Where does he get his sense of proportion? See his fatherpaulnicholson.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/there-is-something-worse-than-black-mass.html
Tuesday, September 23, 2014
"There Is Something Worse Than A Black Mass: [A Traditional Latin Mass Offered by a Priest of the Society of Saint Pius X]"
See also "The Curious Case of Fr. Paul Nicholson" by Chris Jackson http://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/fetzen-fliegen/item/311-the-curious-case-of-fr-paul-nicholson
am I missing something? Did not Benedict XVI lift the excommunications of the Pius X bishops? wasn't there ecclesiastical agreement that the lay associates of Pius X were never considered excommunicated? are there not Masses celebrated regularly now in St Peter's Basilica by Pius X priests? and these masses in Saint Peters are therefore worse than Black Masses? this attitude and accusation is utterly wrong and wrongheaded. I am a priest in the Archdiocese of Chicago and not associated with the Society of Pius X in any way--and fr NIcholson is wrong.
Hi Father, other than one incident where it is unclear if the grantor who gave permission knew about the priests canonical status, I am unaware of any SSPX priest who has faculties in any diocese, anywhere in the world.
Are you?
I have no idea how the priest arranged to say Mass in St. Peters, but my gut instincts are, it was sloppy oversight.
I have a lot of SSPX readers who graciously forgive my own conclusions on reasons why Catholics need to stay clear of SSPX.
As I understand their status, the formal excommunications on the people were lifted but the group SSPX is outside of communion, leaving the priests who joined it without the canonical faculties to perform Sacraments. Without canonical faculties, the validity of the Sacrament of Confession is dubious at best and all evidence I found points to invalid.
Much like a canonical status is essential for a valid marriage.
Transubstantiation is valid but does not fulfill your Sunday obligation.
People who substitute going to Mass on Sunday for their obligation is clarified as 'sin'.
I could go on and on, but for me, there isn't a dime's worth of difference between SSPX and Joan Chittister. They don't accept the Church's power to bind and they have countless Catholics tethering their souls to invalid Sacraments and sin in the attendance of Sunday Mass as a substitute for Sunday obligation.
It absolutely astounds me that in any town, there are a stadium full of morons who would answer the call of Satan to worship him. I would venture a guess that most of them don't know what they are doing - something that can't be said for SSPX as they do know better. Perhaps that is where Fr. Nicholson is coming from - I don't know.
I have a lot of sympathy for people suffering from conditions in their parish or diocese that are deplorable.
But when the going got rough for the Body of Christ, they screwed.
I'm a Novus Ordo kind of gal but I have the honesty to admit Catholics who know what's going on in the Sanctuary have to use heroic virtue to try to place themselves in the Mystical of the Holy Sacrifice at the NO as the cast of characters use the captive audience to struggle for they attention they crave.
It is MUCH easier to pray the Mass at a TLM. The intercessions and efficacy of prayer, the depth of mystical connection to Christ, is incredible. Not to mention we hear Church teaching and are more effectively able to execute it during the week. I get it.
Leaving the Body of Christ to run to a place where the priests can't perform a valid Sacrament of Confession, who reject Church teaching, so I can experience a climb to a mountaintop?
Any way I slice it, it's pretty low on this Catholic's ethical standards and servitude to God.
I know it's upsetting that Fr. N compared it to satanic worship - and maybe I wouldn't go that far myself but I absolutely am in agreement with him that Catholics need to return to Christ's Mystical Body to whom the authority to deliver Sacraments has been bequeathed.
not a dime's worth of difference between them and Joan Chittister? no. You can't believe that!
How is it that a group of people who believe everything my mother and father believed-- including the primacy of the Pope-are somehow considered not within the Church. I am sorry--not even the last two popes actually consider them out of the Church. I celebrate both the Novus Ordo and the Extraordinary Form. and my ecumenical spirit extends even to catholics in an irregular situation. have they not even celebrated mass in Notre Dame de Paris?
They don't believe in the power of the Church to bind them to teaching. It's actually a major league rejection of Church teaching.
When it got really bad, (late 90s) I fled the NO with a few young children in tow. They had heard every kind of heresy to be heard. The final straw was a priest who poopood the Sacrament of Confession. I went to TLM and found there was a group there that rejected Church teaching on the opposite side of he spectrum.
What do you mean you'd extend to Catholics in irregular situations?
If I were shaking up, you'd keep letting me come every week to receive Sacrilegious Communion and let me wallow in the consequences of that in my personal life?
:)
I don't see how SSPX could say Mass in Notre Dame.
The people are back in communion but the group itself is not and so the priests in it don't have the canonical status to say Mass or perform other Saraments.
Maybe one pulled the wool over somebody's eyes, but I don't see how they could officially operate.
Good for you for finding your way to the TLM while still ministering to the spiritually poor in the NO. Best of both worlds!
they operate in those circumstances-- saying mass in various catholic churches because those in charge-- including the popes-- have concluded that Pius X are catholic albeit in an irregular and perhaps unique canonical status. what that status is is not that clear. Maybe I am wrong-- after all I went to the seminary in the 60's and 70's--when even curiosity about the Traditional Latin MAss was considered morbid and sick and disobedient-- but I have the inkling that of all the things that Catholics can do wrong, there is a hierarchy of seriousness, and the denial of Catholic doctrine would seem somehow to be worse than a violation of canon law. And--in fact the Pius X people will use canon law itself to defend their position. all I am saying is they are not the enemy. they are not the enemy.
and in your example--how can you equate fornication with whether or not some priest has canonical faculties? that really is not the same. when and if a regularization of Pius X Society comes about-- and we desperately need that-- with a wave of some future pope's pontifical hand all those putatively invalid weddings and confessions will be made valid. I hope you will be happy then that full unity has finally been achieved with them. I know I will be happy. we need their gifts.
Rorate has a new post on this topic. It is a complicated question whether they are in full communion. Regardless, to compare for one moment their masses or activities to a black mass is awful. My humble opinion.
"- The content of today's [yesterday's] communiqué picks up, by the way, almost word by word [the contents] of the one of 2005. In 2005, "the meeting took place in an environment of love for the Church, and the desire to reach perfect communion. Though aware of the difficulties, the will was made clear to proceed by degrees, step by step, and in a reasonable time." Today [yesterday]: "it was decided to proceed gradually and over a reasonable period of time in order to overcome difficulties and with a view to the envisioned full reconciliation." We remark the difference: the qualification of the theological status of the SSPX is the object of a concept created for the occasion. Reaching "full communion" is not mentioned for it anymore, assimilating it by this fact, more or less, to the separated communities to which is reserved the expression "imperfect communion" (mistaken, by the way, because communion is not marked by degrees). But the communiqué states that the SSPX must find "full reconciliation". The SSPX, already in full communion, is not yet in full reconciliation.
Father, I would venture a guess that all readers here live TLM, will occasionally go and will be very glad if SSPX comes into communion.
I am surprised though to hear how you characterize the saying of Mass by a priest without faculties .
What do you mean they just operate that way?.
They can't by law.
If they do, it's illegal and disobedient . They are dragging some poor priest into the situation where he too will be disobedient for letting him use the Church he has been assigned to shepherd Christ's flock. Then all the people come, using it as their Sunday obligation leaving them in a state of sin. And, they are hearing confessions they know or should know do not absolve because they are invalid.
Re my example, I didn't know what you meant by empathy to folks in irregular situations. People living in sin are also in an irregular situation. Why extend illicitly, communion to one but not the other?
Simulating the sacrament of confession is as bad as it gets IMO.
I found Fr. Nicholson's comments on the Black Mass--wherin he scathingly condemned the SPPX ---downright OFFENSIVE. He condemned a mass that was the norm up until Vatican II. What absolute tripe and nasty pettiness from him!!
THis priest needs to get his facts right--The SSPX in NOT IN SCHISM. Secondly Archbishop Lefebvre was not excommunicated as Fr. Nicholson claims, and is likely not in hell as he also accused. He needs to check his sources before he goes shooting off at the mouth.Nor did Lefebvre ever deny the Magisterium. In the meanwhile I am putting him in the same box with Fr. Barron---do not read nor listen to those who do not know the Faith nor the history of those they condemn. Fr. Nicholson's comments were utterly appalling--and I am not in the SSPX camp and never have been.
Fr. Nicholson did NOT condemn the Latin Mass. That is simply not true.
The issue is divided into
1. The people 2. The organization named SSPX
and here comes the most important part:
3. The Sacraments
The organization SSPX is outside of communion with Rome.
The Sacraments are so outside of communion, some of them, including Confession are invalid.
If anyone wants to kid themselves into believing a group outside of communion simulating the Sacraments is not a schism, swim in that river of denial. But at the end of the day, it doesn't matter.
If it looks like a duck, talks like a duck and walks like a duck, it's a duck.
Whatever you call it, the effect of SSPX is the same as a schism. These folks do not have faculaties to perform Sacraments and in disobedience, they are holing up in places pretending they do.
Quack Quack!
The teaching that the Church can bind us to Sacraments is a critical tenet of the Magisterium that is essential to put into practice every principle, dogma and doctrine in the Catechism.
SSPX rejects the teaching that it is the Church that binds our souls to teaching. They think it's them. They cant get over themselves to admit the Church has authority over teaching and if it is bound, it is bound. The Liturgy is bound. The pablum now memorialized in the Catechism is bound.
If Pope Francis reduces marriage to a contract which can be dispensed for not doing the laundry and canonically binds it - it is bound baby - no matter how damaging we know it will be to the survival of vows that are eternal. It is bound because Christ surrendered that right to Christ's Church and all we have to do is follow it to survive ourselves. We are not accountable. The binding is a get out of hell card.
SSPX rejects the Magisterial teaching of binding. There is not a dimes worth of difference between them and the nuns who have spent their entire lives leading Catholics to believe each one of us can bind teaching and be disobedient and lead others into disobedience.
Fr. Nicholson rocks. I would not go so far as to say the priests at SSPX are as bad as the satan worshipers but this is a group who is misleading Christ's elite and what they are doing is grossly offensive to people watching it and to our Beloved.
Carol, you need to do some remedial work on the status of SSPX. Bergoglio is in close negotiations with a group that you may shortly be "bound" to stop mischaracterizing as not in communion.
Allen, I've done my homework. The group SSPX and their Sacraments are outside of communion. Hence the fact that they do not have faculties to perform Sacraments anywhere in the world.
If that changes, you won't see me crying!
But they have to admit that the Church binds teaching and I have serious doubts they ever will. I hope and pray I my gut instincts are wrong but until they obtain faculties to perform Sacraments and their Sacraments are valid, it is what it is.
If I had a Latin Mass convenient enough for me to attend every day, that is where I'd be. I don't and I have to be where God places me. I am not an enemy of TLM nor is Fr. Nicholson.
They do not have faculties to perform Sacraments. That is all anyone needs to know about them to know the Sacraments they are disobediently performing are outside of communion and some of them are invalid.
Nothing anyone else says or speculates or tries to make them changes that truth.
n.b. If you think I benefit by admitting my convictions, you are mistaken. More than half of my readers are TLM attendees. Most if not all through the license granted in Motu Proprio. Still, they are most sympathetic to SSPX.
The effect upon the soul of those they hold captive is too hard for me to take to have any respect for them at all. I hope and pray that readers are forgiving of my convictions. If they are not, I say what I say to benefit Christ and His One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church and I have no regrets.
If Pope Francis reduces marriage to a contract which can be dispensed for not doing the laundry and canonically binds it - it is bound baby - no matter how damaging we know it will be to the survival of vows that are eternal. It is bound because Christ surrendered that right to Christ's Church and all we have to do is follow it to survive ourselves.
Please Tenth Crusade--this is not what Catholics believe-- now or in the past. Binding and loosing has nothing to do with dogma-- and the catholic teaching about sacraments-- their form and matter and effect are dogma and not subject to change. They cannot be. It is about what is-- the nature and existence of a sacrament-not about what we want-Yes, the church can change the rubrics-- the church can fine tune its understanding of the form and matter-- but it cannot change the teaching about what the sacrament is. This is very clear in the catechism of the council of Trent-- or most any catholic catechism. The Church and the Pope do not bind as much as they are bound to what God has revealed-- and the form and matter of a sacrament are part of that-- no one can change it.
The good father needs to walk this one back, way back. Benedict XVI lifted the excommunication on this Society. This is not news. Their sacraments are valid except with the possibility of confession, but in that case, the person confessing would really need an intent to confess to someone thought to be "schismatic" to have it be an invalid confession. The Church "supplies" as the old Latin saying goes.
We do not say that Episcopalians having their Sunday services are doing things worse than a Black Mass. In fact Rome constantly apologizes to them and everyone else in history for mistakes which are largely someone else's responsibility.
I haven't commented in a while but I read you off and on because you are a fighter for the truth.
But I have to clarify a couple of points. First, the masses of the FSSPX are valid. Their priests are validly ordained.
Those who argue this point should educate themselves as to the distinction between "validity" and "licitness".
There is a dispute between pro-FSSPX and contra-FSSPX regarding the sacraments of Matrimony and Penance. This has to do with so-called "faculties" which are, according to canon law, subject to jurisdiction. In other words. the local ordinary has to allow confessions and matrimonial permission for the priest to render a valid sacrament.
Technically, all of the FSSPX sacraments are illicit, though their masses are valid and do fulfill the Sunday and holy day requirements.
There is a canonical dispute in the matter of supplied jurisdiction for Penance and Matrimony which I won't elaborate here. I have briefly commented on this on a recent BCI post and I don't want to rehash it here.
At any rate, that clown of a priest, Nicholson, is not only an agent of the Devil but is, like Corapi, a hubristic fool whose downfall is imminent. Quod Deus adiuvet!
Full disclosure: I am not a member of the FSSPX and have never attended one of their masses. In any event, the FSSPX is a priestly fraternity (i.e. Fraternitas sacerdotalis) and there are properly no lay members.
As a word to the wise, I would be very circumspect in my following of Nicholson as he appears to be, shall we charitably phrase it, a bit "leftish". If you catch my drift. He probably has his own agenda driven by his orientation.
Father, I agree. In my example, I used a ludicrous excuse for dissolution of marriage, but if where he is going is lowering the bar of excuses and then cheapening the process to make annulments quick and easy, we are stuck with it as bound.
He can't make polygamists access to Communion as that would be teaching he has no authority to change. But increasing excuses and changing process, I do t see how we could say he is jumped the rail. That was my point.
I do t know what we are going to do if he jumps the rail. I don't think he will and the book the five Cardinals wrote to get ahead of Kasper kinda pulls the rug out from underneath it all.
The statements he is making now that contradict Church teaching are not binding. They are divisive, they are disconcerting, they are passive-aggressive and very damaging. His ceedibility and trustworthyness is not recoverable. Too much water over the dam. Not sure what will happen but leading to schismatics And splinter groups , priests without faculties feigning they have power to absolve sin or fulfill Sunday obligation is something I will hand to hand combat.
They can Transubstatiate bu according to Holy See doc linked it doesn't fulfill Sunday obligation. The Sacrament of Confession is not valid nor is marriage. A half hour drive we have Motu Proprio.
To suggest Fr Nicholson is a liberal, I just can't swallow!
P.S. we are NEVER stuck with anything as bound-- at least if it goes against the faith. our model is saint Paul-- and he certainly never felt stuck as bound with any of Peters Judaizing .
Carol, I don't know if Fr. Nicholson is "leftist" or not, but IMO, regardless of our opinions of the SSPX, we should be wary of him. He's an Opus Dei priest, and that organization has a very shady reputation for being extremely cultic. WDTPRS readers can go to www.odan.org/index.htm for some very disturbing information on this group. BTW, Michael Voris highly recommends this group. that's one reason why I stopped supporting him. As a former cult member, I can't with a good conscience, support anyone who believes a group like this is 'the work of God'.
Steve, I fully understand why you are cautious. You and I see Opus Dei differently. Every parish has a pack of cultists but that doesn't make it the SOP. There's cults in every corner. Opus Dei is used by many to get the support of Church teaching they don't get in the parish.
Lets not kill the prophets whom Michael and Fr Nicholson are among.
I would not followed that pied piper and would seek refuge in TLM permanently and advise others to do so, but only through Motu Proprio.
People going to SSPX are contributing to the the defiance against Christ and His Church- of a priest! The whole thing is a tangled web that is not of God.
If we are saddled with a Pope that binds error in our lifetime, I believe that releases the souls who commit what we know is sin from accountability. Somebody pays for the sin but its the person who caused them to sin in this scenario, if I understand theology that pertains to accountability for sin.
We are in trouble but I don't think Pope Francis will go that far.
he cannot bind us to believe something against the deposit of faith. he cannot. what dio you think the indefectibility of the church means? the Holy Spirit will prevent him from teaching error. he can make silly rules and regulations and maybe bad ones but he cannot teach (bind) anyone to believe that which is false. he is prevented from doing so. it is not so much that he may not do so-- he can not do so. and canon law is not part of the deposit of faith.
God Bless Ya Carol.....you sure are a stubborn Irish Woman ( takes one to know one)��some time back my husband and I were caring for his dad in our home...he was bedridden and on a feeding tube...suffice it to say, we were on a short leash. we devoutly attend the TLM but ours was not conducive time wise so we found the Dear priests of the SSPX in our area...the duration in which we attended was not very long but these men of God are extremely holy . After my father in law passed I heard some comments that perhaps we hadn't fullfilled our Sunday obligation so I went to confession to our dear priest at the TLM in Boston and he told me to fear not that our Sunday obligation was fullfilled. God Bless
Canon law is his license and if he follows, I don't see how it isn't bound to deposit of faith.
Lets say after the synod, they do the dirty deed and publish talking points that guide priests to stop teaching contraception is prohibited. The pope sits in audience smiling like a hiena and then at the end states the theology is spectacular, conflates heresy with mercy - the usual show we have been watching now for a year and a half.
The Jesuits run with the ball and new books are published to incorporate the nonsense.
It isn't bound at that point. It is just the usual and customary chaos of wolves in sheeps clothing.
But lets then say he convenes the circus of bishops we have been suffering with for decades and they re-write the Catechism to incorporate the heresy on contraception.
How is it not bound?
The people cannot be held accountable. The onus is on the authors an collaborators in the Holy See.
You and I and other spiritually sane people are not going to teach it, but I don't see how we could teach agin it. The Catechism trumps us. The authority has been hijacked and misused, it is illicit, but how could you opine it is not bound?
Carol, I think you need to read this before you get too enthusiastic about Fr. Nicholson. Do you think a man who makes light of a church ceremony (the imposition of ashes) is a sound, orthodox priest? Not to me he isn't! He looks like another Fr. Corapi to me. http://remnant.com/web/index/php/fetzen/-fliegen/item/311-the curious-case-of-fr-paul-nicholson
Shouting matches will not reconcile the SSPX with Rome
We need to start by praying, especially for those with whom we disagree
By Mary O'Regan on Friday, 26 September 2014 Catholic Herald
It is a cause for joy. This week Bishop Fellay met with the Prefect of the CDF Cardinal Müller for the first time since the resignation of Pope Benedict XVI.
There has been one unacceptable development. Catholics around the globe have reacted – as though they have no part to play in the reconciliation process.
We are wrong to place all the responsibility for reconciliation on the shoulders of the Church hierarchy and the SSPX leaders. There’s a simple test for every Catholic to see if they are helping or hindering the reconciliation. If you are a supporter of Cardinal Müller, could you pray for Bishop Fellay? Most tellingly, could you pray for the SSXP parishioners?
If you are a supporter of Bishop Fellay, are you willing to pray for Cardinal Müller? Or, if you only attend the SSPX, could you pray for Catholics who attend the Novus Ordo exclusively?
Perhaps the greater worldwide reconciliation between isolated Traditionalists and mainstream Catholics has to start with prayer – it will lend that essential softening of the heart.
But for some liberal Catholics, the idea of praying for Bishop Fellay or SSXP parishioners makes them wince. For Traditionalist Catholics, I have noticed bursts on anger whenever they merely hear the name of Cardinal Müller and disgust at the idea of praying for ‘those Vatican II Catholics’. But herein is the problem. It is the same cycle of holding each other in contempt. How on earth can there be reconciliation, when we react so defensively towards each other?
I suggest that ‘the Little Way’ of St Thérèse of Lisieux be adopted immediately, especially as her feast day is around the corner. In line with the Little Way, I would call on both sides to stop the shouting matches, the childish screams of ‘they started it’, and especially to stop compiling lists of faults that is meant to justify the position that ‘we are better than them!’
The reconciliation process between the SSPX and Rome is not just happening in a private room at the Vatican, but inside the heart of Catholics on both sides
do you think that if some authority higher than I am tells me not to preach about faith and morals as the Catholic church has always taught-- that I am going to pay any attention? any? I don't think so. And I will not consider myself disobedient to binding and loosing. if the competent authority tells me to preach a gospel other than the one I have received I will not preach it-- so this makes me disobedient to Christ? sorry. it does not. And the guarantee of indefectibility is joined to the teaching on infallibility which says that the Holy Spirit will prevent the pope insofar as he is the successor of saint Peter from teaching erroneously about faith or morals. The church cannot teach heresy-- even if all the members of the hierarchy want to do so. God will not allow it-- if an individual pope or bishop on their own wants me to preach or teach something that is in contradiction to the tradition of the church-- I don't do it-- in fact I have a duty not to. read the story of St Athanasius. he is our model/
No, I would not expect anyone who knows our fiat to preach a heresy, even if the Pope promulgated it. That's when the real fun begins.
But don't you agree the village idiots are then reased from culpability from the punishment from the sin and the onus goes on the pope?
That's what I mean by stuck with it. I don't know if I could publicly lead a crusade against something bound, but I would advise all to sit it out. Like liturgical dance and communion in the hand. Teach the reasons why we just don't do it.
Here we are talking like its a possibility.
Thank you for coming here and giving testimony to your faith. I know everyone here is blessed by it. You have given me a heads up I need to be clearer on what I am saying on binding and loosening.
Father, ha. Yes, I did a google. You are a seasoned warrior.
But come on...very wrong??? He might be exaggerating a tad but how would you feel about Joan Chittister simulating the Sacrament of Confession? It is as bad as it gets as far as I am concerned.
Fr. Nicholson is on the team too. Go easy on him.
How do you feel about the removal of the bishop in Paraguay for "the sake of unity" because the liberation theologists didn't get along with him?
I bet.
I remind you that Pope Francis calls Cardinal Kasper a great theologian and has used his appointment to promulgate heresy a d division. The man has destroyed any good will or credibility between the Pope and those who faithfully accept, practice and teach authentic theology.
If the Pope were trying to deliberately sabotage unity, he could not do a better job.
His Waterloo will be the removal of Cardi al Burke whereupon the only thing believers will be doing is hoping he carries through with his announcement that he too will renounce the papacy as quickly as possible.
the removal of Cardinal Burke is very clarifying. I would sat that any suffering that he endures because of this will only purify him until such time when there is another conclave and all the Cardinals are so exhausted that they cannot take it anymore-- they will just not be able to stand another ounce of modernism-just one more progressive squeak will send them all over the edge - not to mention that they wont have any money left either-- and they will elect Leo Cardinal Burke as Pontifex Maximus and the restoration can begin and God will return to me the joy of my youth.
Irish anon, the letter from the Hoky see states otherwise . Even Rorate admits it is questionable whether it fulfills Sunday obligation and the Sacrament of Confession is invalid. Since when did the practice of pursuing truth and practicing it, become "stubborn"?!!!
Steve, I try to stick with rejoicing in the truth when I hear it from a person and not get too caught up in the person itself. People are on a journey. They may fall or defect or start preaching an antigospel. Someone else will take their place and I rejoice again in God's gifts. I try not to get caught up in microscopic examinations that lead to suspicion of person.; Fr Nicholson is doing great service to Our Lord. It is ways a pleasure!
43 comments:
Where does he get his sense of proportion? See his fatherpaulnicholson.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/there-is-something-worse-than-black-mass.html
Tuesday, September 23, 2014
"There Is Something Worse Than A Black Mass: [A Traditional Latin Mass Offered by a Priest of the Society of Saint Pius X]"
See also "The Curious Case of Fr. Paul Nicholson" by Chris Jackson http://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/fetzen-fliegen/item/311-the-curious-case-of-fr-paul-nicholson
Oh man!
That was good, Carol. :^)
Thanks for posting it.
(BTW, you have an email from me)
CKev
What is at Patheos that destroys the columnists ability to think logically? Is it something in the water?
Yea his SSPX post was off the rails. Odd. Oh well
am I missing something? Did not Benedict XVI lift the excommunications of the Pius X bishops? wasn't there ecclesiastical agreement that the lay associates of Pius X were never considered excommunicated? are there not Masses celebrated regularly now in St Peter's Basilica by Pius X priests?
and these masses in Saint Peters are therefore worse than Black Masses?
this attitude and accusation is utterly wrong and wrongheaded. I am a priest in the Archdiocese of Chicago and not associated with the Society of Pius X in any way--and fr NIcholson is wrong.
Hi Father, other than one incident where it is unclear if the grantor who gave permission knew about the priests canonical status, I am unaware of any SSPX priest who has faculties in any diocese, anywhere in the world.
Are you?
I have no idea how the priest arranged to say Mass in St. Peters, but my gut instincts are, it was sloppy oversight.
I have a lot of SSPX readers who graciously forgive my own conclusions on reasons why Catholics need to stay clear of SSPX.
As I understand their status, the formal excommunications on the people were lifted but the group SSPX is outside of communion, leaving the priests who joined it without the canonical faculties to perform Sacraments. Without canonical faculties, the validity of the Sacrament of Confession is dubious at best and all evidence I found points to invalid.
Much like a canonical status is essential for a valid marriage.
Transubstantiation is valid but does not fulfill your Sunday obligation.
http://wdtprs.com/blog/2012/05/fulfilling-mass-obligation-at-sspx-chapels-has-there-been-a-reversal/
People who substitute going to Mass on Sunday for their obligation is clarified as 'sin'.
I could go on and on, but for me, there isn't a dime's worth of difference between SSPX and Joan Chittister. They don't accept the Church's power to bind and they have countless Catholics tethering their souls to invalid Sacraments and sin in the attendance of Sunday Mass as a substitute for Sunday obligation.
It absolutely astounds me that in any town, there are a stadium full of morons who would answer the call of Satan to worship him. I would venture a guess that most of them don't know what they are doing - something that can't be said for SSPX as they do know better. Perhaps that is where Fr. Nicholson is coming from - I don't know.
I have a lot of sympathy for people suffering from conditions in their parish or diocese that are deplorable.
But when the going got rough for the Body of Christ, they screwed.
I'm a Novus Ordo kind of gal but I have the honesty to admit Catholics who know what's going on in the Sanctuary have to use heroic virtue to try to place themselves in the Mystical of the Holy Sacrifice at the NO as the cast of characters use the captive audience to struggle for they attention they crave.
It is MUCH easier to pray the Mass at a TLM. The intercessions and efficacy of prayer, the depth of mystical connection to Christ, is incredible. Not to mention we hear Church teaching and are more effectively able to execute it during the week. I get it.
Leaving the Body of Christ to run to a place where the priests can't perform a valid Sacrament of Confession, who reject Church teaching, so I can experience a climb to a mountaintop?
Any way I slice it, it's pretty low on this Catholic's ethical standards and servitude to God.
I know it's upsetting that Fr. N compared it to satanic worship - and maybe I wouldn't go that far myself but I absolutely am in agreement with him that Catholics need to return to Christ's Mystical Body to whom the authority to deliver Sacraments has been bequeathed.
not a dime's worth of difference between them and Joan Chittister?
no. You can't believe that!
How is it that a group of people who believe everything my mother and father believed-- including the primacy of the Pope-are somehow considered not within the Church. I am sorry--not even the last two popes actually consider them out of the Church.
I celebrate both the Novus Ordo and the Extraordinary Form.
and my ecumenical spirit extends even to catholics in an irregular situation.
have they not even celebrated mass in Notre Dame de Paris?
Sadly, it's true!
They don't believe in the power of the Church to bind them to teaching. It's actually a major league rejection of Church teaching.
When it got really bad, (late 90s) I fled the NO with a few young children in tow. They had heard every kind of heresy to be heard. The final straw was a priest who poopood the Sacrament of Confession. I went to TLM and found there was a group there that rejected Church teaching on the opposite side of he spectrum.
What do you mean you'd extend to Catholics in irregular situations?
If I were shaking up, you'd keep letting me come every week to receive Sacrilegious Communion and let me wallow in the consequences of that in my personal life?
:)
I don't see how SSPX could say Mass in Notre Dame.
The people are back in communion but the group itself is not and so the priests in it don't have the canonical status to say Mass or perform other Saraments.
Maybe one pulled the wool over somebody's eyes, but I don't see how they could officially operate.
Good for you for finding your way to the TLM while still ministering to the spiritually poor in the NO. Best of both worlds!
they operate in those circumstances-- saying mass in various catholic churches because those in charge-- including the popes-- have concluded that Pius X are catholic albeit in an irregular and perhaps unique canonical status. what that status is is not that clear.
Maybe I am wrong-- after all I went to the seminary in the 60's and 70's--when even curiosity about the Traditional Latin MAss was considered morbid and sick and disobedient-- but I have the inkling that of all the things that Catholics can do wrong, there is a hierarchy of seriousness, and the denial of Catholic doctrine would seem somehow to be worse than a violation of canon law. And--in fact the Pius X people will use canon law itself to defend their position.
all I am saying is they are not the enemy. they are not the enemy.
and in your example--how can you equate fornication with whether or not some priest has canonical faculties?
that really is not the same.
when and if a regularization of Pius X Society comes about-- and we desperately need that-- with a wave of some future pope's pontifical hand all those putatively invalid weddings and confessions will be made valid.
I hope you will be happy then that full unity has finally been achieved with them. I know I will be happy. we need their gifts.
Rorate has a new post on this topic. It is a complicated question whether they are in full communion. Regardless, to compare for one moment their masses or activities to a black mass is awful. My humble opinion.
"- The content of today's [yesterday's] communiqué picks up, by the way, almost word by word [the contents] of the one of 2005. In 2005, "the meeting took place in an environment of love for the Church, and the desire to reach perfect communion. Though aware of the difficulties, the will was made clear to proceed by degrees, step by step, and in a reasonable time." Today [yesterday]: "it was decided to proceed gradually and over a reasonable period of time in order to overcome difficulties and with a view to the envisioned full reconciliation." We remark the difference: the qualification of the theological status of the SSPX is the object of a concept created for the occasion. Reaching "full communion" is not mentioned for it anymore, assimilating it by this fact, more or less, to the separated communities to which is reserved the expression "imperfect communion" (mistaken, by the way, because communion is not marked by degrees). But the communiqué states that the SSPX must find "full reconciliation". The SSPX, already in full communion, is not yet in full reconciliation.
Father, I would venture a guess that all readers here live TLM, will occasionally go and will be very glad if SSPX comes into communion.
I am surprised though to hear how you characterize the saying of Mass by a priest without faculties .
What do you mean they just operate that way?.
They can't by law.
If they do, it's illegal and disobedient . They are dragging some poor priest into the situation where he too will be disobedient for letting him use the Church he has been assigned to shepherd Christ's flock. Then all the people come, using it as their Sunday obligation leaving them in a state of sin. And, they are hearing confessions they know or should know do not absolve because they are invalid.
The situation is bad.
Re my example, I didn't know what you meant by empathy to folks in irregular situations. People living in sin are also in an irregular situation. Why extend illicitly, communion to one but not the other?
Simulating the sacrament of confession is as bad as it gets IMO.
I found Fr. Nicholson's comments on the Black Mass--wherin he scathingly condemned the SPPX ---downright OFFENSIVE. He condemned a mass that was the norm up until Vatican II. What absolute tripe and nasty pettiness from him!!
THis priest needs to get his facts right--The SSPX in NOT IN SCHISM. Secondly Archbishop Lefebvre was not excommunicated as Fr. Nicholson claims, and is likely not in hell as he also accused. He needs to check his sources before he goes shooting off at the mouth.Nor did Lefebvre ever deny the Magisterium.
In the meanwhile I am putting him in the same box with Fr. Barron---do not read nor listen to those who do not know the Faith nor the history of those they condemn. Fr. Nicholson's comments were utterly appalling--and I am not in the SSPX camp and never have been.
Fr. Nicholson did NOT condemn the Latin Mass. That is simply not true.
The issue is divided into
1. The people
2. The organization named SSPX
and here comes the most important part:
3. The Sacraments
The organization SSPX is outside of communion with Rome.
The Sacraments are so outside of communion, some of them, including Confession are invalid.
If anyone wants to kid themselves into believing a group outside of communion simulating the Sacraments is not a schism, swim in that river of denial. But at the end of the day, it doesn't matter.
If it looks like a duck, talks like a duck and walks like a duck, it's a duck.
Whatever you call it, the effect of SSPX is the same as a schism. These folks do not have faculaties to perform Sacraments and in disobedience, they are holing up in places pretending they do.
Quack Quack!
The teaching that the Church can bind us to Sacraments is a critical tenet of the Magisterium that is essential to put into practice every principle, dogma and doctrine in the Catechism.
SSPX rejects the teaching that it is the Church that binds our souls to teaching. They think it's them. They cant get over themselves to admit the Church has authority over teaching and if it is bound, it is bound. The Liturgy is bound. The pablum now memorialized in the Catechism is bound.
If Pope Francis reduces marriage to a contract which can be dispensed for not doing the laundry and canonically binds it - it is bound baby - no matter how damaging we know it will be to the survival of vows that are eternal. It is bound because Christ surrendered that right to Christ's Church and all we have to do is follow it to survive ourselves. We are not accountable. The binding is a get out of hell card.
SSPX rejects the Magisterial teaching of binding. There is not a dimes worth of difference between them and the nuns who have spent their entire lives leading Catholics to believe each one of us can bind teaching and be disobedient and lead others into disobedience.
Fr. Nicholson rocks. I would not go so far as to say the priests at SSPX are as bad as the satan worshipers but this is a group who is misleading Christ's elite and what they are doing is grossly offensive to people watching it and to our Beloved.
Carol, you need to do some remedial work on the status of SSPX. Bergoglio is in close negotiations with a group that you may shortly be "bound" to stop mischaracterizing as not in communion.
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2014/09/understanding-vatican-statement-sspx.html
Allen, I've done my homework. The group SSPX and their Sacraments are outside of communion. Hence the fact that they do not have faculties to perform Sacraments anywhere in the world.
If that changes, you won't see me crying!
But they have to admit that the Church binds teaching and I have serious doubts they ever will. I hope and pray I my gut instincts are wrong but until they obtain faculties to perform Sacraments and their Sacraments are valid, it is what it is.
If I had a Latin Mass convenient enough for me to attend every day, that is where I'd be. I don't and I have to be where God places me. I am not an enemy of TLM nor is Fr. Nicholson.
They do not have faculties to perform Sacraments. That is all anyone needs to know about them to know the Sacraments they are disobediently performing are outside of communion and some of them are invalid.
Nothing anyone else says or speculates or tries to make them changes that truth.
n.b. If you think I benefit by admitting my convictions, you are mistaken. More than half of my readers are TLM attendees. Most if not all through the license granted in Motu Proprio. Still, they are most sympathetic to SSPX.
The effect upon the soul of those they hold captive is too hard for me to take to have any respect for them at all. I hope and pray that readers are forgiving of my convictions. If they are not, I say what I say to benefit Christ and His One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church and I have no regrets.
God bless you - please pray for me!
If Pope Francis reduces marriage to a contract which can be dispensed for not doing the laundry and canonically binds it - it is bound baby - no matter how damaging we know it will be to the survival of vows that are eternal. It is bound because Christ surrendered that right to Christ's Church and all we have to do is follow it to survive ourselves.
Please Tenth Crusade--this is not what Catholics believe-- now or in the past. Binding and loosing has nothing to do with dogma-- and the catholic teaching about sacraments-- their form and matter and effect are dogma and not subject to change. They cannot be. It is about what is-- the nature and existence of a sacrament-not about what we want-Yes, the church can change the rubrics-- the church can fine tune its understanding of the form and matter-- but it cannot change the teaching about what the sacrament is. This is very clear in the catechism of the council of Trent-- or most any catholic catechism. The Church and the Pope do not bind as much as they are bound to what God has revealed-- and the form and matter of a sacrament are part of that-- no one can change it.
The good father needs to walk this one back, way back. Benedict XVI lifted the excommunication on this Society. This is not news. Their sacraments are valid except with the possibility of confession, but in that case, the person confessing would really need an intent to confess to someone thought to be "schismatic" to have it be an invalid confession. The Church "supplies" as the old Latin saying goes.
We do not say that Episcopalians having their Sunday services are doing things worse than a Black Mass. In fact Rome constantly apologizes to them and everyone else in history for mistakes which are largely someone else's responsibility.
Hi Carol,
I haven't commented in a while but I read you off and on because you are a fighter for the truth.
But I have to clarify a couple of points. First, the masses of the FSSPX are valid. Their priests are validly ordained.
Those who argue this point should educate themselves as to the distinction between "validity" and "licitness".
There is a dispute between pro-FSSPX and contra-FSSPX regarding the sacraments of Matrimony and Penance. This has to do with so-called "faculties" which are, according to canon law, subject to jurisdiction. In other words. the local ordinary has to allow confessions and matrimonial permission for the priest to render a valid sacrament.
Technically, all of the FSSPX sacraments are illicit, though their masses are valid and do fulfill the Sunday and holy day requirements.
There is a canonical dispute in the matter of supplied jurisdiction for Penance and Matrimony which I won't elaborate here. I have briefly commented on this on a recent BCI post and I don't want to rehash it here.
At any rate, that clown of a priest, Nicholson, is not only an agent of the Devil but is, like Corapi, a hubristic fool whose downfall is imminent. Quod Deus adiuvet!
Full disclosure: I am not a member of the FSSPX and have never attended one of their masses. In any event, the FSSPX is a priestly fraternity (i.e. Fraternitas sacerdotalis) and there are properly no lay members.
As a word to the wise, I would be very circumspect in my following of Nicholson as he appears to be, shall we charitably phrase it, a bit "leftish". If you catch my drift. He probably has his own agenda driven by his orientation.
Father, I agree. In my example, I used a ludicrous excuse for dissolution of marriage, but if where he is going is lowering the bar of excuses and then cheapening the process to make annulments quick and easy, we are stuck with it as bound.
He can't make polygamists access to Communion as that would be teaching he has no authority to change. But increasing excuses and changing process, I do t see how we could say he is jumped the rail. That was my point.
I do t know what we are going to do if he jumps the rail. I don't think he will and the book the five Cardinals wrote to get ahead of Kasper kinda pulls the rug out from underneath it all.
The statements he is making now that contradict Church teaching are not binding. They are divisive, they are disconcerting, they are passive-aggressive and very damaging. His ceedibility and trustworthyness is not recoverable. Too much water over the dam.
Not sure what will happen but leading to schismatics
And splinter groups , priests without faculties feigning they have power to absolve sin or fulfill Sunday obligation is something I will hand to hand combat.
Jack, glad to know you are well.
They can Transubstatiate bu according to Holy See doc linked it doesn't fulfill Sunday obligation. The Sacrament of Confession is not valid nor is marriage. A half hour drive we have Motu Proprio.
To suggest Fr Nicholson is a liberal, I just can't swallow!
P.S. we are NEVER stuck with anything as bound-- at least if it goes against the faith. our model is saint Paul-- and he certainly never felt stuck as bound with any of Peters Judaizing .
Jack, glad to know you are well.
They can Transubstatiate but according to Holy See doc linked above, it doesn't fulfill Sunday obligation.
The Sacrament of Confession is not valid nor is marriage. A half hour drive we have Motu Proprio. Why on earth would anyone bother with them ?
To suggest Fr Nicholson is a liberal, I just can't swallow!
Carol, I don't know if Fr. Nicholson is "leftist" or not, but IMO, regardless of our opinions of the SSPX, we should be wary of him. He's an Opus Dei priest, and that organization has a very shady reputation for being extremely cultic. WDTPRS readers can go to www.odan.org/index.htm for some very disturbing information on this group. BTW, Michael Voris highly recommends this group. that's one reason why I stopped supporting him. As a former cult member, I can't with a good conscience, support anyone who believes a group like this is 'the work of God'.
Steve, I fully understand why you are cautious. You and I see Opus Dei differently. Every parish has a pack of cultists but that doesn't make it the SOP. There's cults in every corner. Opus Dei is used by many to get the support of Church teaching they don't get in the parish.
Lets not kill the prophets whom Michael and Fr Nicholson are among.
Father, how would we not be stuck with it??!!
I would not followed that pied piper and would seek refuge in TLM permanently and advise others to do so, but only through Motu Proprio.
People going to SSPX are contributing to the the defiance against Christ and His Church- of a priest! The whole thing is a tangled web that is not of God.
If we are saddled with a Pope that binds error in our lifetime, I believe that releases the souls who commit what we know is sin from accountability. Somebody pays for the sin but its the person who caused them to sin in this scenario, if I understand theology that pertains to accountability for sin.
We are in trouble but I don't think Pope Francis will go that far.
he cannot bind us to believe something against the deposit of faith. he cannot. what dio you think the indefectibility of the church means? the Holy Spirit will prevent him from teaching error. he can make silly rules and regulations and maybe bad ones but he cannot teach (bind) anyone to believe that which is false. he is prevented from doing so. it is not so much that he may not do so-- he can not do so.
and canon law is not part of the deposit of faith.
God Bless Ya Carol.....you sure are a stubborn Irish Woman ( takes one to know one)��some time back my husband and I were caring for his dad in our home...he was bedridden and on a feeding tube...suffice it to say, we were on a short leash. we devoutly attend the TLM but ours was not conducive time wise so we found the Dear priests of the SSPX in our area...the duration in which we attended was not very long but these men of God are extremely holy . After my father in law passed I heard some comments that perhaps we hadn't fullfilled our Sunday obligation so I went to confession to our dear priest at the TLM in Boston and he told me to fear not that our Sunday obligation was fullfilled. God Bless
Canon law is his license and if he follows, I don't see how it isn't bound to deposit of faith.
Lets say after the synod, they do the dirty deed and publish talking points that guide priests to stop teaching contraception is prohibited. The pope sits in audience smiling like a hiena and then at the end states the theology is spectacular, conflates heresy with mercy - the usual show we have been watching now for a year and a half.
The Jesuits run with the ball and new books are published to incorporate the nonsense.
It isn't bound at that point. It is just the usual and customary chaos of wolves in sheeps clothing.
But lets then say he convenes the circus of bishops we have been suffering with for decades and they re-write the Catechism to incorporate the heresy on contraception.
How is it not bound?
The people cannot be held accountable. The onus is on the authors an collaborators in the Holy See.
You and I and other spiritually sane people are not going to teach it, but I don't see how we could teach agin it. The Catechism trumps us. The authority has been hijacked and misused, it is illicit, but how could you opine it is not bound?
n.b. I don't believe the Pope will go so far but am using as example!
Carol, I think you need to read this before you get too enthusiastic about Fr. Nicholson. Do you think a man who makes light of a church ceremony (the imposition of ashes) is a sound, orthodox priest? Not to me he isn't! He looks like another Fr. Corapi to me. http://remnant.com/web/index/php/fetzen/-fliegen/item/311-the curious-case-of-fr-paul-nicholson
Shouting matches will not reconcile the SSPX with Rome
We need to start by praying, especially for those with whom we disagree
By Mary O'Regan on Friday, 26 September 2014
Catholic Herald
It is a cause for joy. This week Bishop Fellay met with the Prefect of the CDF Cardinal Müller for the first time since the resignation of Pope Benedict XVI.
There has been one unacceptable development. Catholics around the globe have reacted – as though they have no part to play in the reconciliation process.
We are wrong to place all the responsibility for reconciliation on the shoulders of the Church hierarchy and the SSPX leaders. There’s a simple test for every Catholic to see if they are helping or hindering the reconciliation. If you are a supporter of Cardinal Müller, could you pray for Bishop Fellay? Most tellingly, could you pray for the SSXP parishioners?
If you are a supporter of Bishop Fellay, are you willing to pray for Cardinal Müller? Or, if you only attend the SSPX, could you pray for Catholics who attend the Novus Ordo exclusively?
Perhaps the greater worldwide reconciliation between isolated Traditionalists and mainstream Catholics has to start with prayer – it will lend that essential softening of the heart.
But for some liberal Catholics, the idea of praying for Bishop Fellay or SSXP parishioners makes them wince. For Traditionalist Catholics, I have noticed bursts on anger whenever they merely hear the name of Cardinal Müller and disgust at the idea of praying for ‘those Vatican II Catholics’. But herein is the problem. It is the same cycle of holding each other in contempt. How on earth can there be reconciliation, when we react so defensively towards each other?
I suggest that ‘the Little Way’ of St Thérèse of Lisieux be adopted immediately, especially as her feast day is around the corner. In line with the Little Way, I would call on both sides to stop the shouting matches, the childish screams of ‘they started it’, and especially to stop compiling lists of faults that is meant to justify the position that ‘we are better than them!’
The reconciliation process between the SSPX and Rome is not just happening in a private room at the Vatican, but inside the heart of Catholics on both sides
do you think that if some authority higher than I am tells me not to preach about faith and morals as the Catholic church has always taught-- that I am going to pay any attention? any? I don't think so. And I will not consider myself disobedient to binding and loosing. if the competent authority tells me to preach a gospel other than the one I have received I will not preach it-- so this makes me disobedient to Christ? sorry. it does not. And the guarantee of indefectibility is joined to the teaching on infallibility which says that the Holy Spirit will prevent the pope insofar as he is the successor of saint Peter from teaching erroneously about faith or morals.
The church cannot teach heresy-- even if all the members of the hierarchy want to do so. God will not allow it-- if an individual pope or bishop on their own wants me to preach or teach something that is in contradiction to the tradition of the church-- I don't do it-- in fact I have a duty not to. read the story of St Athanasius. he is our model/
Father, you are on the team!
No, I would not expect anyone who knows our fiat to preach a heresy, even if the Pope promulgated it. That's when the real fun begins.
But don't you agree the village idiots are then reased from culpability from the punishment from the sin and the onus goes on the pope?
That's what I mean by stuck with it. I don't know if I could publicly lead a crusade against something bound, but I would advise all to sit it out. Like liturgical dance and communion in the hand. Teach the reasons why we just don't do it.
Here we are talking like its a possibility.
Thank you for coming here and giving testimony to your faith. I know everyone here is blessed by it. You have given me a heads up I need to be clearer on what I am saying on binding and loosening.
hell! I was on the team before anybody knew there was a game goin on!
and I still think fr Nicholson is very wrong.
Father, ha. Yes, I did a google. You are a seasoned warrior.
But come on...very wrong??? He might be exaggerating a tad but how would you feel about Joan Chittister simulating the Sacrament of Confession? It is as bad as it gets as far as I am concerned.
Fr. Nicholson is on the team too. Go easy on him.
How do you feel about the removal of the bishop in Paraguay for "the sake of unity" because the liberation theologists didn't get along with him?
I bet.
I remind you that Pope Francis calls Cardinal Kasper a great theologian and has used his appointment to promulgate heresy a d division. The man has destroyed any good will or credibility between the Pope and those who faithfully accept, practice and teach authentic theology.
If the Pope were trying to deliberately sabotage unity, he could not do a better job.
His Waterloo will be the removal of Cardi al Burke whereupon the only thing believers will be doing is hoping he carries through with his announcement that he too will renounce the papacy as quickly as possible.
the removal of Cardinal Burke is very clarifying. I would sat that any suffering that he endures because of this will only purify him until such time when there is another conclave and all the Cardinals are so exhausted that they cannot take it anymore-- they will just not be able to stand another ounce of modernism-just one more progressive squeak will send them all over the edge - not to mention that they wont have any money left either-- and they will elect Leo Cardinal Burke as Pontifex Maximus and the restoration can begin and God will return to me the joy of my youth.
Irish anon, the letter from the Hoky see states otherwise . Even Rorate admits it is questionable whether it fulfills Sunday obligation and the Sacrament of Confession is invalid. Since when did the practice of pursuing truth and practicing it, become "stubborn"?!!!
Steve, I try to stick with rejoicing in the truth when I hear it from a person and not get too caught up in the person itself. People are on a journey. They may fall or defect or start preaching an antigospel. Someone else will take their place and I rejoice again in God's gifts. I try not to get caught up in microscopic examinations that lead to suspicion of person.; Fr Nicholson is doing great service to Our Lord. It is ways a pleasure!
ps Irish Lassie, I miss and love you and the Irish lad. I would really love to see you both. Email me and lets set a time
Post a Comment