The Upside-Down Church?

We’ve all heard the charges – you’re disobedient, schismatic, your priests don’t have canonical jurisdiction, their sacraments aren’t valid, etc, etc, ad nauseam. At a time when the Occupant of the Chair of Peter sees fit to issue an encylical on “climate change” while babies are being slaughtered both in and out of the womb and their fetal tissue being sold for profit with the complicity of so-called catholic politicians, we are told that we, traditionalists, are the ones that are out of step and the cause of disunity in the Church. We, who attempt to hold fast to traditions handed down by the apostles as commanded by St Paul in his second epistle to the Thessalonians, we’re the problem and if we’d only “get with the program (i.e., post Vatican II magisterium)” things would be fine.

The foregoing would be bad enough but even worse is the prospect that we may lose our souls in the confusion that reigns in the magisterium of the Church these days. I recall the words of Christ Himself who said: “And fear ye not them that kill the body, and are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him that can destroy both soul and body in hell.” Matthew 10:28. And, I recall the words of Bishop Tissier de Mallerais who said, and I’m paraphrasing, there is such a thing as “spiritual death” which is, of course, death of the soul and the doctrine of “ecclesia supplet” or, the Church provides in a necessity, is designed to prevent such a calamity.

Now we have just heard of a situation wherein a penitent was told by a priest that he could not absolve him because he, the penitent, had not registered with a parish that had been setup by the local bishop in conjunction with the FSSP. Now, I will not explore the complexities of the issue involving the motives of the penitent and the jurisdiction of the priest at this time but I will say that this appears to be almost a “divide and conquer tactic” by the modernist establishment to “bring those recalitrant traditionalists in line.” We all know that the Church supplies faculties and jurisdiction to even a suspended priest in case of physical death but what about “spiritual death” or the loss of one’s soul? Is that not the overriding issue in this case? For what it’s worth, I believe it is.

Get AQ Email Updates

6 comments on “The Upside-Down Church?

  1. Since I mentioned Bishop Tissier in my post, I feel obligated to provide what he actually said taken from

    “The case of necessity for the traditional faithful”

    “The fact that heresy, and even apostasy, is widely spread amongst the clergy, leaves the faithful, and especially those who want to keep the faith and the true religion, as sheep scattered and without a pastor.”

    “You can easily see, my dear friends, that it is the case of necessity amongst the faithful which is responsible for the fact that traditional priests and bishops have a supplied jurisdiction with respect to your needs. This is not only so that they may validly hear confessions and validly assist at marriages, but also for all of the acts of their priestly or episcopal ministry.”

    For confessions, you certainly remember that Archbishop Lefebvre invoked the principle of the “danger of spiritual death” of the faithful. Just see the unhappy faithful who have no priests of certain doctrine, and who sometimes even doubt the validity of their confessions: “Does this priest really have the necessary intention so as to validly absolve?” They can readily doubt this. “If I can no longer go to confession then I am exposed to fall and perhaps to fall into grave sins. Who knows? My eternal salvation is at risk, I am in danger of spiritual death.”

    “The Church supplies, for the Church places ipso facto (by the fact itself) this Catholic under the jurisdiction of a priest. The Church places this Catholic as a sheep of a priest who will be his pastor for a determined case. Thus is established between the faithful Catholic and his priest a relationship as the sheep or the lamb with respect to the shepherd.The only thing is that this relationship of authority does not come from a delegation from the hierarchy of the Church, but by the Church, the Mystical Body of Our Lord, herself supplying.”

  2. Quote: “… the unhappy faithful who have no priests of certain doctrine, and who sometimes even doubt the validity of their confessions: “Does this priest really have the necessary intention so as to validly absolve?” They can readily doubt this.”

    Is there some implication, above, that a Novus Ordo priest who enters the confessional, vested in the purple stole, and who listens to a sincere penitent’s integral and sincere confession and pronounces “Ego te absolvo” (REGARDLESS OF ANY IGNORANCE, CONFUSION OR EVEN HERETICAL NOTIONS IN THE PRIEST’S MIND) has somehow NOT absolved the penitent?

    Now, if said priest were to privately admit to the same penitent that he, the priest, does not believe in priestly absolution and/or has no personal intention whatsoever of providing it, or to declare the same publicly, then there would be OBJECTIVE, hard evidence that there’s a grave problem.

    But absent such objective evidence, freely provided by the priest himself, then the penitent, or a whole bunch of penitents for that matter, would only be engaging in a SUBJECTIVE exercise absent any objective grounds for pursuing the matter.

    Whereas the Church, exactly like Her Founder, Christ – God, does NOT demand the impossible (in this case, reading the priest’s soul in lieu of his open admission of his heresy), why would any Catholic, traditional or not, presume to perform an impossible “judgment” strictly on his own “authority” (which doesn’t even exist)?

    If, since time immemorial, the Church has always taught that even a defrocked priest (who may be living in concubinage or dealing drugs or whatever else) can validly absolve in cases of imminent danger of death, then whence this “doubt” over a Novus Ordo cleric who PUBLICLY ENTERS THE CONFESSIONAL AND PERFORMS THE ACTIONS AND WORDS THE CHURCH (not he) INTENDS TO EFFECT ABSOLUTION?


    “The power of jurisdiction … is immediately directed to ruling the faithful with reference to the attainment of life eternal, and is actuated through the authoritative teaching of revealed truths (sacred magisterium), and through the promulgation of laws (legislative power), together with the authoritative decision of legal actions involving its subjects (judicial power), and the application of penal sanctions against transgressors of the law (coactive or coercive power).”
    Parente, Piolani, and Garofalo,
    Dictionary of Dogmatic Theology, s.v. “Hierarchy.”

    It is utterly impossible to believe that a priest or bishop who lacks the Catholic Faith might possess jurisdiction to rule “the faithful with reference to the attainment of life eternal” while one who professes the Faith openly and clearly does not possess such jurisdiction.

    The schism of Montini-Bergoglio is… well, upside down!

    in XTO,

  4. Actually, it’s a matter of administrative jurisdiction, ultimately attributable to the pope and, going from the higher to the lower authority, to those he empowers to rule in his name (i.e., the grant of authority) at the diocesan level.

    Church history is replete, in virtually any age during the past two millennia, with heretic bishops and clergy. However, the Church has, comparatively speaking, rarely removed them or revoked their grants of authority to the ordained. In other words, a man ordained and incardinated by an eventually-yanked bishop remains a priest and pastor.

    Believe it or not, I did read that more than a hundred bishops were quietly removed under Benedict XVI. Some may wish to speculate that that was one of the smoking guns that led to his resignation. Progressives are not afraid of anyone above them (even God) or below them in the pecking order. And blackmail and threats are just part and parcel of their game.

  5. Anyway, ex opere operato.

    Despite the interior disposition of any ordained or consecrated individual, the Church supplies ( Ecclesia supplet * ) in cases of “unworthiness,” (as long as the correct FORM is followed) lest the sheep be deprived of Sacramental grace.

    * Can. 144 §1. In factual or legal common error and in positive and probable doubt of law or of fact, the Church supplies executive power of governance for both the external and internal forum.

  6. Patrick,
    With respect to governance it seems that priests do indeed have the power to withhold absolution for just cause as Our Lord said: “whose sins you shall forgive they are forgiven them and who sins you shall retain, they are retained.” I don’t think any true Catholic doubts this. But Our Lord is the “Power behind the powers,” so-to-speak, and He will be the final judge in instances of doubt. In others words He will ratify, or not, the actions of the priest. This is because He is All-Good, All-Knowing and All-Just and cannot by His Nature sustain error.

    Now, the problem is with all that has happened in the last 50 years or so, what is just cause for withholding absolution say, for a person who has been attending an independent traditional chapel and just happens to be investigating an “indult” Mass in the local diocese or, is thinking the issue through thoroughly and just hasn’t made a final decision. Suppose, for example, a person believes that he or she can only save his or her soul by continuing to attend a traditional independent chapel which adheres clearly to the traditional magisterium with absolutely no concessions to Modernism, whose priests are validly ordained but do not have the power of governance from the local bishop. Is not the salvation of souls the lex suprema of the Church? Is not the power of governance given to the priests in this instance via the doctrine of ecclesia supplet? I believe that Bishop Tissier is saying they do and I believe his logic is unassailable. However, I’m no expert in these matters and will humbly accept correction by others more knowledgable than I.

Leave a Reply