Vatican Allows Nun to Join the SSPX

[Will_S]

“Detrimental to the mission of the SSPX”?? The SSPX has NO MISSION as the Vatican has made clear many times.

The Pope has said that the SSPX has no legitimate ministry in the Church. That does not mean that the SSPX has no mission. Of course the SSPX has a mission. Their mission is to preserve the traditional doctrines and practices of the Church (as they see them to be) in a time of crisis and apostasy, which a special emphasis on priestly formation and practice.

I’ve read enough SSPX stuff for one lifetime, they will never run out of rationalizations and their conscience will still trouble them.

You greatly misunderstand the SSPX if you think they have guilty consciences. They are too worried about eternal damnation to let themselves run around with guilty consciences all the time.

The only reason that the SSPX is willing to persist in an irregular situation is that they are absolutely convinced that they are correct and they are absolutely convinced that the Holy See will eventually see things their way. If they were not absolutely convinced of the first, they would accept regularization under the terms of the Holy See. If they were not absolutely convinced of the second, they would leave the Church.

No one has said that the sisters lied, why are you saying such a thing??

When people say “I’m not sure I believe this, has the Vatican confirmed it?” Then they are implying that the sisters are lying. The Holy See is not going to confirm something that will cause them trouble, so don’t expect a confirmation. But if the sisters posted it, then it is true to the best of their knowledge, because they are not liars. And the only way the fact of the permission granted to the one sister to transfer to the SSPX-affiliated order could be true to the best of the sisters’ knowledge is if they are in possession of written permission for the transfer from the Holy See.

Doubtless the case is not simple, and the sister in question had some grave reason to request the transfer and the Holy See, considering the circumstances, decided to approve the request, but did not expect or desire that the situation become public knowledge.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Pope Benedict is an intelligent man and, I’m sure, a brilliant Canonist - do you think he was trying to make a Canonical statement about the SSPX using decidedly uncanonical language in a papal letter?

Yet the words “No” and “Ministry” are Canonical terms.

Anyways, the pope is the supreme legislator so he is not bound by Canon Law and he can make pronouncements that do not follow it. You can not use the Code of Canon Law against him.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

The Pope has said that the SSPX has no legitimate ministry in the Church. That does not mean that the SSPX has no mission. Of course the SSPX has a mission. Their mission is to preserve the traditional doctrines and practices of the Church (as they see them to be) in a time of crisis and apostasy, which a special emphasis on priestly formation and practice.

While I do not deny that the SSPX has a stated Mission, it is not a Mission that the Church recognizes at this time. When one does not have a ministry within the Church then one does not have a mission within the Church either. That is just common sense.

To put yourself outside of the ministry of the Church means that your self identified mission is also outside of it.

That will change if the SSPX is reconciled to the Church.

 

[mattkubes]

Yet the words “No” and “Ministry” are Canonical terms.

Anyways, the pope is the supreme legislator so he is not bound by Canon Law and he can make pronouncements that do not follow it. You can not use the Code of Canon Law against him.

My point is that the Pope likely wasn’t trying to make a definitive Canonical statement. He, unlike Fr Lombardi, wouldn’t have used the word “legitimate” carelessly. In other words, he knows his stuff. He didn’t amend the Code to create a new anathematized category called “illegitimate groups,” so why try to make this particular point an issue of Canon Law?

 

[jmj1984]

Yet the words “No” and “Ministry” are Canonical terms.

Anyways, the pope is the supreme legislator so he is not bound by Canon Law and he can make pronouncements that do not follow it. You can not use the Code of Canon Law against him.

I really do dislike it when people make the pope and his office sound like a stalinesque dictator

 

[Yoyoma67]

I really do dislike it when people make the pope and his office sound like a stalinesque dictator

No one has said anything of the kind here. Canon law makes it quite clear who the “supreme legislator” is and as such he is its sole interpreter.
Do you then dislike the definition of papal authority that we find in Vatican I and re-affirmed in Vatican II?

y.

 

[Will_S]

While I do not deny that the SSPX has a stated Mission, it is not a Mission that the Church recognizes at this time. When one does not have a ministry within the Church then one does not have a mission within the Church either. That is just common sense.

That is entirely irrelevant. The mission of the SSPX guides their actions. If you want to understand their actions, you have to understand their mission.

 

[Yoyoma67]

Don’t be so hasty to anathematize whole groups of Catholics who simply disagree with the conclusions you’ve made based on some vague statements dealing with the Society’s “legitimacy” (which isn’t even a Canonical term).

None of the statements of the Popes on this subject are vague. Blessed John Paul II was quite explicit in “Ecclesia Dei Adflicta” as was Pope Benedict in his letter to the bishops. Don’t talk about uncanonical language and don’t invoke canonists of the SSPX. The pope remains supreme, the opinions of all others notwithstanding. You have no right to filter and distort the pope’s words. Without a mandate from the Church, the SSPX has no mission.

y.

 

[Te_Deum]

I really do dislike it when people make the pope and his office sound like a stalinesque dictator

I heartily dislike when people try to usurp Peter’s authority.

 

[jmj1984]

I heartily dislike when people try to usurp Peter’s authority.

Then it tis a shame you don’t know what his authority is and as for usurping it you’re seriously mistaken if you think the sspx have usurped it.

 

[Dan_Daly]

The only reason that the SSPX is willing to persist in an irregular situation is that they are absolutely convinced that they are correct and they are absolutely convinced that the Holy See will eventually see things their way. If they were not absolutely convinced of the first, they would accept regularization under the terms of the Holy See. If they were not absolutely convinced of the second, they would leave the Church.

I know this person wasn’t speaking for the SSPX as a whole, and I don’t even know if they are a member, but if the SSPX would consider leaving the Church under ANY circumstances, then they are not who they say they are.

That is not a rhetorical shot at anyone. I simply think it’s the truth. They are Catholics. Faithful Catholics can’t leave the Church, even when we see people within it doing things we think are wrong, even the Pope. The society, like all Catholics don’t place their hope in the Pope, rather they place it in Our Lord.

Pax and God Bless.

 

[Te_Deum]

Then it tis a shame you don’t know what his authority is and as for usurping it you’re seriously mistaken if you think the sspx have usurped it.

Part of his authority is that he is above canon law. You cannot hold him to it. Take excommunication for example. It’s clearly taught by the Church that, upon election, all canonical penalties are suspended concerning the Pontiff, to a) avoid claims that he is not a true Pope and b) because the Supreme Pontiff is not bound by canon law.

And I really do not see how I am mistaken about those usurping the Pontiff’s authority. Firstly I didn’t actually address the SSPX in the original statement but since you brought them up…

How exactly is consecrating four bishops contrary to the will of the Pope not usurping the Pontiff’s authority when everyone needs his blessing for a bishop to be consecrated?

That’s a black-and-white example right there. It doesn’t matter if you’re in the SSPX or in the Chinese government. If you consecrate a bishop without Papal approval you are usurping the Pope’s authority in these matters and taken it upon yourself. Something you have no right to do.

The SSPX traditionalists are fond of mooning over the “good old days” when “Popes were Popes” but refuse to live in the reality where the Pope is indeed Pope and is your lawful superior. Father Michael Mary gave a great interview a while ago where he speaks about… well read it yourself.

Martin: What is this ‘Practical Sedevacantist Catholicism’

Father Michael Mary: This means living the Catholic faith as if there were no Pope or hierarchy to whom we were bound to be submissive and from whom we were bound to receive authorisation for our activities. It is when we accept that he is the Pope in name alone, but practically we reduce his authority over us to nearly nothing at all. For example, when the Archbishop consecrated the four bishops against the explicit will of Pope John Paul II. I think that this was ‘Practical Sedevacantist Catholicism’ in action. When Catholic life had come to this state, jurisdiction is not even an issue. The issue was living to survive the madness that was infesting the Church. Was ‘Practical Sedevacantist Catholicism’ right or wrong? I cannot answer and I do not judge it. It was the way many of us survived. There seemed to be no other viable alternatives for protecting the Faith. “We did what we had to do.”

It’s of course from an apologetic position, but it still stands.

Respect our Pope and the authority he holds over the entire Church.

 

[Will_S]

I know this person wasn’t speaking for the SSPX as a whole, and I don’t even know if they are a member, but if the SSPX would consider leaving the Church under ANY circumstances, then they are not who they say they are.

You misunderstood what I was saying, or perhaps I didn’t say it well.

It is not the case that the SSPX (as a group) thinks “If the pope won’t see things our way, then we’ll leave the Church.”

But rather, that the SSPX is convinced that some Pope will eventually see things their way because the Church is indefectible and the current crisis will eventually be resolved, whether next year or 100 years from now. They are willing to wait as long as necessary.

If they did not believe that some Pope would eventually see things their way, that would be the same as believing that the Church has defected, or alternately, that the SSPX itself is the only surviving remnant of the Church. But these are things that they entirely reject.

 

[jmj1984]

Part of his authority is that he is above canon law. You cannot hold him to it. Take excommunication for example. It’s clearly taught by the Church that, upon election, all canonical penalties are suspended concerning the Pontiff, to a) avoid claims that he is not a true Pope and b) because the Supreme Pontiff is not bound by canon law.

And I really do not see how I am mistaken about those usurping the Pontiff’s authority.

I’ve heard this argument Ad Nauseum, its no more convincing said the 50th time than it was when first I heard it. Aside from de facto turning the Pope into some sort of stalinesque dictators it has several practical problems:

1)The Pope is bound by divine and natural law, holy scripture and the nature of the sacraments
2)The Pope is also bound by the De Fide teaching of the church, especially when expressed through councils
3)The Pope is bound to obey the highest law ‘The salvation of souls’, therefore he cannot trouble souls nor can he assault the state
4)The Pope’s powers were not given to him ‘for the love of domination’ and if he were to use them in such a way his powers would hardly be legitimate

As for the society usurping the Popes powers, the only way anyone could believe that is due to invincible ignorance, the society does not claim jurisdiction for its bishops, does not claim authority to speak De Fide nor to settle claims of canon law etc… If you are going to attack the society at least do it on the basis of what they believe and do, not what you think they believe or do.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

I’ve heard this argument Ad Nauseum, its no more convincing said the 50th time than it was when first I heard it. Aside from de facto turning the Pope into some sort of stalinesque dictators it has several practical problems:

1)The Pope is bound by divine and natural law, holy scripture and the nature of the sacraments
2)The Pope is also bound by the De Fide teaching of the church, especially when expressed through councils
3)The Pope is bound to obey the highest law ‘The salvation of souls’, therefore he cannot trouble souls nor can he assault the state
4)The Pope’s powers were not given to him ‘for the love of domination’ and if he were to use them in such a way his powers would hardly be legitimate

As for the society usurping the Popes powers, the only way anyone could believe that is due to invincible ignorance, the society does not claim jurisdiction for its bishops, does not claim authority to speak De Fide nor to settle claims of canon law etc… If you are going to attack the society at least do it on the basis of what they believe and do, not what you think they believe or do.

A bishop needs the consent of the Pope to ordain another Bishop. Did the SSPX have that?

According to the Pope do the SSPX have a licit minisitry with in the Chruch?

if the anser to wither of these question is no, then scaraments that have to have a valid and licit Bishop or priest would not be licit to obtain from a Priest of the SSPX at this time.

This has nothing to do with agreeing with or disagreeing with the SSPX. It really has very little to do with if they are right or wrong. What it comes down to is does the Chruch and the Pope have the authority it claims it has and even the SSPX says it has. If it does then the SSPX need to submit to Rome and do what needs to be done to bring them in to a regular status within the chruch. If it does not then we really need to rethink what the Orthodox have been saying for the last 1000 years.

 

[Dan_Daly]

You misunderstood what I was saying, or perhaps I didn’t say it well.

It is not the case that the SSPX (as a group) thinks “If the pope won’t see things our way, then we’ll leave the Church.”

But rather, that the SSPX is convinced that some Pope will eventually see things their way because the Church is indefectible and the current crisis will eventually be resolved, whether next year or 100 years from now. They are willing to wait as long as necessary.

If they did not believe that some Pope would eventually see things their way, that would be the same as believing that the Church has defected, or alternately, that the SSPX itself is the only surviving remnant of the Church. But these are things that they entirely reject.

I appreciate the clarification. Thanks.

Pax.

 

[Te_Deum]

1)The Pope is bound by divine and natural law, holy scripture and the nature of the sacraments

Where did I claim he wasn’t?

2)The Pope is also bound by the De Fide teaching of the church, especially when expressed through councils

Where did I say he wasn’t? Interesting tidbit… those Councils all had to have Papal Approval.

3)The Pope is bound to obey the highest law ‘The salvation of souls’, therefore he cannot trouble souls nor can he assault the state

Where did I say he wasn’t? Another interesting tidbit, the state is subject to the Church and therefore subject to the Pope.

4)The Pope’s powers were not given to him ‘for the love of domination’ and if he were to use them in such a way his powers would hardly be legitimate

His supreme authority is given him by virtue of Peter’s Throne. It exists for him to exercise his ministry… namely the highest visible authority on Earth in matters of Faith and Morals and the governance of the Church.

the society does not claim jurisdiction for its bishops

Yes, it does. Have you not been listening to them trying to justify their exercising a priestly ministry whilst having no canonical position within the Church? They argue for a supplied jurisdiction… interesting… they acknowledge Benedict XVI as the Pope… yet completely undermine said Pope’s authority…

does not claim authority to speak De Fide nor to settle claims of canon law etc…

Indeed! The Society just claims that it alone holds the fullness of the one True Faith and that Rome has deviated from it and must strike it’s breast three times and meet the Society at Écône.

As for settling matters or canon law… hmm… would you not say that the SSPX annulment tribunals constitute their claim to be able to settle matters of canon law? I would think so.

If you are going to attack the society at least do it on the basis of what they believe and do, not what you think they believe or do.

My friend you are the only one that is making things out that are simply non-existent.

 

[jmj1984]

A bishop needs the consent of the Pope to ordain another Bishop. Did the SSPX have that?

According to the Pope do the SSPX have a licit minisitry with in the Chruch?

if the anser to wither of these question is no, then scaraments that have to have a valid and licit Bishop or priest would not be licit to obtain from a Priest of the SSPX at this time.

This has nothing to do with agreeing with or disagreeing with the SSPX. It really has very little to do with if they are right or wrong. What it comes down to is does the Chruch and the Pope have the authority it claims it has and even the SSPX says it has. If it does then the SSPX need to submit to Rome and do what needs to be done to bring them in to a regular status within the chruch. If it does not then we really need to rethink what the Orthodox have been saying for the last 1000 years.

You misunderstand the position of the SSPX

 

[jmj1984]

Where did I claim he wasn’t?

Where did I say he wasn’t? Interesting tidbit… those Councils all had to have Papal Approval.

Where did I say he wasn’t? Another interesting tidbit, the state is subject to the Church and therefore subject to the Pope.

His supreme authority is given him by virtue of Peter’s Throne. It exists for him to exercise his ministry… namely the highest visible authority on Earth in matters of Faith and Morals and the governance of the Church.

Yes, it does. Have you not been listening to them trying to justify their exercising a priestly ministry whilst having no canonical position within the Church? They argue for a supplied jurisdiction… interesting… they acknowledge Benedict XVI as the Pope… yet completely undermine said Pope’s authority…

Indeed! The Society just claims that it alone holds the fullness of the one True Faith and that Rome has deviated from it and must strike it’s breast three times and meet the Society at Écône.

As for settling matters or canon law… hmm… would you not say that the SSPX annulment tribunals constitute their claim to be able to settle matters of canon law? I would think so.

My friend you are the only one that is making things out that are simply non-existent.

I merely hoped you understand that the Popes powers are not absolute and unlimited, but have limits imposed upon them by God. As for the SSPX playing pope, no I will not deny that the SSPX claims thay many in Rome have lost the fullness of faith, what I do deny is that they believe they are the Pope they clearly do not. They justify their claims and authority with reference to the tradition of the church not on the basis on any authority of their own and as regards jurisdiction they do not claim it for their bishops but rather claim only the power of orders. Of course they claim 'supplied jurisdiction as regards their sacraments but that is a rather different matter than claiming jurisdiction for their bishops. For canon law they do indeed claim the right to do annulments and such but they do not claim the right to edit or change canon law.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

You misunderstand the position of the SSPX

Thank you for telling me what i understand. I am quite aware of the fact that the SSPX feel that there is a crises in the Church and therefore they have not only the right but the obligation to do as they have done.

So I will post once again the two point I stated before:
A bishop needs the consent of the Pope to ordain another Bishop. Did the SSPX have that?

According to the Pope do the SSPX have a licit ministry with in the Church?

if the answer to either of these question is no, then sacraments that have to have a valid and licit Bishop or priest would not be licit to obtain from a Priest of the SSPX at this time.
it has nothing to do with the position that the SSPX. As anyone can take a position on something and be wrong. and still justify why they are right.

Oh and the answer to the two question I posed is no. Therefore sacraments are illicit. Valid but illicit.