Three points on the recent SSPX ordinations [Peters]

[Catholic_Opinion]

There really isn’t any “news” associated with the recent SSPX ordinations in Minnesota–and there is certainly nothing surprising about them–though three comments seem in order.

First, contrary to some reports, the Catholic Church does recognize these ordinations, by which we must understand, though, that 13 more men have taken the priesthood of Christ illegally from bishops acting in a schismatic manner. While there is no excommunication associated with such priestly ordinations per se (as there is for episcopal ordinations contrary to 1983 CIC 1382), objectively speaking, participation in these ceremonies was still gravely sinful…

More…

 

[Catholic_Opinion]

The distinguished canonist Ed Peters, on his blog *In The Light Of The Law, *has opined about the illicit ordinations performed by the SSPX.

This is timely especially because of the tensions in Germany between the bishops in that conference and the SSPX. The Holy See wants to reconcile the SSPX and bring it into closer and manifest unity with the Bishop of Rome while the bishops in Germany seem determined to alienate the group so as to drive a wedge and keep it out of unity.

Here is Peters on the issue of the SSPX’s ordinations, with my emphases and comments.

Three points on the recent SSPX ordinations

There really isn’t any “news” associated with the recent SSPX ordinations in Minnesota—and there is certainly nothing surprising about them—though three comments seem in order. [Remember that the SSPX’s American seminary is located in Winona, MN.]

First, contrary to some reports, the Catholic Church does recognize these ordinations, *[that is, they are valid] by which we must understand, though, that 13 more men have taken the priesthood of Christ illegally from bishops acting in a schismatic manner. [Peters does not say that they are in schism.] While there is no excommunication associated with such priestly ordinations per se (as there is for episcopal ordinations contrary to 1983 CIC 1382), objectively speaking, participation in these ceremonies was still gravely sinful. [And the priests are suspended from the moment they are ordained. They may not function as priests for the Church. The power that comes from ordination is not enough. The Church must permit the use of that power.]

Second, any comments that I might have offered concerning excommunication for (what seem clearly to be) new acts of schism under 1983 CIC 1364 seem pre-empted by Rome’s gratuitous lifting of the excommunications against SSPX leadership last January. Indeed, I am hard-pressed to think of any canons that Rome appears willing to enforce against the SSPX. [That is in itself an interesting point.]

But these two points suggest an ironic Third: the fewer sacramental acts that Rome defends against SSPX appropriation, the more the SSPX seems to resemble the Orthodox Churches and a few other groups—Rome recognizes the validity of their orders, too, but (per 1983 CIC 1) it does not attempt to impose canonical penalties on them for conferring those orders outside of its communion. [Interesting.]

I thought lifting the SSPX excommunications was meant to bring them closer to Catholic unity; instead, it seems to confirm their drifting more distant.Time will tell.

I am sure a lot of fans of the SSPX out there will object to Mr. Peters’ observations, but he has some good points… and from the point of view of a canonist.

I suppose we will now have comments about the mythical “emergency powers”, argument.

Ed Peters on SSPX ordinations

Full entry…

 

[giuseppeTO]

I don’t speak for the SSPX, but here are my impressions

The distinguished canonist Ed Peters, on his blog In The Light Of The Law, has opined about the illicit ordinations performed by the SSPX.

This is timely especially because of the tensions in Germany between the bishops in that conference and the SSPX. The Holy See wants to reconcile the SSPX and bring it into closer and manifest unity with the Bishop of Rome while the bishops in Germany seem determined to alienate the group so as to drive a wedge and keep it out of unity.

Here is Peters on the issue of the SSPX’s ordinations, with my emphases and comments.

Three points on the recent SSPX ordinations

There really isn’t any “news” associated with the recent SSPX ordinations in Minnesota—and there is certainly nothing surprising about them—though three comments seem in order. [Remember that the SSPX’s American seminary is located in Winona, MN.]** Perhaps the reason there is no reaction from Rome or the diocese of Winona is because there is fruitful discussion going on between the SSPX and Rome and the word has gone out to “let it alone” for the time being.**

First, contrary to some reports, the Catholic Church does recognize these ordinations, *[that is, they are valid]

by which we must understand, though, that 13 more men have taken the priesthood of Christ illegally (there is no canonical term defining “legality”. If you are going to have a canonical discussion, use the correct terminology. The word is "illicitly - without permission from the ordinary. from bishops acting in a schismatic manner. [Peters does not say that they are in schism.] While there is no excommunication associated with such priestly ordinations per se (as there is for episcopal ordinations contrary to 1983 CIC 1382), objectively speaking, participation in these ceremonies was still gravely sinful. **This is clearly his opinion since there is no note in Canon law calling this a “gravely sinful matter” nor does Canon Law specify the gravity of this matter. Neither the Pope himself, nor any other Vatican body has referred to this as a matter of “grave sin” … because it isn’t. **[And the priests are suspended from the moment they are ordained. They may not function as priests for the Church. The power that comes from ordination is not enough. The Church must permit the use of that power.] ** … with some exceptions, provided by Canon Law **

Second, any comments that I might have offered concerning excommunication for (what seem clearly to be) new acts of schism under 1983 CIC 1364 seem pre-empted by Rome’s gratuitous lifting of the excommunications against SSPX leadership last January. **Hmm … Maybe its because the Pope doesn’t see them as new acts of schism?? ** Indeed, I am hard-pressed to think of any canons that Rome appears willing to enforce against the SSPX. ** Perhaps that’s because Rome and the SSPX have a solution at hand … although I can’t understand why they haven’t discussed it with Peter, the canonist ** [That is in itself an interesting point.] **Unless, perhaps, you are the Pope **

But these two points suggest an ironic Third: the fewer sacramental acts that Rome defends against SSPX appropriation, the more the SSPX seems to resemble the Orthodox Churches and a few other groups—Rome recognizes the validity of their orders, too, but (per 1983 CIC 1) it does not attempt to impose canonical penalties on them for conferring those orders outside of its communion. [Interesting.] ** The SSPX has repeatedly been referred to as an internal matter of the Catholic Church by Cardinal Castrillon, to the obvious chagrin of the SSPX detractors. **

I thought lifting the SSPX excommunications was meant to bring them closer to Catholic unity; instead, it seems to confirm their drifting more distant.Time will tell. **That is, if anyone will give it some time. **

I am sure a lot of fans of the SSPX out there will object to Mr. Peters’ observations, but he has some good points… and from the point of view of a canonist.

I suppose we will now have comments about the mythical “emergency powers”, argument.** … to go along with the mythical schism argument? **

Ed Peters on SSPX ordinations

Full entry…

 

[Abenadar]

I suppose we will now have comments about the mythical “emergency powers”, argument. … to go along with the mythical schism argument?

LOL.

 

[Hyacinth_II]

A discussion does not make a SCHISM. Nor does disobedience. Schism is defined in liturgical law, the pope does not need to define it. You can look it up. We ARE NOT in SCHISM. Reporters like to make things sound like the Church is falling apart. They are sensationalists. Its time we stop these reporters. This discussion needs to happen, it is unfortunate that the discussions could not have been completed before the need for more priests arose, but life goes on…and the need for priests is great. There are matters that need to be discussed so that all may understand … whatever the path is to be as described by God. Pray to God to give us the grace we need to know what to do to mend and return to full communion. We all love God and want to do His will.

 

[PaulinVA]

I suppose we will now have comments about the mythical “emergency powers”, argument.** … to go along with the mythical schism argument?******

I think this properly sums up the situation. There are no “emergency powers” supplying jurisdiction on a daily basis for SSPX priests to function as if they are running a “full service” parish. As long as people occasionally attend an SSPX chapel and are married and go to confession with priests that are not SSPX (and therefore have connonical status), everything is fine. No powers are needed, no schism or schismatic mentality.

When the SSPX claims these “emergency powers” on a daily basis for all sacraments is when they slip into schism, or perform schismatic acts, or exercise a schismatic mentality.

I do indeed want the SSPX to achieve canonical status. However, once they do, what reason do they have for continuing? If their reason for forming is that they alone hold the deposit of the faith (against the trend of moderism and eccumenism) and the Church finally agrees with them (and potentially makes “changes”), then what? What will they do then? They can’t conintue on as the internal ecclesial police keeping everyone in line from error. (A role they’ve taken up to now). the Church won’t stand for it.

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

There really isn’t any “news” associated with the recent SSPX ordinations in Minnesota–and there is certainly nothing surprising about them–though three comments seem in order.

First, contrary to some reports, the Catholic Church does recognize these ordinations, by which we must understand, though, that 13 more men have taken the priesthood of Christ illegally from bishops acting in a schismatic manner. While there is no excommunication associated with such priestly ordinations per se (as there is for episcopal ordinations contrary to 1983 CIC 1382), objectively speaking, participation in these ceremonies was still gravely sinful…

More…

Is this the same Ed Peters who used to argue that the old Mass was abrogated? Do these “usual suspects” have any credibility left? Why don’t they just admit that the SSPX saved the Mass, is saving the [True] faith, and will save the Church. The SSPX is the prime instrunment chosen by God to save the Church during this crisis, just as St. Athanasius was during his day. Not to take away from the good works of the FSSP and ICK, but without the SSPX, Rome under John Paul II would have crushed those organizations. The SSPX kept Rome in check and prevented them front crushing the Traditionalists orders iin “normal relations” with Rome. Rome realized that if they crushed them the Priests would have returned to the SSPX.

The “usual suspects” - who like the heretics during the days of St. Athanasius - HATE those who defend the True Faith (the SSPX), are getting more and more nervous as the days go by. They see God at work through the SSPX and their various Rosary Crusades. The first Rosary Crusade obtained the admission from Rome that the Old Mass was never abrogated (to the absolute confusion and shame of the “usual suspects”). The second Crusade obtained the lifting of the “excommunication” (at the exact moment that the Rosary Bouquet was delivered to Cardinal Castrillon), and the third Crusade will obtain the Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart by the Pope and Bishops as requested by Our Lady of Fatima. This will usher in the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart and, as discussed by Ann Catherine Emmerick, an absolutely amazing restoration of the Church, which she described as “beyond human imaginings”.

During the days of St. Athanasius, the slogan was “Athanasius Against the World”, as he was hated and dispised by virtually all. Banned from his diocese 5 times, condemned by a council of 300 Bishops, spending 17 years in exile and suffering an unjust excommunication by the Pope, St. Athanasius stood firm in the true faith and was canonized in the end. There can be no doubt that Archbishop Lefebvre the Great, who suffered similarly during his life, will enjoy the same end. He stood firm against the errors of modernism and Liberalism and led those who saved the old Mass from a hierarchy who claimed that it had been forbidden.

Fortunately, Pope Benedict is taking his job seriously and is working to restore the Church. Although the instrunment God is using is the SSPX, there can be no true restoration without the Pope, who is the head of the Church. Thankfully we now have a Pope who is taking measures to restore that which has been lost since Vatican II.

 

[maurin]

Is this the same Ed Peters who used to argue that the old Mass was abrogated? Do these “usual suspects” have any credibility left? I.

shhhhhh, Ultima Ratio. Ed Peters is a “distinguished” canonist. don’t want to wake Catholic Opinion from slumber, now, do we?

 

[pnewton]

A discussion does not make a SCHISM. Nor does disobedience. Schism is defined in liturgical law, the pope does not need to define it. You can look it up. We ARE NOT in SCHISM. Reporters like to make things sound like the Church is falling apart. They are sensationalists. Its time we stop these reporters.

You and I will never stop reporters. Just like cockroaches, once here, they are impossible to get rid of.

I was pleased to see this opinion precisely because reporters had taken hold of this non-story and tried to make something out of it. He avoided stating that these priests are in schism and stuck to the* act* of illicit ordinations being of a schismatic nature.

 

[pnewton]

…don’t want to wake Catholic Opinion from slumber, now, do we?

This is rather unavoidable on a Catholic Answers website, I think.

 

[John_Higgins]

This is not a flame, just an observation from a Novus Ordonian. Within the 7/8 or 9/10 or 99/100 of the Catholics in the United States, very few, if any, are even aware of the SSPX. When HH lifted the excommunications of the SSPX bishops, I did have a few friends ask what it was. I told them. I visit (and occasionally post) on this forum to find out what the small sliver (remnant, if you must) of traditionalists think. This is just curiosity on my part.

Since I had served Masses before the Mass changed, I did want to attend a TLM. I went to the parish near my downtown parish to hear a TLM Low Mass mumbled by an octogenarian priest. I have a couple of observations, my wife wished to receive in the hand, which was done, and we saw several women with chapel veils and gym clothes-reminicent of our nuns pinning Kleenex onto girl’s hair. I feel no need to return to a TLM. I’ll stay with my reverent OF Mass, thank you very much.

That said, I suspect the SSPX will be regularized (if their bishops don’t mess it up), so it made sense to do the ordinations.

John

 

[maurin]

This is not a flame

thank goodness you cleared that up for us.

 

[ProVobis]

What’s the point of these points? You wouldn’t think that ONE American or German bishop with full faculties would step up to the plate and help his fellow Catholics out by ordaining these priests licitly? You can’t tell me the one thing that all bishops are unified on is the matter of trying to exclude SSPX seminarians from achieving their priestly vocations.

Or perhaps the Church doesn’t need any more priests?

 

[pnewton]

What’s the point of these points? You wouldn’t think that ONE American or German bishop with full faculties would step up to the plate and help his fellow Catholics out by ordaining these priests licitly?

I do not know how this would canonically work. These people are not going to be diocesian priests, after all. Since validity is not in question, They still could not operate as SSPX priests licitly, at least not yet. That is one reason this “news” is a non-issue. Their condition is neither better and or worse than any of the other SSPX.

Besides, why would any bishop want to step between the Vatican and the SSPX at this time? I do not see how that could be productive.

 

[giuseppeTO]

I do not know how this would canonically work. These people are not going to be diocesian priests, after all. Since validity is not in question, They still could not operate as SSPX priests licitly, at least not yet. That is one reason this “news” is a non-issue. Their condition is neither better and or worse than any of the other SSPX.

Besides, why would any bishop want to step between the Vatican and the SSPX at this time? I do not see how that could be productive.

Amazing Newt. I read each line of your post and agree with everything you’ve said. Regularization cannot be far off, my friend!

 

[giuseppeTO]

When the SSPX claims these “emergency powers” on a daily basis for all sacraments is when they slip into schism, or perform schismatic acts, or exercise a schismatic mentality.

Paul, there have been plenty of threads on this question of supplied jurisdiction. It goes back to one’s acceptance of a state of crisis and it will not be resolved until there is a regularization. But it is not so much a exercise on a daily basis, but on a by request basis. n other words, then someone comes to an SSPX priest requesting sacraments, he complies. As groups have previuosly regularized, Rome does not require re-marriage or re-confessions for the faithful. They just recognize" the previously administered sacraments.

They can’t conintue on as the internal ecclesial police keeping everyone in line from error. (A role they’ve taken up to now). the Church won’t stand for it.

[SARCASM} SOMEBODY HAS TO DO IT! If they would have beginning, the Pauline Mass may never have been corrupted to the extent it is now. [/SARCASM]

I have heard three out of the four SSPX bishops and many SSPX priests say that the goal of the SSPX fraternity is to not be needed any more.

 

[PaulinVA]

Paul, there have been plenty of threads on this question of supplied jurisdiction. It goes back to one’s acceptance of a state of crisis and it will not be resolved until there is a regularization. But it is not so much a exercise on a daily basis, but on a by request basis. In other words, then someone comes to an SSPX priest requesting sacraments, he complies. As groups have previously regularized, Rome does not require re-marriage or re-confessions for the faithful. They just recognize" the previously administered sacraments.

Yes, we’ve discussed this ad naseum. I, too, agree that there is a general lack of reverence in the Church, and that in the last forty years Catholics have devolved into a group of people who don’t actually believe what the Church believes. It’s very sad.

I’m not sure that VII is responsible. I don’t know. I’m just confused. I look to the right, and I see the disobedient SSPX ordaining priests without incardination, performing illicit Masses, attempting marriages and confessions, for what they considered are overwhelningly good and just reasons, and I see, on the left, groups who don’t like where the Church is and want to change things like priestly celiebacy, the stand on birth control, and women’s ordination.

Disobedience is disobedience. That is my problem. Trying to get me to believe that there is good disobedience and there is bad disobedience just makes it worse.

[SARCASM} SOMEBODY HAS TO DO IT! If they would have beginning, the Pauline Mass may never have been corrupted to the extent it is now. [/SARCASM]

Oh, come on!! We’ve got the albino monks from Opus Dei - what more do you want?

 

[maurin]

Yes, we’ve discussed this ad naseum. I, too, agree that there is a general lack of reverence in the Church, and that in the last forty years Catholics have devolved into a group of people who don’t actually believe what the Church believes. It’s very sad.

I’m not sure that VII is responsible. I don’t know. I’m just confused. I look to the right, and I see the disobedient SSPX ordaining priests without incardination, performing illicit Masses, attempting marriages and confessions, for what they considered are overwhelningly good and just reasons, and I see, on the left, groups who don’t like where the Church is and want to change things like priestly celiebacy, the stand on birth control, and women’s ordination.

Disobedience is disobedience. That is my problem. Trying to get me to believe that there is good disobedience and there is bad disobedience just makes it worse.

Oh, come on!! We’ve got the albino monks from Opus Dei - what more do you want?

This country was founded on disobedience. Martin Luther King, Jr and Ghandi are revered in the secular world for changing the world through their disobedience.

Are you saying that we and the Indians should re-submit to the English, and that America should return to segregation? (of course you’re not, strike that, it’s a stupid question–can you name the movie that line is from?)

But do you begin to see my point? And although disobedience is not written into the laws of England, America and India (one will be prosecuted for disobedience, no?), Canon Law actually does, under specific circumstances. We believe those circumstances have been met. You need not agree. That’s ok, you are not obliged to. However all the signs coming from Rome seem to imply that some in the Hierarchy are beginning to see the validity of the Society’s points. For now, that’s more than enough for us.

 

[giuseppeTO]

Yes, we’ve discussed this ad naseum. I, too, agree that there is a general lack of reverence in the Church, and that in the last forty years Catholics have devolved into a group of people who don’t actually believe what the Church believes. It’s very sad.

I’m not sure that VII is responsible. I don’t know. I’m just confused. I look to the right, and I see the disobedient SSPX ordaining priests without incardination, performing illicit Masses, attempting marriages and confessions, for what they considered are overwhelningly good and just reasons, and I see, on the left, groups who don’t like where the Church is and want to change things like priestly celiebacy, the stand on birth control, and women’s ordination.

Disobedience is disobedience. That is my problem. Trying to get me to believe that there is good disobedience and there is bad disobedience just makes it worse.

Oh, come on!! We’ve got the albino monks from Opus Dei - what more do you want?

Paul, Great post! And, by the way, welcome to the confused club!

You are right when you say disobedience is disobedience - that is the essence. I know that ABshp Lefebvre understood that he was about to commit an act of disobedience prior to the episcopal consecration and mediated for a long time at the probable consequences. At some point he weighed the consequences against the good he believed he was doing. I would consider the reasons why folks on the left want to employ birth control, allow married priests, or women ordinations. I believe the answers are selfishness, self-love, and pride.

Of course you have to ask the same questions about Archbishop Lefebvre and de Castro Mayer, the four consecrated bishops, and the priests who have been ordained. Perhaps you’ll think they were motivated by the same vices. Are any SSPX bishops, priests, or the assisting laity guilty of these sins? … You betcha, including your humble servant. But you can’t ask for a harder life that a priest in the SSPX. Most say three Masses in three different cities every Sunday and either drive an average 350 mile round trip or fly to a different state (in the US) and say a circuit of Masses there. A call for Extreme Unction could come at any hour of the night from hundreds of miles away and they hop in their cars and make the journey … they are in the business of saving souls. They are moved every 5 years so as not to become too attached to a particular chapel, keeping true to their missionary calling. At any time, they can next be transferred to the jungles of Africa, underground in China, or worse, Texas. Our priest was just notified that he is being transferred from Syracuse to Calcutta. The only disease they are not prone to contract is red button fever.

I think you also have to ask, what are the fruits of your labor and what is your reward?

 

[JReducation]

What’s the point of these points? You wouldn’t think that ONE American or German bishop with full faculties would step up to the plate and help his fellow Catholics out by ordaining these priests licitly? You can’t tell me the one thing that all bishops are unified on is the matter of trying to exclude SSPX seminarians from achieving their priestly vocations.

Or perhaps the Church doesn’t need any more priests?

The problem here is one of jurisdiction. A bishop can ordain under two conditions.

1. He is ordaining for his diocese or is the auxiliary and is ordaining under the authority of his Ordinary.
2. He is ordaining for a religious order under the authority of the major superior of that order. But the order or congregation is in full communion with Rome.

The problem here is that the deacons who were ordained priests do not belong to the diocese. The bishop cannot ordain them. They do not belong to religious order; therefore, there is no major superior with ordinary authority to allow the ordinations.

The SSPX is a secular society that is not in full communion with Rome. Therefore, the Major Superior does not have ordinary jurisdiction. This was made clear when the excommunications were lifted. The Holy Father said that the bishops of the SSPX had no canonical jurisdiction. Therefore, they do not have jurisdiction over the SSPX either. In that case, they cannot authorize ordinations. This makes the ordinations illicit or illegal. You cannot authorize what you do not have the power to authorize. The SSPX bishops have the power to ordain. That comes with the Sacrament of Holy Orders. But they do not have ecclesial authority. This makes the ordinations illicit or illegal.

These deacons could be legally ordained, because they probably meet the legal requirements, considering that the SSPX is very strict about rules. But they would have to leave the SSPX and either be incardinated into a diocese or join a religious order or a clerical institute. Then the ordinations could be authorized by someone who has the authority to do so. Even an ordinary priest can authorize the ordinations, if he is the major superior of a religious institute.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF