Vatican: Pius X Society Ordinations Are Illegitimate

[JReducation]

Their argument is that the 1970’s original suspension was illicit and canonically irregular and therefore not binding. IF this is true, then they were never suspended and the most recent ordinations are legitimate.

The Society also uses the example of St. Athanasius, who, I believe, ordained priests without the required permission in the early centuries. I could be wrong. Would like to see any research/resources people have on this issue.

Of course the current Pope technically sees them in an “irregular canonical situation”. Then again, the previous Pope acted as if the TLM were abrogated and we later learned that it was not under BXVI. In the same manner, a future Pope may decide that the 1970’s suspension was indeed canonically invalid.

In a recent talk Bishop Fellay recounted how a Cardinal in Rome said there would be no problem with the approval of previous ordinations upon request soon after the lifting of the excommunications. Therefore, it cannot be ruled out that Rome again gave private permission for the ordinations, and that the Vatican press secretray was unaware of it.

cfnews.org/fellay-40th.htm

Many good priests were suspended by their bishops from the 1970’s through 2007 for simply saying the TLM without “permission”. Now that the Pope has publicly declared the TLM was never forbidden, why aren’t these priests, who were unjustly suspended, reinstated, given apologies, and given back-pay & benefits?

Their argument falters on several points.

A bishop or a religious superior can suspend at will. There is nothing in the law that says that he needs an excuse to suspend. The law says, that if you do A, B, or C, you incur suspension. It does not say that there are no other suspensions beyond A, B, and C. Ask any religious superior. They suspend people left and right for things that are not in Canon Law. The suspensions are lifted when the problem is resolved to the satisfaction of the superior.

The pope has the power to abolish law, suspend law, declare law null and void, to ignore law and to say that the law does not apply to you. To argue that the pope allowed or did something illegal is easily fixed. The pope says, “the law does not apply to you.” It’s no longer illegal. Who can make law over the pope’s head? This is what Bl. John Paul said to Archbishop Lefebvre. This was documented. He said, the law did not apply.

The Tridentine Form was never abrogated. However, even when something is not abrogated, that does not mean that you have a right to have it. If a person in a position of legitimate authority says that you cannot celebrate it, you cannot do it. If you do so and that person is either your bishop or your religious superior, he has the right to suspend you. He’s not suspending you because it’s a sin to celebrate the Tridentine mass. He’s suspending you for insubordination. Unless the superior orders you to commit a sin, you must comply. I’ll give you a simple example.

The priests of the SSPX are not suspended because they celebrate the EF. These men are suspended, because they sought ordination and accepted ordination illegally. It has nothing to do with tradition. If I get myself ordained without the permission of my major superior, I incur an automatic suspension. It is illegal for me to seek ordination from someone who does not have permission to ordain me.

The bishops of the SSPX do not have permission to ordain.

As much as I like the few that I have met, there is a line in the sand that cannot be crossed. You cannot violate Church law for a good intention.

The whole thing with St. Athanasius is very simple. Archbishop Lefebvre is not St. Athanasius facing the Arians. The Archbishop never claimed that the pope was a heretic. He was not a sedevacantist. He pushed the envelope, but he knew when to stop. There are no parallels, since Athanasius was fighting heresy. Bl. John Paul was not guilty of heresy, because he denied permission for the ordination of four bishops.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[bkovacs]

JREducation do you think this group will be suspended. Check the link out.

catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=10991&repos=4&subrepos=2&searchid=766635

 

[JReducation]

JREducation do you think this group will be suspended. Check the link out.

catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=10991&repos=4&subrepos=2&searchid=766635

I don’t know anything about this group. I know that none of the points on their list incur automatic suspensions. However, some points do violate law and there is insubordination. This gives the bishop the right to suspend.

The quotation marks are confusing here. I can’t tell which part is the Cardinal speaking and which part is the author. If I’m reading it correctly, the Cardinal is hinting at suspension.

Those who truly in conscience believe that they must disobey the hierarchy, and that “‘Rome’ is on the wrong track [and] gravely contradicts the will of God,” ought in consequence to “travel the way no more with the Roman Catholic Church. I believe and hope, however, that this extreme case does not occur here.”

Obviously, if there are priests from other dioceses, then it’s up to their bishops to suspend them.

If there are priests who are both priest + exempt religious, the Cardinal can’t touch them.

Only their religious superior can suspend them. If a bishop attempts to penalize a male religious, the bishop is automatically suspended. He must go through the religious superior.

He can do whatever he wants with the secular clergy. He can also deny the religious permission to work in any of his institutions: parishes, schools, hospitals, etc. He may never punish a religious or deny him permission to work in a ministry that belongs to the religious community. Only the superior has that much power.

I have no idea if these priests are all from the same diocese or if they are all diocesan priests. The Cardinal’s reach does not extend beyond the priests who are part of his diocese.

However, they are breaking many rules. Even though none of them incur automatic suspension, that does not mean that their bishops or religious superiors cannot suspend. Again, if I’m reading the article correctly, the Cardinal is hinting that this. It’s stated almost as a rhetorical question “Are you with me?”

In other words, “You better be.” He mentions that people can lose their jobs of this kind of thing. He’s sending out all kinds of not so subtle messages. I smell some suspensions if they execute some of their plans. Some of their points are nonsense. Some are serious. I tend to sort out the serious from the ridiculous.

For example, opposing the closing of parishes. That’s not a sin or even an illegal action. That’s just bein annoying. If a religious superior or a bishop decide to abandon a parish, what can they do? Common’ get real guys.

Calling a Communion Service a “Eucharistic Celebration” or whatever the term was, is just silly. It’s not material for suspension. But it’s childish behavior.

Pushing for women’s ordination, is not material for suspension and is also childish. It’s like the kid who doesn’t understand the meaning of 'NO".

However, if you stack up a lot of these childish and annoying behaviors, you can push your bishop or your superior into a corner where he will suspend you. I don’t know. I feel that these men are trying to get a rise out of the bishops and the Vatican. None of what they propose is going to get the desired result. They will simply end up in trouble or worse, being ignored.

For some people, being ignored is worse than a suspension, because they can cry “Martyr”.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[ProVobis]

The pope has the power to abolish law, suspend law, declare law null and void, to ignore law and to say that the law does not apply to you. To argue that the pope allowed or did something illegal is easily fixed. The pope says, “the law does not apply to you.” It’s no longer illegal. Who can make law over the pope’s head? This is what Bl. John Paul said to Archbishop Lefebvre. This was documented. He said, the law did not apply.

Br JR, the question at hand didn’t involve Bl John Paul as much as the penalties imposed on those priests who said the Latin Mass “illegally” after 1970. In the Archbishop’s case, after he legitimately had set up a seminary, he was suspended by another bishop and this suspension (as well as those of the ones who were ordained) was/were upheld by the Vatican in 1975, well before JPII. Now what if they were upheld because of false pretenses presented to the Vatican? Isn’t intentional dishonesty a sin as well? Pope Benedict didn’t have to say the TLM was never abrogated but he did and that was one of the most significant aspects of the 2007 SP IMO.

True there is the matter of obedience. But if this is indeed the case, one would think that the AB could have simply asked a bishop outside of the Econe diocese, perhaps even his fellow bishop in Campos, to ordain the new priests. It seems there’s a lot we don’t know here about those initial suspensions.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Obviously, if there are priests from other dioceses, then it’s up to their bishops to suspend them.

If there are priests who are both priest + exempt religious, the Cardinal can’t touch them.

Only their religious superior can suspend them. If a bishop attempts to penalize a male religious, the bishop is automatically suspended. He must go through the religious superior.

He can do whatever he wants with the secular clergy. He can also deny the religious permission to work in any of his institutions: parishes, schools, hospitals, etc. He may never punish a religious or deny him permission to work in a ministry that belongs to the religious community. Only the superior has that much power.

But a bishop may remove the faculties to celebrate the Sacraments within his diocese to priests from other diocese or members of exempt religious orders.

Can he also not remove the faculties from exempt religious from publicly celebrating the Sacraments at a ministry that belongs to the religious community?

 

[RC1947]

This quote from the Way of a Pilgrim always makes me think of the more diehard SSPXers and the sedevacantists.

The liturgy looks very beautiful. I’ve been to an FSSP church. Beautiful liturgy - and it was a low Mass. Our churches do need to be put right - but it doesn’t justify separating oneself from the true church.

It never ceases to amaze me how ignorant these kinds of statements are. The terms SSPX and sedevacantists should never be uttered in the same breath. The SSPX is NOT sedevacantist, nor has the Society ever separated itself from the True Church. What you have heard is not the truth. If you are Catholic, you will seek out the truth rather than listen to hearsay and other political hogwash perpetrated by those who would destroy the Church.

 

[Denise1957]

It never ceases to amaze me how ignorant these kinds of statements are. The terms SSPX and sedevacantists should never be uttered in the same breath. The SSPX is NOT sedevacantist, nor has the Society ever separated itself from the True Church. What you have heard is not the truth. If you are Catholic, you will seek out the truth rather than listen to hearsay and other political hogwash perpetrated by those who would destroy the Church.

I don’t think that this forum member was saying that the SSPX is sedevacantist. And though the SSPX is not sedevacantist, they do allow sedevacantists to attend their chapels, as long as they aren’t too vocal about their views. Regarding the Society separating itself from the True Church, well, there’s only One Church, which is the visible Church, and the SSPX bishops, including the Archbishop were excommunicated in 1988 as a disciplinary measure.

That being said, I do hope that the SSPX reconciles. The biggest issues that are problematic, for them IMO, is the OF Mass, and interfaith ecumenism (such as Assisi). I don’t think that Rome would want them to reconcile as long as the Society believes that the OF is sacriligious, as it believes now. Their views on this, I think, would have to change.

 

[Aramis]

I am sick and tired of hearing this ****, with no prove, other than so & so said so!!!

Cardinal Arinze says so on film…
Every Dominican friar I’ve known old enough to remember has said so (and most of them were busy fighting it).

Get over it. For the past, we have only “so and so said so”… THAT is ALL that history is.

There’s a reason for the Holy Inquisition… abuses of the liturgy have been with us since the liturgy was codified.

St. Basil the Great writes of abuses he corrected. So do archbishops and popes throughout the history of the church.

 

[JReducation]

Br JR, the question at hand didn’t involve Bl John Paul as much as the penalties imposed on those priests who said the Latin Mass “illegally” after 1970. In the Archbishop’s case, after he legitimately had set up a seminary, he was suspended by another bishop and this suspension (as well as those of the ones who were ordained) was/were upheld by the Vatican in 1975, well before JPII. Now what if they were upheld because of false pretenses presented to the Vatican? Isn’t intentional dishonesty a sin as well? Pope Benedict didn’t have to say the TLM was never abrogated but he did and that was one of the most significant aspects of the 2007 SP IMO.

True there is the matter of obedience. But if this is indeed the case, one would think that the AB could have simply asked a bishop outside of the Econe diocese, perhaps even his fellow bishop in Campos, to ordain the new priests. It seems there’s a lot we don’t know here about those initial suspensions.

The problem was that the Archbishop was told that he could have only one successor, but that it would be up to the Vatican to choose. It was not a problem of finding a bishop to ordain four other bishops. It was a problem of the Vatican not wanting four more bishops. That’s how he and the four bishops got into trouble. The Archbishop ordained the men accepted the offer. This is a schismatic action.

We have to understand that a schismatic action does not mean that one is in schism. The action is what is being defined here, not the person or the group, in this case the bishops and the Society involved. It would be wrong to say that the bishops and the society are schismatic. The Church has never said that. At the time, Cardinal Ratzinger was the man who referred to the ordinations as schismatic and who coined the term “Lefebrevist”. He did not have and appears not to have any positive feelings about the ordination of these bishops. Even after lifting the excommunication, he continues to refer to the “Lefebvrist Movement” to “those who followed Lefebvre”. He does not even dignify him with the title Archbishop. I have always found that rather interesting to see in his writings and talks when he makes mention of the SSPX. He speaks highly of the men who are priests in the Society, but stops there.

But a bishop may remove the faculties to celebrate the Sacraments within his diocese to priests from other diocese or members of exempt religious orders.

That’s what I was trying to explain. A bishop can suspend anyone from ministry in any diocesan capacity, be it a parish, school, hospital or other.

Can he also not remove the faculties from exempt religious from publicly celebrating the Sacraments at a ministry that belongs to the religious community?

It depends on the ministry. For example, if the bishop decided to suspend one of the Carmelite Friars, he can do so. However, the bishop has no jurisdiction over the Priory. If lay people attend the priory mass, only the Provincial can stop the friar from celebrating mass in the priory. Certain ministries are part of the house and others are not. For example, the Prior can only grant faculties to hear the confession of the friars and those laymen who live in the priory, not those laymen who come to the priory just to go to confession to a Carmelite. You need faculties from the diocesan bishop for that. The bishop’s authority is over the faithful, not over a physical place. The friars are not part of the faithful, nor does the priory belong to the diocese. This is the case with many of the colleges and universities run by religious. They are outside of the bishop’s jurisdiction.

However, there is safety net in the law. Individuals are exempt, not institutes. The Carmelite Friar is exempt. However, he must prove that he is. In other words, he has to prove that the action does not come under the jurisdiction of the bishop.

Thank God, the days when these conflicts existed are long gone. This was decreed by Trent, because there was a problem with bishops and lay people meddling in and opining about everything regarding religious. The Council wanted to make it clear that religious were protected by the Pontiff himself. That’s how the term Pontifical Right came into being. It meant to have rights granted and protected by the pope. The big issue was governance and finance. Everyone and their grandmother wanted to decide who became prior, abbot, or guardian. If you controlled the head of the religious house, you also controlled its assets.

Today, most religious superiors wish that the laity and the bishop would take over their finances, since most religious operate in the red.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[ProVobis]

The problem was that the Archbishop was told that he could have only one successor, but that it would be up to the Vatican to choose.

Br Jr, we know that. That was in 1988, quite a few years after the original suspension imposed by the local bishop in Econe (?) The excommunications imposed on the 1988 disobedience have been removed since then. What was under discussion were suspensions imposed on the priests before 1988 for saying the Latin Mass. That any bishop had a right to suspend them or not for even visiting their diocese is not under dispute.

That’s what I was trying to explain. A bishop can suspend anyone from ministry in any diocesan capacity, be it a parish, school, hospital or other.

Again, no dispute there. But I believe the AB could have had fellow bishop Mayer ordain the priests in the Campos diocese, away from the bishop local to the seminary.

That said, even if the priests had been legitimately ordained, chances are they would have been suspended by some other bishop or Pope for the reason they were not allowed to say the Latin Mass. Most if not all bishops refused to have ANY Latin Masses said in their diocese, even after the 1984 Indult.

So either way, the Masses they (or any other suspended priests, for that matter) say now are illegal, whether they were legally ordained or not. And that’s all I’m going to say on this thread. Calling anything suspended bishops or priests do in their valid roles as illegitimate seems to be redundant.

 

[JReducation]

Br Jr, we know that. That was in 1988, quite a few years after the original suspension imposed by the local bishop in Econe (?) The excommunications imposed on the 1988 disobedience have been removed since then. What was under discussion were suspensions imposed on the priests before 1988 for saying the Latin Mass. That any bishop had a right to suspend them or not for even visiting their diocese is not under dispute.

Again, no dispute there. But I believe the AB could have had fellow bishop Mayer ordain the priests in the Campos diocese, away from the bishop local to the seminary.

That said, even if the priests had been legitimately ordained, chances are they would have been suspended by some other bishop or Pope for the reason they were not allowed to say the Latin Mass. Most if not all bishops refused to have ANY Latin Masses said in their diocese, even after the 1984 Indult.

So either way, the Masses they (or any other suspended priests, for that matter) say now are illegal, whether they were legally ordained or not. And that’s all I’m going to say on this thread. Calling anything suspended bishops or priests do in their valid roles as illegitimate seems to be redundant.

I know this. I was trying to explain that the suspension of the SSPX was not for the same reason as these other cases. You’re right. Some people were suspended because they did not follow directions.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Like]

Cardinal Arinze says so on film…
Every Dominican friar I’ve known old enough to remember has said so (and most of them were busy fighting it).

Get over it. For the past, we have only “so and so said so”… THAT is ALL that history is.

There’s a reason for the Holy Inquisition… abuses of the liturgy have been with us since the liturgy was codified.

St. Basil the Great writes of abuses he corrected. So do archbishops and popes throughout the history of the church.

I don’t deny that some priest’s might be guilty of that abuse, but too many times it has been thrown out there as if it was ramp-it. I was raised in Catholic schools in the 40’s & 50’s and an altar boy for many of those years & granted, I didn’t know every priests in the US, not to mention in the city I was raised in, I never heard of or saw any priest’s abuses of that kind. Nor in the seminary I attended. Do you have a link to Cardinal Arinze’s video? Even through I very much admire the Cardinal, I still don’t believe it proves that priests were guilty of this on any large scale in the US. I have no ideal about the rest of the world priests.

I’m sorry for the tone on my other post.

 

[Like]

I don’t know. I would assume probably for a while. Why do you ask?

I don’t know, I guess I was surprised it was fixed automatic.

 

[Aramis]

I don’t deny that some priest’s might be guilty of that abuse, but too many times it has been thrown out there as if it was ramp-it. I was raised in Catholic schools in the 40’s & 50’s and an altar boy for many of those years & granted, I didn’t know every priests in the US, not to mention in the city I was raised in, I never heard of or saw any priest’s abuses of that kind. Nor in the seminary I attended. Do you have a link to Cardinal Arinze’s video? Even through I very much admire the Cardinal, I still don’t believe it proves that priests were guilty of this on any large scale in the US. I have no ideal about the rest of the world priests.

I’m sorry for the tone on my other post.

The diatribe begins at 2:34 in the following video: youtube.com/watch?v=mqnjgg1vNgU&feature=related

Do stick it out from that point until the end of the video. (which is a segment of a larger discussion, anyway.)

This isn’t the one I was thinking about, but it’s the one I can find. There’s another video where he’s more explicit about the nature of the abuses of the 1940s and 1950’s.

 

[Like]

The diatribe begins at 2:34 in the following video: youtube.com/watch?v=mqnjgg1vNgU&feature=related

Do stick it out from that point until the end of the video. (which is a segment of a larger discussion, anyway.)

This isn’t the one I was thinking about, but it’s the one I can find. There’s another video where he’s more explicit about the nature of the abuses of the 1940s and 1950’s.

Yes, I have all his talks recorded on my PC. This can’t be the one you are thinking about as he speaks of 1 priest doing that abuse and is quite comical in this piece. I’ll scan through my collection. However, I really don’t recall him saying that the problem was in the US in the 40’s & 50’s, certainly not to the degree of what you speak. BUT, I believe even 1 priest doing that one abuse or any abuse is ONE priest to many!

THANKS

 

[christosdavid]

Do the SSPX still hold that Vatican II was an illegitimate council and that Popes John XXIII, Paul VI and John Paul II were antipopes?

 

[Aramis]

Do the SSPX still hold that Vatican II was an illegitimate council and that Popes John XXIII, Paul VI and John Paul II were antipopes?

They never did. That’s the SSPV.

 

[christosdavid]

my apologies if I have them wrong, which one was started by Lefrebve?

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

my apologies if I have them wrong, which one was started by Lefrebve?

Technucally both could be said to have been started by the archbishop as the SSPV broke away from the SSPX.

 

[wisdomseeker]

The SSPX, in a response to the declaration of Fr. Lombardi that the SSPX ordinations were ‘illegitimate’, has posted, on their US website, the sermon, which Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre preached at the ordination of 16 men to the priesthood at Écône in 1978.

sspx.org/archbishop_lefebvre/ordination_sermon_econe_june_29_1978.htm

Beautiful letter. I so agree with what was said. the reality although denied by many, nevertheless it is the reality which we see in teh Church today. division, desbelief, loss of faith, the Mass is mostly different in each parish, disobedience is everywhere. so, yeah, i agree with everything that is said in teh letter. one should not look at this holly entity who try to preserve the so desired Mass by many, based only on their separation but to look at them with respect and admiration for they do have the desire to unite with the pope and yet preserve what is beautiful. look at their honesty and love for God in preserving the church from falling completely in teh hands of the enemy.