Vatican: Pius X Society Ordinations Are Illegitimate

[PaulinVA]

…
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.

But why not just be done with it and declare something definitive? As you said, these are men who seek illicit ordination and then embark upon a ministry they don’t have a right to. I don’t think another group would have this non outcome.

As for the Holocaust, thank you for your answer.

 

[JReducation]

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?

At this point, no one really knows what is left to discuss. Everything we know is speculation. There are many blogs on the web that claim to know. I warn caution. Bloggers are notorious for gossip and partisan posting.

We knew what the issues were when they went into these talks. But the Vatican is being very quiet about the progress. Ultimately, it is Cardinal Levada who will decree what the Society has to accept to pass his litmus test.

I realize that many lay people say that there are no doctrinal issues on the table. However, the Holy Father said there were and that was his reason for putting the discussion into the hands of the Sacred Congregation for the Faith. Had the issues been legal, the case would have been handed over to the Signatura, which handles legal matters.

Even the overtures are rumors. There is a rumor going around that the Vatican will offer them their own ordinareate. This has not been confirmed or denied. Even if they do get their own ordinareate, there is the question about its structure. There are four bishops. An ordinareate has only one Ordinary. Will the other three accept being auxiliaries or will the ordinareate be organized differently so that each bishop is an Ordinary?

We just have to pray, wait and see.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

But why not just be done with it and declare something definitive? As you said, these are men who seek illicit ordination and then embark upon a ministry they don’t have a right to. I don’t think another group would have this non outcome.

As for the Holocaust, thank you for your answer.

I wish I knew the answer, but I don’t. I can only guess that it may be diplomatic. If the rumors are right and the Vatican is about to offer the Society a way out, the ordinareate, then it would seem prudent to wait and see if the offer is accepted.

If the offer is made and accepted, then these men will simply be asked to pledge their allegiance to the Holy See and they will be granted faculties.

I’m thinking about the beginning of CITH. It was a risky step that some bishops took. However, the Holy Father took the position that the Papacy could remedy the situation by legalizing it. His point of view was that the mission of Peter is to protect the sheep, including from itself. If the Church can bind and unbind, why not do so in order to protect the sheep. An ordinareate may unbind them from the canonical suspension . . . just my guess.

If an offer that can legalize their status is rejected . . . if not the whole world, at least the leadership of the Society will be hearing from the Holy See. It may be some strong words. To be honest, Pope Benedict has gone out of his way to bring them home and the entire Roman Curia has silently cooperate with the Holy Father, whether they agree or not. But as Cicero sais, “Quo usque tandem abutere patientia nostra?”

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[TrueLight]

Even the overtures are rumors. There is a rumor going around that the Vatican will offer them their own ordinareate. This has not been confirmed or denied. Even if they do get their own ordinareate, there is the question about its structure. There are four bishops. An ordinareate has only one Ordinary. Will the other three accept being auxiliaries or will the ordinareate be organized differently so that each bishop is an Ordinary?

We just have to pray, wait and see.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Thanks Br. JR.

By ordinareate, do you mean something like the Anglicans that came over? What other groups have their own ordinareates?

 

[At_Trent]

Other than denying the Holocaust, I’m not sure what members of SSPX have to do to be censured.

What member of the SSPX has denied the holocaust ?

 

[At_Trent]

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?..

…The Holocaust and the SSPX is a topic that is best left alone.

You and I know what a member of the SSPX is.

But someone here has insinuated the SSPX denies the Holocaust in the wording he used. I think it’s reasonable to ask for clarification. I think it borders on calumny and I’d like him to answer.

 

[JReducation]

Thanks Br. JR.

By ordinareate, do you mean something like the Anglicans that came over? What other groups have their own ordinareates?

I wouldn’t be able to tell you if it would look exactly like what the Anglican Catholics have. There are other groups that have their own ordinareates.

The Armed Forces has one. That one is regulated by the Vatican. It has its own archbishop, but he may not ordain any men, nor may he run his own seminary. The priests who join the Military Ordinariate must be given permission to join either by their bishop, if they are diocesan or by their religious superior, if they are regular priests. They are free to return to their original diocese whenever they choose to do so. Their religious superiors may recall those who are religious, at any time. The bishop has the power to govern them and assign them while their serving under him. He can grant them faculties or suspend them. The ordinariate is really a diocese without physical boundaries.

Opus Dei is a prelature, which is similar to an ordinariate. A prelature is not a diocese. However, it functions like one. It has no boundaries. It’s head is the Holy Father. He assigns a Prelate to govern it in his name. The Prelate can move his men freely and is responsible for the souls under the Prelature.

As you can see, there are several forms of autonomy without becoming a religious congregation, which the Society is not, nor do their priests want to be religious. Otherwise, they would have joined a congregation or an order.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

You and I know what a member of the SSPX is.

Actually, this is a legitimate question. Allow me to explain. There are people who use SSPX and include the lay faithful who support the SSPX. That is an inacccurate use of the term. To the best of my kowledge, the only laymen that the Society has are the brothers. The people in the pews do not belong to the Society.

If we’re referring to the clergy, brothers and laity, one can say that many people have said many dumb things.

If by SSPX, the user is thinking only of the clergy, then the question is whether or not this notion about the Holocaust is taught in their formation program. Personally, I don’t see why it would be taught.

But someone here has insinuated the SSPX denies the Holocaust in the wording he used. I think it’s reasonable to ask for clarification. I think it borders on calumny and I’d like him to answer.

I believe that the statement may be a little broad. It would be better to say that some members of the Society deny the Holocaust as we know it. That would be true.

It would also be good advice to say, “Don’t say that where pope can hear you.” :nope:

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[At_Trent]

I believe that the statement may be a little broad. It would be better to say that some members of the Society deny the Holocaust as we know it. That would be true.

So who are these members and what exactly did they say ? If it’s true that there are more than one, then surely there are quotes to show it’s true ?

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Actually, this is a legitimate question. Allow me to explain. There are people who use SSPX and include the lay faithful who support the SSPX. That is an inacccurate use of the term. To the best of my kowledge, the only laymen that the Society has are the brothers. The people in the pews do not belong to the Society.

If we’re referring to the clergy, brothers and laity, one can say that many people have said many dumb things.

If by SSPX, the user is thinking only of the clergy, then the question is whether or not this notion about the Holocaust is taught in their formation program. Personally, I don’t see why it would be taught.

The SSPX also has a secular third order.

 

[JReducation]

The SSPX also has a secular third order.

Canonically it cannot be a secular third order. To be a secular order or a third order, the association must be part of a religious family. That’s in Canon Law. The Society is not a religious family. The term “third order” is being misused. The proper term would be a confraternity or an association of the faithful or even lay society, since the SSPX is already secular. Look at Opus Dei. It has a lay association, but it’s not called a Third Order, because the Priestly Society of the Holy Cross (aka: Opus Dei) is a secular society.

So who are these members and what exactly did they say ? If it’s true that there are more than one, then surely there are quotes to show it’s true ?

Common’ AT, we’re not going to get into a debate about this. It’s not worth it. Bishop Williamson may be the only high profile member of the Society who has made this kind of comment, but he’s not the only one. There have been similar comments in some of their blogs and by some of their clerics.

I still hold to the idea that these individuals had these ideas prior to their affiliation with the Society. I don’t see why the Society would teach this.

I am willing to defend the Society against allegations that are not true, such as when people refer to them as being in schism. I am also willing to point out their serious weaknesses, such as disobedience. However, this point would only be important if they teach this in their formation program. Even if that were the case, I would have to wait to see what Rome has to say about it.

My father was a lawyer and a diplomat. He taught me one thing. “If you go to someone’s defense, be sure that you’re willing to take the consequences with him; otherwise, don’t take the case.”

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[At_Trent]

So, besides Bishop Williamson, there are no quotes to be found to support a claim that “some”, read that as plural, share a denial of the Holocaust ?

I mean, if we are going to thrust such a horrid reputation on Roman Catholic priests, should we not back up our claims ?

 

[At_Trent]

How did he feel about offense ?

 

[VivaCristoRey27]

I’m confused. You’re thanking God because someone violated Canon Law?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

They didn’t violate Canon 1752.

 

[JReducation]

So, besides Bishop Williamson, there are no quotes to be found to support a claim that “some”, read that as plural, share a denial of the Holocaust ?

I mean, if we are going to thrust such a horrid reputation on Roman Catholic priests, should we not back up our claims ?

Let it go AT.

I’m trying to say that if one of our people comes to me and says, “Brother, I was at the SSPX chapel and Fr. John Smith said that the Holocaust is a fabrication.” I’m not about to come onto the Internet and announce it the the world. That would be totally inappropriate. Father is wrong, but this was not a comment that he made for the world to hear. If he wants the world to hear it, let him put it on the Internet.

There are SSPX supporters who have made this claim on their blogs. However, they do not say that they were taught this by Fr. Jim Dandy, SSPX. All that I know is that people judge the SSPX guilty by association.

Is that fair? Heck no. Every family has at least one lose canon.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

They didn’t violate Canon 1752.

1752 is about the transfer of pastors. It refers to diocesan priests who are parish pastors. This is not the same case.

This is part of the problem.

Can. 1017 A bishop cannot confer orders outside his own jurisdiction without the permission of the diocesan bishop.

The SSPX bishops do not have jurisdiction, because they do not have a canonical place in the Church. By ordaining, they violate above Canon. This makes the act, illicit.

I’m sure that there are other problems too. However, this is probably the biggest one. When the excommunication was lifted, it was made very clear that they had no canonical place in the Church and they remained suspended.

It would be better if they held off on ordaining until the suspensions are lifted. Then, the men whom they ordain are suspended before the holy oils are dry. That’s not good.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[MarkThompson]

Can. 1017 A bishop cannot confer orders outside his own jurisdiction without the permission of the diocesan bishop.

The SSPX bishops do not have jurisdiction, because they do not have a canonical place in the Church. By ordaining, they violate above Canon. This makes the act, illicit.

Hmm-- not just “may not,” but cannot: “non] … potest,” is unable. These are “orders” of pretty dubious validity, then, it seems to me.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Canonically it cannot be a secular third order. To be a secular order or a third order, the association must be part of a religious family. That’s in Canon Law. The Society is not a religious family. The term “third order” is being misused. The proper term would be a confraternity or an association of the faithful or even lay society, since the SSPX is already secular. Look at Opus Dei. It has a lay association, but it’s not called a Third Order, because the Priestly Society of the Holy Cross (aka: Opus Dei) is a secular society.

Same thing goes for the so-called brothers in the SSPX.

They, the SSPX, call it a third order but regardless of what it is called it does show that lay people are members of the SSPX.

 

[Catholicpotato]

Man, the last thing I want to do is get involved in these threads but it seems to me that the process with the SSPX is moving along at the top levels and I think we will see normalization in realitively quick time in Church terms. Until then I would be suprised if the Holy Father didnt tacitly approve of these things. I honestly do not think the Vatican is asking the SSPX to halt these sort of trainings and ordinations. (Perhaps not publically but privately.) These are years in the making and they are Catholic priests. Priests that are probably better trained than most. I for one think that 10 years down the road, we will thank God for these Holy men. We should now!! A vocation is nothing to be frowned upon. Especially if it is inspired by the Holy Spirit. But I am sure there is enough hatred to blind this Holy occasion to some.

 

[JReducation]

Hmm-- not just “may not,” but cannot: “non] … potest,” is unable. These are “orders” of pretty dubious validity, then, it seems to me.

The ordination is valid, because the lack of jurisdiction is not one of the impediments for validity.

In this context “cannot” is being used to mean, “you have no permission” or “you have no authority”. Otherwise, the canon would use the term “invalid”.

If you do something that you’re not allowed to do, then you do so illegally.

If I were a surgeon without a license, I’m still a surgeon. The operation may be a success. I would still go to jail. The operation was illegal.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF