17-Jun-09 - Ordinations by Fraternity of St. Pius X Remain Illegitimate [EWTN]

[EWTN_News]

VATICAN CITY, 17 JUN 2009 (VIS) - The Holy See Press Office published the following communique at midday today:
"In response to the frequent questions that have been raised over recent days concerning the priestly ordinations by the Fraternity of St. Pius X, scheduled to take place at the end of June, suffice it to refer to what the Holy Father wrote in his Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on 10 March this year: “As long as the Society (of St. Pius X) does not have a canonical status in the Church, its ministers do not exercise legitimate ministries in the Church. … Until the doctrinal questions are clarified, the Society has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers … do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church”.

Full article…

 

[AdvanceAlways]

Interesting. All we can do is continue to pray for Bishop Fellay and the Society.

 

[I_Believe]

So what ? H.H. BXVI lifted the excommunications knowing full well the SSPX isn’t going to cave.

Then our Holy Father has to write a letter to his Bishops in response to those supposedly in full communion with him questioning his prudence in lifting the excommunications.

How about the fact that the TLM is still suppressed in some areas despite the Summorum Pontificum ?

We going to talk about that ? Oh, heavens no !

 

[JKirkLVNV]

So what ? H.H. BXVI lifted the excommunications knowing full well the SSPX isn’t going to cave. What does this mean?

Then our Holy Father has to write a letter to his Bishops in response to those supposedly in full communion with him questioning his prudence in lifting the excommunications.Well, I’m curious (not hostile to the SSPX, in other words)…if “taditionalists” can question the prudence of promulgation of the Novus Ordo by one pope (or any of the other decisions a pope has made that they don’t like), can’t the bishops question the prudence of lifting the excommunications? I’m glad he did, it seems merciful and I know how much I need that, but still…it seems curious that one who self-identifies as a "traditionalist"would resent the bishops questioning papal prudence, since they question it so much themselves.

How about the fact that the TLM is still suppressed in some areas despite the Summorum Pontificum ?

We going to talk about that ? Oh, heavens no !

**Where is it being suppressed? **

 

[I_Believe]

**Where is it being suppressed? **

I’ll answer when I get home from work. But for now, I asked a pastor of a diocesan parish if he had read the SP. He said yes. I then asked him if he had any requests for the TLM. He said “yes, a few, but we did away with that a long time ago.” After that, he was very cold towards me. Previously, he seemed to enjoy my company.

In other words, yes he read it, but he is going to ignore it. Pretty much puts him in the same boat as " those disobedient renegades " lol.

Like sand through the hour glass, …

 

[OhMalley]

I’ll answer when I get home from work. But for now, I asked a pastor of a diocesan parish if he had read the SP. He said yes. I then asked him if he had any requests for the TLM. He said “yes, a few, but we did away with that a long time ago.” After that, he was very cold towards me. Previously, he seemed to enjoy my company.

In other words, yes he read it, but he is going to ignore it. Pretty much puts him in the same boat as " those disobedient renegades " lol.

Like sand through the hour glass, …

So what are you suggesting exactly? That the language in the MP was less than clear and that the Pope needs to phone your pastor?

The language of the MP was very clear.

 

[ProVobis]

This begs the question: Why can’t the Vatican (or the Ecclesia Dei commission) appoint a “legitimate” bishop to ordain them if they qualify for the priesthood? It’s not like they hadn’t expected this possibile outcome of priests-in-training when the Holy Father lifted the consecrations. It seems as if there are loose ends that need to be addressed quickly. What are these seminarians supposed to do now?

If nothing is done, then we’re going to have 1988 (set up to fail) all over again.

 

[Spirithound]

What is the punishment for illicit priestly ordinations?

 

[Tsuwano]

The SSPX knows what it must do in order to enter into full communion with the Church. The Church, guided by the Holy Father, has been generous in extending the hand of reconciliation to the Society. It is up to them to offer a hand in return. To illicitly ordain priests at this point in the discussions would be rightly seen as an afront to the Holy Father and would underscore a lack of sincerity on the part of the Society in its dealings with the Church. The SSPX is fully aware of this. The Holy Father has faced severe criticism, and even embarrassment regarding the Bishop Williams affair, in his attempt to regularize the relationship between the Church and the SSPX. The Society should show it’s good faith and respect for the Holy Father by waiting to hold these ordinations when they can be both valid and licit.

 

[reggieM]

This begs the question: Why can’t the Vatican (or the Ecclesia Dei commission) appoint a “legitimate” bishop to ordain them if they qualify for the priesthood?

The SSPX considers its own bishops to be “legitimate”. The Vatican can set up whatever it wants, but this is a two-way conversation and one party doesn’t want to play by the rules. So I think a better question is: “Why can’t the Vatican (or the ED commission) just reconcile the SSPX and be done with it?”
The Holy See pointed to the answer in the news release where it mentions: “Until the **doctrinal questions **are clarified …”
The SSPX will have to concede something, or else they have to convince Rome that they’re correct.

 

[Dempsey1919]

The discussions between Rome and the SSPX could take many years. Do we expect the SSPX to stop ordaining priests during this time? What if the talks last for ten years? These young men have studied for many years and deserve to be ordained on schedule. It is wrong to ask them to wait for an indefinite period of time while the doctrinal discussions unfold. In my opinion, the Church must outline guidelines to allow the SSPX to operate until its canonical status is resolved.

Surely, the Church does not want the SSPX to turn men seeking the priesthood away while these discussions take place. If the discussions last years, the seminarians will be left in a state of limbo if the SSPX is banned from ordaining priests. If this happens, the SSPX will have to start sending seminarians home.

It is not realistic to expect the SSPX to stop ordaining priests. The SSPX was establised for this very reason. In these days of the priest shortage, the SSPX is doing a great job in providing priests for the next generation. The SSPX may aswell cease to exist if they are banned from ordaining priests.

 

[Tsuwano]

The discussions between Rome and the SSPX could take many years. Do we expect the SSPX to stop ordaining priests during this time? What if the talks last for ten years? These young men have studied for many years and deserve to be ordained on schedule. It is wrong to ask them to wait for an indefinite period of time while the doctrinal discussions unfold. In my opinion, the Church must outline guidelines to allow the SSPX to operate until its canonical status is resolved.

Surely, the Church does not want the SSPX to turn men seeking the priesthood away while these discussions take place. If the discussions last years, the seminarians will be left in a state of limbo if the SSPX is banned from ordaining priests. If this happens, the SSPX will have to start sending seminarians home.

It is not realistic to expect the SSPX to stop ordaining priests. The SSPX was establised for this very reason. In these days of the priest shortage, the SSPX is doing a great job in providing priests for the next generation. The SSPX may aswell cease to exist if they are banned from ordaining priests.

I think you make a valid point in saying that “the Church must outline guidelines to allow the SSPX to operate until its canonical status is resolved” but that still doesn’t explain why these ordinations must go forward this month or even this year. Surely the SSPX, if it is sincere in its desire to reconcile with the Church, should allow the Church time enough to draw up such guidelines before rushing to perform an ordination which the Church considers illicit. The discussions are very sensitive at this point and such an act on the part of the SSPX could derail opportunities for reconciliation which may never come again. I think the Church has shown its sincerity in putting forth the hand of reconciliation to the Society. Shouldn’t the Society respond in kind? If the SSPX is interested in providing priests for the Church, and not merely for itself, then I think true reconciliation with the Church should be its first priority, even if this means forgoing ordinations for the time being.

 

[reggieM]

The discussions between Rome and the SSPX could take many years. Do we expect the SSPX to stop ordaining priests during this time? What if the talks last for ten years? These young men have studied for many years and deserve to be ordained on schedule. It is wrong to ask them to wait for an indefinite period of time while the doctrinal discussions unfold. In my opinion, the Church must outline guidelines to allow the SSPX to operate until its canonical status is resolved.

Surely, the Church does not want the SSPX to turn men seeking the priesthood away while these discussions take place. If the discussions last years, the seminarians will be left in a state of limbo if the SSPX is banned from ordaining priests. If this happens, the SSPX will have to start sending seminarians home.

It is not realistic to expect the SSPX to stop ordaining priests. The SSPX was establised for this very reason. In these days of the priest shortage, the SSPX is doing a great job in providing priests for the next generation. The SSPX may aswell cease to exist if they are banned from ordaining priests.

Those are good points, but it’s good to remember that the Holy See established the FSSP for this purpose as well. It does provide some ambiguity and contradiction at some level – but that’s the nature of ecumenical talks and negotiation for reconciliation. It’s not always a cut and dried situation. The danger is that the SSPX could decide to walk away entirely. If the Holy See believes that the SSPX is not justified in its current position, then how can the canonical penalties be waived? It would require a more liberal policy, but then isn’t Rome being accused of already being too liberal in ecumenical affairs?

It’s those kinds of contradictions that make this confusing – and I’m not trying to blame anyone with these comments.

 

[Dempsey1919]

It does provide some ambiguity and contradiction at some level – but that’s the nature of ecumenical talks and negotiation for reconciliation. It’s not always a cut and dried situation. The danger is that the SSPX could decide to walk away entirely. If the Holy See believes that the SSPX is not justified in its current position, then how can the canonical penalties be waived?

The SSPX is a Catholic organisation. The Bishops, priests, and lay faithful of the SSPX are all Catholics. They are not protestants or adherents of a different Christian sect. Archbishop Lefebvre was a faithful Catholic who founded the Society of St Pius X in an effort to defend the eternal Catholic faith. He never intended to separate himself or his Society from the Successor of Peter. Read the Archbishop’s words on this matter:

Firstly, I must dispel a misunderstanding so as not to have to return to it. I am not the head of a movement, even less the head of a particular church. I am not, as they never stop writing, “the leader of the traditionalists.” They have come to describe certain persons as “Lefebvrists,” as though it were a case of a party or a school. This is an abuse of language.

I have no personal doctrine in the matter of religion. All my life I have held to what I was taught at the French Seminary in Rome, namely Catholic doctrine according to the interpretation given it by the teaching authority of the Church from century to century, since the death of the last Apostle which marked the end of Revelation.
Source: sspxasia.com/Documents/Society_of_Saint_Pius_X/OpenLetterToConfusedCatholics/Chapter-2.htm

The discussions between Rome and the SSPX are not ecumenical in nature. The SSPX is already part of the Latin rite of the Catholic Church, although their union is imperfect at this time. The discussions are an internal Church affair and are concerned with Catholic doctrine.

Lefebvre founded the SSPX in reaction to what he saw as widespread heresy among the clergy in the wake of Vatican II. He founded the SSPX to defend the Catholic faith. For this reason, the SSPX would never willingly separate itself from the Barque of Peter.

In the case of the SSPX, I believe the usual canonical penalties should be waved. The SSPX is on the verge of entering into full communion with the Roman Pontiff. As they are a fully Catholic organisation with valid Holy Orders, I believe the Church should permit these ordinations to take place. There needs to be provisional guidelines in place so that the SSPX can operate without fear during these doctrinal discussions.

Don’t forget that the SSPX has many enemies within the Church who will use any tool at their disposal to hinder the process of reunion. This is why the Church must provide regulations to ensure that no unnecessary difficuties threaten full reunification.

 

[Timothysis]

Surely the SSPX, if it is sincere in its desire to reconcile with the Church, should allow the Church time enough to draw up such guidelines before rushing to perform an ordination which the Church considers illicit.

You are absolutely correct here. While the Holy Father has done much to be reconciled with the SSPX, the SSPX in return keep doing things that drive the wedge deeper and deeper. The obvious questions is, why? If things continue to proceed in this manner then it will probably all come to a head sooner or later. The Holy Father has already turned the other cheek more than once; how many more times will he do it?

 

[PaulinVA]

The discussions between Rome and the SSPX could take many years. Do we expect the SSPX to stop ordaining priests during this time? What if the talks last for ten years? These young men have studied for many years and deserve to be ordained on schedule. It is wrong to ask them to wait for an indefinite period of time while the doctrinal discussions unfold. In my opinion, the Church must outline guidelines to allow the SSPX to operate until its canonical status is resolved.

Surely, the Church does not want the SSPX to turn men seeking the priesthood away while these discussions take place. If the discussions last years, the seminarians will be left in a state of limbo if the SSPX is banned from ordaining priests. If this happens, the SSPX will have to start sending seminarians home.

It is not realistic to expect the SSPX to stop ordaining priests. The SSPX was establised for this very reason. In these days of the priest shortage, the SSPX is doing a great job in providing priests for the next generation. The SSPX may aswell cease to exist if they are banned from ordaining priests.

Dempsey, you are entirely and wholly missing the point.

Because SSPX currently has no canonical status within the Church, it’s seminaries are not producing validly-educated Catholic priests. You could argue that could be just a technicality, but it’s got to be true. The attitude and positions that are causing them to have no status within the Church permeate the seminaries as well.

The Pope actually mentions in his March 2009 letter that he doesn’t want to abandon them. But, at the same time, he can’t just appoint another Bishop to ordain them.

 

[giuseppeTO]

You are absolutely correct here. While the Holy Father has done much to be reconciled with the SSPX, the SSPX in return keep doing things that drive the wedge deeper and deeper. The obvious questions is, why? If things continue to proceed in this manner then it will probably all come to a head sooner or later. The Holy Father has already turned the other cheek more than once; how many more times will he do it?

The lifting of the excommunications came with no pre-conditions or mutual understanding. The Superior General has met numerous time with both Ecclesia Dei and the Pope since 2000 at least. The excommunications were not the result of illicit ordinations and no one was under the impression that subsequent to the lifting of the excommunications, the SSPX would cease and desist from offering the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass (also illicit) and/or let hundreds of seminarians languish in seminaries around the world while doctrinal discussions were held in Rome. If that were the expectation of the Holy Father, he would certainly have made that clear, as he subsequently provided specific clarification of both Summorum and the lifting of the excommunications where both documents appeared to befuddle the episcopate.

A priest is the alter-Christus whose primary job is the saving of souls. By any statistical pole, the number of priests worldwide has fallen to a fraction of what it was 40 years ago and the same is true of the number of clerical and religious seminarians.

Churches are being closed at an alarming rate and those remaining are in many diocese organized into parish clusters for the lack of clergy. Parishes are frequently resorting to communion services where pre-consecrated hosts are distributed as a substitute for daily Mass where there is no celebrant.

We have dozens of young men who have been formed and are ready to be ordained this year and the same in line for formation and ordination in subsequent years.

Are you saying that we can do without these priests and that they should all just “chill-out” at the diaconate level for 3-5 years?

 

[rkrispies]

The discussions between Rome and the SSPX could take many years. Do we expect the SSPX to stop ordaining priests during this time? What if the talks last for ten years? These young men have studied for many years and deserve to be ordained on schedule. It is wrong to ask them to wait for an indefinite period of time while the doctrinal discussions unfold. In my opinion, the Church must outline guidelines to allow the SSPX to operate until its canonical status is resolved.

Quite to the contrary, no man has a right to be ordained, even if he completes his studies and has everything set. It is entirely up to the bishop to decide if he will be ordained, which leads us to . . .

Spirithound:

What is the punishment for illicit priestly ordinations?

The punishment is the same as for those who try to ordain women to the priesthood, namely, excommunication. Thus, to a first glance, it seems that irregular ordinations void the lifting of any previous excommunication. Of course, the Pope won’t come out and say that the bishop and those he ordains are excommunicated, but that’s his decision.

Honestly, I think that if SSPX truly want to come back into the fold, they need to start playing by the rules. Otherwise, they keep running afoul of canon law. My two cents.

Chris

 

[giuseppeTO]

Dempsey, you are entirely and wholly missing the point.

Because SSPX currently has no canonical status within the Church, it’s seminaries are not producing validly-educated Catholic priests.

Paul, It doesn’t help to start making up your own pseudo-canonical terms. What the heck is “validly-educated”? Validly-ordained is the only term concerning validity that applies and they are certainly validly ordained, according to Rome, the catechism, and Canon Law and trained to offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and save souls through the sacraments.

The successful completion of doctrinal discussions with Rome will not change their formation.

 

[giuseppeTO]

The punishment is the same as for those who try to ordain women to the priesthood, namely, excommunication.

Chris

Chris, can you tell us which canon prescribes excommunication as the punishment for illicit ordination of a priest?