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

[JKirkLVNV]

I don’t know. The Church is facing a serious priest shortage, and the SSPX is ordaining priests Yes, in the eyes of the Holy See, they technically should not be at this time. The talks have been set and probably begun. They could wait. But there are communities of Catholics who need priests. H.H. noted in his letter in reply to the Bishops howling over the Lifting of the excommunications, that though we have seen arrogance, he feels there is a saving grace in the Society clergy.

The Church does have a shortage of priests, but I rather imagine the Church as a whole, even the Church in the US, is ordaining far more priests than the SSPX. BUT…even if they were ordaining more, do we need men formed in a foundation of disobedience to the Holy See? And are they throwing cassocks on any man that applies (yes, I stipulate to the fact that that happens in “regular” diocese, when orthodox men are discouraged and heterordox seemingly welcomed)? And will these men celebrate both forms? Recall what the Holy Father said in his cover letter to the bishops when he promulgated the MP.

 

[CassiusLonginus]

Reading your post makes me think you have experience writing for Pravda.

Who?

Nevertheless, According to Phil Lawler in a January, 2009 analysis of the state of affairs between the Vatican and the SSPX written for EWTN News he states "The deadly mistake that Archbishop Lefebvre made . . . the mistake for which the SSPX is still paying . . . was the decision to set himself up as a teaching authority separate from the Holy See.

That’s his opinion. My opinion is that Lefebvre did NOT set himself up as a teaching authority since nothing he taught hadn’t already been taught by the Church, which is more than I can say for many bishops today (bishops belong to the “teaching authority” of the Church) and even more shockingly, even by parish priests (who don’t belong to the “teaching authority”, but actually belong to the “taught” church).

The teaching authority of the Catholic Church resides in the Pope and the bishops who are in communion with him. By breaking from that communion, the Lefebvrists lost what teaching authority they had. Their fundamental error lay in the belief that they could be the authoritative voice of the Catholic tradition (or Tradition, as they preferred), while remaining separated from the Catholic Church. That is logically as well as theologically impossible."

Once again, Phil Lawler (whoever he is) strikes again. He needs to get his facts straight, is what he needs to do! I guess he didn’t get the memo that “there is no schism” and that the Society is “an internal matter” of the Church.

Lawler continues "Bishop Fellay has pronounced that the traditionalist group accepts the authority of the Pope.

Finally, some sense from this fellow.

What remains to be seen is how the SSPX perceives that authority. The key, again, is to understand the Church as she understands herself: sentire cum ecclesia."

And, pray tell, how does the Church understand herself in light of the VII debacle that is only now, and the prompting of the SSPX, being sorted out!?!?! Lefebvre simply held fast to tradition. It’s high time this 2000 year tradition is remembered and taught by the Church!

It is not possible to “understand the Church as she understand herself” by obstinately standing outside of the Church,

Oh, the old “they’re outside of the Church” argument again. Hasn’t that been debunked?

or to fully participate in such a discussion by biting the hand held out in reconciliation.

It has been the pet project of the SSPX to reconcile with Rome and not the other way around. And for their persistence (and a new pope), finally the SSPX is gettin’ the time of day from Rome.

Continuing these ordinations against the will of the teaching authority of the Church makes Bishop Fellay’s assertion that the SSPX accepts the authority of the Pope a cynical exercise in Orwellian double speak.

I think Bishop Fellay expressed it best himself in his recent interview in Austria, which you can find here in the Traditional Catholicism section of this website:

Question: A current bone of contention is the SSPX announcement of the ordination of three priests on the 27th June in Zaitzkofen in Germany. Many see it as a provocation for Rome and the Pope, whose outstretched hand now will be beaten back.

Fellay: I regret that this is seen as a provocation. These ordinations have been done annually for 30 years in the same form. When we have spoken with Rome about the excommunication, etc. there never has never been any question that these ordinations should no longer take place. For us it is a question of life, just as breathing is, we need these priests.

Question: All cannot be focused on these three ordinations. Would not it be prudent to suspend the ordinations in order to improve the climate?

Fellay: The problem lies only in Germany. In Rome, there is sympathy for these ordinations, even if they say it is illegal and not according to the canon law. We were told that we are in an intermediate state in which we can talk peace, in which Rome can also observe us. We have nothing against it, if Rome would send an observer to us. We have offered, but perhaps not clearly enough.

(quotes taken from the interview as posted here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=349213 with a slight formatting change for the sake of clarity)

 

[bkovacs]

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.

And the Austrian Church knows what it needs to do to remain Catholic. But it doesn’t get the press time that the SSPX does. And it is only over the Williamson affair that the SSPX gets the press time.

 

[CassiusLonginus]

I think you’ve talked yourself into a bit of circular reasoning.
You proposed that the SSPX is more concerned about doctrine than just about anyone.
Thefore, by the mere fact that the SSPX wants to talk about the documents, it proves that the documents are ambiguous and lead to dangerous ideas and practices.
Why?
Because the SSPX is more serious about doctrine than just about anyone, and therefore anything they’re concerned about must lead to dangerous ideas.

Why would Rome agree to the doctrinal talks if the docs of VII weren’t ambiguous?

This pits the SSPX against Rome with the default position going to a victory for the SSPX’s views. Why? Because the SSPX is concerned about doctrine.

If that’s how you want to view it, then fine. The fact of the matter is that Rome CANNOT defect officially, and in that way Rome can’t be wrong in regard to doctrine, but the SSPX never changed its position when the church did after VII, even though nothing heretical was officially promulgated. This is a win/win for the Church. You are right about one thing though: the SSPX is concerned about doctrine, which was and is their prime motivator.

This assumes that Rome is not concerned about the documents “which lead to dangerous ideas and practices”, or else – without any proof-- that that SSPX knows for certain that these documents are bad and that they must be correct in that interpretation.

“Without any proof”??? 40 years. That’s all I’m gonna say. Oh yeah, and that it’s not the docs, per se, but the 40 years of lousily putting them into practice by a bunch of uncatholic progressives.

This would mean, in practice, that the SSPX could not be wrong about any of their interpretations of the conciliar documents.

Come on, this is just silly. VII didn’t pronounce any new Dogma, so that means the SSPX’s interpretation of these documents is wholly in accord with Dogma, since it’s nothing new. So yeah, you’re right, the SSPX can’t be wrong because they just stick with the traditional views of those dogmas.

As for “ambiguities”, almost every teaching about revelation, the nature of God, the function of the Church and the doctrines of Christ contain some ambiguity.

Ambiguities happen, and are then corrected when great need arises. The need is now for these VII docs etc.

 

[maurin]

**Where is it being suppressed? **

there are exactly 1 TLM in this Diocese which takes one driving the speed limit on a highway 3 hours to traverse from one end to the other. The TLM is celebrated at the northernmost border. In the Diocese South of here, just as large, there are only 2 Parishes which celebrate the TLM–one weekly, the other once monthly. In East Texas’ Diocese, as of last year, there was only one. A 4 hour traverse of that Diocese.

Anyone else want to help enlighten the enlightened?

 

[maurin]

In other words, folks. Nothing has changed. The situation remains the same today after the lifting of the excommunications as the situation was even before the Motu Proprio was released. Yes, our Priests officially are suspended a divinis. Our Priests unofficially operate with supplied jurisdiction according to canon law. Yes, we know the nay-sayers disagree, and they also know that we are unconcerned with their disagreement.

But the nay-sayers forget that 2 of the three requests of the SSPX to the Holy Father have been fulfilled benevolently by the Holy Father: the freeing of the Mass with the Motu Proprio and the lifting of the excommunications. We await patiently for the third request to begin: the doctrinal talks. The fulfillment of these requests are all life-giving gestures by the Pope to the Society.

the nay-sayers forget these things. And speak as if they know.

Marcel Lefebvre the Great, pray for us.

 

[maurin]

BUT…even if they were ordaining more, do we need men formed in a foundation of disobedience to the Holy See? .

yawn

kirk, you can only sell that drivel to other modernists. There are more priests behaving “not in Communion” with the Holy See…and the “faithful” support them.

 

[maurin]

Reading your post makes me think you have experience writing for Pravda. .

and yours, “The Tablet.”

 

[reggieM]

there are exactly 1 TLM in this Diocese which takes one driving the speed limit on a highway 3 hours to traverse from one end to the other. The TLM is celebrated at the northernmost border. In the Diocese South of here, just as large, there are only 2 Parishes which celebrate the TLM–one weekly, the other once monthly. In East Texas’ Diocese, as of last year, there was only one. A 4 hour traverse of that Diocese.

Anyone else want to help enlighten the enlightened?

The question was: where is it “suppressed”? This means, “where did a reasonable number of people request it from a priest who can offer it, and were then refused”?

The method for requesting the TLM is not that difficult. Find a priest who can do it, be willing to help support it with all necessary means, and then ask the pastor for permission.

Then again, we could also sit back and do nothing but complain about how “nothing has changed” and perhaps that will achieve something also – I don’t know for sure.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

there are exactly 1 TLM in this Diocese which takes one driving the speed limit on a highway 3 hours to traverse from one end to the other. The TLM is celebrated at the northernmost border. In the Diocese South of here, just as large, there are only 2 Parishes which celebrate the TLM–one weekly, the other once monthly. In East Texas’ Diocese, as of last year, there was only one. A 4 hour traverse of that Diocese.

Anyone else want to help enlighten the enlightened?

Is it being requested by stable groups in these places?

 

[JKirkLVNV]

yawn

kirk, you can only sell that drivel to other modernists. There are more priests behaving “not in Communion” with the Holy See…and the “faithful” support them.

I’m not a modernist. You are seeking to be deliberately insulting.

 

[reggieM]

Why would Rome agree to the doctrinal talks if the docs of VII weren’t ambiguous?

Because the SSPX could be entirely wrong in their interpretation of the documents and Rome wants the talks to convince them of it.

If that’s how you want to view it, then fine. The fact of the matter is that Rome CANNOT defect officially, and in that way Rome can’t be wrong in regard to doctrine,

Exactly right.

but the SSPX never changed its position when the church did after VII, even though nothing heretical was officially promulgated.

Yes, but it doesn’t work that way in the Catholic-apostolic Faith. One is not free to say that “they never changed” when the Holy Church issues directives. The SSPX happily appeals to the 1984 Code of Canon law when it suits their arguments. SSPX seminaries do not teach using only the Latin language (as was mandated prior to the Council). So, the idea that “we didn’t change” is an argument used to try to increase the moral value of the SSPX (I am sympathetic with them on many things). If the Church officially promulgates new liturgical norms, Catholics are not free to call them “intrinsically evil”, etc.

This is a win/win for the Church. You are right about one thing though: the SSPX is concerned about doctrine, which was and is their prime motivator.

That is certainly fine, but that concern has to be tested against the judgements of the Holy See. If a group disagrees with the ruling, at least it is known where the disagreement lies.

VII didn’t pronounce any new Dogma, so that means the SSPX’s interpretation of these documents is wholly in accord with Dogma, since it’s nothing new.

Again, as said – we’re not bound by Dogma alone. If the SSPX is charging that the Documents are heretical, then that has to be resolved (since it would mean the Church has defected by publishing heretical documents). If the documents are not heretical, then there is little defense for a canonically irregular situation – but that’s not up to me or you to judge anyway.

So yeah, you’re right, the SSPX can’t be wrong because they just stick with the traditional views of those dogmas.

This suggests that the SSPX possesses infallibility and they cannot possibly be wrong about anything. Or else, you yourself don’t really need Rome as an arbiter of teaching either. The fact is, “sticking with traditional views” is often not correct and has caused the schism with the Old Catholics who rejected the “new” decision on papal infallibility. After Nicea, Catholics were no longer free to claim that the teaching on the Trinity was up for debate. This is true even on disciplinary measures. Again, nobody is free to claim that the 1917 Code of Canon law is the valid legislation in the Church. But “sticking to traditional views” would require that.

Ambiguities happen, and are then corrected when great need arises. The need is now for these VII docs etc.

That is a good point, and I agree. This is one of the many blessings the SSPX can bring to the Church.

 

[PaulinVA]

Yes, our Priests officially are suspended a divinis. Our Priests unofficially operate with supplied jurisdiction according to canon law. Yes, we know the nay-sayers disagree, and they also know that we are unconcerned with their disagreement.

But the nay-sayers forget that 2 of the three requests of the SSPX to the Holy Father have been fulfilled benevolently by the Holy Father: the freeing of the Mass with the Motu Proprio and the lifting of the excommunications. We await patiently for the third request to begin: the doctrinal talks. The fulfillment of these requests are all life-giving gestures by the Pope to the Society.

the nay-sayers forget these things. And speak as if they know.

Marcel Lefebvre the Great, pray for us.

So, the Society sees no need to give on the third point and become obedient to the Holy See?

The undercurrent of your post is that, in time, the third issue will be resolved in your favor, Lefebvree will be sainted, and the Church history books will record how the Teaching Authority for a period resided with a disobediant schisimatic priest in France?

I do not see that happening. Go to the SSPX web site - they don’t even acknowledge the excommunication of Lefebvre!

I think that the SSPX priests and laity are attempting to do a good thing. I agree that there is a lack of reverence, stemming from a lack of faith, in the Catholic Church as a whole. It is sad that they have no canonical status in the Church. It is equally saddening that they are disobedient and attempt to cloak themselves in lawfulness by performing canonical gymnastics to convince people they have jurisdiction. It would be much simpler to submit totally to Rome like the rest of us.