P
ProVobis
Guest
Then would it be fair to say the act of disobedience occurred in 1976 when the first set of priests were ordained? I don’t mean to pick on anyone but I’m trying to set some records straight here.
- Status
W
wasserfall
Guest
You mean the first priests after the suppression?
There are SSPX priests who were ordained before the suppression. I’m not sure what their status is.
M
Melchior_1
Guest
Normally, after a suitable period of experience and consultation with the Holy See, a bishop would raise a pia unio to official status at diocesan level. Lefebvre attempted to bypass this stage, and contacted three different Vatican departments in order to secure early recognition for his society.
This could be interpreted as an act of disobedience, in the sense that he didn’t go through proper channels.
And again, any Canon Laws which apply to secular priests apply for them. I’d have to do more reading to find out if any were broken.
T
thewanderer
Guest
Maybe you haven’t received an answer because no one on this thread hates them?
I have no idea why you have not received an answer, and I think that from the number of responses of those who desire their full reconciliation with Rome this is not likely to be a thread where you will find the answer to that question.
[Edit: Although I can assure you that many things certain members of SSPX have said have been antagonistic and judgemental towards other good faithful Catholics. I can only suppose this has at least something to do with it, though I am sure it is not the entire story]
N
numealinesimpet
Guest
Point of Order here. There are some sins which for Absolution is’Reserved to the Holy See’. A normal diocesan priest who hears such a sin in confession is required to give absolution according to his judgment but then refer the case to Rome. The Competent authority will then either endorse the action of the priest or make another judgment, e.g. by changing the imposed penance. Now the fact is that many persons, up to and including Cardinals, have issued public statements against the SSPX which are incorrect, but for which they have not been publicly corrected. Whatever these ones say, the actual *actions *of the Competent Authority in the Vatican have been consistent with the SSPX’s own assertion that the Decree of Excommunication of 1988 lacked validity. In the situation of ‘reserved cases’, when an SSPX priest has heard such a thing in confession (and it has happened several times over the years), he has followed the correct procedure and referred the case to the Vatican. In every such case to date, the Competent Authority has endorsed the absolution and the penance applied by the SSPX priest. Please note that this would have been quite impossible if the priest had really been in schism or without jurisdiction. The Competent Authority would have instructed the priest to send the penitent to a properly-accredited confessor, or would at least have had to issue a one-off jurisdiction, but this has never been done. The marriages witnessed by an SSPX priest are always done accompanied by a written statement from the bride and groom that they consider themselves under a State of Necessity (cf the Canons invoked by Mgr Lefebvre et al. in 1988 which validate and legitimise the Marriage). These are most important pieces of evidence on an issue which has troubled more than one person otherwise attracted to the SSPX. I hope it will encourage many. (Sorry, but I’m away from my main computer but will post the link for this statement on request).
P
ProVobis
Guest
I would think that they would be have been suspended by the local bishop as well.
I think the disobedience of AL is undisputed. It is the matter of the priestly suspensions which is the main issue it seems today. I’m wondering how those suspensions will be resolved even if one or more of the bishops reconcile with Rome. I can’t see an easy way for 500 priests, of whom many will no doubt not follow BF. But maybe I’m too pessimistic.
N
numealinesimpet
Guest
One could ask: ‘Do you accept, as a theoretical possibility (and ignoring for the moment the whole SSPX situation) that the Pope can sometimes order something which is beyond his jurisdiction, or which is against the Divine Law?” ‘ There are those who would reply: ‘ I do not believe this is possible when he acts in his official capacity as head of the Church. This would include acts of teaching , legislating and judging. This is because Christ promised he would be with His Church and protect it from error. He left the Pope in charge declaring whatsoever you bind on earth is bound in heaven. So, how could he lead us astray?’ I would reply: This is indeed the crux of the issue. It is in our time that these things will become far more clearly seen, through the very conflict with the trads. The above Argument is very plausible on the face of it, and it was the very issue that was dealt with in 1825 (from memory) at Vatican I. After very thorough review of the history of the Church, the decision of the Council was that the statements of the Pontiff were infallible only when he made a specific pronouncement, ex cathedra (ie in his official capacity as the Vicar of Christ) and declared it binding on the whole Church. However persuasive it may be to suggest “Christ promised he would be with His Church and protect it from error. He left the Pope in charge declaring whatsoever you bind on earth is bound in heaven. So, how could he lead us astray?” this is contradicted by the actual historical record. There are actually many instances where a ‘prudential’ directive of a pope was summarily rejected. Note the case of Bp Grosseteste, (1175-1253) Bp. Of Lincoln. Among many other accomplishments for which he was famous, he was well known for his robust defence of ‘The Plenitude of Papal Power’. His addresses on this subject are still in existence. Yet when Pope Innocent IV attempted to abuse his power by trying to use his office to instal an unworthy relative to a lucrative position in the church, Bp Grosseteste was adamant that he would not comply. This documented incident proves conclusively that God’s promise to Peter did not extend to each and evey attempted exercise of his authority. Similarly, there are two recorded cases in history where a pope has taught heresy, and one where the pope issued an official statement that was ambiguous enough to give ‘comfort’ to the heretics (as the lawyers would say). Pope Vigilius wrote in support of the Monophysite heresy (that Christ was not truly Man); Pope Honorius wrote in favour of the Monothelite heresy (claiming that Christ had only one Will, not two wills: one as God and one as Man); and Pope Liberius issued an ambiguous doctrine that gave ‘comfort’ to the ‘Homoiousion’ wing of the Arian heresy: that the substance of Christ was ‘like’ the Father (whereas Catholic teaching is that it is ‘the same’ as that of the Father). These incidents are not SSPX propaganda – they were discussed very thoroughly indeed at Vatican I, 100 years before Lefebvre; and they convinced the Council Fathers that the promise of Christ to Peter & his successors did not encompass each and every pronouncement. Therefore, the current movement to accept each and every statement issuing from the Vatican, or even from the person of the Pope, is categorically against infallible Catholic teaching. Likewise, according to the definitions of Aauthority and Obedience, explicated especially clearly (as usual) by S. Thomas Aquinas, there are definite situations in which it is not only meritorious but necessary to refuse compliance with a directive that is not a use, but an abuse, of authority. The SSPX have always claimed that they have acted consistently with these Catholic principles, and after studying the case, I for one agree with them.
J
JReducation
Guest
It does not really matter. One disobedience does not justify another. That’s really an academic question.
They were a clerical society of apostolic life of diocesan right. They never became pontifical. In either case, no one can suppress them, whether they are of diocesan right or pontifical right without the approval of the pope. Their suppression was approved by Pope John Paul. But there were no penalties. It was really a case of requiring them to comply with certain expectations of the local bishop. Societies of diocesan right must comply with the diocesan bishop.
That could be called one act of disobedience. But it was not the one that broke the camel’s back. It was the ordination of the bishops that broke the camel’s back. That carries a penalty of excommunication. Ordaining a deacon or priest without a dimissorial letter, carries a suspension.
They are also suspended for remaining with the SSPX. Everyone who remained with the SSPX after the ordination of the bishops was automatically suspended. This was one of the factors that drove the group to go to Rome and ask for help, the group that eventually became the FSSP. They were uncomfortable functioning in a state of suspension. No cleric or religious can promise obedience to someone who is excommunicated. The person receiving the promise is outside the Church. Therefore, he has no authority to receive the promise.
Those who had made the promise before the suppression, had promised obedience to someone who was a legitimate authority of the institute. When one knowingly and freely remains submissive to an authority in conflict with the Church, one forfeits one’s rights in the Church. The promise of obedience made by a secular priest binds him to his ordinary. The SSPX did not have an ordinary. All of those priests were supposed to find a bishop who would take them in or join religious communities. This takes us back to the men who founded the FSSP. They did not have a vocation to the consecrated life and they didn’t feel that they fit into a diocesan model, so they did the next best thing. They went to Rome for help.
I’d like to add one more thing about hatred. Hatred is a grave sin, regardless of what crime the other person may have committed. When one hates, one breaks off the possibility of reconciliation. Christianity is a conciliatory faith. The mystery of the cross is about reconciliation.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
W
white_sheep
Guest
The miscommunication is that I understood the two statements in the opening sentence to be separate and treated them separately.
I am not indifferent to their status. That is one issue.
Not seeing anything wrong with the SSPX I look at as a separate issue. Aside from their status, which I already addressed, I see no more wrong at the SSPX chapel down the street than I do at the parish down the street. This is a comparison of the people. I don’t particularly care for doing that, but it’s what it seemed to me the OP was saying.
Hope that clears it up.
M
Mrs_Sally
Guest
I certainly hope you are being too pessimistic! I would like to think that most would come into full communion. I suppose it’s realistic to assume that some will not. Although my prayer is for the reunion of *all *the priests (including the bishops)!
N
numealinesimpet
Guest
I did love the Traditional liturgy before ‘The Changes’ but we were told it was for the good of the Church, and a means of reconciling Protestants and even non-Christians to the Catholic Church. I ‘obediently’ went along with one change after another. After about ten years of what Pope Paul VI himself called ‘the auto-demolition of the Church’ it was time to take stock. The matter gained further urgency when our first child was born. I remember saying to my dear wife: ‘The future is not an abstraction – the Future is upstairs crying in her cot!’ We sat down together with a copy of Fr Flannery’s edition of the documents of Vatican II, highlighter in hand. It was a very unpleasant surprise. Time after time, at the end of paragraphs of fine-sounding rhetoric, there would be a loophole at the end that you could drive a coach and horses through. … such as ‘However, the Local Ordinary (ie the bishop) may make alternate local arrangements’. So the document as a whole meant nothing at all. About that time parents everywhere were discovering that their teenage children were drifting away from the Faith, and they didn’t understand why. And the smaller children were no longer learning their catechism. Far from attracting the Protestants, the churches themselves were emptying, the seminaries and convents were closing at an incredible rate – there were blatant irreverences being perpetrated in the churches – yet it was impossible to get anybody in authority to listen. At least until 1983, nobody would say anything except that ‘The Renewal’ was a brilliant success – in the teeth of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Not that there were no good fruits at all, my friends: but they were a drop in the ocean of destruction. The first ‘Indult’ of 1984 – allowing the Traditional rite of Mass under special conditions - was the first glimmer of hope for us. I write this partly as a background to the next posting, on the infamous ‘Baseball confirmation’ of Phoenix, Arizona. It will show you what we are up against.
N
numealinesimpet
Guest
The Baseball Confirmation of Phoenix, Arizona, 1998. The following true account is “compiled from various sources”. Let the reader be aware that some of these sources were Diocesan magazines up and down the USA, who reported the incident with approval. In June 1998 the bishop in Phoenix, Arizona had all of that year’s candidates for confirmation come to the new baseball stadium to all be confirmed on the same day. He gave every priest in the diocese faculties to confirm during the “service.” He invited all attendees (including a special invitation to non-Catholics) to come to the ballpark wearing red shirts for the Holy Spirit. They then sang some stupid song to the Holy Spirit to the tune of “Take me out to the Ballpark,” an American folksong sung by Barney the dinosaur to name one advocate of the song. During the Mass, many people were seen eating hot dogs and popcorn. The candidates for confirmation poured out of the bleacher seats to any priest anywhere and were confirmed. How could anyone know who was eligible for confirmation or to receive the Eucharist? After the “event,” two boxes arrived at the rectory of a local church to a truly devout priest. A delivery man plopped the boxes on the counter and said, “These are for you. They are the consecrated hosts that weren’t used at the ballpark.” He opened the boxes and to his horror he found two large food service containers, generally used to hold about 10 gallons of ice cream, filled with consecrated hosts. The second box didn’t even have these. It was lined with butcher paper and thousands of consecrated hosts were tossed into the box. He immediately took the boxes to the sacristy and started to reserve the Blessed Sacrament in every ciborium and chalice he could find. He then scoured each container and box for Crumbs to consume. He counted 5000 hosts. It continues. The associate pastor decided that it wouldn’t be “proper” to store the hosts for too long, yet the parish could never distribute 5000. What to do? Without telling my priest friend, he began to fill the ciboriums that were being used in the offertory procession of the succeeding Novus Ordo Masses with already consecrated hosts. So during the next Mass the priest was consecrating previously consecrated hosts - which is a formal sacrilege! How did this bishop over-consecrate 5000 hosts? Or was it more? Did another parish receive a similar shipment? Who can imagine a more blatant or public statement that this bishop and whoever is under him does not believe in the Real Presence. He may speak the orthodox line when his back is to the wall, but in practice he preaches heresy. Catholics in his diocese are released from any obligation to obey him as these are most certainly, as canon law demands, times of crisis. The faithful of Arizona have two choices in 1998. They can take their child to the SSPX chapel where he will be confirmed according to the rites of the Catholic Church, specifically and infallibly ‘canonised’ at the Council of Trent and by Pope S. Pius V in perpetuity. … … Or they can take them to the Ballpark. What would you do? See sites.google.com/site/catholictopics/home/direct-attacks-on-the-church-and-blasphemy-in-the-public-forum/the-baseball-confirmation-of-phoenix-arizona-1998
J
JReducation
Guest
It depends on what year it happened. The Code of 1983 did away with pious unions. A group is either a private association of the faithful or a public association of the faithful. Both are of diocesan right, because it is the local bishop who has oversight. In the case of a public association of the faithful, the diocesan bishop must have permission from the Sacred Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life to erect a public association in his diocese. No one can really approach the Vatican directly. You must go through the diocesan bishop. The FSSP was a very special situation. They were considered refugees rather than a new institute.
The code of 1983 only has two. All others are delegated to the diocesan bishops. The diocesan bishops in the USA have delegated them all to to the parish priests. It’s up to the diocesan bishop how he wants to handle this. In cases like the USA where there are few bishops in comparison to the number of parishes, it makes sense to delegate it to the parish priest. In other places, this is not necessary.
Actually, this is not the case. The competent authority can grant faculties to any validly ordained priest in a case by case scenario, even if he’s a heretic, apostate, excommunicated or in schism. The cases that the SSPX priests sent to Rome were usually cases of abortion. Normally, the priest hearing such a confession would not apply to Rome for faculties, but to the diocesan bishop. It is precisely because the priests are suspended, that they cannot seek the faculties from the diocesan bishop. No diocesan bishop can grant them faculties, because they’re not under the jurisdiction of the bishop. They have no other place to go, but to Rome.
Rome grants the faculties for each individual case, not because the excommunications of the bishops was questionable. The priests asking for the faculties were not excommunicated. Therefore, the excommunication does not enter into the picture. These priests are suspended. Rome grants the faculties out of compassion for the penitent. These are very grave sins and the Holy See does not want to put the person in a situation where they have to go looking for another priest. They may not do it, because this is hard for them.
People tend to view these incidents as Rome’s benevolence toward the suspended priests and Rome’s doubts about the excommunication. This was about Rome’s compassion for the penitent.
When the Archbishop made this claim, Bl. John Paul issued a statement that he would not allow this canon to be applied to the Archbishop. Therefore, they cannot use it. The pope writes canon law and the pope can apply it unilaterally where he believes that it applies and deny its usage where he believes it should be denied.
When the SSPX comes back, all of those marriages will be validated through radical sanatio or radical healing, which is a decree on the part of the Holy See that whatever is missing, for validity can be bypassed as long as matter and form were valid. In this case, what was missing was faculties. It’s kind of retroactively fixing the situation. This is done a great deal.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
P
ProVobis
Guest
But it’s more than just the priests. It’s also the chapels in which they say Mass. And I understand most of them rotate quite frequently among the chapels. So unless ALL reconcile, there will be confusion amongst the laity as to where and/or to whom they can legitimately go to Mass and validly go to confession. Contrast that with the FSSP priests who brought along no chapels but relied totally on the local bishop for their legal public ministry. A lot different situation IMO.
N
numealinesimpet
Guest
With your patience, for the sake of newcomers to this issue, may I recall some salient points ? Archbp. Lefebvre had already had a highly distinguished life as Superior General of the Holy Ghost Fathers, then the largest missionary group in the world, charged with the evangelisation of all of French-speaking Africa. Had Mgr Lefebvre retired in 1969, as he had intended, he would still have had an honoured place in the history of the Church. He was one of the senior experts given the task of producing the “Preparatory Schemas” for Vatican Council II. This task took them two years. In the event, in the very first week of the council, Cdl Liénardt, breaking the Rules of Procedure of the Council, persuaded the bishops to dump the entire set of Schemas in the bin and start again completely from scratch. The Moderator of theCouncil failed to enforce discipline on Cdl Liénardt, and from that moment the procedures were compromised. See Wiltgen, R., The Rhine flows into the Tiber (New York 1967). After the Council, each Religious Order was instructed by the Vatican to introduce radical changes immediately, as part of the programme of “aggiornamento” – updating. In 1969, Mgr Lefebvre saw his Religious Order, the Holy Ghost Fathers, embarking on a new course that he believed would destroy it, and therefore resigned as Superior General and moved to Rome, intending to live in quiet retirement. Meanwhile at the French Seminary in Rome (and at others too) the traditional routine of priestly formation was being discarded. For example: daily attendance at Mass ceased to be obligatory, the Sacrifice of the Mass became merely a ‘commemoration’ of a ‘supper’ or a ‘meal.’ Scholastic philosophy (previously held to be indispensable for Catholic theology, and mandated to be taught in all seminaries) was discarded in favour of the dangerous theories of Modernism and Liberalism, which previously had been roundly condemned. Protestant doctrine began to be taught. Traditional Catholic moral issues were obscured. The teaching of Latin ceased. Basically the truths of the Faith were being diluted if not actually denied. Archbishop Lefebvre was approached by parents with sons in the seminary. They expressed serious dissatisfaction with the formation their sons were receiving for the holy Priesthood. They begged the Archbishop to do something for their seminarian sons. At first he declined, for many good reasons: he was retired, perhaps they exaggerated, he had no buildings, no money, no staff to take on the training of new priests, etc. etc. It was only when the seminarians themselves sought him out, first in their nes, twos, threes and then the many, that he found his worst fears confirmed. It might be hard, in the 21st century, to realise just how aggressively the seminaries of the 70s were dropping Catholic teaching and adopting positions that before Vatican II had been vigorously rejected. [cont’d]
N
numealinesimpet
Guest
Thank you for the comments, JR. The issue was not about excommunication, as only the bishops were excommunicated under Cdl Gantin’s 1988 document, but over the specific issue of jurisdiction. Is it not the case that the Competent Authority in the cases referred by the SSPX did not state that Rome granted the faculties, but simply that the confessor’s actions were ‘all in order?’Rome grants the faculties for each individual case, not because the excommunications of the bishops was questionable. The priests asking for the faculties were not excommunicated. Therefore, the excommunication does not enter into the picture. These priests are suspended. Rome grants the faculties out of compassion for the penitent. These are very grave sins and the Holy See does not want to put the person in a situation where they have to go looking for another priest. They may not do it, because this is hard for them.
People tend to view these incidents as Rome’s benevolence toward the suspended priests and Rome’s doubts about the excommunication. This was about Rome’s compassion for the penitent.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
N
numealinesimpet
Guest
Continuing from previous posting…
The Baseball Confirmation of Phoenix, Arizona, 1998. The following true account is “compiled from various sources”. Let the reader be aware that some of these sources were Diocesan magazines up and down the USA, who reported the incident with approval. In June 1998 the bishop in Phoenix, Arizona had all of that year’s candidates for confirmation come to the new baseball stadium to all be confirmed on the same day. He gave every priest in the diocese faculties to confirm during the service. He invited all attendees (including a special invitation to non-Catholics) to come to the ballpark wearing red shirts for the Holy Spirit. They then sang a song to the Holy Spirit to the tune of “Take me out to the Ballpark,” an American folksong sung by Barney the dinosaur to name one advocate of the song. During the Mass, many people were seen eating hot dogs and popcorn. The candidates for confirmation poured out of the bleacher seats to any priest anywhere and were confirmed. No ID was required from candidates to ascertain who was eligible for confirmation or to receive the Eucharist. After the Confirmation, two boxes arrived at the rectory of a local church to a truly devout priest. A delivery man plopped the boxes on the counter and said, “These are for you. They are the consecrated hosts that weren’t used at the ballpark.” He opened the boxes and to his horror he found two large food service containers, generally used to hold about 10 gallons of ice cream, filled with consecrated hosts. The second box didn’t even have these. It was lined with butcher paper and thousands of consecrated hosts were tossed into the box. He immediately took the boxes to the sacristy and started to reserve the Blessed Sacrament in every ciborium and chalice he could find. He then scoured each container and box for Crumbs to consume. He counted 5000 hosts Did the celebrants over-consecrate 5000 hosts? Or was it more? Did another parish receive a similar shipment?
The faithful of Arizona had two choices in 1998. They could take their child to the SSPX chapel where he would be confirmed according to the rites of the Catholic Church, specifically and infallibly ‘canonised’ at the Council of Trent and by Pope S. Pius V in perpetuity. Or they could take them to the Ballpark.
As Cdls Ottaviani and Bacci noted to Pope Paul VI in the document generally known as ‘The Ottaviani Intervention’ in 1969, the situation arising since the close of the Second Vatican Council (whose validity they never questioned) was giving rise to ‘an agonising crisis of conscience’.
The Baseball Confirmation of Phoenix, Arizona, 1998. The following true account is “compiled from various sources”. Let the reader be aware that some of these sources were Diocesan magazines up and down the USA, who reported the incident with approval. In June 1998 the bishop in Phoenix, Arizona had all of that year’s candidates for confirmation come to the new baseball stadium to all be confirmed on the same day. He gave every priest in the diocese faculties to confirm during the service. He invited all attendees (including a special invitation to non-Catholics) to come to the ballpark wearing red shirts for the Holy Spirit. They then sang a song to the Holy Spirit to the tune of “Take me out to the Ballpark,” an American folksong sung by Barney the dinosaur to name one advocate of the song. During the Mass, many people were seen eating hot dogs and popcorn. The candidates for confirmation poured out of the bleacher seats to any priest anywhere and were confirmed. No ID was required from candidates to ascertain who was eligible for confirmation or to receive the Eucharist. After the Confirmation, two boxes arrived at the rectory of a local church to a truly devout priest. A delivery man plopped the boxes on the counter and said, “These are for you. They are the consecrated hosts that weren’t used at the ballpark.” He opened the boxes and to his horror he found two large food service containers, generally used to hold about 10 gallons of ice cream, filled with consecrated hosts. The second box didn’t even have these. It was lined with butcher paper and thousands of consecrated hosts were tossed into the box. He immediately took the boxes to the sacristy and started to reserve the Blessed Sacrament in every ciborium and chalice he could find. He then scoured each container and box for Crumbs to consume. He counted 5000 hosts Did the celebrants over-consecrate 5000 hosts? Or was it more? Did another parish receive a similar shipment?
The faithful of Arizona had two choices in 1998. They could take their child to the SSPX chapel where he would be confirmed according to the rites of the Catholic Church, specifically and infallibly ‘canonised’ at the Council of Trent and by Pope S. Pius V in perpetuity. Or they could take them to the Ballpark.
As Cdls Ottaviani and Bacci noted to Pope Paul VI in the document generally known as ‘The Ottaviani Intervention’ in 1969, the situation arising since the close of the Second Vatican Council (whose validity they never questioned) was giving rise to ‘an agonising crisis of conscience’.
J
JReducation
Guest
That’s granting faculties for this particular case. It’s a nod of consent, but only for the case on the desk.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
J
JReducation
Guest
This incident was definitely the epitome of nonsense. However, that does not justify the actions of the SSPX. Nor does it justify the actions of the parents who took the children to be confirmed by excommunicated bishops. Right now, there are canon lawyers questioning the validity of all those confirmations. Eventually, the Holy Father will have to say that they were valid or that they were suspect and again use radical sanation to fix the problem, if it can even be fixed by radical sanation. I’m not sure if a suspect Confirmation can be fixed by sanation.
The rational choice is to find a bishop and a program that is orthodox. There are many bishops and many programs with valid faculties to confirm and who do it by the book.
Fraternally,
Br.JR, FFV
M
Megan7
Guest
:crying: I had no idea…How could this happen? How sad
Thank you for your post!
PAX
- Status