Argentina formally recognizes SSPX as part of the Catholic Church - at the request of the Archbishop of Buenos Aires

[Walking_Home]

Even with this development – it is not stated that the suspension of the SSPX priests/Bishops has been lifted.

 

[ProVobis]

Even with this development – it is not stated that the suspension of the SSPX priests/Bishops has been lifted.

My guess is that as long as the priests are still members of the FSSPX, they still wouldn’t have faculties, etc. Or any public ministry, for that matter. I hope I’m wrong.

As far as the bishops go, I don’t see Bishop Fellay’s suspension being lifted in the near future. But who knows? Who saw this coming?

 

[commenter]

My guess is that as long as the priests are still members of the FSSPX, they still wouldn’t have faculties, etc. Or any public ministry, for that matter. I hope I’m wrong.

As far as the bishops go, I don’t see Bishop Fellay’s suspension being lifted in the near future. But who knows? Who saw this coming?

How would this be implemented in a practical way? For instance, does the Vatican, or local dioceses, keep track of all ordinations, all priests or seminarians, deaths and departures, in the SSPX? Does the Catholic Church per se keep a log of current members of SSPX in that city, or other cities?

Would this new initiative grant the local bishop any powers over the local SSPX (or rather SSPX members who belong to the newly idenfied organization in that city)?

I know laity don’t officially belong to to the SSPX anywhere. But could they join this new, or newly identified, group in Buenos Aires?

 

[ProVobis]

How would this be implemented in a practical way? For instance, does the Vatican, or local dioceses, keep track of all ordinations, all priests or seminarians, deaths and departures, in the SSPX? Does the Catholic Church per se keep a log of current members of SSPX in that city, or other cities?

Those are good questions. I think the fact they are/will be established as a new fraternity keeps them in Argentina. But who exactly would they be, as you noted that they move around a lot? And what happens to their chapels in that country, presuming they still own them?

Would this new initiative grant the local bishop any powers over the local SSPX (or rather SSPX members who belong to the newly idenfied organization in that city)?

Just like the FSSP, I would imagine.

I know laity don’t officially belong to to the SSPX anywhere. But could they join this new, or newly identified, group in Buenos Aires?

Third-order maybe?

I’m sure many blogs will keep us abreast of the developments. Exciting times.

 

[Walking_Home]

Those are good questions. I think the fact they are/will be established as a new fraternity keeps them in Argentina. But who exactly would they be, as you noted that they move around a lot? And what happens to their chapels in that country, presuming they still own them?

Just like the FSSP, I would imagine.

Third-order maybe?

I’m sure many blogs will keep us abreast of the developments. Exciting times.

---

I’d say – confusing times. The SSPX has a seminary in Argentina. How is this all going to work – when the SSPX continues to illicitly ordain men in Argentina.

 

[Denise1957]

More often than not, especially on the forums here, the SSPX are believed or assumed to be schismatics, or not even Catholic. Hopefully, this turn of events will help to dislodge this view.

 

[ProVobis]

---

I’d say – confusing times. The SSPX has a seminary in Argentina. How is this all going to work – when the SSPX continues to illicitly ordain men in Argentina.

Maybe the local bishop will ordain them?

Or the Vatican will double-down and prohibit the local bishop from doing so. Don’t know.

There still is a lot of hostility against the FSSPX so I’m inclined to think the latter and that no deals are possible having their own bishop.

 

[giuseppeTO]

This is something you need to ask someone that knows a lot more about it than we do. You could get all kinds of confusing answers here. God Bless, Memaw

Here is the background to the story. My knowledge of the situation comes from having a son who is a Society priest who was stationed in Argentina. Argentina is not particularly American-friendly. To operate as a priest or religious there, you must obtain the appropriate work visa. The authority that affirms to the government who is a Catholic priest is the chief primate, in this case the Archbishop of Buenos Aires. Prior to this action, the SSPX was not recognized as a Catholic religious order in Argentina. Consequently the priest could only function under a 90 day visitor visa necessitating that he leave the country every 90 days and then return, starting the 90-day clock over again. It was typical for the authorities to “hassle” those who were using the visitor visa in such a way. A couple of years ago, the SSPX District Superior petitioned the then-Archbishop, Pope Bergolio, to recognize the SSPX as part of the Catholic Church in an official capacity to the Argentine government so that the proper visa could be obtained by Society priests operating there. Cardinal Bergolio promised to accommodate the Society’s petition. Soon thereafter, he was elected to the papacy and left the task to his successor. This action that petitions the government to recognize the SSPX as a religious society under the Catholic Church is the culmination of that effort.

 

[commenter]

Here is the background to the story. My knowledge of the situation comes from having a son who is a Society priest who was stationed in Argentina. Argentina is not particularly American-friendly. To operate as a priest or religious there, you must obtain the appropriate work visa. The authority that affirms to the government who is a Catholic priest is the chief primate, in this case the Archbishop of Buenos Aires. Prior to this action, the SSPX was not recognized as a Catholic religious order in Argentina. Consequently the priest could only function under a 90 day visitor visa necessitating that he leave the country every 90 days and then return, starting the 90-day clock over again. It was typical for the authorities to “hassle” those who were using the visitor visa in such a way. A couple of years ago, the SSPX District Superior petitioned the then-Archbishop, Pope Bergolio, to recognize the SSPX as part of the Catholic Church in an official capacity to the Argentine government so that the proper visa could be obtained by Society priests operating there. Cardinal Bergolio promised to accommodate the Society’s petition. Soon thereafter, he was elected to the papacy and left the task to his successor. This action that petitions the government to recognize the SSPX as a religious society under the Catholic Church is the culmination of that effort.

This is helpful, knowledge from the scene.

 

[Denise1957]

Here is the background to the story. My knowledge of the situation comes from having a son who is a Society priest who was stationed in Argentina. Argentina is not particularly American-friendly. To operate as a priest or religious there, you must obtain the appropriate work visa. The authority that affirms to the government who is a Catholic priest is the chief primate, in this case the Archbishop of Buenos Aires. Prior to this action, the SSPX was not recognized as a Catholic religious order in Argentina. Consequently the priest could only function under a 90 day visitor visa necessitating that he leave the country every 90 days and then return, starting the 90-day clock over again. It was typical for the authorities to “hassle” those who were using the visitor visa in such a way. A couple of years ago, the SSPX District Superior petitioned the then-Archbishop, Pope Bergolio, to recognize the SSPX as part of the Catholic Church in an official capacity to the Argentine government so that the proper visa could be obtained by Society priests operating there. Cardinal Bergolio promised to accommodate the Society’s petition. Soon thereafter, he was elected to the papacy and left the task to his successor. This action that petitions the government to recognize the SSPX as a religious society under the Catholic Church is the culmination of that effort.

Thank you for providing some background for this story.

IMO, I think it’s providential that Pope Francis, before he was elected Pope, had some dealings with the SSPX, and as such it seems that the dealings were probably friendly and amicable, though I don’t know this for sure. If Pope Francis had not ever previously had anything to do with the SSPX, he might be inclined to think ill of them, since so many in the Church do.

God bless Pope Francis for helping out the SSPX in Argentina!

 

[commenter]

Maybe the local bishop will ordain them?

Or the Vatican will double-down and prohibit the local bishop from doing so. Don’t know.

There still is a lot of hostility against the FSSPX so I’m inclined to think the latter and that no deals are possible having their own bishop.

I get information about the Church in the US from a few different sources.
I haven’t seen evidence of “hostility” towards the SSPX by clergy, by bishops, or by the Vatican. I don’t say there isn’t any, I just say it is wrong for a few people on CAF to keep repeating this allegation over, and over, and over.
There is an SSPX chapel in my diocese. Many years ago there was a brief mention by the diocesan newspaper that this is not sponsored by or affiliated with the Diocese. Over 20 years ago I heard a mild complaint about it by the pastor, in whose parish it is located. But the overall response in my diocese is that people ignore it. And the chapel seems to ignore the Diocese.

I have heard complaints or attacks on other things in my diocese and nationally, but towards SSPX, almost always it is only indifference. On this forum, a very few people who mostly are not decision makers have posted critically towards SSPX on some issue. That usually isn’t hostility, SSPX have taken positions that, even orthodox Catholics, including people who love the TLM, strongly disagree with. In any event the vast majority of CAF posters never post about SSPX. There are far more attacks on Luther, for instance. A few posts, perhaps are unfair, but that’s true of hundreds of other subjects too. To disagree with a particular position or action by SSPX is not necessarily “hostility”.

It does not help SSPX’ public relations to keep up the chant “There is hostility against us”. It presents readers with the idea that SSPX is paranoid. What possible benefit to anyone comes from repeating that allegation over and over?

 

[lewevanhoop]

I really wish that this split would be healed and soon. I love the extraordinary form of the mass and as it happens the closest church to my home is SSPX (2 blocks) and the bus ride to the closest diocesan parish is about an hour.

 

[Lormar]

This is arguably the most intelligent post I have seen in a long time. Not that it will stop, or even slow down, confusing answers here (maybe including mine).

Leave it to Memaw! She always knows just what to say!

 

[Brendan]

Maybe the local bishop will ordain them? .

It is not a question of ordination. No one in the Church doubts the validity of their Holy Orders.

The question has been one of faculties. To licitly say Mass, the priest requires either the express permission from the local bishop, or at least, the presumption that such permission would be granted.

That would not affect the validity of the Eucharist, it would still be the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ, but it was confected in a way that was in opposition to the Church.

Faculties are required for validity (generally) for Absolution and to witness Marriages.

So those Sacraments are in doubt for the SSPX. One thing that I wonder about, is if this permission also involves, or includes faculties to hear confession and absolve?

 

[commenter]

It is not a question of ordination. No one in the Church doubts the validity of their Holy Orders.

The question has been one of faculties. To licitly say Mass, the priest requires either the express permission from the local bishop, or at least, the presumption that such permission would be granted.

That would not affect the validity of the Eucharist, it would still be the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ, but it was confected in a way that was in opposition to the Church.

Faculties are required for validity (generally) for Absolution and to witness Marriages.

So those Sacraments are in doubt for the SSPX. One thing that I wonder about, is if this permission also involves, or includes faculties to hear confession and absolve?

Do SSPX priests currently perform weddings? I guess they would not be recognized as valid by the Church, but I wondered if they are performed anyway. I suppose they would be recognized as valid by the government, in some jurisdictions. Do they currently hear confessions?

 

[Denise1957]

That would not affect the validity of the Eucharist, it would still be the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ, but it was confected in a way that was in opposition to the Church.

I think that they do not intentionally confect the Eucharist in opposition to the Church. That’s not how they view it at all. I’m not saying that they are correct in how they view it, but I don’t recall that even the Roman authorities have stated it in such a way - that they confect Holy Eucharist in opposition to the Church. We should at least be as charitable toward the SSPX as the Vatican is.

 

[commenter]

I think that they do not intentionally confect the Eucharist in opposition to the Church. That’s not how they view it at all. I’m not saying that they are correct in how they view it, but I don’t recall that even the Roman authorities have stated it in such a way - that they confect Holy Eucharist in opposition to the Church. We should at least be as charitable toward the SSPX as the Vatican is.

I am not that poster, but I think the sense was that they do it inconsistently with the RCC,
or irregularly with relation to the RCC, or unauthorized, rather than opposition in the sense of “opposing”.

But if a priest in SSPX or elsewhere denied the validity of the Ordinary Form Masses, that in my opinion would be in opposition in the sense of opposing.

 

[His_helpmeet]

I am not that poster, but I think the sense was that they do it inconsistently with the RCC,
or irregularly with relation to the RCC, or unauthorized, rather than opposition in the sense of “opposing”.

But if a priest in SSPX or elsewhere denied the validity of the Ordinary Form Masses, that in my opinion would be in opposition in the sense of opposing.

Their Baptisms and Masses are valid but illicit. Their confessions are INVALID because this is a juridic act of the Church and the priest must have faculties to hear confessions. I believe their weddings are also invalid.

 

[Tomdstone]

Their confessions are INVALID because this is a juridic act of the Church and the priest must have faculties to hear confessions. I believe their weddings are also invalid.

So if there is a reunion, everyone there has to confess all their sins all over again? And since their weddings are invalid, in the case of a divorce, they would not need to get an annulment from the Catholic Church in order to remarry?

 

[His_helpmeet]

So if there is a reunion, everyone there has to confess all their sins all over again? And since their weddings are invalid, in the case of a divorce, they would not need to get an annulment from the Catholic Church in order to remarry?

My expectation is that yes, this would be the case. In the case of a de facto invalid marriage, a declaration of nullity is still required, but it’s a very straightforward procedure that involves paperwork only.