Vatican: Pius X Society Ordinations Are Illegitimate

[JReducation]

Is admitting wrongdoing the only way for them to be reconciled? Do you see any possibility of reconciliation without the SSPX admitting wrongdoing?

In other words can you see any scenario where the Pope might say, you were misguided, however what is most important is reconciliation. Welcome back!

Two things.

1. I did say in post 133 that the Holy Father wrote that these men are misguided.
2. Reconciliation between an institute and the Vatican is not a moral issue. Institutions do not sin. Individuals sin. The SSPX, as an institute must come to full reconciliation with the Church by accepting her terms. Individuals who follow the SSPX or who are priests, brothers or sisters in the SSPX must come to reconciliation individually. If they believe that they are culpable of sin, they have to confess and do penance. That is not on the table. That’s an individual problem. The Church will deal with that as these individuals present themselves.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[PaulinVA]

The Church does not pass judgment on their internal disposition only on the observable. Therefore, she states that the ordination is illegal and the newly ordained priest is suspended. You can’t suspend the bishop, because he’s already suspended. The Church does not pass judgment on the person, only on the act. Her job is to try to save souls. To assume to know that a person is subjectively culpable of grave sin has two sides to it. There would be a sin of presumption on the person making the judgment and it can unnecessarily push the guilty party away rather than bring him home. We leave that call to be made by the individual. He needs to confess and seek absolution for what he knows to have been a deliberate act of defiance. ** If he does not comprehend how his actions are a deliberate act of defiance, then he is not culpable.**

Hmmm. Are you saying that if the men seeking ordination have so fully imbibed of the “schismatic mentality” of the SSPX that they have been “brainwashed” in a way and are not culpable for their actions? That if they truly believe that there is a crisis in the Church, and supplied jurisdiction allows them to hear confessions and marry people, that they are actually “innocent”, so to speak?

That is certainly an interesting wrinkle!

 

[ProVobis]

Here’s a question for you. We know from the catechism that when you seek forgiveness from sin, you must be truly sorry for the sin. Someone who has had a vasectomy, for example, can’t ask for forgiveness and at the same time say that they would do it again.

Not a good example.

I’m not a FSSPX-advocate but if I were a FSSPX basher, I would use the argument “Forget your ministry, you don’t have a chance against the Vatican until you fess up and promise to say the New Mass and often. Until then lay aside your studies and study something else.”

But wait! This was the same argument they used against ANY priest who wanted to study or wanted to say the Latin Mass since 1970. And guess what? It is now LEGAL to say the Latin Mass and …

IT ALWAYS WAS!

And where is the remedy for all priests who were ostracized, excommunicated, defrocked, etc. who wanted to say the Latin Mass all those years?

 

[JReducation]

Hmmm. Are you saying that if the men seeking ordination have so fully imbibed of the “schismatic mentality” of the SSPX that they have been “brainwashed” in a way and are not culpable for their actions? That if they truly believe that there is a crisis in the Church, and supplied jurisdiction allows them to hear confessions and marry people, that they are actually “innocent”, so to speak?

That is certainly an interesting wrinkle!

The canonical term is “not morally culpable.” You are guilty of the action, but you are not morally culpable. The action took place. That’s real; but your culpability may be mitigated by your situation.

A wonderful example that has nothing to do with this, but it may help, is addiction. There are certain actions that are sinful. However, there are people who are addicted to certain behaviors. Addiction deminishes personal culpability. If it’s severe enough, it mitigates completely.

Knowledge is more than just knowing what the rules say. One has to comprehend the rule and disregard it. In this case, these men have been taught that the rule is wrong or that it does not apply to them. If you convince a person, then the person does not have full knowledge of the rule. He knows what Canon Law says, but in his mind, the law is being misinterpreted or incorrectly applied by the Vatican. He’s being very honest. He is not attempting to manipulate the rule. Therefore, his moral culpability may be minimal or non-existent.

The glitch here is that everyone has a moral obligation to search for the truth. However, one who believes that he has found the truth, would not go searching. The Church deals with them as she does with people who belong to another faith.

Not a good example.

I’m not a FSSPX-advocate but if I were a FSSPX basher, I would use the argument “Forget your ministry, you don’t have a chance against the Vatican until you fess up and promise to say the New Mass and often. Until then lay aside your studies and study something else.”

This is not the issue. The reason that these ordination are illegal is because the bishop has no authority to ordain. If you know this, you should not ask him to ordain you. It has nothing to do with the form of the mass or with the formation program.

The SSPX bishops were not excommunicated over the form of the mass. They were excommunicated because they vioalted the law that governs the consecration of bishops. The excommunication has been lifted, but the bishops have not been reinstated. The issue is with the authority of the bishop, not the formation or the mass.

But wait! This was the same argument they used against ANY priest who wanted to study or wanted to say the Latin Mass since 1970. And guess what? It is now LEGAL to say the Latin Mass and …

IT ALWAYS WAS!

And where is the remedy for all priests who were ostracized, excommunicated, defrocked, etc. who wanted to say the Latin Mass all those years?

If the priest was dismissed, he remains dismissed, even if the law has changed. His dismissal was just, because he disobeyed legitimate authority.

The Holy Father said that the missal of 1962 was never abrogated. This is true. However, he does not say that those were penalized were unjustly penalized. They were penalized for disobedience. The laws that apply to priests, brothers and sisters have safeguards built into them.

We are bound to obey in all things except sin. Wording it this way, the Church protects herself and the person who has vowed obedience. We cannot claim the right to disobey, because the law is mistaken or the understanding of the law is mistaken. Objectively, that does not apply to us. It rarely applies to the laity, but much less to priests and religious.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Danquayle76]

The canonical term is “not morally culpable.” You are guilty of the action, but you are not morally culpable. The action took place. That’s real; but your culpability may be mitigated by your situation.

A wonderful example that has nothing to do with this, but it may help, is addiction. There are certain actions that are sinful. However, there are people who are addicted to certain behaviors. Addiction deminishes personal culpability. If it’s severe enough, it mitigates completely.

Knowledge is more than just knowing what the rules say. One has to comprehend the rule and disregard it. In this case, these men have been taught that the rule is wrong or that it does not apply to them. If you convince a person, then the person does not have full knowledge of the rule. He knows what Canon Law says, but in his mind, the law is being misinterpreted or incorrectly applied by the Vatican. He’s being very honest. He is not attempting to manipulate the rule. Therefore, his moral culpability may be minimal or non-existent.

The glitch here is that everyone has a moral obligation to search for the truth. However, one who believes that he has found the truth, would not go searching. The Church deals with them as she does with people who belong to another faith.

This is not the issue. The reason that these ordination are illegal is because the bishop has no authority to ordain. If you know this, you should not ask him to ordain you. It has nothing to do with the form of the mass or with the formation program.

The SSPX bishops were not excommunicated over the form of the mass. They were excommunicated because they vioalted the law that governs the consecration of bishops. The excommunication has been lifted, but the bishops have not been reinstated. The issue is with the authority of the bishop, not the formation or the mass.

If the priest was dismissed, he remains dismissed, even if the law has changed. His dismissal was just, because he disobeyed legitimate authority.

The Holy Father said that the missal of 1962 was never abrogated. This is true. However, he does not say that those were penalized were unjustly penalized. They were penalized for disobedience. The laws that apply to priests, brothers and sisters have safeguards built into them.

We are bound to obey in all things except sin. Wording it this way, the Church protects herself and the person who has vowed obedience. We cannot claim the right to disobey, because the law is mistaken or the understanding of the law is mistaken. Objectively, that does not apply to us. It rarely applies to the laity, but much less to priests and religious.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Your post raised two questions for me that aren’t directly related to the SSPX, but are as follows:

1. Can someone ever sin by following a bishop in good faith even if that bishop is in some type of error. For example, if a bishop announces that birth control is not a sin, and someone than starts using birth control would it be a sin even if they were aware that the bishop was contradicting teachings of the church?
2. Is disobedience of a bishop in good standing ever justified? Could you ever think of a circumstance where it would be appropriate for the laity or a priest to take drastic actions against a bishop?

 

[JReducation]

Your post raised two questions for me that aren’t directly related to the SSPX, but are as follows:

1. Can someone ever sin by following a bishop in good faith even if that bishop is in some type of error. For example, if a bishop announces that birth control is not a sin, and someone than starts using birth control would it be a sin even if they were aware that the bishop was contradicting teachings of the church?
2. Is disobedience of a bishop in good standing ever justified? Could you ever think of a circumstance where it would be appropriate for the laity or a priest to take drastic actions against a bishop?

These are excellent questions and deal with very real situations.

Let’s work on #1.

1. I have the right to expect that my bishop, pastor, confessor, spiritual director and religious educator knows what he’s talking about, just as I have the right to believe that my doctor knows what he’s talking about.
2. If I don’t know better and I follow the guidance of one who should know right answer, I am still doing something wrong. Not knowing does not make it right. However, I’m not culpable, because I trusted those whom I have a right to trust. Once I discover that the person is mistaken, I have a moral obligation to correct myself. From that point forward, I would be culpable . . . because I know better.

Let’s work on #2.

Disobedience of any legitimate authority is never justified, be it a bishop, parent, police officer, teacher or civil law. Disobedience is always a sin.

However, in some translations of the spiritual masters, Fathers and Doctors of the Church, the concept is not clearly worded so that it gives the impression that there are times when one can disobey. Let’s work with the concept.

I’m using a very Franciscan system. A Dominican would use the Scholastic System. We would still get you to the same place, just using different roads.

Using our system, authority is legitimate when it commands what it has a right to command. Therefore, if authority commands sin, it is illegitimate.

Refusal to comply with illegitimate authority is not disobedience, because illegitimate authority does not have the right to command compliance.

My bishop can be in good standing with the Church. I have a moral obligation to assent and obey his authority, because he has the right to command. However, my bishop does not have the right to command what is contrary to the faith or contrary to Church law. If he were to command something that is contrary to the faith or contrary to Church law, he is not acting legitimately. It is not disobedience to refuse to comply.

We comply with authority when authority commands what it has a right to command. When we disobey such legitimate commands, objectively we have sinned. It is a myth that authority has to be right to be obeyed. The Church has never taught this and this principle does not exist in any system of logic and ethics. There is a difference between authority being mistaken and authority commanding what is sinful or illegal.

Parents do a lot of commanding, but they’re not always right. They are human and make mistakes. It does not justify disobedience. The same applies to bishops. They too are human and they too make mistakes. A mistake is not the same as intentional evil.

Of course, the difference between a parent and a bishop is that you become emancipated from parental authority when you leave home. Unless you belong to a religious community of Pontifical Right, you are always subject to the authority of the local bishop.

A bishop can certainly be in good standing with the Church and teach error on a particular point. The term “good standing” is a misleading one. It really means that the person has a legitimate place in the Church. To the best of my knowledge, this term does not exist in Church law. A bishop either does or does not have jurisdiction. Even when he’s in error, he does not lose his jurisdiction unless the law says so or the pope says so. This is the situation of the SSPX bishops. The status of a bishop is not determined by error, but by law and by the pope.

I hope this helps.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Danquayle76]

These are excellent questions and deal with very real situations.

Let’s work on #1.

1. I have the right to expect that my bishop, pastor, confessor, spiritual director and religious educator knows what he’s talking about, just as I have the right to believe that my doctor knows what he’s talking about.
2. If I don’t know better and I follow the guidance of one who should know right answer, I am still doing something wrong. Not knowing does not make it right. However, I’m not culpable, because I trusted those whom I have a right to trust. Once I discover that the person is mistaken, I have a moral obligation to correct myself. From that point forward, I would be culpable . . . because I know better.

Let’s work on #2.

Disobedience of any legitimate authority is never justified, be it a bishop, parent, police officer, teacher or civil law. Disobedience is always a sin.

However, in some translations of the spiritual masters, Fathers and Doctors of the Church, the concept is not clearly worded so that it gives the impression that there are times when one can disobey. Let’s work with the concept.

I’m using a very Franciscan system. A Dominican would use the Scholastic System. We would still get you to the same place, just using different roads.

Using our system, authority is legitimate when it commands what it has a right to command. Therefore, if authority commands sin, it is illegitimate.

Refusal to comply with illegitimate authority is not disobedience, because illegitimate authority does not have the right to command compliance.

My bishop can be in good standing with the Church. I have a moral obligation to assent and obey his authority, because he has the right to command. However, my bishop does not have the right to command what is contrary to the faith or contrary to Church law. If he were to command something that is contrary to the faith or contrary to Church law, he is not acting legitimately. It is not disobedience to refuse to comply.

We comply with authority when authority commands what it has a right to command. When we disobey such legitimate commands, objectively we have sinned. It is a myth that authority has to be right to be obeyed. The Church has never taught this and this principle does not exist in any system of logic and ethics. There is a difference between authority being mistaken and authority commanding what is sinful or illegal.

Parents do a lot of commanding, but they’re not always right. They are human and make mistakes. It does not justify disobedience. The same applies to bishops. They too are human and they too make mistakes. A mistake is not the same as intentional evil.

Of course, the difference between a parent and a bishop is that you become emancipated from parental authority when you leave home. Unless you belong to a religious community of Pontifical Right, you are always subject to the authority of the local bishop.

A bishop can certainly be in good standing with the Church and teach error on a particular point. The term “good standing” is a misleading one. It really means that the person has a legitimate place in the Church. To the best of my knowledge, this term does not exist in Church law. A bishop either does or does not have jurisdiction. Even when he’s in error, he does not lose his jurisdiction unless the law says so or the pope says so. This is the situation of the SSPX bishops. The status of a bishop is not determined by error, but by law and by the pope.

I hope this helps.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Thanks for your response! Would I correct then in thinking that while one must not comply with actions contrary to the faith, one would still be obligated to accept any punishments imposed by a bishop for refusing to comply?

 

[JReducation]

Thanks for your response! Would I correct then in thinking that while one must not comply with actions contrary to the faith, one would still be obligated to accept any punishments imposed by a bishop for refusing to comply?

Is there a choice?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[system]

Br. J:

As an old Spanish proverb goes (as a principle of the Faith): “Obedience is the servant of Faith, not Faith of obedience.” Thus no Catholic can be commanded by any authority to follow or conform to the Modernist errors that afflict this post-conciliar era - errors that were solemnly condemned by Pope St. Pius X in Pascendi.

Furthermore, the supposed “disobedience” of the SSPX (and others) is actually obedience to Christ and His Church. And if were not for the firm actions of Archbishop Lefebvre and his priests (and later bishops), the Pope never would have finally admitted that the traditional Roman Mass had never been abrogated - remember, this was one of the criteria that Bishop Fellay requested in order for Rome to show it truly had good will towards Tradition.

Thus, the SSPX’s priests are not illicitly ordained - they are ordained licitly and with the ability to practice their ministry as priests, being granted supplied jurisdiction by Holy Mother Church herself during this state of necessity.

Finally on obedience: remember that this is a moral virtue that is predicated on the cardinal virtue of justice = thus we are not required to obey an unjust command, particularly one that is against the Faith, as the liberal Modernist errors of ecumenism, collegiality and their various practical implementations (such as the New Mass) are, and comprise an intrinsic danger to the souls of Catholics.

 

[Danquayle76]

Is there a choice?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

I love your posts here. Have you ever thought about publishing something?

 

[JReducation]

I love your posts here. Have you ever thought about publishing something?

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

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[laszlo]

1. Can someone ever sin by following a bishop in good faith even if that bishop is in some type of error. For example, if a bishop announces that birth control is not a sin, and someone than starts using birth control would it be a sin even if they were aware that the bishop was contradicting teachings of the church?

On God makes proper judgment about good faith, but the definition of the good faith is that it is not culpable.

1. Is disobedience of a bishop in good standing ever justified? Could you ever think of a circumstance where it would be appropriate for the laity or a priest to take drastic actions against a bishop?

Only the Magisterium has right to disqualify a bishop. Until he is censured the bishop has the governing power. The only allowed open resistance is to complain to the Apostolic See. If one feel that what he says, it is against one’s well formed conscience, then should not obey (one should not use artificial contraceptives even if the bishop says that it is allowed in certain cases), but no one has the right to establish a community against that bishop.

 

[ProVobis]

If one feel that what he says, it is against one’s well formed conscience, then should not obey (one should not use artificial contraceptives even if the bishop says that it is allowed in certain cases), but no one has the right to establish a community against that bishop.

Since we use the term a lot, just a semantical (or philosophical, if you wish) point about obedience: one does not obey an allowance; however he can disobey a disallowance or restriction. In this case, we’ll just have to say what the bishop teaches or what we heard the bishop say does not appear to be consistent with what the Vatican (or his synod) teaches.

 

[ProVobis]

If the priest was dismissed, he remains dismissed, even if the law has changed. His dismissal was just, because he disobeyed legitimate authority.

Br JR, I’m not going to challenge you on the disobedience issue. My point is that in some circumstances, remedies (or punishments, for that matter) CAN be applied retroactively. (As an example, I believe at one time Pope Leo XIII retroactively invalidated all Masses that had been said by the Anglicans.) And it’s a fact that the TLM was never abrogated; however a lot of commands and actions taken during the 60’s and 70’s were based on the false premise that it was abrogated. Spreading dishonest information is sinful too. Shouldn’t that be taken into consideration? One must ask, would the Archbishop have even tried to establish his own seminary in Econe and fought the local bishops there in the way he did if he had known for sure that the TLM was never abolished? I see that the immediate issues today involve the suspensions and these were inflicted, perhaps wrongfully, upon the priests in 1975 or so. (This was well before the disobedience of 1988, which led to formal excommunications and ultimately lifting of those excommunications.) Shouldn’t those 1975 events be addressed as well?

That said, I do agree that the doctrinal issues currently on the table should be resolved. And explained. This is important in trying to establish a unified community going forward.

 

[jwinch2]

I truly believe that we, including me, are a very arrogant generation. We believe that we can achieve great holiness, even higher than these noble souls, by doing things our way. Yet, when I look at these people and the world in which they lived and the crises of faith all around them and yet they persevered without having to go outside of the boundaries of obedience, I feel that we’re looking for the easy way. It is very easy to be holy in a chapel where the mass is perfectly celebrated and everyone is perfectly behaved, because the only people who attend at those of like mind. It is much more challenging to be prayerful, silent, contemplative, and charitable in a parish church filled with lepers. Yet, that’s where real virtue is achieved, among the lepers, the harlots, the thieves and the dregs of the Church. That’s how these men and women reached heights of sanctity that most of us can only dream of. They struggled to pray and worship. They did not look for the parish or chapel where prayer and worship came easily. They remained and faced the difficulties and they triumphed.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Very informative post. Thank you Brother!

 

[jwinch2]

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.

This is an interesting point in my view.

Brother JR and others made the point earlier that these are good men who wish to serve the Church and her faithful. My question would be what kind of man who desires to serve as a priest deliberately chooses a group that is separated from the Church for his seminary studies and ordination? I’m having a hard time getting my head around that one. These days, there are plenty of orthodox groups and even several that primarily celebrate the TLM. With that in mind, why choose SSPX rather than FSSP or one of the religious orders which fall into this category if your call to vocation is pure?

Something about that choice causes me concern.

 

[JReducation]

Br JR, I’m not going to challenge you on the disobedience issue. My point is that in some circumstances, remedies (or punishments, for that matter) CAN be applied retroactively. (As an example, I believe at one time Pope Leo XIII retroactively invalidated all Masses that had been said by the Anglicans.) And it’s a fact that the TLM was never abrogated; however a lot of commands and actions taken during the 60’s and 70’s were based on the false premise that it was abrogated. Spreading dishonest information is sinful too. Shouldn’t that be taken into consideration? One must ask, would the Archbishop have even tried to establish his own seminary in Econe and fought the local bishops there in the way he did if he had known for sure that the TLM was never abolished? I see that the immediate issues today involve the suspensions and these were inflicted, perhaps wrongfully, upon the priests in 1975 or so. (This was well before the disobedience of 1988, which led to formal excommunications and ultimately lifting of those excommunications.) Shouldn’t those 1975 events be addressed as well?

That said, I do agree that the doctrinal issues currently on the table should be resolved. And explained. This is important in trying to establish a unified community going forward.

To answer your queston in a nutshell. Cures can be applied retroactively. One must not assume them. They have to be explicit, either from the Holy Father or the law. In this particular case, neither the Holy Father nor the law have chosen to do so. I’m not inside the Holy Father’s mind. But judging from the strong language that he uses every time he mentions Archbishop Lefebvre and the past history of the SSPX. my take is that he feels that there was arrogance involved. If that’s the case, there is never a justification for arrogance. By the way, before I get stoned, arrogance is not my word. It is the word that the Holy Father applied to the SSPX. Another word that he often uses is “Lefebvrist”. This does not mean that everyone around the archbishop was innocent as a newborn baby. The pope’s statements are dealing only with the SSPX, their origins and their situation. He may have some interesting ideas about other people as well. I don’t know. I do know one thing. He dealt directly with the Archbishop and none of us did. We’re speaking based on what we read and hear. If he has such strong feelings, there must be a reason. Pope Benedict has proven to be a very gentle man, an intelligent man and a very compassionate man, not a man who is swayed by public opinion for or against someone or some issue.

I do know one thing. We can’t tell the pope what to think or what he needs to cure and how to cure it. We can only accept what he thinks, what he cures and how. Either we do that or we break communion with the Primacy.

This is an interesting point in my view.

Brother JR and others made the point earlier that these are good men who wish to serve the Church and her faithful. My question would be what kind of man who desires to serve as a priest deliberately chooses a group that is separated from the Church for his seminary studies and ordination? I’m having a hard time getting my head around that one. These days, there are plenty of orthodox groups and even several that primarily celebrate the TLM. With that in mind, why choose SSPX rather than FSSP or one of the religious orders which fall into this category if your call to vocation is pure?

Something about that choice causes me concern.

That question is a mystery to many people. I can only guess that they have been told that the FSSP compromised on principle. I’m guessing this based on the fact that there are people who still claim that Vatican II is filled with Modernist Heresies and that the current popes are mistaken on A, B, and C. I’m just guessing. Don’t take this to the bank.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Will_S]

This is the quote from Bishop Fellay that this discussion brought to my mind and led to me posting the link to the German documentary.
SSPX Superior Bishop Fellay:

Just because authority is no longer wielded correctly, is abused, that doesn’t change the principle of obedience at all. We have no desire, truly no desire, to act in disobedience. That doesn’t belong to Catholicism. And when we act so, then we seek, with every action, to find the will of God. Where is God’s will, Where is the law of the Church?

Assuming Bishop Fellay is being honest with himself and with us (and I do so assume), then the position of the SSPX seems to be that they are convinced that they have no other choice before God but to continue their ministry exactly as they have been doing, without regard to their status in the Church. The irregular status grieves them, but cannot be permitted to hinder their work.

 

[TrueLight]

This is the quote from Bishop Fellay that this discussion brought to my mind and led to me posting the link to the German documentary.

Assuming Bishop Fellay is being honest with himself and with us (and I do so assume), then the position of the SSPX seems to be that they are convinced that they have no other choice before God but to continue their ministry exactly as they have been doing, without regard to their status in the Church. The irregular status grieves them, but cannot be permitted to hinder their work.

And this is why some of us are sympathetic and pray for reconciliation.

 

[Catholicgauze]

ncregister.com/daily-news/vatican-pius-x-society-ordinations-are-illegitimate/

Praise God. May these people see their error and come back to the Mother Church. I find it a shame that so many Anglo-Catholics are accepting the Church once again while SSPX still fights it.