Vatican: Pius X Society Ordinations Are Illegitimate

  • Thread starter Thread starter Will_S
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
VivaCristoRey27 said:
JR: I’m curious about your example of St. Teresa of Avila (and we could add St. John of the Cross). After all the OCD wouldn’t exist if it wasn’t for disobedience to religious superiors in the name of obedience to a higher law.
Click to expand...
Teresa and John were not disobedient in the creation of their reform. Teresa worked with the Prior General of the Order.
 
rben20 said:
Two wrongs do not make a right correct but people go to the SSPX because there is no wrong done in the liturgy or teaching. Yes it is illicit, but in licit Masses there are grave abuses.
Click to expand...
You say that "two wrongs do not make a right" yet proceed with the position that since licit Masses have "grave abuses" then it makes the illicitness of sspx Masses tolerable. Which is it? Do two wrongs make a right or does it not?
 
Timothysis said:
You say that "two wrongs do not make a right" yet proceed with the position that since licit Masses have "grave abuses" then it makes the illicitness of sspx Masses tolerable. Which is it? Do two wrongs make a right or does it not?
Click to expand...
Well it’s not what I really said to clarify, it was the brothers who stated that. I agree with them and respect their opinions. You will find troubles in any Mass whether licit or illicit because we are human in the end. It will never be perfect but Brother JR said it best, we really do achieve something in character when dealing with our troubles through the Church and not by being disobedient and going out of bounds so to speak. In the end as Brother JR stated we have to be obedient to the Church even if there are wrongs being made because strangely enough we have to be thankful for suffering.

My only question then is the Church above criticism? I know we are not to listen when we are asked to sin but what about in circumstances when we disagree? What can we say?
 
VivaCristoRey27 said:
JR: I’m curious about your example of St. Teresa of Avila (and we could add St. John of the Cross). After all the OCD wouldn’t exist if it wasn’t for disobedience to religious superiors in the name of obedience to a higher law.
Click to expand...
Teresa’s reform was approved by the Prior General, the local bishops and the king of Spain. It’s all documented. In those days they would request what they called a Patent, which is what we call a Decree of Efection. All of her monsteries and all of the priories of the friars were canonically approved before they were founded.

When Teresa or John walked into a town to open a new foundation, they handed the mayor all of the paperwork with the proper seals and permissions.

The same has always been the case for other orders: Franciscans, Jesuits, Augustinians, Dominicans, Carmelites, and Benedictines. We do not set up shop in any diocese without the written permission of the local bishop. The local bishop has no authority over us. We’re exempt religious. The bishop can’t tell me what to wear, how to work, when to pray, how to pray or how to celebrate mass. That all comes under the exemption granted to certain religious orders by the Council of Trent. However, Canon Law of 1983 says that no one may open a house, chapel, oratory or insitution inside the jurisdiction of a bishop without written permission from the bisohp.

Once the bishop grants the permission, we’re on our own, unless we work for him. That’s a different story. In those cases when we’re engaged in our own ministries, we do not need his permission. If we have a priest who needs faculties, he grants the faculties. He does not oversee the work or the life. Therefore, there is no disobedience if the bishop disagrees with what the exempt religious do. If you set up house in his diocese without his permission, then you’re trespassing. That’s illegal and he has the right to supress you and the right to forbid the laity to have contact with you. This has been done to many groups. Bishop have issued letters that the laity is not to have contact with certain groups and that these groups are not to set foot on church property. In those cases, those who disobey, are in error, because the bishop is no commanding sin. He is commanding assent. He has this right granted to him by Christ.

That’s why orthodox religious orders, religious congregations, societies of apostolic life, public associations of the faithful, secular institutes, secular orders and priestly fraternities all get a decreee of erection before setting up in a diocese. The Church still considers a diocese a fiefdom and the bishop is the Lord of the fiefdom.

The difference between the Carmelites and the SSPX is that the Carmelite men and women aer exempt and the SSPX are not. Once the bishop grants permission to enter his diocese and open up shop, if it’s not a parish or other diocesan operation, the bishop has no jurisdiction. Even in a parish, he only has jurisdiction over pastoral matters, not over them. They can come and go according to the wishes of their superiors and according to their customs. The SSPX cannot be exempt, because they are not consecrated by solemn vows. Only men and women religious who are consecrated by solemn vows are exempt.

The other way to be exempt it to have your own ordineriate or to become a prelature. They would then have the same benefits as religious in solemn vows, but not the graces. The graces come only through the actual profession of the vows. It’s a juridical privilege, not a theological right. The right grace comes only through vows and the vows must be solemn, not simple.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
rben20 said:
My only question then is the Church above criticism? I know we are not to listen when we are asked to sin but what about in circumstances when we disagree? What can we say?
Click to expand...
There is a difference between feedback and criticism. Criticism is usually hostile. There should be no room in our hearts for hostility. Feedback is kind, patient, polite, and respects the rights of others, including their freedom.

I always tell my novices that anger, like every other emotion, is a gift from God. However, there is the potential to abuse the gift, like any other gift. We must do as St. Peter says, “Beware that your opponent the devil goes about like a roaring lion.”

Many people justify themselves saying that Jesus was angry when he turned the tables at the temple, when the caught the Jews trying to stone the woman caught in adultery and when he called the Pharisees a brood of vipers. I tell the novices to look closely at those stories.

The men in the temple were thieves. They cheated the poor. Jesus calls them out for it. The Jew who were going to stone the woman were violating the Law of Moses. The law said that those caught in adultery were guilty. However, in this case, the man was nowhere to be found. No one commits adultery alone. The Pharisees to whom Jesus addresses himself were not preaching the Law of Moses. They were manipulating the law in order to manipulate the people and keep them submissive for their political and profitable gain. In each of these instances, Jesus is justifiably angry in defense of the vulnerable.

However, when he is arrested and taken before the High Priest and before Pilate, he is the perfect gentleman. He answers their questions, when they deserve an answer and he does not dignify their questions when they don’t deserve it. What he does not do is lash out in his defense. He is dignified and honest the entire time. When Pilate attempts to play mind games with him by asking him “And what is truth?” Jesus responds in kind. He does not call him out on it. When he is slapped for answering the High Priest, he simply asks them to point out what he did wrong, but he does not accuse them of anything. We know that he had grounds to do so.

I tell my novices that if we’re to be as Christ was, we must use anger to defend the vulnerable, not to defend ourselves. We are the least significant of creatures. We deserve no defense in the face of suffering. As the thief on the cross said, “We deserve to be here.”

All too often, we confuse criticism with feedback, anger with the justifiable defense of the vulnerable. Justice is not about criticism or about anger. It is about truth spoken in charity and with great humility, always remembering that no one is greater than the Master.

Church law is very clear on several points. The faithful have a right to make known their needs and concerns to the Church. It also says something that people ignore. The faithful have a duty to treat their clergy with reverence.

In America, we have turned the false into truth and the truth into falsehood. We demand to be treated with reverence, but we don’t always show it. Our argument is that we only show reverence toward those who deserve it or earn it.

If that were an absolute truth, then God has no reason to show mercy and love for us. We have not earned it. Feedback must always be given with reverence for the dignity of the other person as a human being, reverence for the office and for the person’s state in life.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
rben20 said:
Brothers,

Two wrongs do not make a right correct but people go to the SSPX because there is no wrong done in the liturgy or teaching. Yes it is illicit, but in licit Masses there are grave abuses. What are the people then to do if Rome is not able to handle abuses around the world or be aware of everything that is wrong? Exactly what are people to do when there are grave abuses when even priests or bishops turn a blind eye or worse couldn’t care less? I am not saying all dioceses hold western masses or clown ones but there are many abuses that seem to never be corrected. I don’t blame people just packing up and leaving or the sad reality of having to “search” for an orthodox Catholic church and community. Even when people could go and still fulfill their Sunday obligation for the right reasons (reverent mass) and not for schismatic attitudes, what is there to fight over then? Personally, I just don’t see many options strictly within the Church’s dioceses, that is why people seek the SSPX, independent churches, and drive miles for an EF Mass in a diocese or FSSP parish. I don’t like saying this but maybe law gets in the way of a much bigger picture. :confused: I don’t like saying either that it seems weird the liturgy is messed around with (which is breaking law no?) but is usually ignored when a group who is trying to fight abuses is dealt with by being slammed with breaking laws too (and is not ignored and even labeled radical!) I am just wowed that the SSPX were excommunicated (at one point) while someone like Father Michael Pfleger is kept active and even given rewards. Doesn’t it seem wrong to you all?
Click to expand...
Thanks for writing my post for me.
I have never been to an SSPX mass, but living in a in a place where there is no traditional and reverent Mass offered it sure can be tempting.
 
TrueLight said:
Aye. Well.

I’m not sure I’d be able to spend so many years in training only to join an order that is not exactly okey-dokey with the Pope.
Click to expand...
I hear you.

Interestingly enough, though, out there in the “real world” there isn’t as much of the kind of trench warfare between SSPX and other traditional groups as there is sometimes online. There are a good many people who, while perhaps, having a personal preference, attend all of SSPX, FSSP, and regular diocesan Traditional Masses, as their convenience dictates.

Personally, I only go to an SSPX Masses when I don’t have an alternative Traditional Mass available to me, but there are a lot of people who are more flexible (as well as a certain group who are absolutely inflexible about where they go to Mass 🙂
 
Will_S said:
I hear you.

Interestingly enough, though, out there in the “real world” there isn’t as much of the kind of trench warfare between SSPX and other traditional groups as there is sometimes online. There are a good many people who, while perhaps, having a personal preference, attend all of SSPX, FSSP, and regular diocesan Traditional Masses, as their convenience dictates.

Personally, I only go to an SSPX Masses when I don’t have an alternative Traditional Mass available to me, but there are a lot of people who are more flexible (as well as a certain group who are absolutely inflexible about where they go to Mass 🙂
Click to expand...
Out here, most of us who are religious and/or priests who have met SSPX priests have a good rapport with them. Whenever I can get together with my SSPX buddy, I ask him about many of the things that people post on TC Forum and 8/10 times, he tells me, “We would never say that.” He has always told me that they have a big problem with the laity.

One day he said that the laity who attend their masses are composed of two groups. He divided them this way. He said 80% are just good Catholics who like to go to a traditional mass, but don’t have an ax to grind with the Church. We support those Catholics. The other 20% will never be happy no matter what the Church says or does, because they belong to the same fringe group that wants women’s ordination, abortion, and same-sex marriage. He said to me once, “They’re the flip side of the coin, but extremists nonetheless.”

On another occasion, talking about what some of their priests tell the laity about the Church, he said something that made me laugh. “The Jesuits are not the only ones who have a few loose cannons.”

They have a real concern that many of these extremists are going to walk right out of the door and become some new version of Protestantism. We both agree that the radical liberal fringe will just wither away as do all fads. However, the conservative extremists are much more dangerous, because heresy has always comes from the right, not the left. Leftwing groups have come and disappeared.

My impression is that they’re thinking about these lay people who will only hang around them as long as they are in conflict with Rome. When they reach an agreement with Rome, it’s not going to please these folks, because these folks are out to convert Rome not to reconcile with Rome. Unfortunately, they have a few priests among their ranks and maybe a bishop.

I met Bishop Fellay through my buddy. I liked him. We was gracious, intelligent and we chatted for a few minutes. We disagreed on some points, but he was not aggressive or rude as are some folks who claim to be supporters of the SSPX. That always baffles me. These men, for the most part, are very ordinary people and are not looking to pick a fight or to find fault in everything. That’s why you will always see me say that the lay people are doing more harm to the image of the SSPX, than they deserve.

In the end, what pastors and religious report to the bishops is what people say to them. Most pastors and religious have never had the opportunity to have a hamburger with a priest from the SSPX. There aren’t that many of them around and they’re not in too many places. In addition, in those dioceses where they have chapels, they’re very low key.

I attended a funeral at one of their chapels. That’s how I met my buddy. The laywoman who gave us the instructions on how to behave and what to do was obnoxious. The priest was delightful. As soon as he saw my habit, he said, “Oh, you belong to that new group of friars that just arrived. Your ministry is really needed.” The woman, on the other hand asked me, “Are you a priest?” I said, “No, I’m a religious.” She said, “Oh, you’re just a brother.” I said, “No, I’m not JUST a brother. I’m a religious, a theologian and the Diocesan Coordinator of Respect Life Ministry to Men.” She just shrugged her shoulders, told me where to sit and walked away. I was like, “OK, whatever makes you happy Lady”. I later realized that she was reserving the front row, but for priests and sisters only. She was a relative of the deceased, but not too welcoming of outsiders. The deceased was the mother of one of nuns. I was not there for this lady, but for her sister ther nun and the decasesd.

My point, don’t trust what people say about these guys on forums. Some will tear them apart and others will canonize them in life. The average person in the pew is much more sensible, as are the few priests that I’ve met from the SSPX.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
JReducation said:
My impression is that they’re thinking about these lay people who will only hang around them as long as they are in conflict with Rome. ** When they reach an agreement with Rome, it’s not going to please these folks, because these folks are out to convert Rome not to reconcile with Rome. ** Unfortunately, they have a few priests among their ranks and maybe a bishop.

IFraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
Click to expand...
Emphasis is mine.

Very interesting point. I wonder if some of the SSPX priests will do the same.

People like being part of something different or defiant. Once they do reconcile, they will be just another tradiional group.

Is there anything that makes them different from the FSSP aside from the fact that the FSSP is obedient to the Magisterium?
 
Brother JR, I always appreciate your posts. It is good to hear from someone who can see all sides of an issue and discuss them with compassion.

I would be interested to know what your SSPX friend thinks of the SSPX website. That is really where the “doctrine” , so to speak, of the SSPX resides.

It is hard to read through the site and not get the impression that they have already separated themselves from Rome. Whoever controls the web site is certainly a hardliner.
 
Brother JR, your first reply is incorrect: the brothers of the SSPX do in fact belong to the religious congregation, that is, they actually comprise as part of its integral members and their “rule” is listed within the SSPX’s statutes which apply to its clerics.

Regarding the SSPX’s situation in particular, this all descends from the fact that there is a crisis in the Church which has brought about a state of necessity. From this, the SSPX has predicated all of its actions that appear to be abnormal or disobedient, but which in fact, coincide with the historic cases of St. Athanasius and St. Eusebius during the Arian crisis.

You can find an excellent 2-part article about this matter here on their website: sspx.org/miscellaneous/supplied_jurisdiction/state_of_necessity_sisinono.htm.
 
romanitaspress said:
Brother JR, your first reply is incorrect: the brothers of the SSPX do in fact belong to the religious congregation, that is, they actually comprise as part of its integral members and their “rule” is listed within the SSPX’s statutes which apply to its clerics.

Regarding the SSPX’s situation in particular, this all descends from the fact that there is a crisis in the Church which has brought about a state of necessity. From this, the SSPX has predicated all of its actions that appear to be abnormal or disobedient, but which in fact, coincide with the historic cases of St. Athanasius and St. Eusebius during the Arian crisis.

You can find an excellent 2-part article about this matter here on their website: sspx.org/miscellaneous/supplied_jurisdiction/state_of_necessity_sisinono.htm.
Click to expand...
I believe this reply is proselytizing for the SSPX and have reported it.

But I would like to comment.

There is no “crisis in the Church” nor is there any “state of necessity”. The pope has commented on this and said that there is none. As the pope is the supreme legislator in the Church he has the final say on this.
 
ByzCath said:
I believe this reply is proselytizing for the SSPX and have reported it.

But I would like to comment.

There is no “crisis in the Church” nor is there any “state of necessity”. The pope has commented on this and said that there is none. As the pope is the supreme legislator in the Church he has the final say on this.
Click to expand...
I question “state of necessity”, but there have been a number of “crises in the Church” within recent memory from at least a layman’s point of view.

And maybe the poster was proselytizing for SSPX and maybe he wasn’t, but it appeared to me he was just stating it as he saw it.
 
Bishops in Italy are calling for the building of mosques, countless sodomites are still operating as if nothing is wrong, priests are still conducting experimental Masses chock full of abuses, new age spirituality is being mixed with liberal Catholicism and presented as Catholic, and a group of clergy who will have nothing to do with any of it are attacked for simply refusing to be anything but Roman Catholics.

The sodomites and liberals see too much of a return to traditional practices and are doing everything they can to tear the Church to pieces. If they can’t have the Church they want, they’d rather there be no Church.

How the SSPX can be faulted for refusing to affiliate themselves with those who fuel the crisis in an intentional manner is beyond my comprehension. One either accepts Roman Catholic doctrine and dogma or he/she doesn’t. The SSPX do. Technically, yes they are disobedient. Morally, they are righteous … and Roman Catholic to the core.
 
ByzCath said:
I believe this reply is proselytizing for the SSPX and have reported it.

But I would like to comment.

There is no “crisis in the Church” nor is there any “state of necessity”. The pope has commented on this and said that there is none. As the pope is the supreme legislator in the Church he has the final say on this.
Click to expand...
How is that proselytizing? The poster was responding to a post. He or she didn’t just create a thread and start talking about the joys of the SSPX.

Is it the link?

We either should be able to discuss a topic or not.
 
TrueLight said:
How is that proselytizing? The poster was responding to a post. He or she didn’t just create a thread and start talking about the joys of the SSPX.

Is it the link?

We either should be able to discuss a topic or not.
Click to expand...
I believe the comment about “crisis” and “state of necessity” fall under that category.

There is no crisis nor any state of necessity to do what the SSPX has done.
 
Perfect example of why any discussion of the SSPX is completely pointless at CAF.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top