Vatican: Pius X Society Ordinations Are Illegitimate

  • Thread starter Thread starter Will_S
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I don’t know. The whole, “I must disobey the Church to save it” mentality is self contradictory. They must act in a schismatic manner to preserve the Tradition of the Church?

I understand where the SSPX priests are coming from, but if everyone acted in the same manner (I believe I am right and Rome is wrong)we would not have a Church.

In fact, a lot of people DO act in that manner, and they are the people that SSPX say they are protecting the Church from.:confused:
 
PaulinVA said:
I don’t know. The whole, “I must disobey the Church to save it” mentality is self contradictory. They must act in a schismatic manner to preserve the Tradition of the Church?

I understand where the SSPX priests are coming from, but if everyone acted in the same manner (I believe I am right and Rome is wrong)we would not have a Church.

In fact, a lot of people DO act in that manner, and they are the people that SSPX say they are protecting the Church from.:confused:
Click to expand...
Isn’t that what started the protestant reformation?
 
ProVobis said:
Nothing new here.
Click to expand...
Exactly. CatholicGauze, Is this a surprise?

Question about this comment and I understand it may be biased.
Pope Benedict has been eager to heal the rift between the Pius X Society and the Church. In 2007 he made it easier to celebrate Mass according to the older Tridentine rite, saying he hoped it would lead to “an interior reconciliation in the heart of the Church.”
Click to expand...
Is the SSPX one of the reasons we have the freedom to celebrate the EF today?
 
Well it does clarify that, much to some people’s chagrin, the Society of Saint Pius X is still in an irregular status. It seems that Rome is making broad gestures of reconciliation, such as allowing member priests of Pius X to celebrate mass, but its still holding its foot that the society needs to fully accept Rome’s authority.

Side question - are the masses celebrated at Saint Peter’s public or private masses? That might contribute to why the masses are allowed, even though the priests exercise “no ministry” within the Church.
 
runningdude said:
Well it does clarify that, much to some people’s chagrin, the Society of Saint Pius X is still in an irregular status.
Click to expand...
I don’t know if anyone is under any illusion that they are in “regular” status. 🤷
 
runningdude said:
Well it does clarify that, much to some people’s chagrin, the Society of Saint Pius X is still in an irregular status. It seems that Rome is making broad gestures of reconciliation, such as allowing member priests of Pius X to celebrate mass, but its still holding its foot that the society needs to fully accept Rome’s authority.

Side question - are the masses celebrated at Saint Peter’s public or private masses? That might contribute to why the masses are allowed, even though the priests exercise “no ministry” within the Church.
Click to expand...
Those are private masses, although of course that doesn’t mean that no one is present. People go to St. Peters early just for the purpose of assisting at the many private masses being offered.
 
As I recall, discussions concerning the SSPX are not allowed here. So my question is why was this even posted?
 
ByzCath said:
Isn’t that what started the protestant reformation?
Click to expand...
I think there is a difference. The protestant reformers may have started with objections to certain non-doctrinal practices, but their objections evolved rapidly to include dogmas of the Faith, thus separating themselves from the Church.

The SSPX doesn’t reject any Catholic dogmas at all, and doctrinally, only has problems with the documents of Vatican II and a few other postconciliar documents. But so do many other regular traditionalist priests (FSSP, etc.) The main difference seems to be that, as an organization, the FSSP doesn’t take public positions on problematic postconciliar doctrinal issues, while the SSPX does.

Sometimes you’ll hear some bishop (especially in Europe) loudly proclaim that the SSPX “has to fully accept Vatican II”, to which the SSPX responds – you tell us, with great specificity, what you want us to accept and we’ll tell you if we accept it – because it’s not at all clear what “fully accepting Vatican II” entails.
 
ByzCath said:
Isn’t that what started the protestant reformation?
Click to expand...
Therein lies the problem. Most heresies come from the right. Left-wing movements have never survived. They’re like fads that fade away.

My concern is the statement made by Bishop Fellay at this last ordination.

“When I speak of contradiction, my dear brethren, I mean that certain people in Rome consider us as being outside the Church, excommunicated, and even as having lost the faith and being heretics. But there are others who very clearly accept us as Catholics,” he told the congregation gathered for the ordination of five priests.

“When Bishop de Galarreta (a Pius X bishop) and our priests go to Rome for the doctrinal discussions, they say Mass in St. Peter’s Basilica. How can you have both attitudes at the same time? Do you see how strong this contradiction is?”

Pope Benedict has been eager to heal the rift between the Pius X Society and the Church. In 2007 he made it easier to celebrate Mass according to the older Tridentine rite, saying he hoped it would lead to “an interior reconciliation in the heart of the Church.”

ncregister.com/daily-news/vatican-pius-x-society-ordinations-are-illegitimate/#ixzz1RHuEMgBI

The Vatican has never said that they are heretics. The Society was never excommunicated, only the five bishops (including the Archbishop). No one has ever accused them of losing the faith. They are allowed to say mass at the side altars or side chapels at St. Peter’s, because Canon Law says that any validly ordained priest can request permission to celebrate mass at any Catholic Church. It is up to the Ordinary to grant the permission, even if it’s for a single event. Granting permission to celebrate a mass at St. Peter’s is not an unusual concession. Even priests such as Fr. Corapi, who is suspended, can ask for and receive permission to celebrate a mass in any Catholic Church under the right conditions. That is determined by the person who has the authority to grant the permission. Unless the priest is a criminal, heretic, apostate or the mass is for the general public, the permission is rarely denied. Canon Law is very clear on this matter.

My concern, if the writer is quoting him correctly, is that the Bishop is rallying the troops by making a fase statement. In the end, what the man in the pew thinks about the Society or the Vatican has as much value as drandruff. Those of us who are in positions to educate the general public and positions to preach or teach, must speak about the facts that have value.

The facts are that Pope Benedict and Cardinal Levada have gone out of their way to bring about a reconciliation. Neither of these men have ever made any of these comments. In the end, it’s what comes out of the Roman Curia that counts.

If you read the article, even Fr. Lombardi is very discrete in his response. He just states what we all know. Their clergy do not have canonical authority. Those who understand Canon Law know what he means – the ordinations are illegal.

This is really an unfortunate set of comments, if they are being accurately reported.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
Will_S said:
I think there is a difference. The protestant reformers may have started with objections to certain non-doctrinal practices, but their objections evolved rapidly to include dogmas of the Faith, thus separating themselves from the Church.
Click to expand...
Most of the Reformers started their own Bible interpretations (including removing books they didn’t like) and also translate the liturgy to suit their beliefs. Thus one of the reasons why Trent anathemized anyone who said the Mass should be “only” in the vernacular, inter alia.
 
Cider said:
Perfect example of why any discussion of the SSPX is completely pointless at CAF.
Click to expand...
The pope, ex cathedra, has stated that the crisis claimed by the SSPX does not exist.

For a priest to continue to claim that a Crisis exists when the pope says it isn’t, let alone two consecutive popes, is a major act of disobedience. For a bishop, even more so.

Further, BOTH Popes JP II and B XVI have stated that the issues the SSPX perceive as crisis are not a crisis, let alone one worthy of corporate acts of disobedience.

Logic dictates the following potential outcomes* The SSPX recants their crisis mentality* The Pope changes his mind and declares a crisis of faith* Neither changes, and the SSPX slides (eventually) into true corporate schism* The SSPX dissolves itself to prevent corporate schism

Two of those are extremely unlikely (2nd and 4th).
1st and 3rd are the most probable ones, and only the first is truly a desirable outcome.

If the Pope admits to the crisis, then HH Benedict must publicly admit error of both himself and Bl. Pope John Paul II… since the crisis claimed involves Faith as well as discipline, that could be seen as a denial of the Vatican I council’s dogmatic definitions…

So Rome is at an impasse… it must wait for overt movement by the SSPX as a body corporate in one direction or the other… possibly it already has seen such movement, but it has been hidden from the public.

The SSPX leadership thinks they are doing the right thing… but that belief may be in grave error.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top