. I’m just saying that the modernist threat is 1000 times worse.
Catholic traditionalists are so close to the bosom of the Church, more so than even our Eastern Orthodox brethren. It doesn’t make sense to attack them with the full rigor of the law while simultaneously ignoring the real threats. It’s like straining the gnat and swallowing the camel.
Take ecumenism. Would it make sense if the Holy See vehemntly attacked the Eastern Churches while it was conciliatory to liberal churches? That’d be backwards, the Eastern Christians are allies, not enemies. We have more in common with them than anyone else.
How much more do we have in common with Catholic traditionalists, who’s only desire is simply to worship and believe as their parents and grandparents did.
This isn’t referring to the excommunications, which had to happen, but rather to the hostility towards Catholic tradition, to the point where loving the classical Roman liturgy becomes a dirty thing which gets seminarians in trouble, which anything else is delightful innovation.
One reason we have the SSPX as they are is because Catholic tradition came under attack after Vatican II. You could do anything, except worship with the traditional Mass, of course. This hypocrisy, which Pope John Paul II and Benedict XVI sensed, is why they were and are so eager to reconcile with their traditionalist brethren. They recognized that not everything was as fair as it could have been.
I’m not justifying it, but simply admitting, as Vatican II does, that oftentimes “faults on both sides” were to blame for unfortunate splits with the Church.
The problem is that people have become jaded over time, but let’s pray that the Holy Spirit will warm hearts and convert us that we may all be one.
Breier,
I just had a chance to read the letter of Msgr. Camille Perl Regarding Society of St. Pius X Masses.
You said “In any event, as I pointed out earlier, I think “schism” is a red herring. The real issue is jurisdiction, canon law, etc.”
I disagree that schism is a red herring since Msgr. Perl brings it up in the first part of his response.
1.) The priests of the Society of St. Pius X are validly ordained, but they are suspended from exercising their priestly functions. To the extent that they adhere to the schism of the late Archbishop Lefebvre, they are also excommunicated.
And about putting money in the collection basket not being a sin or support his answer “It would seem that a modest contribution to the collection at Mass could be justified.”
After he stated “We have already told you that we cannot recommend your attendance at such a Mass and have explained the reason why. If your primary reason for attending were to manifest your desire to separate yourself from communion with the Roman Pontiff and those in communion with him, it would be a sin.”
Msgr. Perl clearly states that it seem it could be justified, but that is not the same as saying that attending Mass at an SSPX chapel or giving money would never be a sin.
After perusing “traditionalist” websites. It is my opinion that “modernist” and “traditionalist” are equally a threat to the unity of the Church. “Modernist” ignore the Pope and appeal to conscience and personal experience and “traditionalist” disobey the Pope and appeal to conscience and an authority they do not have.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Dear Mr. Akin,
I believe that under the current code of canon law the priest has the *right* to confirm any adult he brings into the Church. When my mother was confirmed (finally converted) the priest insisted on doing the confirmation in though my mother was confirmed at the Easter Vigil with the bishop presiding. In the case of an adult convert no faculties are required. I would imagine that any confirmations performed by SSPX priests are being done to adult converts.
Inocencio,
“Traditionalists” do not disobey the Church’s teaching magisterium. They have the fulness of the Catholic faith. They do disobey, true.
My point is that heresy and disobedience is much worse that simply disobedience.
Inocencio,
Disobedience that stems from a desire to preserve one’s faith and maintain orthodoxy is qualifiably different from a disobedience bred of heresy.
Example:
If the Vatican suddenly forbid people saying the rosary. Would people who still said the rosary be as bad as modernists?
Certainly disobedience would be bad, but would you classify those people in the same category? Isn’t there a fundamental difference?
Imagine that suddenly the Novus Ordo missal was repealed, and all your parishes were filled with radical traditionalists. Would someone who left that environment be as blameworthy as a modernist?
Imagine the aftermath of Vatican II, which we all know. Confused Catholics struggling to keep the faith, oftentimes in opposition to local religious authorities, do not seem to me as culpable as heresiarchs.
Breier,
“Traditionalists” do not disobey the Church’s teaching magisterium.
When they deny the teachings of Vatican II, like the SSPX does, who exactly are they disobeying if not the Church’ teaching magisterium?
Disobedience that stems from a desire to preserve one’s faith and maintain orthodoxy is qualifiably different from a disobedience bred of heresy.
After reading many “traditionalist” websites calling Pope John Paul II everything from a heretic to a murder, I disagree.
Most “traditionalist”, in my opinion, only give authority to a dead pope of their choice and never the living one. And that is just as dangerous as those “modernist” who ignore the pope.
In your examples above if that occurred and the people who disobeyed also denounced the pope and the vatican then yes the same as “modernist” exactly.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Breier,
I hope you understand I do not fault anyone for wanting the Tridentine Mass (which I think is beautiful and important) or desiring greater reverence and devotion for Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament. I have attended the Ecclesia Dei FSSP Mass in our area and go there often for confession.
I have a huge problem with those who ignore or deny the clear teachings of the Church and those who act as if they are in authority or the only true source of tradition.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
I read your page, you got a nice product. Thanks for the information on the Dogmatic Topic of Intercommunion. I studied at an Orthodox-Anglican Monastery in Greece for some time before going to graduate school at Oxford, so I got a special place in my heart for Eastern Monasticism with a little Latin touch, of course! However, now I am a High Anglican Bishop (we celebrate a Tridentine Style Liturgy), who has valid lines from the Orthodox Churches. I am very moved by your page, and I recently got the book a certain Deacon Br. Andre Marie (from the Brazilian-Bishop Costa Old Catholic Lineage directing the St. Benedict Center of NH) mentioned (thanks for the referral) a very Hot! Roman Catholic Theology Book, that is troubling my current position called “Communicatio in Sacris: The Roman Catholic Church against Intercommunion with non-Catholics.”
http://www.lulu.com/content/1753466
I am thinking of converting over to the Traditional Latin Roman Catholic Church (maybe help Wizard-Scholars Bishop Jason Spadafore and Bros. Michael and Peter Dimond?) and now I am in negotiations with a Bishop in France (a personal friend of Bishop Richard Williamson of the SSPX, and who I heard got the book and maybe leaving the “Una Cum” SSPX to join the Reverend Anthony Cekada?) who gave this book of Dr. DeTucci “Two thumbs up!” I must confess I am very close to joining Prime Minister Tony Blair in his voyage from Anglicanism to Roman Catholicism (who I actually met once at the Canterbury Abbey of St. Augustine in England):
http://www.oxford.anglican.org/files/blairs_500.jpg
I personally give Dr. DeTucci TWO THUMBS WAY UP for his Patristic and Dogmatic Scholarship! Indifferentism is a Major Problem, and it has caused the Mass Murder and Holocaust of Abortion today, sadly to say.
I would love to review any Mainstream Periodical (e.g. Bishop Timothy Henneberry’s Moral Theology Magazine “Our Lady of Sorrows”) that has read through DeTucci’s Book, but I may write my own yet. I love to read first more established Scholars, you seem to be a top notch scholarly periodical online. Any degrees? I studied at Oxford, and thank God, I realized the Main Anglican Succession is invalid. That’s why I had communion with the Eastern Orthodox Church, but I am rethinking my Economy of Sacramental Grace thanks to Doctor DeTucci (who I heard studied at the Lateran in Rome).
And thank you!
Sincerely in Christ Our Lord,
+ Most Reverend Bishop Dr. Joseph John Violet of St. Vitus, M.A., D.D., Ph.D.
London, England
P.S. Doctor-Master (are you Irish?), I meant to ask you, if you had any Communication with the so-called “Latin Tridentine Church” headed by Bishop Michael Cox in Ireland? I had the pleasure of meeting the famous Hollywood Personality, that is, the priestess-Bishop Sinead O’Connor (better known as the Hollywood Pop Singer from Ireland):
http://images.ireland.com/newspaper/ireland/0499/thumb/o_connor.jpg
She celebrates an Intercommunion Service of the Latin Tridentine Mass, and I am not sure if Bishop Clarence Kelly, the Scholar-Bishop of Oyster Bay, New York, has written a review of her lineage? I heard she comes from the controversial lineage of the late Archbishop Ngo Dinh Thuc of Vietnam (the same line that Bishops Daniel Dolan and Donald Sanborn claim their fame to). Any insights?
I read your page, you got a nice product. Thanks for the information on the Dogmatic Topic of Intercommunion. I studied at an Orthodox-Anglican Monastery in Greece for some time before going to graduate school at Oxford, so I got a special place in my heart for Eastern Monasticism with a little Latin touch, of course! However, now I am a High Anglican Bishop (we celebrate a Tridentine Style Liturgy), who has valid lines from the Orthodox Churches. I am very moved by your page, and I recently got the book a certain Deacon Br. Andre Marie (from the Brazilian-Bishop Costa Old Catholic Lineage directing the St. Benedict Center of NH) mentioned (thanks for the referral) a very Hot! Roman Catholic Theology Book, that is troubling my current position called “Communicatio in Sacris: The Roman Catholic Church against Intercommunion with non-Catholics.”
http://www.lulu.com/content/1753466
I am thinking of converting over to the Traditional Latin Roman Catholic Church (maybe help Wizard-Scholars Bishop Jason Spadafore and Bros. Michael and Peter Dimond?) and now I am in negotiations with a Bishop in France (a personal friend of Bishop Richard Williamson of the SSPX, and who I heard got the book and maybe leaving the “Una Cum” SSPX to join the Reverend Anthony Cekada?) who gave this book of Dr. DeTucci “Two thumbs up!” I must confess I am very close to joining Prime Minister Tony Blair in his voyage from Anglicanism to Roman Catholicism (who I actually met once at the Canterbury Abbey of St. Augustine in England):
http://www.oxford.anglican.org/files/blairs_500.jpg
I personally give Dr. DeTucci TWO THUMBS WAY UP for his Patristic and Dogmatic Scholarship! Indifferentism is a Major Problem, and it has caused the Mass Murder and Holocaust of Abortion today, sadly to say.
I would love to review any Mainstream Periodical (e.g. Bishop Timothy Henneberry’s Moral Theology Magazine “Our Lady of Sorrows”) that has read through DeTucci’s Book, but I may write my own yet. I love to read first more established Scholars, you seem to be a top notch scholarly periodical online. Any degrees? I studied at Oxford, and thank God, I realized the Main Anglican Succession is invalid. That’s why I had communion with the Eastern Orthodox Church, but I am rethinking my Economy of Sacramental Grace thanks to Doctor DeTucci (who I heard studied at the Lateran in Rome).
And thank you!
Sincerely in Christ Our Lord,
+ Most Reverend Bishop Dr. Joseph John Violet of St. Vitus, M.A., D.D., Ph.D.
London, England
P.S. Doctor-Master (are you Irish?), I meant to ask you, if you had any Communication with the so-called “Latin Tridentine Church” headed by Bishop Michael Cox in Ireland? I had the pleasure of meeting the famous Hollywood Personality, that is, the priestess-Bishop Sinead O’Connor (better known as the Hollywood Pop Singer from Ireland):
http://images.ireland.com/newspaper/ireland/0499/thumb/o_connor.jpg
She celebrates an Intercommunion Service of the Latin Tridentine Mass, and I am not sure if Bishop Clarence Kelly, the Scholar-Bishop of Oyster Bay, New York, has written a review of her lineage? I heard she comes from the controversial lineage of the late Archbishop Ngo Dinh Thuc of Vietnam (the same line that Bishops Daniel Dolan and Donald Sanborn claim their fame to). Any insights?