Can SSPX Priests be given faculties by the Ordinary of a Diocese

  • Thread starter Thread starter DeusSalusNostra
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Lormar said:
That is what causes a lot of trouble - lay “experts” - whether in Canon Law or theology. I believe Brother Jay mentioned this once too.

Thanks for the reminder.
Click to expand...
👍👍👍👍

I am constantly amazed at the sheer number of self proclaimed experts that we have on this particular forum in everything from theology to canon law and absolutely everything in between.

If I ever have a question that I am really interested in, I almost always either refer it to Brother JR or state my hope that he will see it, become interested and chime in on the subject. By the way, has there been any news on how he is doing? I haven’t seen much from him lately and am growing concerned.
 
I don’t know if the three posts following mine were a response to me or not but I will say that if I describe myself in my posts here, I tend to say “I am not an expert in…”, even though I have my share of advanced degrees, including a jcl.

As for the topic at hand, I’d be happy to refer to published commentaries on the topic but I know of none which address it in a specific way and are updated to incorporate the recent developments (c. 2009) regarding the SSPX. So, I could only refer to general principles of law as stated in the 1983 Code.

Dan
 
sw85 said:
I don’t believe that the superiors of societies of apostolic life have power to grant faculties. This seems to be the case with the FSSP, which has to have the bishops’ blessing before it can set up shop.
Click to expand...
That’s the case with all orders or communities operating in the diocese. A bishop could even forbid the Jesuits or Dominicans from establishing houses in his dioceses, legally speaking (of course, that would be a bit unlikely)
 
Catholic4Jesus said:
It seems as though a lot of bishops nowadays are starting to become a little more tolerant of the SSPX and are starting to grant them faculties.
Click to expand...
LOL one diocese where that will never happen is San Bernardino, one of the most liberal and gay friendly dioceses in the country.
 
Hmmm. Can a priest suspended by the Pope be given faculties by a local ordinary?

The priest has “no legitimate ministry in the Church”, but is validly (but illicitly) ordained. Valid ordination and faculties from the ordinary seem to be the determining factor, according to FZ’s interpretation of canon law. That would seem to indicate it can be done.
 
I wonder what Jesus would think of “licit” and “valid” and “faculties.” These are all man-made creations of the modern Levitical priesthood.
 
Faithdancer said:
I wonder what Jesus would think of “licit” and “valid” and “faculties.” These are all man-made creations of the modern Levitical priesthood.
Click to expand...
Not relevant and certainly not contributing to the discussion. Please take your rhetoric elsewhere. 🙂
 
PaulinVA said:
Hmmm. Can a priest suspended by the Pope be given faculties by a local ordinary? …
Click to expand...
Hello,

As far as I know, none of the SSPX priests are “suspended” by the Pope. Practically, their situation is one of suspension but canonically, they (again, as far as I know) are not under that penalty. If they were, I think it would be impossible for a diocesan bishop to grant them faculties since a decree of the Holy See would have clearly taken this matter out of the scope of the Bishop’s authority (cf. c. 381).

Maybe the very existence of the PCED is a “decree” which takes this matter out of the bishop’s hands. Certainly, that is true on a global scale–there is no bishop who should think he could accept the SSPX into his diocese as an institute of consecrated life of diocesan right. Anyway, for individual priests in particular circumstances (the topic of the thread), I do think the bishop could allow the SSPX priest to function licitly. I still could be convinced otherwise.

Dan
 
MODERATOR NOTICE

Unless you have something positive to say about a diocese, say nothing.

No show of disrespect to Church authority or Church law will be tolerated. Final warning.
 
dans0622 said:
Hello,

As far as I know, none of the SSPX priests are “suspended” by the Pope. Practically, their situation is one of suspension but canonically, they (again, as far as I know) are not under that penalty. If they were, I think it would be impossible for a diocesan bishop to grant them faculties since a decree of the Holy See would have clearly taken this matter out of the scope of the Bishop’s authority (cf. c. 381).

Maybe the very existence of the PCED is a “decree” which takes this matter out of the bishop’s hands. Certainly, that is true on a global scale–there is no bishop who should think he could accept the SSPX into his diocese as an institute of consecrated life of diocesan right. Anyway, for individual priests in particular circumstances (the topic of the thread), I do think the bishop could allow the SSPX priest to function licitly. I still could be convinced otherwise.

Dan
Click to expand...
The suspension was never lifted. The excommunication was. HH Francis has yet to make a clear statement that has been seen.

Until Rome says otherwise, the SSPX as a society, and all its adherent members, must be presumed to be suspended.

It is possible, however, that individual priests of the SSPX may disavow themselves from the SSPX and be granted faculties (and have their suspensions lifted); since the suspension was issued by Rome, only Rome can lift it.
 
Aramis said:
The suspension was never lifted. The excommunication was. HH Francis has yet to make a clear statement that has been seen.

Until Rome says otherwise, the SSPX as a society, and all its adherent members, must be presumed to be suspended.

It is possible, however, that individual priests of the SSPX may disavow themselves from the SSPX and be granted faculties (and have their suspensions lifted); since the suspension was issued by Rome, only Rome can lift it.
Click to expand...
Hello,

Your comment made me review this issue and it indeed would seem that c. 1383 would apply to all priests in the SSPX (stating that those ordained by a bishop who does not have the proper dimissorial letters are *ipso facto *suspended). So, I agree that we can “presume” suspension. On this point, I was wrong in my earlier post.

I maintain, however, that “the Pope” has not suspended any of the priests nor has he specifically entrusted the remission of this penalty to the Apostolic See. Do you have a reference to the contrary?

I know that Archbishop Lefebvre was punished with suspension reserved to the Apostolic See and the priests he ordained in 1976 were also declared to be suspended (because of the canon of 1917 Code that corresponded to 1983 Code c. 1383) but I don’t think there was as special reservation for their penalty or, again, any priest ordained since then.

I am depending on this thesis for much of my “understanding” of these issues: catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=1392&CFID

Dan
 
Though this isn’t about granting faculties, I thought this article was fitting for this topic and very generous of the diocesan bishop.

rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2013/05/diocesan-bishop-grants-use-of-church.html

Diocesan Bishop grants use of church for funeral rites of deceased SSPX priest

The Bishop of Gap and Embrun (Hautes-Alpes, France), Bp. Jean-Michel di Falco Léandri, kindly granted use of the church of Saint-André-des-Cordeliers, in Gap, for the funeral rites of Fr. Dominique Lagneau, FSSPX, a much loved and cherished priest of the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX), director of the house of priestly retreats of that society in Montgardin, near Gap.

The ceremony was led by the SSPX Superior-General, Bp. Bernard Fellay, and took place on May 17, 2013.
 
dans0622 said:
Hello,

Your comment made me review this issue and it indeed would seem that c. 1383 would apply to all priests in the SSPX (stating that those ordained by a bishop who does not have the proper dimissorial letters are *ipso facto *suspended). So, I agree that we can “presume” suspension. On this point, I was wrong in my earlier post.

I maintain, however, that “the Pope” has not suspended any of the priests nor has he specifically entrusted the remission of this penalty to the Apostolic See. Do you have a reference to the contrary?

I know that Archbishop Lefebvre was punished with suspension reserved to the Apostolic See and the priests he ordained in 1976 were also declared to be suspended (because of the canon of 1917 Code that corresponded to 1983 Code c. 1383) but I don’t think there was as special reservation for their penalty or, again, any priest ordained since then.

I am depending on this thesis for much of my “understanding” of these issues: catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=1392&CFID

Dan
Click to expand...
Fr. Z’s comments:
wdtprs.com/blog/2009/01/misconceptions-what-the-lifting-of-the-sspx-excoms-means-for-people/

A Swiss bishop is quoted from his ban of use of parishes in his diocese:
vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/world-news/detail/articolo/lefebvriani-lefebvrianslefebvrianos-21883/

From Catholicculture.org: Warning: An SSPX Priest Is Incapable of Absolving You from Sin
catholicculture.org/commentary/otc.cfm?id=1080

His holiness Benedict XVI even stated that they have no canonical ministry within the church. They are not outside the church (that would be “in schism”), nor forbidden to receive the sacraments (that’s “excommunicated”), but are formally barred from ministry…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top