Doctrinal vs. Disciplinary

[CyrilSebastian]

Pope Benedict XVI had declared that, for doctrinal rather than disciplinary reasons, the Society of Saint Pius X has no canonical status in the Catholic Church, and because of the lack of canonical status, the ministries exercised by its ministers are not legitimate in the Church. Please explain.

 

[ProVobis]

I suppose in this context it means the Pope isn’t doing it to punish them but that they chose to disregard certain doctrines of the Church?

 

[quiet52]

Pope Benedict XVI had declared that, for doctrinal rather than disciplinary reasons, the Society of Saint Pius X has no canonical status in the Catholic Church, and because of the lack of canonical status, the ministries exercised by its ministers are not legitimate in the Church. Please explain.

The SSPX is in schism with the Catholic Church for its rejection of apostolic succession (a doctrine); in particular, they reject the validity of the Second Vatican Council.

Wikipedia offers a decent summary.

 

[Magnanimous]

The SSPX is in schism with the Catholic Church for its rejection of apostolic succession (a doctrine); in particular, they reject the validity of the Second Vatican Council.

Wikipedia offers a decent summary.

This is wrong, I am not a SSPX attendee, but I feel I should defend them from mischaracterization. They are not Schism, nor do they deny Apostolic Succession. They are fully Catholic, but the Society has no canonical recognition as of yet in Church, as such no Bishop has allowed them to be in their Diocese, and given them necessary faculties to minister. Their Masses are valid, but not licit, I know there has been much arguing over the point of whether or not attending their Mass fulfils one’s Sunday Obligation, but I will repeat what one of the priest at my parish said “…it does.” The Sacraments of Marriage and Penance are, unfortunately, not valid, since they require said faculties from the Bishop in whose Diocese they operate. They do recognize Pope Francis as the legitimate heir to the Chair of St. Peter.

 

[po18guy]

This is wrong, I am not a SSPX attendee, but I feel I should defend them from mischaracterization. They are not Schism, nor do they deny Apostolic Succession. They are fully Catholic, but the Society has no canonical recognition as of yet in Church, as such no Bishop has allowed them to be in their Diocese, and given them necessary faculties to minister. Their Masses are valid, but not licit, I know there has been much arguing over the point of whether or not attending their Mass fulfils one’s Sunday Obligation, but I will repeat what one of the priest at my parish said “…it does.” The Sacraments of Marriage and Penance are, unfortunately, not valid, since they require said faculties from the Bishop in whose Diocese they operate. They do recognize Pope Francis as the legitimate heir to the Chair of St. Peter.

They are guilty of disobedience, at a minimum. And, please explain how choosing to attend an illicit mass is not the sin of disobedience in itself. Bishop Fellay may believe that he is the Ordinary of the SSPX, but in reality, it is the worldly spirit of disobedience.

 

[ClearWater]

This is wrong, I am not a SSPX attendee, but I feel I should defend them from mischaracterization. They are not Schism, nor do they deny Apostolic Succession. They are fully Catholic, but the Society has no canonical recognition as of yet in Church, as such no Bishop has allowed them to be in their Diocese, and given them necessary faculties to minister. Their Masses are valid, but not licit, I know there has been much arguing over the point of whether or not attending their Mass fulfils one’s Sunday Obligation, but I will repeat what one of the priest at my parish said “…it does.” The Sacraments of Marriage and Penance are, unfortunately, not valid, since they require said faculties from the Bishop in whose Diocese they operate. They do recognize Pope Francis as the legitimate heir to the Chair of St. Peter.

I wouldn’t go.

 

[esieffe]

It is my understanding that if we reject doctrine or dogma we are then “outside” of the Church. This in of itself is not saying [You are now subject to punishment] IMHO what it is saying is that part of being a PRACTICING Catholic is to accept the teachings.

The rejection by SSPX of Vatican II means they are no longer in agreement with the Church, not that they are worthy of punishment, but by doing so, it is my IMPRESSION they have left the Roman Catholic Church. They are not supported by Rome. They have not “fallen,” they are still Christians, they have simply chosen a different path.

 

[esieffe]

If you allow different groups to ignore doctrine, what is the point of being loyal to the chair of St Peter? Of having Bishops? Stewardship, and religious leadership effectively ends. Just my HO.

Peace everybody!

 

[TheDoctor]

Pope Benedict XVI had declared that, for doctrinal rather than disciplinary reasons, the Society of Saint Pius X has no canonical status in the Catholic Church, and because of the lack of canonical status, the ministries exercised by its ministers are not legitimate in the Church. Please explain.

Before we go any further what specifically don’t you understand:

• difference between doctrinial vs. disciplinary reasons
• what no canonical status means
• inability of SSPX priests to perform some licit ministries
• something else?

Also, when you say “Pope Benedict XVI had declared that”, what specific declaration are you referencing (I ask so we can look it up - wording and context are important).

 

[dans0622]

Pope Benedict XVI had declared that, for doctrinal rather than disciplinary reasons, the Society of Saint Pius X has no canonical status in the Catholic Church, and because of the lack of canonical status, the ministries exercised by its ministers are not legitimate in the Church. Please explain.

Hello,

It means that the Society’s status is not so much the result of disciplinary action on the part of the Holy See but because of the Society’s choice to remain where they are, because of doctrinal disputes. No penalties are now imposed upon them…although they do labor under at least one “automatic” penalty.

Any structure in the Church needs to be approved by the Church. This is particularly true and consequential when it comes to priestly Societies, because there can be no “autonomous” clergy. In legal actuality, all SSPX clerics (priests and bishops) are autonomous–no one in that Society has any legal authority as far as the Catholic Church is concerned. And, in order to minister in the Church, ministers need to be part of the hierarchical structure. The SSPX is not part of that structure. Their ordinations are valid but since they are not approved by hierarchical authority, carry with them an automatic suspension (cf. canon 1383).

For reference, this is what Pope Benedict said:

The remission of the excommunication was a measure taken in the field of ecclesiastical discipline: the individuals were freed from the burden of conscience constituted by the most serious of ecclesiastical penalties. This disciplinary level needs to be distinguished from the doctrinal level. The fact that the Society of Saint Pius X does not possess a canonical status in the Church is not, in the end, based on disciplinary but on doctrinal reasons. As long as the Society does not have a canonical status in the Church, its ministers do not exercise legitimate ministries in the Church. There needs to be a distinction, then, between the disciplinary level, which deals with individuals as such, and the doctrinal level, at which ministry and institution are involved. 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.

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/letters/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20090310_remissione-scomunica_en.html

Dan