Can an illegitimate son be a priest in the SSPX?

  • Thread starter Thread starter notredame_999
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
N

notredame_999

Guest
sspxseminary.org/vocations/do-i-have-a-vocation.html?task=view&start=4

I was reading the SSPX vocations website just out of curiosity today and I noticed that in the middle of the page they state “an illegitmate son cannot be a priest.” They listed this is as counter indicator for a vocation. Is this correct? Am I understanding this correctly? What is the logic in this? Why punish the son for the sins of the father? Was this the policy of the universal Roman Catholic Church before Vatican II?
 
Was this the policy of the universal Roman Catholic Church before Vatican II?
Click to expand...
Yes.

I had a friend in the early 1970s who wanted to become a Carmelite Nun. She was an adopted child. They would not take her because, even though she had been adopted and raised by an excellent and good Catholic family, her birth had been illegitimate.
 
Dear OP, go back to the site whose link you kindly provided, click on “Who we are”, once there, simply read the 1st sentence. They probably don’t eat pork, either.
 
There is a “contact us” link on the website that you linked here.

I suggest you ask them as that is the only sure way to know.

Anyways, even if they would ordain such a man, he would be automatically suspended at the time of his ordination as all SSPX priests are as they have no ministry within the Catholic Church.
 
ByzCath said:
There is a “contact us” link on the website that you linked here.

I suggest you ask them as that is the only sure way to know.

Anyways, even if they would ordain such a man, he would be automatically suspended at the time of his ordination as all SSPX priests are as they have no ministry within the Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
There were two parts to my question but ok.
 
Wouldn’t Jesus be considered illegitimate? He is the High Priest, so I wonder what the SSPX would say about that.
 
jpjd said:
Wouldn’t Jesus be considered illegitimate? He is the High Priest, so I wonder what the SSPX would say about that.
Click to expand...
Illegitimacy comes from being conceived during fornication. No such thing happened with Jesus.
 
Illegitimacy doesn’t come from fornication, it’s a nasty term that was used to describe the state of a child born out of wedlock. The SSPX are right to keep themselves pure from men whose conception circumstances they had no say in (sarcasm). They sound a little pharisaic to me, and let’s remember how Jesus felt about that self-righteous elite.
 
notredame_999 said:
There were two parts to my question but ok.
Click to expand...
Sorry about missing the second part.

Illegitimacy was an impediment to ordination (not sure about entry into religious orders) in old Code of Canon Law. This could be dispensed from. I do not know the reasoning behind this as it was in the old Code. The current Code of Canon Law does not have this restriction so I have seen no need to investigate it.

Sorry I could not help you out there.
 
ByzCath said:
Sorry about missing the second part.

Illegitimacy was an impediment to ordination (not sure about entry into religious orders) in old Code of Canon Law. This could be dispensed from. I do not know the reasoning behind this as it was in the old Code. The current Code of Canon Law does not have this restriction so I have seen no need to investigate it.

Sorry I could not help you out there.
Click to expand...
good information thank you
 
I have heard a canon lawyer say that the concept of illegitimacy no longer exists in the Catholic Church. If this is not true, please feel free to correct me. If it is true, I do not know what to thing about this in terms of the SSPX. I guess on one hand, it is their business. They could require all priests be red-heads as far as I know. On the other hand, it is but one more point of separation from them and Catholicism today.

Do other orders or priestly organizations have any distinctions that go beyond Catholic teaching?
 
This really shouldn’t be too shocking. Society in general ostracized people born out of wedlock 50 years ago. It’s irrational but I would imagine many still hold those same feelings today, even against a president.
 
I’d say the reasoning is that a priest, by his person, should not be a source for scandal. You’d also have to look at what the bible says about illegitimate children, for example.

The old (current?) name for an illegitimate child is b-------. It’s become a term of scorn. Not a good start to a ministry. I also remember priests shouldn’t have visible tatoos, I think. Same reasoning, I suppose.
 
Robertanthony said:
Illegitimacy doesn’t come from fornication, it’s a nasty term that was used to describe the state of a child born out of wedlock.
Click to expand...
This statement makes no sense. A child born out of wedlock isexception would be a child born of rape, in which case the woman gave no consent. But the child would still be illegitimate, unless later legitimated by the marriage of their parents.
 
notredame_999 said:
Is this correct? Am I understanding this correctly? What is the logic in this? Why punish the son for the sins of the father? Was this the policy of the universal Roman Catholic Church before Vatican II?
Click to expand...
Yes, you are understanding it correctly, since SSPX are schismatic and follow older code of Church law.

Here is an article from the Old Catholic Encyclopedia, which includes a section on this particular impediment to the priesthood (which is no longer in effect under the new Code of Canon Law, 1983):

newadvent.org/cathen/08170a.htm
 
1ke said:
SSPX …follow older code of Church law.
Click to expand...
Not entirely. They did use the current code of Canon Law, specifically the “necessity” clause, to “justify” their illegal consecrations in 1988.
 
1ke said:
Yes, you are understanding it correctly, since SSPX are schismatic and follow older code of Church law.

Here is an article from the Old Catholic Encyclopedia, which includes a section on this particular impediment to the priesthood (which is no longer in effect under the new Code of Canon Law, 1983):

newadvent.org/cathen/08170a.htm
Click to expand...
Forum Master,

One would not expect someone with such an exalted title to disseminate falsities, nor go further in labeling than the authorities in Rome do.

It seems you have an issue with the Pope himself who refers to the issue with the Society as an internal affair inside the Church.

ProVobis,
There are many elements present in the current code of Canon Law which are also present in the previous. Necessity is not a novelty from the 80’s. It has been present in the code for a long long time.
 
1ke said:
Yes, you are understanding it correctly, since SSPX are schismatic and follow older code of Church law.
Click to expand...
If this is what the Forum Master has to say of the SSPX, it´s hard to see how we can expect an intelligent, unhindered debate. 😦

I´m beginning to understand why the earlier SSPX thread was closed with no explanation at all.
 
1ke said:
Yes, you are understanding it correctly, since SSPX are schismatic and follow older code of Church law.

Here is an article from the Old Catholic Encyclopedia, which includes a section on this particular impediment to the priesthood (which is no longer in effect under the new Code of Canon Law, 1983):

newadvent.org/cathen/08170a.htm
Click to expand...
maurin said:
Forum Master,

One would not expect someone with such an exalted title to disseminate falsities, nor go further in labeling than the authorities in Rome do.

It seems you have an issue with the Pope himself who refers to the issue with the Society as an internal affair inside the Church.

ProVobis,
There are many elements present in the current code of Canon Law which are also present in the previous. Necessity is not a novelty from the 80’s. It has been present in the code for a long long time.
Click to expand...
Forum Master,

I wanted to add something. I do not object to you disagreeing with the Society’s pov, which was the same pov of the Church for centuries. You have as much right to you opinion as I do, and in disagreement with anyone I am diligent (frailty causes me to not always succeed) to be respectful, and not go further than necessary in my statements. With your title, some people will look to you as an example of appropriate behavior.

By all means state your perspective. It is probably more prudent not to apply labels that the Church Authorities themselves do not use. It does damage to dialogue, which we are invited to enter into by the Council, and inhibits more active participation by the laity in the affairs of the Church, as was also called for by the Council.

Thanks for the limk to New Advent. It was a great read.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top