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

[Dempsey1919]

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.

The SSPX are not producing validly educated Catholic priests?!

This is simply untrue. The SSPX are forming extremely well educated priests in the traditional manner. Archbishop Lefebvre was an accomplished and highly recognized theologian. He formed priests according to the strict instructions of the Church. SSPX priests receive a thorough education in theology, philosophy, latin, liturgy, biblical studies etc. I would argue that the SSPX produce better educated priests than most normal seminaries, which are fully recognised by the Church.

I am in no way affiliated with the SSPX but I can speak objectively about them. I have heard more heresy from Dominicans and diocean priests than I have ever heard from an SSPX priest. I have heard priests speak out against Humane Vitae, against Papal Supremacy, and against the Immaculate Conception. I have also heard priests speak in favour of female ordination. All of these priests were “validly educated.” I have never heard an SSPX priest deny a doctrine of the faith. The only thing I hear SSPX denouncing is false ecumenism, liturgical abuse, and widespread dissent from the teachings of the Church. It’s ironic that you would call the SSPX invalidly educated.

Once again, I would like to say that I am not affiliated with the SSPX. However, I recognise some of the good they do. I also know that there is a crisis within the Church, and I believe the SSPX would be an excellent asset to the Church, if they can be fully reconciled with the Holy Father.

 

[rfpapcun]

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.

My question would be: “So what?!” First, why wait a week before the ordinations to wave the red flag? Second, what is the harm in allowing these ordinations to continue?

This whole issue is completely bogus, introduced by clergy dead-set against the Traditional Mass, the Traditional Catholic Faith, and the SSPX.

 

[Timothysis]

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.

As the SSPX has no canonical ministry in the church I think it matters little that “we” have “dozens of young men who have been formed and are ready to be ordained this year.” The only place you will find them is in SSPX chapels celebrating illicit Masses in disobedience against the pope and Canon law. You will not see them in your local parish. So how does their ordinations help anyone other than those who participate in their illicit Masses?

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?

Since they operate without faculties of local bishops, cannot validly hear confessions nor preside at marriages and celebrate illicit Masses in chapels that are not part of any diocese, then yes, I think we can say that "we can do without these priests and that they should all just “chill-out” until their situation is regularized.

 

[PaulinVA]

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.

Yes, you have a point and I stand corrected. They are validly but illicitly ordained.

Is there an accreditation process for seminaries?

 

[Timothysis]

My question would be: “So what?!” First, why wait a week before the ordinations to wave the red flag? Second, what is the harm in allowing these ordinations to continue?

Because the Holy Father has declared "the Society has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers … do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church". Does the word “legitimate” mean nothing to you?

This whole issue is completely bogus, introduced by clergy dead-set against the Traditional Mass, the Traditional Catholic Faith, and the SSPX.

Tell that to Pope Benedict. Apparently, he saw reason to make the this statement.

 

[PaulinVA]

The SSPX are not producing validly educated Catholic priests?!

My statement revolves around how can an organization with no canonical status within the Church due to doctrinal errors produce priests that are free of doctrinal errors? That is what I meant by being validly educated.

Frankly, if the priests are validly educated by seminaries approved by the Vatican I don’t see why they can’t be ordained. Of course, if a Bishop comes in to do that, they won’t be ordained as SSPX, will they?

 

[Dempsey1919]

My statement revolves around how can an organization with no canonical status within the Church due to doctrinal errors produce priests that are free of doctrinal errors? That is what I meant by being validly educated.

The SSPX hold steadfast to the doctrines of the faith. The only issue they have is with the interpretation of Vatican II. I think it is fair to say that the SSPX aren’t the only ones who have problems with the correct interpretation of Vatican II. This is why the discussions between the SSPX and Rome are vitally important. In my opinion, the Church needs to produce an authoritative interpretation of Vatican II. It is time to finally bury the so-called Spirit of Vatican II.

Vatican II is the source of much confusion within the Church. Many problems have arisen over the various interpretations of the Council documents. The erroneous interpretations of Vatican II are a major factor causing the crisis in the Church. The SSPX-Rome discussions will hopefully answer all of our questions regarding the Second Vatican Council and its place within the Church.

The future priests of the SSPX simply want to preach the eternal doctrines of the faith without compromise. Once Vatican II has been fully interpreted according to the tradition of the Church, I am sure that the SSPX will embrace it wholeheartedly.

 

[giuseppeTO]

My statement revolves around how can an organization with no canonical status within the Church due to doctrinal errors produce priests that are free of doctrinal errors?

Paul,

That is also not accurate. The original suppression and the ensuing loss of canonical status was not due to doctrinal errors. On the contrary, each examination of SSPX seminaries by the Vatican identified no faith or dogmatic errors.

 

[PaulinVA]

Paul,

That is also not accurate. The original suppression and the ensuing loss of canonical status was not due to doctrinal errors. On the contrary, each examination of SSPX seminaries by the Vatican identified no faith or dogmatic errors.

In order to make this clear once again: until the doctrinal questions are clarified, the Society has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers – even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty – do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church.

I am trying to understand. Your clarifications are useful.

Why, then, doesn’t the Vatican assign a bishop to ordain the seminarians? Alternatively, why doesn’t SSPX follow the Vatican and not ordain the seminarians?

 

[giuseppeTO]

Tell that to Pope Benedict. Apparently, he saw reason to make the this statement.

Of course the Pope doesn’t generally consult me on these issues, but I would bet that the only reason he made this statement now and not every year for the 10 years leading up to the 1988 Episcopal Consecrations when the SSPX also had no canonical standing, was to appease the agitation of the German bishop.

While I’m betting, I also predict that there will be no re-excommunication due to the ordinations and that the Pope has probably told the European bishops via back channels to cool it - this is a Vatican affair. I believe the Holy Father, Cardinal Hoyos, and the CDF have a plan that they are working with Bishop Fellay and all involved want to see a remedy in the near term.

 

[giuseppeTO]

Why, then, doesn’t the Vatican assign a bishop to ordain the seminarians?

It is not merely a question of who does the ordinations.

Alternatively, why doesn’t SSPX follow the Vatican and not ordain the seminarians?

I am not aware of the Vatican requesting that the SSPX not do the ordinations … only that they are illicit. The Masses offered by the SSPX are also illicit and the Vatican has also not requested that the SSPX refrain from offering the Mass.

 

[PaulinVA]

I believe the Holy Father, Cardinal Hoyos, and the CDF have a plan that they are working with Bishop Fellay and all involved want to see a remedy in the near term.

Does obedience to the Holy Father fit into this anywhere?

 

[giuseppeTO]

Does obedience to the Holy Father fit into this anywhere?

Absolutely, and I believe a direct request from the Holy Father to postpone the ordinations would be obeyed.

 

[PaulinVA]

Absolutely, and I believe a direct request from the Holy Father to postpone the ordinations would be obeyed.

Hmmm. So, a threat would be welcomed? No, not very good for the Church.

Why would a faithful Catholic perform an act that is illicit? Telling someone they have no ministry in the Church should preclude them from trying to exercise a ministry in the Church, shouldn’t it?

 

[giuseppeTO]

Hmmm. So, a threat would be welcomed? No, not very good for the Church.

No, not a threat … a request. Perhaps you weren’t aware, but The Holy Father requested that Bishop Fellay postpone the February ordination in Germany and Bishop fellay complied.

Why would a faithful Catholic perform an act that is illicit? Telling someone they have no ministry in the Church should preclude them from trying to exercise a ministry in the Church, shouldn’t it?

Well that is very long story which spans 30 years. I can PM you a reading list if you are interested in the history and the apologetics. If I had to boil it down to a phrase in a post on a forum, that would be “A Crisis In the Church”.

 

[Dempsey1919]

While I’m betting, I also predict that there will be no re-excommunication due to the ordinations and that the Pope has probably told the European bishops via back channels to cool it - this is a Vatican affair. I believe the Holy Father, Cardinal Hoyos, and the CDF have a plan that they are working with Bishop Fellay and all involved want to see a remedy in the near term.

I fully agree.

The situation regarding the SSPX is a Vatican affair, and only Ecclesia Dei and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith should impose demands on the SSPX. The German Bishops have no authority in the matter and should not place obstacles in the way to full reunification.

The current situation of the SSPX is far from black and white, and I doubt that the Church will deal harshly with them over the upcoming ordinations. The German Bishops should allow the appropriate Roman authorites to deal with the upcoming ordinations, and should not involve themselves unnecessarily.

 

[rkrispies]

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

I’m pretty sure what applies here is canon 1364, which applies a latae sententiae excommunication to acts of heresy, apsotasy, or schism. Although we can debate whether SSPX is in schism or not, what has been put out by the Holy See is:
Remission of Excommunication on 5 Feb 2009:

Even the four bishops, though released from excommunication, have no canonical function in the Church and cannot legally exercise a ministry within her.

Therefore, performing ordinations while the Pope has declared that they have no ministerial faculties within the church is an act of schism, by which the bishop(s?) are not submitting to the Roman Pontiff (see canon 751 for definition of schism).

Does that clear anything up? Or am I just poking a a hornet’s nest here?

Chris

 

[Dempsey1919]

No, not a threat … a request. Perhaps you weren’t aware, but The Holy Father requested that Bishop Fellay postpone the February ordination in Germany and Bishop fellay complied.

It is also worth remembering that Bishop Fellay was recently in Rome attending a meeting with Cardinal Levada. I am sure the topic of the upcoming ordinations formed part of the conversation. For all we know, Rome may have already given permission for the ordinations to take place. If Rome requested the SSPX to pospone them again, Bishop Fellay would surely comply once again.

 

[rkrispies]

While I’m betting, I also predict that there will be no re-excommunication due to the ordinations and that the Pope has probably told the European bishops via back channels to cool it - this is a Vatican affair. I believe the Holy Father, Cardinal Hoyos, and the CDF have a plan that they are working with Bishop Fellay and all involved want to see a remedy in the near term.

No argument here. They probably ought to be, but whether the Holy Father will impose penalty if the ordinations occur is something completely different. Hopefully there is something going on in the back rooms of the Vatican on this.

Chris

 

[giuseppeTO]

I’m pretty sure what applies here is canon 1364, which applies a latae sententiae excommunication to acts of heresy, apsotasy, or schism. Although we can debate whether SSPX is in schism or not, what has been put out by the Holy See is:

Therefore, performing ordinations while the Pope has declared that they have no ministerial faculties within the church is an act of schism, by which the bishop(s?) are not submitting to the Roman Pontiff (see canon 751 for definition of schism).

Does that clear anything up? Or am I just poking a a hornet’s nest here?

Chris

There is a canon that applies and it is 1383, the penalty for which is suspension, not excommunication.