L
laszlo
Guest
It is not enough. The true way is the narrow way, including everything, in this case the active and effective authority of the living Magisterium. The Church and behing her Jesus Christ waits them back.
- Status
P
ProVobis
Guest
The territorial bishop must provide the faculties of forgiving sins and lifting certain excommunications. Even a priest with full faculties who visits another diocese needs permission of that other diocese to hear confessions.
P
PaulinVA
Guest
I believe the harshest description of SSPX by Church officials is that there have been schismatic act(s) and possibly a schismatic mentality. The SSPX has never been declared in schism, though I don’t think they’ve ever been accused of being heretics.
Heresy and schism are different.
I
Iotaunum
Guest
I know the SSPX reject the accusation of being schismatic, since they accept the Primacy of the Roman Pontiff. There is a difference in disobeying an order (whether culpably or inculpably) and rejecting the authority of the one who gives the order, or his right/authority to do so. I am certainly not in schism, in fact I have spent a good deal of time debating those who reject the authority of the Roman Pontiff. I am not a heretic either.
P
PaulinVA
Guest
Not accusing you of being either. At the same, it is good to remember that the Church declares groups to be in schism or performing schismatic acts, it is not for the individual or group to decide.
There is a document circulating of a Vatican official being asked if the faithful can fulfill their Sunday obligation by attending an SSPX Mass. The answer was yes, the faithful can attend, but need to be on guard not to “imbibe of the schismatic mentality”.
I would suggest that believing the verbal and theological gymnasts that SSPX engages in to justify supplied jurisdiction or that the suspensions/excommunications are/were invalid is just such mentality.
B
Bluegoat
Guest
But from what I understand, although one could attend their Mass on Sunday, one could not go to them for marriage, Confession, and so on. That is, one would effectively have to be part of a regular parish as well.
J
JReducation
Guest
All Catholic priests must be granted faculties by the bishop of the diocese in which they administer the sacrament.
The Orthodox clergy are not Catholic. Therefore, we don’t have the authority to deny them faculties. Only their patriarchs can do that.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
R
rben20
Guest
Going a tad bit off topic, until the illegal ordinations the SSPX had faculties under Bishop Lefebvre correct? I just don’t understand why Rome wouldn’t see that some day Bishop Lefebvre would need someone to replace him. I mean, it isn’t exactly a hidden or unforeseeable event?All Catholic priests must be granted faculties by the bishop of the diocese in which they administer the sacrament.
The Orthodox clergy are not Catholic. Therefore, we don’t have the authority to deny them faculties. Only their patriarchs can do that.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
J
JReducation
Guest
There was an agreement to ordain one bishop. There were conditions too. It was the ordination of the four without permission that caused the problem.
However, according to the Sacred Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life, priests who belong to religious communities and those who belong to societies of secular priests, such as the SSPX, do not need their own bishop. They can get faculties from the diocesan bishop.
The Dominicans are an order of priests and they don’t have their own bishop, neither do the Jesuits, Salesians or Carmelites, the largest orders of priests.
Then you have societies of apostolic life such as the Maryknoll, Missionhurst, Vincentians and FSSP. They don’t have their own bishop either.
Everyone else gets their faculties to function in a diocese from the local bishop. If they are visiting a religious house of men, the local superior can grant faculties, but only for that house.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
A
Aramis
Guest
Not exactly.
He could grant faculties for SSPX priests to hear confessions of SSPX members because he was Superior General of the SSPX. Any cleric elected superior general of an order or society can grant faculties to hear confessions of members of that society or order… and to those living in community with them… but not to laity in general. If there had been an approved non-celibate SSPX society branch (there is one that is unapproved), then faculties for them being married could be granted.
Bishop Fellay, while a bishop, is not actually head of the SSPX because he’s a bishop. He’s the head of the SSPX because he’s their elected Superior General, and that’s where his ability to grant faculties to hear confessions of members of the SSPX comes from. They can replace him next time they hold their general assembly… at which point, he can’t even grant faculties to hear confessions. And even if they elected a seminarian Superior General, the Superior General is the one who grants what faculties the SSPX can grant.
J
JReducation
Guest
I’m not sure if Bishop Fellay even has the right to grant faculties for internal purposes, as you described above. The reason that a supeior can grant faculties is because he’s an Ordinary. However, the wording that the Holy Father used when he lifted the excommnications raises questions. He said that the SSPX did not have canonical ministry or a canonical place.
Being the Ordinary of your community is a canonical ministry. In other words, your authority is not granted by the election. It’s granted by Canon Law. The election has to be ratified. If you’re a society of Pontifical Right, the election of the Superior General must ratified by the Holy See. If you’re a society of Diocesan Right the election must be ratified by the Diocesan Bishop. If the election is not ratified, the elected superior is not have Ordinary jurisdiction.
I’m not sure that Bishop Fellay is a canonical Superior General. It’s an interesting question. The fact is that he did not arrive at the position the way that other Major Superiors arrive. Under normal circumstances, a community of Pontifical Right has an election every X number of years. Then submits the results for approval. Did they do that?
Believe it or not, there have been cases when the Holy See has vetoed the general chapter. It happened last year to the Maryknoll Missionaries. They elected a Superior General and Pope Benedict vetoed the election. They had to go back and vote again.
There is one more thing about faculties. Even when the society or religious community is in full communion with the Church, only a priest can grant faculties. In an institute such as the SSPX, that’s not going to be a problem. They are a clerical institute. Therefore, only priests can be elected superior. In a fraternal order, such as Franciscans and Benedictines, not everyone is a priest and not all of us are clerical orders. You can elect a lay brother as major superior. However, you must then elect a priest as vicar. The superior governs the community, but the vicar grants the faculties. The superior does not interfere in that area. He still governs, appoints, transfers, adminsters common good and assets, and is the highest authority in the community. It’s just the area of faculties that he does not regulate.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
V
VivaCristoRey27
Guest
The issue with Bp. Fellay here is one reason his election was so controversial. The SSPX does not claim to have jurisdiction and actually is pretty insistent that it does not have ordinary jurisdiction.
An SSPX priest is not under a particular SSPX bishop. The four SSPX bishops simply travel the world confirming and ordaining (confirmation by a priest requires jurisdiction from an ordinary, confirmation by a bishop does not), the two things they were ordained to do (that is, Abp. Lefebvre talked about this and made clear that the bishops were not being given territorial jurisdiction).
So the election of Bp. Fellay was controversial within the SSPX because it confuses people and gives the illusion that the Society is trying to claim jurisdiction, while it does not.
With regards to the issue of annulments, remember that an annulment is not an act as such, it does not actually do anything. A marriage is either valid or it is not valid. An annulment is properly termed a “declaration of nullity”, that is, the wedding is investigated to see if it might be invalid for any reason. If the wedding was invalid, the couple is not married; if the wedding was valid, the couple is married and no power on earth short of death can change that. The normal way annulments are decided in the Church is indeed an act of a canonical authority, but the SSPX does not do that and does not claim to do that. What they say is that the normal courts are too lenient, they too often declare perfectly valid marriages to be invalid, especially in the US. The SSPX annulment courts are much more strict and therefore more likely to come out with the correct decision.
An SSPX priest is not under a particular SSPX bishop. The four SSPX bishops simply travel the world confirming and ordaining (confirmation by a priest requires jurisdiction from an ordinary, confirmation by a bishop does not), the two things they were ordained to do (that is, Abp. Lefebvre talked about this and made clear that the bishops were not being given territorial jurisdiction).
So the election of Bp. Fellay was controversial within the SSPX because it confuses people and gives the illusion that the Society is trying to claim jurisdiction, while it does not.
With regards to the issue of annulments, remember that an annulment is not an act as such, it does not actually do anything. A marriage is either valid or it is not valid. An annulment is properly termed a “declaration of nullity”, that is, the wedding is investigated to see if it might be invalid for any reason. If the wedding was invalid, the couple is not married; if the wedding was valid, the couple is married and no power on earth short of death can change that. The normal way annulments are decided in the Church is indeed an act of a canonical authority, but the SSPX does not do that and does not claim to do that. What they say is that the normal courts are too lenient, they too often declare perfectly valid marriages to be invalid, especially in the US. The SSPX annulment courts are much more strict and therefore more likely to come out with the correct decision.
V
VivaCristoRey27
Guest
Here is the SSPX US District’s former Superior (Superior at the time of writing), Fr. Peter Scott, on the matter of annulments (note that the idea of the SSPX priests having “personal supplied jurisdiction” is denied by Rome, but this is just to show how they see themselves):
SSPX US Website:
You may think this right or wrong, but regardless, I think this suffices to give the mind of the SSPX on this issue.
SSPX US Website:
Source: sspx.org/miscellaneous/canonical/Canonical_Commission/questions_re_canonical_commission.htm
You may think this right or wrong, but regardless, I think this suffices to give the mind of the SSPX on this issue.
L
laszlo
Guest
No. Archbishop Lefebvre had active jurisdiction only in Africa. When he moved back to Europe before the Council, he became titular archbishop only w/o active jurisdiction. Until 1975 they acted as pious association under the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Fribourg.
The SSPX claims that their pious association received jurisdiction independent from the bishop of Fribourg, but the Apostolic See never confirmed that.
In 1988 Cardinal Ratzinger wanted to provide that jurisdiction in the form of personal prelature. Archbishop Lefebvre signed the agreement, but later revoked that consent refusing to accept the at least one year preparation period.
J
JReducation
Guest
This is the kind of language that is keeping them in hot water. The more they use terms such as “the Novus Ordo tribunal” the more they will get rejected. First of all, there is no such thing. Novus Ordo was Latin for the New Order of the mass when it was first promulgate under Pope Paul VI. There is no “new order tribunal”.
To say that the canon requiring that the couple understand what marriage is able is a liberal law, is a personal opinion of the writer or speaker. To state such opinions to the faithful as it they had the authority to make them is arrogant and irresponsible. If they believe that the wording of the law is not helpful or that the law is mistaken, that’s something that they need to take up with the Signatura, which deal with canonical affairs. None of us has the authority to make a claim contrary to what is stated in the law. While the laity can get away with making statements such as this, the clergy and religious should be more prudent.
When a lay person says that a law or laws are wrong or bad because of ABC, it’s taken for what it’s worth. It’s a layman’s opinion and he’s allowed to have one. When a clergyman or a religious makes the same statement, people take it to heart and they run with it. They don’t listen and then let it go as someone’s opinion. On the flipside of that, some people who may agree with the law will label that cleric or religious in a negative life as a dissident, which gives unnecessary scandal. Because the statement was unnecessary in the first place.
Finally, to have a commission that hands down verdicts that have no juridical authority is also dangerous to the lay faithful. Simple people trust these verdicts. If and when these verdicts are not upheld by the tribunal, these people will be caught in a state of ambivalence. They will not know whom to believe. That’s not fair to them. You never say anything to someone that can create ambivalence or conflict between the individual and legitimate authority. That’s called splitting.
I do not know if the attitude of this particular priest is prevalent in the Society, but his attitude is dangerous. It is not himself whom he puts into the middle of two opinions, but the innocent layman who does not know canon law or theology as does the average parish priest or religious.
If all things are equal, as they should be, even the parish priest should not be talking as if he were a canon lawyer or theologian, because he’s not and neither are most of the priests of the SSPX. The formation given to most priests and religious is enough to give them a graduate school level of knowledge about theology, philosophy and law at a Master’s level. However, it is not enough to make them theologians or lawyers. That’s why we have STDs and JCDs to answer these more difficult questions and they would act irresponsibly if they hand out their opinions as if they wee Gospel. At least, they have more expertise in their area than the typical priest or religious that you would meet in a parish. The honest priest or religious that you would meet in a parish would tell you that he is or she is not an expert and will give you the best answer that he or she can. If you need more help, then you will be referred to someone with higher education and the proper credentials to resolve your problem or answer your question.
The attitude conveyed by SOME of the SSPX clergy is that they know something that no one else knows. That’s not fair to the faithful. That’s what is dragging out the reconciliation between the SSPX and the Holy See.
In this regard, they are very similar to many of the Orthodox clergy. They have an attitude that they have the answers and Rome doesn’t know what it’s talking about, because Rome is in crisis. The word “crisisi” is used to deflect all question about their authority to make pronouncements on theology, liturgy and law. That’s an unfortunate behavior.
It is one thing for clergy and theologians to have these debates internally and quite another to have them in full view of the world. The truth is that the world does not always understand and sometimes just gets tired of listening to the ongoing debate and throws in the towel or gets frightened. The last thing I want to hear is my heart surgeon and my cardiologist debating over my open heart surgery. I’d rather that they discuss their differences in private and then tell me their conclusion. It doesn’t rattle my nerves.
Fraternally,
Br. Jr, OSF
T
TrueLight
Guest
Interesting you should say this:
Yesterday someone told me that she “heard” that the SSPX was going around giving annulments to people who were denied annulments by the Church.
That didn’t sound right to me, but since I had never seen this discussed on this forum, I couldn’t say anything.
P
PaulinVA
Guest
The rift is really rather wide. Does the SSPX submit to Rome in ANY area?
P
ProVobis
Guest
The previous 20 ecumenical councils?
W
Will_S
Guest
The only thing you can say to that is: Give me one actual specific example.
Personally, I don’t believe it, but if someone can produce a single real case where that happened, then I would stand corrected.
J
JReducation
Guest
I’m going to have to protest to that one for a number of reasons.
- The Catholic Church neither began nor ended at Vatican II.
- The SSPX is not the only family of Catholic reformers. Long before them we had the Cistercians, Franciscans, Dominicans, Discalced Carmelites, Jesuits, Missionaries of Charity, Daughters of Charity, Colletines, and other whose names I can’t recall. Not everything that they worked for was well received in the Church or preserved. Some of their contributions were unnecessarily and even unjustly suppressed. None of these groups created the havoc that the SSPX has created. They submitted until the Church came around and addressed their concerns and acknowledged that their vision had metit.
At the turn of the century, Pope Pius X asked them to ordain more men and place them as the disposal of the local bishops. This was also contrary to the mind of Bernard, Francis and Benedict. They had not founded orders for priests, nor did they intend for their brother-priests to do parish work. They were to be either enclosed monks or itinerant beggers.
The laity loved it. The result for the orders was catastrophic. They became very clerical. Community life went out the window. They developed a pecking order. The priests could not lift a piece of paper off the floor. If a man had a brain, he had to be ordained. It was not enough for him to wish to be a friar or a monk and be a scholar and preacher or whatever else scholars do. If he was not ordained, he could no longer eat at the same table as the ordained, sit in the same recreation room with them, pray the Divine Office with them, or talk to them unless they spoke to him first. They washed, cooked, cleaned and took care of the house for the ordained, as if they were housewives and servants. They were not allowed to vote in community matters. If Francis of Assisi had come back, he would not have been able to run his own order, because he was not a priest. St. Benedict would have been forced to take on parish work, which was far from his mind when he founded his monastery. The Franciscans were commanded to use Gregorian Chant, even though Francis banned it in his rule.
By 1962, there were more friars and monks living in parishes as if they were secular priests than those living in monasteries and rectories. Prayer life was minimal, because the parish took priority over prayer. There was no community life, again the parish. There was no poverty. Everyone needed a car, a nice suit, spending money and so forth. Obedience was shot. Only the non-ordained had to obey. The ordained came and went as they pleased. They did not have to ask for permission to leave the house, to miss prayer or miss a community function or to spend time with friends outside of the house.
The laity was ecstatic, because Father was so available and there were so many fathers. The orders were depressed, frustrated and concerned, because they were drifting away from their roots. However, the Benedictines, Cistercians and Franciscans obeyed, prayed and tried to impress upon popes the importance of return to tradition. Finally, Bl. John XXIII and Pope Paul VI heard them. The Council was commanded by Pope Paul VI to issue Perfectae Caritatis. Perfectae Caritatis invoked the doctrines of religious life set forth by the masters and ordered everyone back to their roots.
The return has not been without casualties. Many of these friars and monks entered when these orders were off-track. This was the only order they knew. This was the order that they fell in love with. The idea of going to live in a friary, to sit at the table with a non-ordained brother as their equal, to do laundry, clean floors with the same hands that they consecrate blew their minds. The final blow came when the Holy See returned authority to all. The non-ordained could once again be superiors over brother-priests, with guideline that protected the rights of both. This was unacceptable to some. The return triggered an exodus. Thousands of men left. Less men are entering the Benedictines, Cistercians and Franciscan families, because they are drawn to the parish priest model, which we can no longer promise, because we’re doing what our founders wanted us to do.
Over 900 years of this and other things that raised many eye-brows these families obeyed and negotiated with the Church. They prayed and waited for God to respond. The SSPX is not the only group who has a vision. But we must tell the truth. These other groups have excelled in docility.
The Church does not begin nor end in 1962. There is more to come.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
- Status