Vatican: Pius X Society Ordinations Are Illegitimate

[JReducation]

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.

Your comment is very unjust. It is not a matter of hatred. If you go back and read what I said before, an ordination should always bring great joy. Given that these ordinations are illegal, this detail casts a cloud over what should be a joyful occasion.

The law has nothing to do with love or hate. The law is what it is. In fact, one of the first things that you learn when you study canon law in the seminary is not to bring feelings into the room. Therefore, the word “love” is deliberately omitted in canon law. Canon law has nothing to do with love or hate. It has to do with what is allowed and what is not allowed.

The law makes no judgment about the character or formation of these priests. It makes a judgment about the way that they became priests.

It is highly doubtful that the Holy Father would give permission for these ordinations when he publicly stressed that the clergy of the Society does not exercise canonical ministry. You cannot give a nod of approval to someone to whom you have not granted canonical ministry. I certainly can’t see Pope Benedict doing something like that. It would be dishonest.

As to one of your other points, the have been past requests from the Holy See to the SSPX not to ordain. I can’t recall if it was the class of 2010 or the class right after the excommunication was lifted. The proceeded to ordain. Their statement was that it was too late to stop.

The Holy See and the rest of the Church is well aware of the years of formation involved in becoming a priest or a religious. We are aware that these are good men who want to serve God and his people. That is why all of us want these men to come home. No one would invite a thief into his home. We’re inviting them home, because they are good men. However, they have to come home under the same rules as everyone else.

If the SSPX can ordain without permission, why can’t the Franciscans, the Benedictines, the Carmelties, the Jesuits, the FSSP, Opus Dei or any other religious community or society of apostolic life? Unless you have a law that specifically allows them to do so, they have to comply with the same laws as everyone else. That’s all that’s being said here. If all of these groups must have Ordinary jurisdiction to authorize an ordination, then so does the SSPX, unless they have an indult.

There are plenty of laws in the Church and plenty of exceptions to them too. Individuals, communities, dioceses and conferences of bishops are granted indults all the time. However, these are put in writing so that there is no question about it. When the question is asked, the person who is in the spot light can produce the documentation.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[MarkThompson]

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

I would hope that that’s true, Brother (the first part, not the part about you going to jail!). Still, it seems instructive to compare with the similar language used two canons back, in 1015(2):
§ 2. Episcopus proprius, iusta de causa non impeditus, per se ipse suos subditos ordinet; sed subditum orientalis ritus, sine apostolico indulto, licite ordinare non potest.
“[H]e cannot ordain licitly a subject of an Eastern rite.” It would thus seem to me that the Code shows itself quite capable to say “cannot ordain licitly” when it means “cannot ordain licitly,” and that that “cannot ordain” simpliciter ought not to have the limiting adverb written in by interpretation where the lawgiver has elected not to place it in the drafting.

 

[JReducation]

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.

They use the term brothers the same way that the Maryknool, SOLT, Vincentians and Missionhurst use it. Canonically, they live the consecrated life, but are not members of an institute of consecrated life. They belong to a secular institute. Vatican II did approve the conesecrated life for secular institutes. They can either make promises, perpetual or annually or make private vows, perpetual or annually. They cannot make public perpetual vows. Their vows are always simple, never solemn, even if they are perpetual.

Unlike you and I who would have to go to the Holy See to be released from our vows, because they are solemn and we belong to exempt religious orders, members of societies and secular institutes can be released by their major superior and his or her council.

They are not religious, but they do live the consecrated life in their secular state. As I understand it, the SSPX brothers mimic the lay brothers that you would find in some communities, such as the Dominicans, Jesuits, Vincentians, or Salesians. They are the ones who keep everything going to allow the priests to do ministry.

They are not the brother that you and I know who has a voice and vote in community matters, is well educated (sometimes a scholar), is part of the community’s ministry and can choose to live within the quiet of the priory or outside in the field along with his confreres and may even be the superior of a house, regardless of how many priests he has under him.

These brothers were founded to support the minsitry of the clerics. That’s their vocation. While our brothers include everyone, ordained or not.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

I would hope that that’s true, Brother (the first part, not the part about you going to jail!). Still, it seems instructive to compare with the similar language used two canons back, in 1015(2):
§ 2. Episcopus proprius, iusta de causa non impeditus, per se ipse suos subditos ordinet; sed subditum orientalis ritus, sine apostolico indulto, licite ordinare non potest.
“[H]e cannot ordain licitly a subject of an Eastern rite.” It would thus seem to me that the Code shows itself quite capable to say “cannot ordain licitly” when it means “cannot ordain licitly,” and that that “cannot ordain” simpliciter ought not to have the limiting adverb written in by interpretation where the lawgiver has elected not to place it in the drafting.

Where there is this kind of question, then the superior or the bishop would look for the impediments to validity. If it were an impediment, it would be mentioned there. That’s not the case. It’s not mentioned.

Then you look at precedent. Has it ever been done and what was the ruling? History shows that in every case where there was an ordination by a validly ordained bishop who did not have jurisdiction to ordain, the Church acknowledged it as valid, but illicit, provided the canidate did not have an impediment, such as being insane or some such thing.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[MarkThompson]

Where there is this kind of question, then the superior or the bishop would look for the impediments to validity. If it were an impediment, it would be mentioned there. That’s not the case. It’s not mentioned.

Assuming you are talking about cc. 1040-49 (“Irregularities and Other Impediments”), that does not strike me as conclusive. That section is limited to discussion of irregularities and impediments on the part of the ordinand. You’ll notice that it does not say anything like, “If the ordaining prelate does not possess the episcopal dignity, the ordination is invalid,” yet it certainly remains true that attempted ordination by a non-bishop is invalid (because he non potest ordinare) even though it is not mentioned in this section. That requirement is simply mentioned elsewhere – c. 1012, in the same section concerning the minister of ordination as the canon we are discussing.

Then you look at precedent. Has it ever been done and what was the ruling? History shows that in every case where there was an ordination by a validly ordained bishop who did not have jurisdiction to ordain, the Church acknowledged it as valid, but illicit, provided the canidate did not have an impediment, such as being insane or some such thing.

This much is very true, and I have heard this argument made by SSPX types: “Rome does not require conditional ordination when our priests tragically defect to the Novus Ordo, so obviously our orders are totally valid.” But these are largely the same people who say that the ‘Novus Ordo Church’ is totally reckless and negligent about the validity of every other sacrament, and so nobody should ever to the Neochurch for the sacraments. Then since when did “Rome says its valid” become the gold standard of validity on ordinations?

So I am not particularly worried about this issue, but if anyone ought to be, it is the ones who do not generally take habitual Roman approval as closing the case on dodgy issues of validity. And it is rather dodgy at minimum, in that it requires reading “non] . . . potest” in c. 1017 – which looks on its face to be a plain statement of the absence of power – as actually meaning merely what is expressed with “licite . . . non potest” in c. 1015 and with “Nulli Episcopo licet . . . consecrare” in c. 1013. Parents rightly correct children who ask “Can I have some ice cream”; the right question is “May I have some.” Here, apparently, the hope is to turn “cannot” into “may not,” i.e. “cannot licitly.” (I would expect that Roman parents corrected their children: “No, Brute, not ‘possum’; ‘mihi licet’.”) Personally, I would not care to hang my entire priesthood (or the validity of all my other sacraments, if I were an SSPX adherent) on so rusty a nail.

 

[JReducation]

Assuming you are talking about cc. 1040-49 (“Irregularities and Other Impediments”), that does not strike me as conclusive. That section is limited to discussion of irregularities and impediments on the part of the ordinand. You’ll notice that it does not say anything like, “If the ordaining prelate does not possess the episcopal dignity, the ordination is invalid,” yet it certainly remains true that attempted ordination by a non-bishop is invalid (because he non potest ordinare) even though it is not mentioned in this section. That requirement is simply mentioned elsewhere – c. 1012, in the same section concerning the minister of ordination as the canon we are discussing.

This much is very true, and I have heard this argument made by SSPX types: “Rome does not require conditional ordination when our priests tragically defect to the Novus Ordo, so obviously our orders are totally valid.” But these are largely the same people who say that the ‘Novus Ordo Church’ is totally reckless and negligent about the validity of every other sacrament, and so nobody should ever to the Neochurch for the sacraments. Then since when did “Rome says its valid” become the gold standard of validity on ordinations?

So I am not particularly worried about this issue, but if anyone ought to be, it is the ones who do not generally take habitual Roman approval as closing the case on dodgy issues of validity. And it is rather dodgy at minimum, in that it requires reading “non] . . . potest” in c. 1017 – which looks on its face to be a plain statement of the absence of power – as actually meaning merely what is expressed with “licite . . . non potest” in c. 1015 and with “Nulli Episcopo licet . . . consecrare” in c. 1013. Parents rightly correct children who ask “Can I have some ice cream”; the right question is “May I have some.” Here, apparently, the hope is to turn “cannot” into “may not,” i.e. “cannot licitly.” (I would expect that Roman parents corrected their children: “No, Brute, not ‘possum’; ‘mihi licet’.”) Personally, I would not care to hang my entire priesthood (or the validity of all my other sacraments, if I were an SSPX adherent) on so rusty a nail.

The Church has accepted that the four bishops are validly ordained bishops. We have some major precedents.

The first generation Orthodox deacons, priests and bishops were ordained by bishops who had no jurisdiction to do so. Remeber, that generation was excommunicated. That generation was ordained illicitly. However, every generation born after that was validly and licitly ordained. We recognize as valid and licit the ordination of the Orthodox clergy. Valid, because they never lost Apostolic Succession. Licit, because the Catholic Church has no authority over the Orthodox bishops. Therfore, she cannot deny them jurisdiction. They are not ordaining Catholics. They are ordaining Orthodox. In that first generation, this was not the case. They were ordaining Catholics who had broken communion with Rome. We still recognized their ordination as valid, because they retained Apostolic Succession. However, that first generation was ordained illicitly, because it was born Catholic. Therefore, it was subject to Catholic law.

The doctrine is that a bishop with Apostolic Succession can validly ordain, provided there is no impediment to matter and form. This brings us back to the ordination of the four SSPX bishops.

Archbishop Lefebvre did not have jurisdiction to ordain. Canon Law is explicit that no bishop can ordain without permission from the Apostolic See (the pope). However, the validity of the ordination of the four bishops has never been questioned. The excommunication was over the legality.

The law does not require jurisdiction for validity. It requires jurisdiction to execute the ordination. This canon is about jurisdiction, not about validity. The canon is talking about the bishop, not the sacrament. When it says that a bishop cannot ordain, it’s not saying that he does not have the sacramental authority to ordain. It’s saying that he does not have the legal authority to ordain. The ordination is valid, no question in the mind of the Church. However, because it’s illegal, you are going to be penalized. The penalty is suspension.

It’s a very unfortunate place to be and it creates a very ambiguous situation for the laity. Everytime you receive communion at a mass celebrated by a suspended priest, you’re receiving the Blessed Sacrament in an irregular situation. I would feel very uncomfortable, unless I was in a situation where there was no other mass.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[VivaCristoRey27]

This much is very true, and I have heard this argument made by SSPX types: “Rome does not require conditional ordination when our priests tragically defect to the Novus Ordo, so obviously our orders are totally valid.” But these are largely the same people who say that the ‘Novus Ordo Church’ is totally reckless and negligent about the validity of every other sacrament, and so nobody should ever to the Neochurch for the sacraments. Then since when did “Rome says its valid” become the gold standard of validity on ordinations?

In order for a Sacrament to be valid, you need three parts – form, matter, and intention.

From Abp. Lefebvre to the SSPX today, the issue with the Novus Ordo Sacraments has never been about validity due to form (those who argue the NOM is invalid due to form are almost always sedevacantists) but about invalidity due to a lack of intention. If a priest says the Canon in the NO, is he consecrating the Holy Eucharist or reading a story since it is now a narrative? Couple that with the liberal/progressive/modernist ideas that are floating around – where even priests talk about how Jesus is just as present in the “Liturgy of the Word” and in our community as in the Blessed Sacrament, completely ignoring different types of presence – and you have a perfect storm for lack of intention. Not to mention, of course, the experiments with various invalid “inculturated” matter from the '70s which are still going on in some places (most subtly with some homemade hosts that violate De Defectibus/Redemptionis Sacramentum, but there’s still the blatant violations occasionally).

But all that aside, is there any question with regards to the validity of SSPX holy orders? They have valid form, matter and there shouldn’t be any problem with intention. So on what basis would you suspect their validity?

So I am not particularly worried about this issue, but if anyone ought to be, it is the ones who do not generally take habitual Roman approval as closing the case on dodgy issues of validity. And it is rather dodgy at minimum, in that it requires reading “non] . . . potest” in c. 1017 – which looks on its face to be a plain statement of the absence of power – as actually meaning merely what is expressed with “licite . . . non potest” in c. 1015 and with “Nulli Episcopo licet . . . consecrare” in c. 1013. Parents rightly correct children who ask “Can I have some ice cream”; the right question is “May I have some.” Here, apparently, the hope is to turn “cannot” into “may not,” i.e. “cannot licitly.” (I would expect that Roman parents corrected their children: “No, Brute, not ‘possum’; ‘mihi licet’.”) Personally, I would not care to hang my entire priesthood (or the validity of all my other sacraments, if I were an SSPX adherent) on so rusty a nail.

“Can” (potest) and “May” (licet) are very different things. The former deals with validity, the latter with licitness. There is very much a debate over the licitness of SSPX ordinations and the public exercise of the Sacraments while suspended, but there is no question with regards to their validity. The issue of the validity of absolutions and marriages from SSPX priests regards not the validity of their holy orders but jurisdiction because jurisdiction in these cases is not just needed for licitness but even for validity. The SSPX admits they do not have ordinary jurisdiction, but claims Ecclesia supplet (supplied jurisdiction) due to the moral inability (according to the SSPX) for an individual to approach an NO priest for Confession.

So I understand if people do not feel comfortable approaching an SSPX priest for Confession, that is a debated topic. But there is no question of the validity of their holy orders or of their Masses.

 

[JReducation]

In order for a Sacrament to be valid, you need three parts – form, matter, and intention.

From Abp. Lefebvre to the SSPX today, the issue with the Novus Ordo Sacraments has never been about validity due to form (those who argue the NOM is invalid due to form are almost always sedevacantists) but about invalidity due to a lack of intention. If a priest says the Canon in the NO, is he consecrating the Holy Eucharist or reading a story since it is now a narrative? Couple that with the liberal/progressive/modernist ideas that are floating around – where even priests talk about how Jesus is just as present in the “Liturgy of the Word” and in our community as in the Blessed Sacrament, completely ignoring different types of presence – and you have a perfect storm for lack of intention. Not to mention, of course, the experiments with various invalid “inculturated” matter from the '70s which are still going on in some places (most subtly with some homemade hosts that violate De Defectibus/Redemptionis Sacramentum, but there’s still the blatant violations occasionally).

The above is not quite accurate. The part below is very well explained.

But all that aside, is there any question with regards to the validity of SSPX holy orders? They have valid form, matter and there shouldn’t be any problem with intention. So on what basis would you suspect their validity?

“Can” (potest) and “May” (licet) are very different things. The former deals with validity, the latter with licitness. There is very much a debate over the licitness of SSPX ordinations and the public exercise of the Sacraments while suspended, but there is no question with regards to their validity. The issue of the validity of absolutions and marriages from SSPX priests regards not the validity of their holy orders but jurisdiction because jurisdiction in these cases is not just needed for licitness but even for validity. The SSPX admits they do not have ordinary jurisdiction, but claims Ecclesia supplet (supplied jurisdiction) due to the moral inability (according to the SSPX) for an individual to approach an NO priest for Confession.

Ecclesia supplet only applies when there is no other priest available. Bl. John Paul and Cardinal Ratzinger made this very clear over 15 years ago, when this question was raised. This was always the case prior to the SSPX. A suspended or even a dispensed priest, who has married and has five children can absolve in an emergency when there is no other priest. There are no other circumstances under which a suspended or dispensed priest may grant absolution.

So I understand if people do not feel comfortable approaching an SSPX priest for Confession, that is a debated topic

Not debated by the Church. It’s debated by the followers of the SSPX. Let’s make that clear.

But there is no question of the validity of their holy orders or of their Masses.

The above is true.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[WetCatechumen]

That is a good quote! Just to clarify, **FSSP **(Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter) is a bonafide, solid, Catholic religious order of priests. In fact, the group was established by Pope John Paul himself!

They might at a superficial glance due to the “traditional” nature seem like they are another version of those wacky SSPX’ers. But the two groups could not be farther apart.

The Excommunications were lifted only a few years ago on SSPX, but they still refuse to enter full communion with the Church and are quite defiant and unreasonable about it.

So I don’t know the status of these **ordinations **? I don’t see how they can be considered Catholic priests…? If the excomm’s on the bishops were removed, then the bishops can ordain, but if they themselves are not in union…?

Maybe someone with more expertise can clarify this precisely. I stopped following this closely a year or so back when I just got fed up with the SSPX who seem to believe they are a superior “church” to the Catholic Church and Pope Benedict should come crawling to them, not the other way around.

I know the difference. I should have made it more clear in my post.

 

[PaulinVA]

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, what I originally said was this:

                 Originally Posted by **PaulinVA**                     [forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=8005542#post8005542)                 
             *  Other than denying the Holocaust, I'm not sure what members of SSPX have to do to be censured.

That is because the Pope’s issue with Bishop Williamson is the only rebuke on an SSPX member from Rome. I was not saying that SSPX is a bunch of Holocaust deniers - I was saying that denying the Holocaust by one person seems to be the only offense that has gotten Rome’s attention.

 

[Will_S]

As to one of your other points, the have been past requests from the Holy See to the SSPX not to ordain. I can’t recall if it was the class of 2010 or the class right after the excommunication was lifted. The proceeded to ordain. Their statement was that it was too late to stop.

I believe you are referring to the ordinations at Zaitzkofen, in the diocese of Regensburg a few years ago. One year, the bishop of Regensburg protested the ordinations very publicly and they were moved to Écône. The next year all was quiet until very shortly before the ordinations when it suddenly became an issue again and the SSPX then refused to move the ordinations, all preparations having already been made.

In both cases, the reaction from the bishop was provoked by a lot of media attention to the SSPX. The German media has a lot of pot-stirrers when it comes to the presence of the SSPX in Germany and their relationship to the Church. This comes about mainly because of the political atmosphere in Germany, where any public group that is opposed to the “liberal democratic order” can be banned.

 

[At_Trent]

At Trent, what I originally said was this:

                 Originally Posted by **PaulinVA**                     [forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=8005542#post8005542)                 
             *  Other than denying the Holocaust, I'm not sure what members of SSPX have to do to be censured.

That is because the Pope’s issue with Bishop Williamson is the only rebuke on an SSPX member from Rome. I was not saying that SSPX is a bunch of Holocaust deniers - I was saying that denying the Holocaust by one person seems to be the only offense that has gotten Rome’s attention.

Right. “Members” is plural though. And those who are not informed of the Williamson issue could read your statement and assume the SSPX promotes denial of the Holocaust.

Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[PaulinVA]

Right. “Members” is plural though. And those who are not informed of the Williamson issue could read your statement and assume the SSPX promotes denial of the Holocaust.

Thanks for clearing that up.

Sorry, didn’t mean to leave the wrong impression.

 

[JReducation]

I believe you are referring to the ordinations at Zaitzkofen, in the diocese of Regensburg a few years ago. One year, the bishop of Regensburg protested the ordinations very publicly and they were moved to Écône. The next year all was quiet until very shortly before the ordinations when it suddenly became an issue again and the SSPX then refused to move the ordinations, all preparations having already been made.

I believe that the second instance may be the case that I recall. It took place very close to the lifting of the excommunications, maybe shortly after I’m sorry, I don’t recall the date. I do recall that the Holy See issued a very calm statement in support of the German bishop’s concern and the ordination went forward, regardless.

The point that I was making is that there comes a time when you simply stop asking adults not to do something, because it’s not working. Then you have to find another way around the problem. This does not mean that the Holy Father gives tacit approval to the ordination. It simply means that he picks his battles.

As I always say, the Church is not given to us to damn us, but to find every possible means to save us. If you cannot call an errant home to come home, then you go out and bring him home. It may mean that you ignore some things in order to deal with the more serious stuff. There is a hierarchy of gravity in every situation. A illicit ordination is serious. However, the collapse of these talks is even more serious. So you choose the higher good, you plow forward with the talks in the hope that the outcome will take care of future ordinations.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Bluegoat]

…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…

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

If I had to make a guess, if there are people in the SSPX who are inclined to think this way, I would suggest it could be a psychological phenomena. People who think that the Jews are ruling the world, or the Holocaust was largely made up, are people who believe conspiracy theories, at some level. And the claims that the SSPX make about the Holy See are getting close to that as well. Perhaps there is something about the way such people think that draws them towards such theories.

 

[VivaCristoRey27]

The above is not quite accurate.

How would you improve it?

The part below is very well explained.

Thank you.

Ecclesia supplet only applies when there is no other priest available. Bl. John Paul and Cardinal Ratzinger made this very clear over 15 years ago, when this question was raised. This was always the case prior to the SSPX. A suspended or even a dispensed priest, who has married and has five children can absolve in an emergency when there is no other priest. There are no other circumstances under which a suspended or dispensed priest may grant absolution.

Which document stated that only physical impediments are sufficient cause for Ecclesia supplet to apply? Why are moral impediments insufficient cause?

Not debated by the Church. It’s debated by the followers of the SSPX. Let’s make that clear.

It suffices to say that it is a debated issue between those who support the SSPX and those who are opposed to it.

 

[MarkThompson]

If I had to make a guess, if there are people in the SSPX who are inclined to think this way, I would suggest it could be a psychological phenomena. People who think that the Jews are ruling the world, or the Holocaust was largely made up, are people who believe conspiracy theories, at some level. And the claims that the SSPX make about the Holy See are getting close to that as well. Perhaps there is something about the way such people think that draws them towards such theories.

Right, for instance Bp. Williamson believes that the Judeo-Masonic-controlled New World Order has long used the Jew-controlled media to cover up the truth about who orchestrated the attack on Pearl Harbor (the Jews, apparently), and is now covering up the truth about who is really responsible for September 11 (also the Jews). I suspect that this is another manifestation of the same persecution complex that evidences itself in paranoid “remnant Church” bunker ideology. Persecution complexes and conspiracy theories often go hand-in-hand, since, if a pathological paranoia commits you to the notion that you are being persecuted, but nobody else thinks you are, then this must be because a massive conspiracy is at work to silence the truth with a lie – in this case, in Williamson’s words, one “fabricated by the media, which are tightly controlled by a handful of Judeo-masons, the people who also control finance and the governments.”

 

[JReducation]

Which document stated that only physical impediments are sufficient cause for Ecclesia supplet to apply? Why are moral impediments insufficient cause?

It was not a document. It was a statement made by then Cardinal Ratzinger speaking on behalf of Bl. John Paul

If you hunt it down, I’m sure that you may find it somewhere. I remember it being made. At the time, I did not pay much attention to it as the SSPX leadership was excommunicated and it did not seem as if there was going to be a reconciliation.

It suffices to say that it is a debated issue between those who support the SSPX and those who are opposed to it.

Actually, it does not suffice. You are making an a priori assumption that if we disagree with the SSPX we are opposed to it. I for one am not opposed to them. However, I do debate with them many of their assumptions and statements. I may be opposed to a statement or an assumption without being opposed to the entire organization. In fact, there is one SSPX priest here who loves our brothers and takes quite a beating every time he visits us. I think he likes the debate. We have told him that he’ll end up leaving the SSPX and becoming a brother. I think he likes St. Francis more than he likes Archbishop Lefebvre.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[ConstantineTG]

The Church has accepted that the four bishops are validly ordained bishops. We have some major precedents.

The first generation Orthodox deacons, priests and bishops were ordained by bishops who had no jurisdiction to do so. Remeber, that generation was excommunicated. That generation was ordained illicitly. However, every generation born after that was validly and licitly ordained. We recognize as valid and licit the ordination of the Orthodox clergy. Valid, because they never lost Apostolic Succession. Licit, because the Catholic Church has no authority over the Orthodox bishops. Therfore, she cannot deny them jurisdiction. They are not ordaining Catholics. They are ordaining Orthodox. In that first generation, this was not the case. They were ordaining Catholics who had broken communion with Rome. We still recognized their ordination as valid, because they retained Apostolic Succession. However, that first generation was ordained illicitly, because it was born Catholic. Therefore, it was subject to Catholic law.

The doctrine is that a bishop with Apostolic Succession can validly ordain, provided there is no impediment to matter and form. This brings us back to the ordination of the four SSPX bishops.

Archbishop Lefebvre did not have jurisdiction to ordain. Canon Law is explicit that no bishop can ordain without permission from the Apostolic See (the pope). However, the validity of the ordination of the four bishops has never been questioned. The excommunication was over the legality.

The law does not require jurisdiction for validity. It requires jurisdiction to execute the ordination. This canon is about jurisdiction, not about validity. The canon is talking about the bishop, not the sacrament. When it says that a bishop cannot ordain, it’s not saying that he does not have the sacramental authority to ordain. It’s saying that he does not have the legal authority to ordain. The ordination is valid, no question in the mind of the Church. However, because it’s illegal, you are going to be penalized. The penalty is suspension.

It’s a very unfortunate place to be and it creates a very ambiguous situation for the laity. Everytime you receive communion at a mass celebrated by a suspended priest, you’re receiving the Blessed Sacrament in an irregular situation. I would feel very uncomfortable, unless I was in a situation where there was no other mass.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

The question here is how long really did the Catholic Church take before we actually acknowledged that the Orthodox ordinations were valid? There were a lot of bad blood in the first few centuries after the schism. Some Orthodox still see Catholics as heretics today.

But of course in relation to the SSPX, the difference is the SSPX never went into formal schism. They maintained they are still Catholics, therefore they are subject to the Canons of the Catholic Church.

 

[Aramis]

That’s my point. SSPX says they have supplied jurisdiction due to an emergency in the Church, which is a direct challenge to the present Magisterium. The Vatican say no, there is no emergency, therefore you have no jurisdiction, but still don’t suppress the SSPX or do anything to stop the Catholic faithful from “belonging” to the SSPX (I know it’s a priestly society).

The Vatican is sending mixed signals. We know exactly where the SSPX stands.

The SSPX clergy in total were suspended a divinis when HH John Paul II acknowledged the latae sentencae excommunication of the 5 bishops. (the co-consecrator was separately dealt with.)

While the excommunications have been lifted, the suspensions have not. Suspension A Divinis means no administering the sacraments.

Which means that the only 4 men in the SSPX who can validly hear confessions of the general body of the faithful are the 4 bishops, as bishops and cardinals both have faculties to hear confessions anywhere. (CIC Can. 967) While excommunicated, they couldn’t…

The Superior General can, per Can 969, grant the faculty to hear confessions of members of the SSPX and those residing “day and night” within a house belonging to the SSPX… if he is validly the Superior General. (Bp. Fellay was excommunicated when elected… and thus inelligible for election as Superior General of a Society of Apostolic Life…)

The mixed signals are in the words and acts of the SSPX… who claim the Pope has no authority to suspend them nor excommunicate them, due to the “Crisis in the Church”… They claim no territorial jurisdiction, yet have set up a tribunal, grant apparent faculties (invalidly) to priests, install pastors in parishes and quasi-parishes, have opened parishes without the local ordinary’s permission, established additional affiliated religious communities without permission of the Ordinary of the diocese of the new motherhouse, and without papal permission… They are acting in some ways as a single large diocese… or a parallel church.

The Church is trying to bring them back to licit ministry. The SSPX are refusing the terms.

Sooner or later, they either will give in, or be declared in schism.