Vatican: Pius X Society Ordinations Are Illegitimate

  • Thread starter Thread starter Will_S
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Niccolo said:
Furthermore, I would argue that SSPX priests who say Mass are committing grave sins of disobedience by celebrating the Sacrament, and thus those who participate at such Masses are encouraging such sin.
Click to expand...
This is a good point that is all too often ignored. Their ordinations are valid, yet illicit, and any celebration by them of Mass is valid, yet again illicit, and is also coupled with the fact that celebrating Mass while being suspended is an act of disobedience. What is to be said about a priest who willfully acts in disobedience?

If the sspx are reconciled to the Church then that’s fine. I wonder, though, that if the negotiations fall through will Pope Benedict take stern actions against them? There will be no excuse on their part anymore.
 
Timothysis said:
This is a good point that is all too often ignored. Their ordinations are valid, yet illicit, and any celebration by them of Mass is valid, yet again illicit, and is also coupled with the fact that celebrating Mass while being suspended is an act of disobedience. What is to be said about a priest who willfully acts in disobedience?

If the sspx are reconciled to the Church then that’s fine. I wonder, though, that if the negotiations fall through will Pope Benedict take stern actions against them? There will be no excuse on their part anymore.
Click to expand...
I’m not too sure regarding the possible outcome regarding you last statements. Nevertheless, Pope Benedict XVI as Cardinal Ratzinger has worked tirelessly to regularize the society and I believe he will continue to do so till he has left this world. The society knows many in the Church despise their existence unlike Pope Benedict XVI, so I’m hopeful the doctrinal discussions lead to a regularization in the near future. In addition, both The Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter and the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest continue to grow, so traditional societies will become more and more prominent in the Church, especially as the ‘spirit of Vatican II’ crowd decreases.
So why not follow the FSSP?
Click to expand...
fssp.org/en/index.htm
Click to expand...
Ordination in Denton:

http://www.fssp.org/album/O20110521/16.jpg

http://www.fssp.org/album/O20110521/17.jpg

They’re certainly included now.
 
It is always a joyful moment when a man is ordained or makes religious vows. Given the irregular status of the SSPX, it is unfortunate that we cannot celebrate. The ordination, while valid is illicit, because the bishops of the Society do not have faculties to exercise ministry. A bishop who is not an Ordinary may not ordain unless he has permission from the Ordinary of the diocese to do so or if the individual is a religious, he must have the permission of the religious superior in order to ordain him.

The act of ordaining a deacon or presbyter is not a schismatic act, because it does not have the potential to create a rupture that would lead to the birth of a parallel Church, because deacons and presbyters are not bishops. Objectively, it can be interpreted as an act of defiance to lawful authority by the ordaining bishop and by the man who presents himself for ordination.

However, one must also be conscious that the men who present themselves for ordination come with a heart desirous of serving God and his Church. Therefore, we must do whatever is within human reason and within the law to help them attain a canonical place in the Church. Ignoring challenges has never made them go away. This is a challenge that the Church must face, how to maintain discipline and control over the Sacrament of Holy Orders and at the same time extend her mercy and hope to these new priests.

It is not that the Holy See is looking the other way. Those who would like the Holy See to make weekly public announcements about who is excommunicated, censured, suspended, indicted or convicted in some way, have a very poor understanding of what the Church is and of her mission. There Church does not exist to condemn and censure. Sometime this happens, because people bring it on themselves. However, the Church exists to bring men to Jesus and Jesus to men.

In these situations, she must discern whether she does Jesus and these men a great disservice to publicly denounce their ordination. It is not charity to squelch the faith and enthusiasm of a young priest or religious, no matter how irregular the circumstance. The Church can communicate her disappointment and her disapproval privately to those who need to know. If she chooses to make a public statement, so be it. If not, we accept that as well.

We, the faithful, do not need to know what the Holy See says or thinks about every situation. I believe that we are running the risk of turning transparency from a means to preserving charity into an end in itself. In other words, we’re getting very close to making transparency a virtue, which is not the case. Transparency is a means to preserve virtue. Nonetheless, it is a means that should only be used when it is appropriate and helpful. There are times, when discretion and silence is the better choice. It is better not to second-guess the Holy See. Let the Holy See do whatever it sees as appropriate and accept what it says with humility.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
I am always confused by “valid, but not licit”. If it is illicit, then why is it valid?🤷
 
TrueLight said:
I am always confused by “valid, but not licit”. If it is illicit, then why is it valid?🤷
Click to expand...
In this case if the person who is doing the ordaining is a bishop and the person who is being ordained has no impediments the sacrament actually takes place. The man does become a priest. That makes it valid.

However, the act of ordaining took place without the proper permission. Therefore, it is done illegally. If something is ellegal, then it is illicit.

In the Church, illicit is a very serious offense. Some people who are supporters of the SSPX want to minimize it. They assume an attitude, “Oh well, they are illegally ordained, but they are real priests and that’s what matters.”

Not so fast. Yes, they are reall priests. However, that’s not the only thing that matters. If a bishop can ordain when he is not supposed to be ordaining and a man can be ordained when he is not supposed to accept ordination from that particular bishop and we simply say “it’s not important” then why not consecrate Wonder Bread? Bread is bread. It would be valid.

There are rules that we must follow. It’s not enough for the ordination to be performed by a real bishop and for the person to be ordained be free to be a priest. It is also necessary to comply with the law.

However, I repeat what I said before. We must do everything that is humanly possible, within the law, to correct this illegal situation, not to punish these young menor old men. I have no idea how old the new priests are. 😃

We cannot go to extremes. We cannot accept something illegal with a smile. On the other hand, we should not flagilate those who find themselves in these circumstances. We have to call it as it is. It is illegal. It is unfortunate. Now it is necessary to help those in this situation, because they are our brothers and sons of the Church. They have to do their part to meet the Church halfway.

Fraternally,

Br. Jr, OSF 🙂
 
JReducation said:
In this case if the person who is doing the ordaining is a bishop and the person who is being ordained has no impediments the sacrament actually takes place. The man does become a priest. That makes it valid.

However, the act of ordaining took place without the proper permission. Therefore, it is done illegally. If something is ellegal, then it is illicit.

In the Church, illicit is a very serious offense. Some people who are supporters of the SSPX want to minimize it. They assume an attitude, “Oh well, they are illegally ordained, but they are real priests and that’s what matters.”

Not so fast. Yes, they are reall priests. However, that’s not the only thing that matters. If a bishop can ordain when he is not supposed to be ordaining and a man can be ordained when he is not supposed to accept ordination from that particular bishop and we simply say “it’s not important” then why not consecrate Wonder Bread? Bread is bread. It would be valid.

There are rules that we must follow. It’s not enough for the ordination to be performed by a real bishop and for the person to be ordained be free to be a priest. It is also necessary to comply with the law.

However, I repeat what I said before. We must do everything that is humanly possible, within the law, to correct this illegal situation, not to punish these young menor old men. I have no idea how old the new priests are. 😃

We cannot go to extremes. We cannot accept something illegal with a smile. On the other hand, we should not flagilate those who find themselves in these circumstances. We have to call it as it is. It is illegal. It is unfortunate. Now it is necessary to help those in this situation, because they are our brothers and sons of the Church. They have to do their part to meet the Church halfway.

Fraternally,

Br. Jr, OSF 🙂
Click to expand...
It’s a messy situation. The Church today entails illicit ordinations in a priestly society no matter the personal sentiment I expressed in my previous post and a thankfully canceled ‘Western Mass’ in Vienna that was allowed by the ordinary, but might as well be an invalid Mass due to the number of abuses it would consist of. Caught in the middle of all of this is the simple laymen attempting to be obedient to the Church and live a Catholic life while a de facto schism exists among the clergy and thus a divided Church.
 
PA650 said:
It’s a messy situation. The Church today entails illicit ordinations in a priestly society no matter the personal sentiment I expressed in my previous post and a thankfully canceled ‘Western Mass’ in Vienna that was allowed by the ordinary, but might as well be an invalid Mass due to the number of abuses it would consist of. Caught in the middle of all of this is the simple laymen attempting to be obedient to the Church and live a Catholic life while a de facto schism exists among the clergy and thus a divided Church.
Click to expand...
How is a layman “attempting to be obedient” when he seeks an illicit ordination?
 
PA650 said:
It’s a messy situation. The Church today entails illicit ordinations in a priestly society no matter the personal sentiment I expressed in my previous post and a thankfully canceled ‘Western Mass’ in Vienna that was allowed by the ordinary, but might as well be an invalid Mass due to the number of abuses it would consist of. Caught in the middle of all of this is the simple laymen attempting to be obedient to the Church and live a Catholic life while a de facto schism exists among the clergy and thus a divided Church.
Click to expand...
Assuming that the mass in Vienna met the requirements for validity, it would have been valid, despite the abuses. We must be very careful. There is no such thing as “almost invalid”. Something is or is not a sacrament. If it is a sacrament, even if it is done illegally or violates all kinds of rubrics If it’s valid, it must be acknowledged and treated with reverence.

That being said, one cannot ignore the violation of law. This is where we are caught. I have to admit that a mass with abuses and an ordination by a suspended bishop is valid. I don’t have the option to call it anything else. I cannot handcuff God, because man broke the rules.

However, I do have a duty to do whatever can be done to remedy the problem. There are three ways of practicing mercy: prayer, word and deed.

In this case, I can pray for God’s mercy for the individuals involved, be it at the mass in Vienna, had it taken place, and the men involved in this ordination.

I can help others understand why the action is illicit and I can do so without judging the state of the other person’s soul or his motives. I can limit my observations to what can be seen. By remaining objective, I can practice mercy in word. I can say why this is wrong; but I have no insight into the mind and soul of the person who is doing it. Therefore, I will not comment on the person.

I can practice mercy in deed by treating the individual with love and respect. He does not cease to be my brother and a child of the Church. The Church is mother to many sinful children, including me. If I attempt to put distance between someone and their mother, because they are sinful, does that mean that I am free of sin or that I too am unfit to be a child of the Church? No one has a right to drive a wedge between the mother and the child, even if the child is a brat. Who of us was never a brat? 🤷

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
ByzCath said:
How is a layman “attempting to be obedient” when he seeks an illicit ordination?
Click to expand...
My statement on obedience was regarding my situation of trying to be be obedient to the Church even if the clergy that are suppose to protect me from the wolves don’t believe in the truthful teachings of the Church. As a Catholic, I can’t necessarily separate the bishops and priests that serve the Church from my belief in the Church, albeit I’m aware that not all members of the clergy are perfect either doctrinally or morally. I could attempt to answer your question regarding Catholic laymen seeking ordination to the priesthood in the SSPX, but I would rather have such a question answered by these new priests or a member of the lay faithful that attends a SSPX chapel and is discerning a vocation to that specific society.
Assuming that the mass in Vienna met the requirements for validity, it would have been valid, despite the abuses. We must be very careful. There is no such thing as “almost invalid”. Something is or is not a sacrament. If it is a sacrament, even if it is done illegally or violates all kinds of rubrics If it’s valid, it must be acknowledged and treated with reverence.
Click to expand...
That being said, one cannot ignore the violation of law. This is where we are caught. I have to admit that a mass with abuses and an ordination by a suspended bishop is valid. I don’t have the option to call it anything else. I cannot handcuff God, because man broke the rules.
Click to expand...
However, I do have a duty to do whatever can be done to remedy the problem. There are three ways of practicing mercy: prayer, word and deed.
Click to expand...
In this case, I can pray for God’s mercy for the individuals involved, be it at the mass in Vienna, had it taken place, and the men involved in this ordination.
Click to expand...
I can help others understand why the action is illicit and I can do so without judging the state of the other person’s soul or his motives. I can limit my observations to what can be seen. By remaining objective, I can practice mercy in word. I can say why this is wrong; but I have no insight into the mind and soul of the person who is doing it. Therefore, I will not comment on the person.
Click to expand...
I can practice mercy in deed by treating the individual with love and respect. He does not cease to be my brother and a child of the Church. The Church is mother to many sinful children, including me. If I attempt to put distance between someone and their mother, because they are sinful, does that mean that I am free of sin or that I too am unfit to be a child of the Church? No one has a right to drive a wedge between the mother and the child, even if the child is a brat. Who of us was never a brat?
Click to expand...
Thank you for your insightful post, Br. JR.
 
I think I understand what you’re saying about you. As to those who seek ordination in the SSPX, no Catholic is supposed to seek to receive the sacraments illegally. Whether it’s Holy Orders or Holy Communion, it is objectively wrong to seek the sacraments from one who does not have the authority to administer them. We understand that he has the sacramental power to ordain or consecrate, but he does not have authority to use that power.

The matter is complicated by the fact that the Church makes available ordination to several traditional groups in full-communion with the Primacy. If you are called to the religious life there are:
  1. Sons of the Most Holy Redeemer
  2. Franciscans of the Immaculate
  3. Canons Regular of St. John Cantius
If you’re not called to the consecrated life, but are called to the priesthood there are
  1. The Fraternal Priestly Society of St Peter (FSSP)
  2. Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest
If such a person were ever put on the stand in an ecclesial tribunal, he would have to struggle to come up with a justification that would exonerate him from violating Canon Law. Fortunately, we rarely put people on trial anymore.

I for one would find it very sad to put one of these new priests on trial. Canonically, it can be done. The process has not been dismantled. It’s simply not used in these cases. The Holy See is hoping to resolve the problem through Cardinal Levada’s office and the Ecclesia Dei Commission working under him.

I may be wrong, but I don’t believe that these guys are going to get a free pass from Cardinal Levada or Cardinal Burke. At some point, they will have to commit to observing and supporting whatever the Church requires in order to grant them faculties.

These things are always very interesting. Because we like to think that the pope is personally involved; but that’s not really the case. He is informed as things progress. He guides and directs as to what he wants and he signs the concluding documents. However, the people involved don’t deal directly with the Holy Father. They deal with the Prefect of the appropriate congregation. This is Cardinal Levada. If there is a canonical question, then Cardinal Burke comes into the picture, because it is the Supreme Tribunal that must rule on legal matters, if there are legal questions.

To avoid all of this, my advice to any man who wants to be a priest in a traditional religious community or a traditional society of apostolic life is to join one of the ones that have canonical status. It will save you some headaches.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
Brother JR, I agree with your posts on this subject, but the question remains that the Vatican is essentially silent on these issues. They have not come out and told the faithful not to frequent or “be members” of SSPX chapels, and they didn’t try to stop this round of ordinations.

It is certainly confusing.
 
PaulinVA said:
Brother JR, I agree with your posts on this subject, but the question remains that the Vatican is essentially silent on these issues. They have not come out and told the faithful not to frequent or “be members” of SSPX chapels, and they didn’t try to stop this round of ordinations.

It is certainly confusing.
Click to expand...
I’m going out on a limb here and speculate about what the Vatican may or may not be thinking.

There was a message sent to Bishop Fellay not to ordain a group of candidates. It was last year at this time. They proceeded to do so anyway. The SSPX said that they got the message after all the plans were in place. My guess is that the Vatican may feel that it’s no use, since they’re going to do it there way no matter what. If truth be told, the SSPX has been doing things its way, no matter what. This is one of the problems that has to be resolved.

On the other hand, most of us who are in pastoral ministry find that the average lay peson doesn’t know who or what the SSPX is. They sound bigger than they are. I believe that has to do with the Internet. Were it not for the Internet, most people would know very little about them. The point I’m making is that not as many people know about them as we think.

They may be well known to people here and thus this group may be a little confused as to what to do. Most people don’t know about them or they’re just a name. In the area where I work we have 133 parishes and about one million Catholics. When you mention the SSPX, they look at you and say, “Who?”

My guess is that those lay people who are die hard supporters of the SSPX are going to do their thing, regardless of what the Vatican says. If the Vatican came out and denounced this ordination, these folks would rebel. They have already made upo their minds not to comply with anything that the Vatican has to say against the SSPX. This is the real danger.

I don’t think that Archbishop Lefebvre foresaw this or would approve of it; but it’s happening. There are lay people who will not entertain any criticism of the SSPX, even if it comes from the Vatican. What this does is elevate the Society above the highest authority in the Church. People forget that the Church has authority and she need not invoke infallibility to exercise it. Authority has nothing to do with being right or wrong. It has to do with structure.

Cyprian of Carthage made this very clear in 251 AD when he condemned the schism of Novatian. Authority does not have to be right. He wrote that this is not the question. The question is unity. For that reason, the Lord unites his people in him and establishes a central authority that derives its juridical power from him. Cyprian did not argue that Pope Cornelius was right and Novatian was right. He argued that Novatian had no authority while Pope Cornelius derived his juridical authority from Christ, through Peter and down the line.

If the Vatican said anything, I’m not sure that these folks would listen. They have placed their allegience in the Society and have assigned more authority to the Society than to the Vatican.

I’m just speculating,

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
PaulinVA said:
Brother JR, I agree with your posts on this subject, but the question remains that the Vatican is essentially silent on these issues. They have not come out and told the faithful not to frequent or “be members” of SSPX chapels, and they didn’t try to stop this round of ordinations.

It is certainly confusing.
Click to expand...
At_Trent said:
So why the calumny ?

Name one “sspx’r” who denied the holocaust.
Click to expand...
When you guys say “ssspx’r” are you talking about the actual members of the Society (clerics and brothers) or are you including their lay following?

As far as denying the Shoah, there is that issue with Bishop Williamson for which the Holy Father had very strong words and expressed regret that he had lifted his excomminication before finding out that the bishop had made this statement. He publicly called Bishop Williamson “anti-semite”.

To the best of my knowledge, Pope Benedict ist he first pope in modern history to use such strong language about a bishop before the press. He must have been really angry at him. He did not stop there. He said a number of other things about him that have been recorded in writing for posterity.

The Holocaust and the SSPX is a topic that is best left alone. The Holy Father himself is very touchy about that one. I believe that the more it’s stirred up the worse it is for the Society. In the end, the people who are doing the stirring are lay people who have nothing to lose. The SSPX bishops and clergy have much to lose. It’s not fair for the laity to use its “freedom of speech” at the expense of men who will suffer the consequences.

When you stir up this stuff, you put these men on the spot. They’re the ones who will questioned and whose credibility is shaded. The average lay person on the Internet disappears into anonymity. These folks do not have that luxury.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
I don’t know if this is the right thread it, but the same way we ask what would it take for the Orthodox to be in full communion, does anyone know what it would take for the SPPX to be in full communion?

What are the points of contention on the sides of the SPPX and the Church?

I have heard that the Pope has made some overtures?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top