Vatican: Pius X Society Ordinations Are Illegitimate

[At_Trent]

I don’t know. The whole, “I must disobey the Church to save it” mentality is self contradictory. They must act in a schismatic manner to preserve the Tradition of the Church?

I understand where the SSPX priests are coming from, but if everyone acted in the same manner (I believe I am right and Rome is wrong)we would not have a Church.

In fact, a lot of people DO act in that manner, and they are the people that SSPX say they are protecting the Church from.

“It is granted to few to recognize the true Church amid the darkness of so many schisms and heresies, and to fewer still so to love the truth which they have seen as to fly to its embrace.”
St. Robert Bellarmine

“Indeed, the true friends of the people are neither revolutionaries, nor innovators: they are traditionalists.”
Pope St. Pius X, Notre Charge Apostolique

“Not to oppose error is to approve it, and not to defend truth is to suppress it, and indeed to neglect to confound evil men, when we can do it, is no less a sin than to encourage them.”
Pope St. Felix III

“What if some novel contagion seek to infect the whole Church, and not merely a small portion of it? Then he will take care to cling to antiquity, which cannot now be led astray by any novel deceit.”
St. Vincent of Lerins

Paul there were situations in the past, and as you can see, prominent clergy spoke up. Anything new has to enrich and remain connected to Tradition. If it isn’t connected, the new becomes novelty or error. You can’t discard what the new doesn’t jibe with. You discard the new. It’s the only way to remain orthodox.

 

[Fink]

I don’t know if anyone is under any illusion that they are in “regular” status.

Wanna bet?

Dont look at me, though; im definitely not one of them, thanks be to God!

 

[TemplarJPN]

“Not to oppose error is to approve it, and not to defend truth is to suppress it, and indeed to neglect to confound evil men, when we can do it, is no less a sin than to encourage them.”
Pope St. Felix III

.

What a wise man Pope St. Felix III was…Be that as it may tho…i do support SSPX, and I do hope they enter into full communion with the Church they could help stop the ugly liturgical abuse that is so prevelant in the Church these days.

Pax Christi,

TemplarJPN :knight2:

 

[Aramis]

Many people have asked me to do that. I have all of my writings; but I’m not sure that they’re that good.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Collect them and ask your brothers about it.

 

[Aramis]

What a wise man Pope St. Felix III was…Be that as it may tho…i do support SSPX, and I do hope they enter into full communion with the Church they could help stop the ugly liturgical abuse that is so prevelant in the Church these days.

Pax Christi,

TemplarJPN :knight2:

Worse was rampant prior to V II… but most didn’t notice, lacking the skill and not hearing what the priest whispered at the altar.

 

[InquisitorMax]

Worse was rampant prior to V II… but most didn’t notice, lacking the skill and not hearing what the priest whispered at the altar.

If a priest does that, he has a real problem and so does his church. The laity can at least abide in peace, if they are unaware.

If a priest does this publicly, even thinking he has a right to do it, then Church as well has a problem. That’s the situation now.

 

[PaulinVA]

Look carefully in this picture:

sspx.org/district_news/priestly_ordinations_2011/Ordinations12.jpg

Someone tell me if you find what is wrong with this picture (Hint, see the left edge of the new priest’s chusable).

Well, Binder Clips were invented in 1910, so I don’t see the problem…

 

[wisdomseeker]

I am just wondering how much more do we need to bring us into repentance.

:bowdown::bowdown2:

 

[PaulinVA]

What a wise man Pope St. Felix III was…Be that as it may tho…i do support SSPX, and I do hope they enter into full communion with the Church they could help stop the ugly liturgical abuse that is so prevelant in the Church these days.

Pax Christi,

TemplarJPN :knight2:

I can not see how a group of priests whose ordination was illicit, whose celebration of some sacraments is illicit (lacking jurisdiction), who don’t accept the validly-erected diocesan marriage tribunals have absolutely any moral authority at all to find fault with or reform any practices in the church, even if the practices are objectively wrong.

As they say, it’s the pot calling the kettle black.

 

[ProVobis]

It is up to the Ordinary to grant the permission, even if it’s for a single event. Granting permission to celebrate a mass at St. Peter’s is not an unusual concession. Even priests such as Fr. Corapi, who is suspended, can ask for and receive permission to celebrate a mass in any Catholic Church under the right conditions. That is determined by the person who has the authority to grant the permission. Unless the priest is a criminal, heretic, apostate or the mass is for the general public, the permission is rarely denied. Canon Law is very clear on this matter.

Therein lies the rub. Most, if not all, FSSPX priests (as well as independent) priests operate out of buildings and property not owned by the diocese. As the bishop is the trustee of only the Church property within the diocese, he’s not really in a good position to authorize administration of the sacraments outside of Church buildings, schools, cemeteries, hospitals, bookstores, etc.

It seems as if there are similar issues with the AO, except it takes action on the part of parishioners to comply with the agreements reached with the Vatican. For example, this article on the Maryland Episcopal Church points out that they have three years to come up with the money to buy the building (from the Episcopal Church, I assume) as part of their agreement to join the Catholic Church.

nation.foxnews.com/culture/2011/07/02/episcopal-church-maryland-convert-catholicism

So, from the property standpoint, it appears that there are more than doctrinal issues to be resolved before the FSSPX and Vatican can agree to be in full communion.

 

[ProVobis]

Worse was rampant prior to V II… but most didn’t notice, lacking the skill and not hearing what the priest whispered at the altar.

Not likely. Well-trained servers would easily pick up any such attempts to deceive the Mass goers. In fact, any deviation from the norm would have confused servers as they take their cues from the Latin and rubrics (hands over chalice, opening up the tabernacle doors, etc.). So it wouldn’t have been and isn’t good if the priest knowingly committed abuses back then or now.

 

[Rick09]

Yes. Though I do not know whether they are licit or not.

Vatican: Fraternity of Saint Pius X ordinations illegitimate

 

[JReducation]

Therein lies the rub. Most, if not all, FSSPX priests (as well as independent) priests operate out of buildings and property not owned by the diocese. As the bishop is the trustee of only the Church property within the diocese, he’s not really in a good position to authorize administration of the sacraments outside of Church buildings, schools, cemeteries, hospitals, bookstores, etc.

The bishop has jurisdiction over the entire territory of his diocese except inside the houses and chapels of male religious who are exempt from episcopal authority.

He has material jurisdiction over property. He has sacramental jurisdiction over people. Even a priest who is an exempt religious needs permission from the bishop to preach and celebrate sacraments to the laity in the diocese, even if it’s in the town square.

The bishop needs permission to interfere with: Franciscans, Jesuits, Dominicans, Carmelites, Salesians, Holy Cross, Benedictines, Carthusians, Christian Brothers, Alexian Brothers, Trinitarians, Redemptorists, Passionists and Opus Dei.

He may not enter their houses. He may not suppress them. He may not inerfere with anything they do or say in their houses, chapels, schools, colleges or other institutions.

Everything else that is in his diocese comes under his jurisdiction. If it’s buildings, he owns them. He is always sole proprietor. If it’s people: lay or cleric, they are all subordinate to his authority and only he can grant permission for the sacraments anywhwere.

It seems as if there are similar issues with the AO, except it takes action on the part of parishioners to comply with the agreements reached with the Vatican. For example, this article on the Maryland Episcopal Church points out that they have three years to come up with the money to buy the building (from the Episcopal Church, I assume) as part of their agreement to join the Catholic Church.

nation.foxnews.com/culture/2011/07/02/episcopal-church-maryland-convert-catholicism

So, from the property standpoint, it appears that there are more than doctrinal issues to be resolved before the FSSPX and Vatican can agree to be in full communion.

The issue with the Anglicans is one of justice. According to Protestant tradition, the congregation owns the property. Now the Episcopal diocese says that they own it. They will have to prove that. It’s sticky, because they don’t have canon law.

You see, in Canon Law. It makes no difference what the civil government says. Canon Law trumps civil law. The reason being that the Church is international and she cannot adjust her canons to every country in which she finds herself.

Even though many church properties are registered under the name of the parish. The Church says that the real owner is the bishop. If he demands to be given the keys, bank accounts, buildings, deeds and anything inside the building, no one can deny him. He is the rightful and sole owner.

The only thing that a bishop does not own is what is owned by religious of pontifical right. These properties are like embassies. The USA has no jurisdiction on the grounds of any foreign embassy in the USA. Other countries have no jurisdiction in our embassies.

When the reconciliation takes place, all property that belongs to the SSPX will be distributed according to the terms of the reconciliation.

If they become an ordinariate, the ordinariate owns the property. If they are absorbed into the mainstream as are the FSSP, the bishop of the diocese owns the property. A third option is that the pope can claim ownership to the property and then assign it to whomever as he wishes. That’s why an ordinariate is a good option. They will have autonomy and they will keep their property. At the same time, they will have canonical status. The downside to them is that they will not have a voice in any diocese. Ordinariates may not proselytize. They must limit their ministry to those who come to them. They cannot go out looking for people. For example, the Anglican Ordinariate, the Military Ordinariate, and the Opus Dei receive people who come to them. They do no recruit. In the case of the Opus Dei, word of mouth works very well. The Military Ordinariate is a revolving door. Military families may belong only while they have a member in the Armed Forces, it an be the army of an enemy nation. It does not matter. The Ordinariate must minister to them. Once the vet becomes a civilian, these families must find a diocesan parish.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[bkovacs]

Isn’t that what started the protestant reformation?

I think you will find many clerics today, Priests, Bishops, Nuns, Sisters, etc, who are “legitimate”, are disobeying Rome even more than the SSPX. This whole statement from the Vatican Press Office sounds very hypocritical. It’s blatantly obvious. Funny how you never here anything officially said about the things happening in Austria, Germany, etcc from Rome. Things like debates, from “catholic experts”, on womens ordination, gay clergy, abuses happening with the Novus Ordo Mass, like techno Masses, etc… Like I said before hypocritical of the Vatican Press Office.

 

[Aramis]

Well it does clarify that, much to some people’s chagrin, the Society of Saint Pius X is still in an irregular status. It seems that Rome is making broad gestures of reconciliation, such as allowing member priests of Pius X to celebrate mass, but its still holding its foot that the society needs to fully accept Rome’s authority.

Side question - are the masses celebrated at Saint Peter’s public or private masses? That might contribute to why the masses are allowed, even though the priests exercise “no ministry” within the Church.

Private, generally.

 

[Bluegoat]

This isn’t quite accurate. In Anglicanism the properties normally belong to the diocese, not the congregation, and that is clearly spelled out in canon law, which we do have. There are a few oddities here and there with this arrangement (my parish for example), but that is the normal pattern. The courts have pretty much agreed with that interpretation as well, almost always agreeing that the property adheres with the diocese.

What has been controversial are the few cases where a whole diocese has looked to defect from TEC. In the US, the presiding bishop has tried to claim that the properties belong to ECUSA. That is clearly not how TEC was set up, as after the American Revolution they were very careful not to grant the national church level many powers - that is why they call the head the presiding bishop, not a primate. But in the last few years they have been trying very hard to accrue more and more power to the National Church, which is really changing the Anglican model in a fundamental way.

Parishes wanting to retain their buildings really is a justice issue, as they cannot generally appeal to our canon law - they have to appeal to a more abstract sense of justice. Not too successfully so far, unfortunately.

 

[ProVobis]

That’s why an ordinariate is a good option. They will have autonomy and they will keep their property. At the same time, they will have canonical status. The downside to them is that they will not have a voice in any diocese.

I take it that they would have to fend for themselves in case they’re hit with a lawsuit?

 

[Aramis]

I take it that they would have to fend for themselves in case they’re hit with a lawsuit?

An ordinariate is, in all practical ways, a diocese, save for not requiring a bishop as ordinary.

It will be, like the EC eparchies, an overlapping diocese with an ordinary, a judicial vicar, and all the other instrumentality of diocesan administration. Even a seminary is within their right. They just need to borrow a bishop for ordinations if the Ordinary of the Ordinariate isn’t a bishop.

 

[JReducation]

I take it that they would have to fend for themselves in case they’re hit with a lawsuit?

I’m not a civil lawyer or a canon lawyer either. If an ordinariate for the SSPX functions as do the Military and Anglican Ordinariates, and the Prelature of the Opus Dei, they would have to create their own source of income and have their own financial resources. That’s the way that other dioceses work. If someone sues the Diocese of Malawa, China (I just made it up) no one else has to pay their bills, not even the Vatican.

In a traditional Latin diocese everything belongs to either the bishop or religious communities. Canon Law says that the lay faithful must finance the works of the diocese and religious according to their means. This is going to be different from place to place. There are places when they lay faithful are hungry, money comes in from the outside.

In the case of an ordinariate for the SSPX, I’m not sure, but my guess would be that the Ordinary would be the owner and also the person financially responsible.

We have to wait and see how they broker this deal. We do know that the SSPX has financial resources. Therefore, sustainability does not seem to be a question at this point. My guess is that like other ordinariates, they will not be allowed to raise funds from another diocese. For example, you never hear of a second collection for the Opus Dei.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Will_S]

The SSPX, in a response to the declaration of Fr. Lombardi that the SSPX ordinations were ‘illegitimate’, has posted, on their US website, the sermon, which Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre preached at the ordination of 16 men to the priesthood at Écône in 1978.

sspx.org/archbishop_lefebvre/ordination_sermon_econe_june_29_1978.htm