I like the way Cardinal Fernández is often willing to talk to The Pillar. I will ask Bl. Marie-Eugene (since it is his day today I will make it his problem) to pray that all parties will be humbly docile to the movement of the Holy Spirit in their hearts.
Are you saying this because Cardinal Fernandez has actually shown himself to be one of the great theologians of our age and is of unimpeachable character, and I am off base?
Or, are you suggesting that, despite his being neither (and perhaps quite the opposite) the laity should look the other way?
You absolutely have the right to your opinion, but other than being snarky, your comment lacks charity for someone who answered the call to do the work of the Church. He deserves your prayers not your snide personal bias.
True, but have you tried being snarky? It gives you a warm and fuzzy feeling and it makes people hit the like button for snide personal bias more than charity and prayers. It's basically free dopamine.
So, aside from being snarky, your comment seems to miss the main thrust of Sheri’s point.
She is concerned, it seems to me, first and foremost with the content of my message. That is, “other than being snarky,” it lacks “charity” and represents my “snide personal bias.”
I have deep, deep reservations about the damage the Cardinal has done to the Church’s magisterium and credibility (to say nothing of certain *ahem* scandalous publications on his part).
Those reservations are not unfair (aka biased) nor is expressing those reservations a lack of charity. I hope and pray for the best, but alas, one goes into negotiations with the cardinals one has (to paraphrase Rumsfeld).
As Lumen Gentium said, laity are an important part of the Church too, and while we are not permitted to vote Vatican officials in or out, nor to do their jobs for them, we are certainly entitled to express reasonable opinions about their competence and handling of Church situations. Dante did exactly that and everybody called it art.
I think more importantly, we serve as a check against human clerical abuse of power in the Church, as we hold power of the purse. Without us, the earthly Church does not exist. More and more, that lesson needs to be driven home.
Legitimately, yes. His works are informative. He's well-written in Theology (see his work on the interplay of grace and justification), Biblical Theology, and he doesn't just write at an academic level, but has written good books on popular spirituality (Los Cinco Minutos del Espiritu Santo is a favorite). Plus, he has a great capacity for work, as his output with the DDF shows. He's an impressive talent.
Thanks for joining us Cardinal Fernández! You know you don't need to use a pen name around us, right?
(THIS is how you do snarky meh)
Serious mode: I am of two minds with Cardinal Fernández
A-I do get the impression from his writing that he does take his faith seriously, which isn't the impression that I get from many Cardinals and Bishops who reach the higher echelons of our hierarchy. In his writings (ex-his Jan 27 meditation) I can often find nuggets of truth or insights that I can reflect on that are genuinely spiritually useful.
I am also grateful that his is so willing to speak to The Pillar. The writers, here, are often critical of the things he says, does, and writes but his willingness to speak to them is critical for adding clarity and point-of-view to the articles. I dread to think of the various incorrect assumptions that have been dead-ended because of that openness. He gets my upmost praise for that.
B-He is FAR too imprecise in his language (spoken, written, and published).
His tendency to to make >10,000 word tomes that should be less than 3,000 often lead to points that DESERVE criticism. They often lead to immense arguments among the faithful, scandalize, and open the Church to unjust criticism (ex.-see the 'Blessings for Couples' debacle).
His past "erotic' writings and his handling of egregious abuse cases (both as Archbishop and as prefect of the DDF) haunt him in a way that seriously damages his ability to keep the image of the Church and its teachings from being stained cherry-red from the start. Any other cleric who wasn't a personal friend of Pope Francis would have never been considered for this post with those red marks.
All this said, I think he was a terrible choice to lead the DDF. Any remarks, snark, or criticism that I throw at him is SOLELY due to his leading the DDF and the harm he has caused the Church due to his ghostwriting for the late pontiff. I could, honestly, see myself enjoying time and conversation with him and I don't want to be taken as hating him personally (I'm free to chat if you want Cardinal!).
Many, many people will disagree with me on this position and have found themselves drawn closer to the Church and been edified in all that he has done (praise be to God for that). There have also been a tremendous number who have had their Faith egregiously damaged by him as well. One the balance, I would say his tenure has been a net negative.
And yet he is not considered competent enough to handle abuse cases. The Church needs someone at the DDF who is not compromised by this fatal deficiency.
I judged him as incompetent. I regard it as completely unacceptable that the head of the DDF thinks deep thoughts but is unaccountable for handling abuse cases.
In some ways sad the Vatican at least seems to be caving to SSPX after they whined and threw a temper tantrum. But also good that they are willing to talk to fellow Catholics (hmm..) about real problems that affect a lot of people. Or maybe not a "lot" of people, depending which stats you believe.
It makes sense for the Vatican to at least try to prevent a significant schism, rather than have a repeat of the Orthodox situations where we are still trying to repair the damage over a thousand years later. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
Here is an idea. Why does the Vatican insist on restricting practice of a rite that has existed in the Church for over 1500 years? If that were not the case, I suspect the SSPX would not have a need for their own bishops.
Pagliarini speaks perfect Spanish and I think has spent some time in Argentina. I think Tucho is fairly suitable for this role right now: no arrogance, no pretending and comes from the 'todos, todos, todos' vibe. Anyhow, the problem is way bigger than Pagliarini can solve himself. Like in 1988, there is no way back, because the laypeople base, the silent majority in the SSPX, the ones that put the money on the table, do not want a reconciliation. I think it must be similar to what happened with the reunion with the Orthodox back in the XV century: the people back in the pews never accepted reunion either.
Information flow and alternatives also played a role. There was far more cross conversion in Western Europe after the Reformation. It would be interesting to study how we have eastern churches still under Rome.
Well the Maronites never split off from Rome. My understanding is they just went up in the hills and did their own thing for centuries.
I also understand that for a while after the Great Schism, the Catholic Church was still canonizing some fairly contemporary Orthodox saints, so things were pretty fuzzy for a while.
I have several questions: did the SSPX ever have specific issues with Vatican II, or did they form due to generalized dissatisfaction with liturgical changes? Also, how is it that the bishops they consecrated were in fact validly consecrated?
Re: your second question, validity and liceity are two different things. Someone who has been validly ordained a bishop himself has the sacramental power to ordain new bishops and priests, by the fact of his having been so ordained. No personal declaration, sinful act, or papal edict can change that, any more than someone can become 'unbaptized.' However, a bishop may lose the authority to licitly administer certain sacraments, say through an act of disobedience to the Pope. A similar situation holds for laicized priests—they still have all the powers of a priest, up to and including absolving sins and confecting the Eucharist, even if they are canonically forbidden from doing so publicly.
Thus, the four bishops consecrated by Marcel Lefevbre are really bishops, assuming that he used the appropriate matter and form of Holy Orders, even though doing so was an illicit act because JPII expressly forbade it. Likewise, anyone they ordain would themselves be validly ordained, albeit presumably illicitly, at least in the case of consecrating new bishops.
(By the by, a similar logic holds for the Orthodox: they never ditched the proper matter and form of the sacraments, so they still have apostolic succession and all their sacraments are valid, if not ordinarily licit for a Catholic to receive except in case of grave danger of death. The Anglicans, on the other hand, both changed the form of Holy Orders and attempted to ordain women, which breaks the chain of apostolic succession and means the only sacrament they can validly administer is baptism, because literally anyone can do that.)
Chris is right that a priest must ordinarily have faculties from (e.g.) a bishop in order to offer absolution validly. The power to consecrate the Eucharist he possesses by virtue of priestly ordination itself, but the power to absolve (outside of situations in extremis) requires faculties from the local ordinary.
Anglicans (and Lutherans, et al.) have not only valid baptisms but valid marriages, since any man and woman who are validly baptized can (barring other inhibiting factors, like a vow of celibacy) enter into a sacramental marriage by that very fact.
Thanks to you and Chris for the worthwhile corrections. I had indeed misremembered with respect to absolution. As regards Anglican marriage, I was specifically referring to sacraments that could be validly administered by Anglican clergy, which excludes marriage anyways since priests only witness it. I see in retrospect that I didn't make that distinction clear, however.
Regarding Vatican II, its website seems to say that it accepts most of the positions of the Vatican II Council, but not all of them. It would explain that the teachings it rejects were only observations or opinions of the Council, not doctrinal statements. Officially at least, the society accepts the validity of the Mass approved by the Council, but thinks that this approval was a bad idea. There are probably, however, many individual members, including some priests, who more reject the council as a whole. If the SSPX can be brought back into regular status (perhaps through a personal ordinariate), there would be the question of what affirmation each person, and especially each priest, would have to make, individually to return to full communion.
Ah, good, our top mind is on it, then.
🤯
Please God, he’ll have backup with him
It's time to stop disparaging Cardinal Fernandez.
I like the way Cardinal Fernández is often willing to talk to The Pillar. I will ask Bl. Marie-Eugene (since it is his day today I will make it his problem) to pray that all parties will be humbly docile to the movement of the Holy Spirit in their hearts.
Worst heavenly birthday present ever.
It’s true, the openness is oddly refreshing.
Your replies always make me smile, Bridget.
Are you saying this because Cardinal Fernandez has actually shown himself to be one of the great theologians of our age and is of unimpeachable character, and I am off base?
Or, are you suggesting that, despite his being neither (and perhaps quite the opposite) the laity should look the other way?
You absolutely have the right to your opinion, but other than being snarky, your comment lacks charity for someone who answered the call to do the work of the Church. He deserves your prayers not your snide personal bias.
True, but have you tried being snarky? It gives you a warm and fuzzy feeling and it makes people hit the like button for snide personal bias more than charity and prayers. It's basically free dopamine.
So, aside from being snarky, your comment seems to miss the main thrust of Sheri’s point.
She is concerned, it seems to me, first and foremost with the content of my message. That is, “other than being snarky,” it lacks “charity” and represents my “snide personal bias.”
I have deep, deep reservations about the damage the Cardinal has done to the Church’s magisterium and credibility (to say nothing of certain *ahem* scandalous publications on his part).
Those reservations are not unfair (aka biased) nor is expressing those reservations a lack of charity. I hope and pray for the best, but alas, one goes into negotiations with the cardinals one has (to paraphrase Rumsfeld).
I understand that Cardinal Fernandez's comment about keyboard theologians has hit a nerve.
Maybe by “expressing” you should do so candidly under your real name instead of hiding behind a fake one?
It is possible to do any good action without charity. (1 Corinthians 13:1-6)
What was the intention behind your comment? What purpose did it serve?
No, that time will be maybe when he retires.
As Lumen Gentium said, laity are an important part of the Church too, and while we are not permitted to vote Vatican officials in or out, nor to do their jobs for them, we are certainly entitled to express reasonable opinions about their competence and handling of Church situations. Dante did exactly that and everybody called it art.
*reasonable opinions
I think more importantly, we serve as a check against human clerical abuse of power in the Church, as we hold power of the purse. Without us, the earthly Church does not exist. More and more, that lesson needs to be driven home.
The time to stop disparaging Cardinal Fernández is rapidly approaching a middle.
Legitimately, yes. His works are informative. He's well-written in Theology (see his work on the interplay of grace and justification), Biblical Theology, and he doesn't just write at an academic level, but has written good books on popular spirituality (Los Cinco Minutos del Espiritu Santo is a favorite). Plus, he has a great capacity for work, as his output with the DDF shows. He's an impressive talent.
Thanks for joining us Cardinal Fernández! You know you don't need to use a pen name around us, right?
(THIS is how you do snarky meh)
Serious mode: I am of two minds with Cardinal Fernández
A-I do get the impression from his writing that he does take his faith seriously, which isn't the impression that I get from many Cardinals and Bishops who reach the higher echelons of our hierarchy. In his writings (ex-his Jan 27 meditation) I can often find nuggets of truth or insights that I can reflect on that are genuinely spiritually useful.
I am also grateful that his is so willing to speak to The Pillar. The writers, here, are often critical of the things he says, does, and writes but his willingness to speak to them is critical for adding clarity and point-of-view to the articles. I dread to think of the various incorrect assumptions that have been dead-ended because of that openness. He gets my upmost praise for that.
B-He is FAR too imprecise in his language (spoken, written, and published).
His tendency to to make >10,000 word tomes that should be less than 3,000 often lead to points that DESERVE criticism. They often lead to immense arguments among the faithful, scandalize, and open the Church to unjust criticism (ex.-see the 'Blessings for Couples' debacle).
His past "erotic' writings and his handling of egregious abuse cases (both as Archbishop and as prefect of the DDF) haunt him in a way that seriously damages his ability to keep the image of the Church and its teachings from being stained cherry-red from the start. Any other cleric who wasn't a personal friend of Pope Francis would have never been considered for this post with those red marks.
All this said, I think he was a terrible choice to lead the DDF. Any remarks, snark, or criticism that I throw at him is SOLELY due to his leading the DDF and the harm he has caused the Church due to his ghostwriting for the late pontiff. I could, honestly, see myself enjoying time and conversation with him and I don't want to be taken as hating him personally (I'm free to chat if you want Cardinal!).
Many, many people will disagree with me on this position and have found themselves drawn closer to the Church and been edified in all that he has done (praise be to God for that). There have also been a tremendous number who have had their Faith egregiously damaged by him as well. One the balance, I would say his tenure has been a net negative.
I could not agree more or have said it better myself.
And yet he is not considered competent enough to handle abuse cases. The Church needs someone at the DDF who is not compromised by this fatal deficiency.
Cardinal Fernandez requested that the work of investigating abuse cases be separated from the doctrinal section. No one judged him as incompetent.
I judged him as incompetent. I regard it as completely unacceptable that the head of the DDF thinks deep thoughts but is unaccountable for handling abuse cases.
Two Popes disagree with you.
Who appointed you spokesman for Leo XIV?
In some ways sad the Vatican at least seems to be caving to SSPX after they whined and threw a temper tantrum. But also good that they are willing to talk to fellow Catholics (hmm..) about real problems that affect a lot of people. Or maybe not a "lot" of people, depending which stats you believe.
It makes sense for the Vatican to at least try to prevent a significant schism, rather than have a repeat of the Orthodox situations where we are still trying to repair the damage over a thousand years later. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
Here is an idea. Why does the Vatican insist on restricting practice of a rite that has existed in the Church for over 1500 years? If that were not the case, I suspect the SSPX would not have a need for their own bishops.
I wish someone other than Tucho was leading this effort, but I will pray for its success nevertheless.
Offer paid access to a livestream of this meeting and the Vatican's financial woes will be over instantly.
Pagliarini speaks perfect Spanish and I think has spent some time in Argentina. I think Tucho is fairly suitable for this role right now: no arrogance, no pretending and comes from the 'todos, todos, todos' vibe. Anyhow, the problem is way bigger than Pagliarini can solve himself. Like in 1988, there is no way back, because the laypeople base, the silent majority in the SSPX, the ones that put the money on the table, do not want a reconciliation. I think it must be similar to what happened with the reunion with the Orthodox back in the XV century: the people back in the pews never accepted reunion either.
The people back in the Orthodox pews didn't have much of a choice in most cases, due to the geography of the split.
Information flow and alternatives also played a role. There was far more cross conversion in Western Europe after the Reformation. It would be interesting to study how we have eastern churches still under Rome.
Well the Maronites never split off from Rome. My understanding is they just went up in the hills and did their own thing for centuries.
I also understand that for a while after the Great Schism, the Catholic Church was still canonizing some fairly contemporary Orthodox saints, so things were pretty fuzzy for a while.
I have several questions: did the SSPX ever have specific issues with Vatican II, or did they form due to generalized dissatisfaction with liturgical changes? Also, how is it that the bishops they consecrated were in fact validly consecrated?
Re: your second question, validity and liceity are two different things. Someone who has been validly ordained a bishop himself has the sacramental power to ordain new bishops and priests, by the fact of his having been so ordained. No personal declaration, sinful act, or papal edict can change that, any more than someone can become 'unbaptized.' However, a bishop may lose the authority to licitly administer certain sacraments, say through an act of disobedience to the Pope. A similar situation holds for laicized priests—they still have all the powers of a priest, up to and including absolving sins and confecting the Eucharist, even if they are canonically forbidden from doing so publicly.
Thus, the four bishops consecrated by Marcel Lefevbre are really bishops, assuming that he used the appropriate matter and form of Holy Orders, even though doing so was an illicit act because JPII expressly forbade it. Likewise, anyone they ordain would themselves be validly ordained, albeit presumably illicitly, at least in the case of consecrating new bishops.
(By the by, a similar logic holds for the Orthodox: they never ditched the proper matter and form of the sacraments, so they still have apostolic succession and all their sacraments are valid, if not ordinarily licit for a Catholic to receive except in case of grave danger of death. The Anglicans, on the other hand, both changed the form of Holy Orders and attempted to ordain women, which breaks the chain of apostolic succession and means the only sacrament they can validly administer is baptism, because literally anyone can do that.)
I believe a priest must have faculties to validly absolve, except in danger of death.
Chris is right that a priest must ordinarily have faculties from (e.g.) a bishop in order to offer absolution validly. The power to consecrate the Eucharist he possesses by virtue of priestly ordination itself, but the power to absolve (outside of situations in extremis) requires faculties from the local ordinary.
Anglicans (and Lutherans, et al.) have not only valid baptisms but valid marriages, since any man and woman who are validly baptized can (barring other inhibiting factors, like a vow of celibacy) enter into a sacramental marriage by that very fact.
Thanks to you and Chris for the worthwhile corrections. I had indeed misremembered with respect to absolution. As regards Anglican marriage, I was specifically referring to sacraments that could be validly administered by Anglican clergy, which excludes marriage anyways since priests only witness it. I see in retrospect that I didn't make that distinction clear, however.
Regarding Vatican II, its website seems to say that it accepts most of the positions of the Vatican II Council, but not all of them. It would explain that the teachings it rejects were only observations or opinions of the Council, not doctrinal statements. Officially at least, the society accepts the validity of the Mass approved by the Council, but thinks that this approval was a bad idea. There are probably, however, many individual members, including some priests, who more reject the council as a whole. If the SSPX can be brought back into regular status (perhaps through a personal ordinariate), there would be the question of what affirmation each person, and especially each priest, would have to make, individually to return to full communion.