Vatican: Pius X Society Ordinations Are Illegitimate

[AndyP2010]

Brother I may have misread your post, so forgive me if I have this wrong, but hadn’t Peter already had his vision where the Lord told him to eat the different kind of animals before he visits Cornelius, and that he leads the council to its decision. Also my reading of the events at Antioch is that Paul’s issue with Peter is that Peter isn’t standing up for his own teaching and practice and seems to be giving in to peer pressure. It is clear that none of the Apostles ever question Peter’s teaching once his decision is made.

 

[TrueLight]

The argument that Paul stood up to Peter is often used very incorrecctly, proving that those who use it, do not do proper exegesis.

Is anyone else using that argument? Well that is awesome because it’s something that popped into my head while I was reading.

Let’s look at the facts.

1. Paul recognizes his authority over his Churches. This is very clear in how he governs them.

The SSPX recognizes the authority of the Holy Father, do they not? SSPXers can chime in.

1. Paul did not threaten to leave or to defy Cephas. He presented his point until he persuaded Cephas./ We all know, from reading the Gospels and reading his letters, that Peter was bull-headed. It was probably no an easy sell. Peter, was also not as good a theologian as Paul.

1. Cephas, not Simon, finally concedes the point. Paul does not go away and do his thing.

That’s why I say, we have to do our exegesis correctly. Paul talks about his confrontation with Peter at Antioch in one of his letter. But he did not revel against him or disobey him. He did not assume that he could do as he pleased. He continued to press the issue, until it was finally resolved. He persevered in persuading Peter.

But he conceded EVENTUALLY.

Also, Paul was rebuking him on acting differently when James and his men came over. He was rebuking him on personal behavior. So the example I use is not the same as the SSPX situation at all. I recognize that.

I wonder what Paul would have done if suddenly he were told he must stop baptizing people because converts couldn’t understand why they must get all wet?

 

[JReducation]

Brother I may have misread your post, so forgive me if I have this wrong, but hadn’t Peter already had his vision where the Lord told him to eat the different kind of animals before he visits Cornelius,

The jury is out on that one. Some scholars believe that the story of the dream and the visit to Cornelius may be out of sequence. That’s not unusual in the scriptures. Sequences are known to change. You see this when you read the Gospels. They tell the same stories, but not always in the same order.

and that he leads the council to its decision. Also my reading of the events at Antioch is that Paul’s issue with Peter is that Peter isn’t standing up for his own teaching and practice and seems to be giving in to peer pressure.

Peter was obviously conflicted on this point. On the one hand, he had the Jewish Christians who were Orthodox Jews, as orthodox as a Jewish Christian can be. He had the Gentile Christians. There is also the possibility that Peter may have been a Pharisee. They good ones, were very careful about observances, without bullying the people.

However, Paul is not telling Peter how to run the Church. We have to remember that in those days, each Apostle ran his own Church. That’s how we end up with the sui iuris Churches. They were in communion with Peter, but each one was also the head of his Church. Paul could have easily just blown Peter off.

There is a fraternal connection between them. Paul is do two things at the same time. He is correcting Peter, but he is doing it through persuasion. He would have backed down if the communion had been in danger.

It is clear that none of the Apostles ever question Peter’s teaching once his decision is made.

This is how we know that Paul would have backed down, if Peter had not done so. In the end, Peter was not asking them to sin.

Is anyone else using that argument? Well that is awesome because it’s something that popped into my head while I was reading.

The SSPX recognizes the authority of the Holy Father, do they not? SSPXers can chime in.

I didn’t mean Peter. I meant Paul recognized his own authority. He used it. He came down hard on his Churches and at other times, he was as gentle as a kitten.

I wonder what Paul would have done if suddenly he were told he must stop baptizing people because converts couldn’t understand why they must get all wet?

That would have made for interesting reading.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[At_Trent]

Also many Traditionalists do not whince or bat an eyelash when Franciscans complain that novelties were introduced into our way of life such as Gregorian Chant, clericalism, scholas, communion rails.

Aw yes, those pesky latinizations

 

[JReducation]

Aw yes, those pesky latinizations

Hey, ask Carthusians, Dominicans, Franciscans, Benedictines, Cistercians and Carmelites how pesky they can be. :yup:

The problem, if it can be called a problem, is that most clerics are secular. They dominate the scene. Most people are only exposed to that particular way of doing things. When they (clerics or lay) run into these other traditions, they either try to change them by Romanizing them or they become very confused. I deliberately use the word “Romanizing” because these are all Latin traditions, just not Roman traditions. It was one of several reasons that pushed the Council of Trent to create the Right of Exemption.

I was just reading on another post where the poster was visiting Cistercians. Everyone was Brother This and Brother That. The poster explains how he was thrown off when a brother vested to celebrate mass. When the poster asked about it, they told him, “We don’t come here to be priests. We came here to be brothers.” They deliberately blur the lines between the ordained and the non ordained brothers. The poster was sharing how difficult it was for him to wrap his head around this idea.

This is just one of many simple situations that come up where the typical Catholic, without meaning any harm, tries to transfer his or her Roman custom onto another group that has a tradition that is as old and sometimes older than the current Roman tradition. This little Cistercian tradition, which is common to several other schools, is almot 1,000 years old. To many, avoiding physical separation between the priest at the altar and those in attendance at mass is a novelty, while to others, the physical separation is the novelty. Albeit, the latter group is a minority, but no less real.

We really have to understand that diversity in the Latin Church is not new. It’s more obvious today, because we have better means of communication and more access to it. Personally, I believe it is helpful when one learns these customs. In my own life, I have found that I can look at something that seems strange to me, then I find out that the Augustinians (for example) have been doing this for 1200 years. Then I just go, “Oh, OK.”:newidea: It’s not what I would do,but it’s what they have done since the day after creation, so it must be OK.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[giuseppeTO]

Y’all are proving Brother JR’s point though. Two posts after his people keep on talking about disobedience, when the actual issue is they directly went against the papacy.

I wonder how much of this is because people agree with them, and try to couch things in a certain way to validate their thoughts. Because if a more “liberal” group did something like this (flagrantly disregard the Pope), there’d be calls for excommunications and they’d all be called heretics.

Imagine if St. James told St. Peter “I know you’re the Rock, but Jerusalem is my territory so I’m going to run this council, not you, regardless of what you say” in Acts. Or any of the Apostles tell Jesus “I don’t like what you’re doing. Can I do this?”, Jesus saying no, and the fellow did it anyway.

How different is this from the many bishops who refuse the Holy Father’s call to liberally allow the EF? Or the Councils of Bishops who refuse to implement the Pope’s changes/corrections to the vernacular of the OF using the excuse that what the Pope requests would harm unity?

 

[giuseppeTO]

Now if we can only get the FSSPX to say nice things about St. Francis…

I love St Francis and I assist at an SSPX chapel. In fact, my patron saint is one of the great Franciscans, St. Anthony.

And I also love Bro JR, by the way, especially when he doesn’t agree with me…

 

[JReducation]

Now if we can only get the FSSPX to say nice things about St. Francis…

I love St Francis and I assist at an SSPX chapel. In fact, my patron saint is one of the great Franciscans, St. Anthony.

And I also love Bro JR, by the way, especially when he doesn’t agree with me…

Hey, leave me out of this.

To say that the SSPX does not like St. Francis or Franciscans would probably be a gross generalization. However, there is an SSPX chapel/church; it’s a big building . . . in our area. The lay people are not very nice to us. They’re not mean. They’re just not nice.

I went to a funeral there, just a few weeks ago. It was a scorcher. The temp was about 98o and felt like 105. Normally, I wear a habit. That day was hot. I put on grey slacks and a grey clerical shirt. I put the white tab into my shirt pocket. I had to walk. I have congestive heart disease, am diabetic and have leukemia. Needless to say, I don’t tolerate heat well. When I arrived, I was in a panic, because I knew I was late. So . . . I completely forgot the I was wearing clericals and forgot the white tab in my shirt pocket. The man at the door said, “Excuse me Father, are you going inside without your collar?”

I looked at him and said, “I’m Brother and thank you for reminding me.”

Here comes the funny part. He tops it off with, “Oh, just a brother.”

You can’t do that to me at funerals. I have the worse problem trying to control laughter during the most solemn occasions. I thought that was so funny “Oh, just a brother” that I started to laugh. Of course, I suddenly developed a “cough”. Observe quotation marks.

Another time I was waiting for a bus, I was carrying my habit over my shoulders. The woman on the bench asked me if that was a priest’s robe. I told her that it was a habit and that it was so hot, that I was carrying it so as not to get it sweaty. She looked at me said, “Father always wears his cassock.” I asked her for Father’s name. It was the young priest at the SSPX chapel. Little did she know that he and I know each other and are friendly. We’ve stopped for ice cream and conversation at least three or four times. He always pays. They get paid, we don’t.

So far, in my neck of the woods, the score is:

Father SSPX: 10 pts
Lay SSPX: 0 pts

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[giuseppeTO]

Hey, leave me out of this.

To say that the SSPX does not like St. Francis or Franciscans would probably be a gross generalization. However, there is an SSPX chapel/church; it’s a big building . . . in our area. The lay people are not very nice to us. They’re not mean. They’re just not nice.

I went to a funeral there, just a few weeks ago. It was a scorcher. The temp was about 98o and felt like 105. Normally, I wear a habit. That day was hot. I put on grey slacks and a grey clerical shirt. I put the white tab into my shirt pocket. I had to walk. I have congestive heart disease, am diabetic and have leukemia. Needless to say, I don’t tolerate heat well. When I arrived, I was in a panic, because I knew I was late. So . . . I completely forgot the I was wearing clericals and forgot the white tab in my shirt pocket. The man at the door said, “Excuse me Father, are you going inside without your collar?”

I looked at him and said, “I’m Brother and thank you for reminding me.”

Here comes the funny part. He tops it off with, “Oh, just a brother.”

You can’t do that to me at funerals. I have the worse problem trying to control laughter during the most solemn occasions. I thought that was so funny “Oh, just a brother” that I started to laugh. Of course, I suddenly developed a “cough”. Observe quotation marks.

Another time I was waiting for a bus, I was carrying my habit over my shoulders. The woman on the bench asked me if that was a priest’s robe. I told her that it was a habit and that it was so hot, that I was carrying it so as not to get it sweaty. She looked at me said, “Father always wears his cassock.” I asked her for Father’s name. It was the young priest at the SSPX chapel. Little did she know that he and I know each other and are friendly. We’ve stopped for ice cream and conversation at least three or four times. He always pays. They get paid, we don’t.

So far, in my neck of the woods, the score is:

Father SSPX: 10 pts
Lay SSPX: 0 pts

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Most SSPX chapels are keen on preparing the laity for the results of a sinful life and chapels are typically over 100 degrees for most Masses (except of course in the winter). The choir gets the worse part … easily 115 upstairs, and the priests and altar servers do not fare much better. My son was the sub-deacon at a Mass in Philly last month so I had a chance to make my first visit to St. Jude’s. Imagine my surprise to find it air conditioned. I assumed I had inadvertently walked into a Protestant Church.

Not sure it is uniquely an SSPX thing, but you might expect a sign in the vestibule saying “Laity: No room for tact in this church”. However, Brother, you could help us lay folks out by perhaps publishing the equivalent of a “Layman’s Guide to Identifying the Religious Orders” that would contain all Religious Orders, how to identify them by their clothing, and how to address them, etc. A very ambitious work would be to include all orders of nuns also - but that might be difficult as a priest once told me that the number of orders of nuns is one thing that Holy Ghost does not know.

By the way, we have a monastery of Franciscans Immaculate just down the road that offers the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in the EF. I have it on my “todo” list to assist there some Sunday this summer.

God Bless
GTO

 

[JReducation]

Most SSPX chapels are keen on preparing the laity for the results of a sinful life and chapels are typically over 100 degrees for most Masses (except of course in the winter). The choir gets the worse part … easily 115 upstairs, and the priests and altar servers do not fare much better. My son was the sub-deacon at a Mass in Philly last month so I had a chance to make my first visit to St. Jude’s. Imagine my surprise to find it air conditioned. I assumed I had inadvertently walked into a Protestant Church.

That may be fine for them. But if I have a choice of a long habit and a cotton shirt and collar on a very hot day, I’m wearing the shirt and collar. I should add, this particular church/chapel has AC. It’s very comfortable. It’s a very new building, my guess about 15 yrs.

Not sure it is uniquely an SSPX thing, but you might expect a sign in the vestibule saying “Laity: No room for tact in this church”.

There is always room for good manners. Saying to someone “Oh, just a brother.” is very rude at worse and ignorant at best. That’s why it made me laugh. I figured, “This man has no clue what a religious brother is.” I want to think that he did not mean for me to hear him. I want to think that he probably thinks that brothers are seminarians or houseboys. He was probably wondering why a brother would even wear a Roman Collar.

However, Brother, you could help us lay folks out by perhaps publishing the equivalent of a “Layman’s Guide to Identifying the Religious Orders” that would contain all Religious Orders, how to identify them by their clothing, and how to address them, etc. A very ambitious work would be to include all orders of nuns also - but that might be difficult as a priest once told me that the number of orders of nuns is one thing that Holy Ghost does not know.

Actually, the number of orders of nuns is very small. I don’t believe that there are more than 10. They number of congregations, societies of apostolic life, and secular institutes of sisters is a mystery even to the Holy Spirit.

As to how to identify religiuos men, that’s going to be tricky. Unless they have a habit, the clerical shirt is the same for every religious male, secular priest, seminarian, Orthodox, Oriental Catholic, and many Protestants.

Most religious men belong to congregations. Very few congregations of men ever had a habit. The orders of men have always had a habit, but not the congregations, only some have had habits. Most were told to dress according to the custom fo the place and time. That’s why you will see that many male religius wear Roman Collars. That’s the current custom. Once upon a time, they wore cassocks, because that was the custom for secular clergy. Even though they were consecrated religious, since they did not have a habit, they wore what the secular clergy wore.

By the way, we have a monastery of Franciscans Immaculate just down the road that offers the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in the EF. I have it on my “todo” list to assist there some Sunday this summer.

Is it a moanstery or a friary? Franciscans usually live in friaries. There is a canonical difference. We don’t have monasteries or priories. I know of one group that lives in a monastery, because it was originally built for monks. The monks moved out and the friars moved in. The name was never changed. It remained St. Mary’s Monastery.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[giuseppeTO]

Is it a moanstery or a friary? Franciscans usually live in friaries. There is a canonical difference. We don’t have monasteries or priories. I know of one group that lives in a monastery, because it was originally built for monks. The monks moved out and the friars moved in. The name was never changed. It remained St. Mary’s Monastery.

You are right … Marian Friary of “Our Lady, Spouse of the Holy Spirit”.

 

[JReducation]

You are right … Marian Friary of “Our Lady, Spouse of the Holy Spirit”.

Ahhhhhh, big difference. St. Francis did not want his brothers to live in monasteries. If they lived in monasteries, they would have to own them. Monasteries are sui iuris houses. The monks are literally corporate owners of the property and the business, since they usually have some kind of enterprise to sustain them.

His other reaction against monasteries was that the liturgical life of monasteries was too structured. It had many rules and rubrics. He wanted his brothers to have the minimum ritual and more spontaneity in their life of prayer. That’s why he took out prime from the LOTH, took out Gregorian chant from the LOTH and the mass, but allowed sacred music that was easy for the common man to follow. He also took out the scholas. At our liturgies, the singing can be led by men or women. It has always been that way. Even at the FI friaries, where they celebrate the EF, the sisters will often lead the singing. They’re not allowed to have a male schola. That’s a monastic custom that that was later adopted by many cathedrals.

He also did not want the government of the monastery. Monasteries are governed by Abbots who are elected for life. Francis was a real democrat. Superiors were elected for a three-year term and could be re-elected for another three years and they were out of office and back to the ranks.

The monks were also locked into a house. Even when they left the house to go on some special mission, they remain part of that house. It’s part of the vow of stability. Francis felt that this would offer his brothers a sense of security that the poor do not have. For that reason, we Franciscans are never attached to any house. We are part of an obedience, which means that we have a Minister General who governed over several hundred or several thousand Franciscans. We can be anywhere. This is very good when we are asked to take on a parish that may be very poor. We go in and operate it until it becomes middle class and then we leave. It’s not our house. It belongs to the local bishop. We give it back to him. There is no attachment to places or things.

A friary also has another benefit. The superior can suppress it at his discretion without getting permission from the bishop, but the bishop may never suppress a friary. Monasteries need a bishop’s permission to go up and his permission to go down. Friaries need the bishop’s permission to go up. Once up, the bishop may not suppress it. This was an agreement between the mendicants and the Holy See, ratified by the Council of Trent.

The most important part of the friary is the freedom to be a “monk” without roots. You can be like the Apostles who were itinerant.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[thetater25]

Woo-Hoo! Ordinations are always a cause for celebration.

Silly question: Their ordinations are considered valid right?

Yes they are. Hoc est enum Corpus Deum

 

[thetater25]

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

I am a SSPX member because there you will find tradition.The Mass approved by St. Pius X. Most people say they go to the traditional Mass just because it’s in Latin when in reality it’s the Novis Ordo (New Order, New World order) mass in Latin. I wonder what St. Ignatius was thinking when he went against the Pope to defend Tradition in his day?

 

[mrsed]

I have read a number of the posts and I am no more clear on what/who is right and/or who is wrong than when I came to this forum … looking for an answer.

What brought me ‘searching’ was the receipt of an unsolicited copy of Catholic Family News edited by John Vennari. There is no mention of ecclesiastical approbation. I felt very uneasy just paging through it and while it does not specifically mention the St. Pius X Society, the back page is a full page ‘advertisement’ and solicitation for the proposed seminary in Virginia.

Is anyone familiar with this publication?

Perhaps I am mistaken but it seems that one is either in(with) the Church and Rome or out of it. So my question is still: where does the Society see itself? Or more accurately, where does Rome see it?**

 

[JReducation]

I have read a number of the posts and I am no more clear on what/who is right and/or who is wrong than when I came to this forum … looking for an answer.

What brought me ‘searching’ was the receipt of an unsolicited copy of Catholic Family News edited by John Vennari. There is no mention of ecclesiastical approbation. I felt very uneasy just paging through it and while it does not specifically mention the St. Pius X Society, the back page is a full page ‘advertisement’ and solicitation for the proposed seminary in Virginia.

Is anyone familiar with this publication?

Perhaps I am mistaken but it seems that one is either in(with) the Church and Rome or out of it. So my question is still: where does the Society see itself? Or more accurately, where does Rome see it?**

As far as the Catholic Church is conerned, there has been no reconciliation between the Church and Rome and there has been no rehabilitation of the four bishops; therefore, they may not exercise any office in the Catholic Church. This includes the formation and ordination of priests. For more details, go to the thread on this forum, “Light of the Word” and read what Pope Benedict has to say regarding the SSPX. Helping them build a seminary is a tough situation for Catholics, because you would like to see the seminary go through. But you cannot support the illegal ordinations of those seminarians.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[mrsed]

Thank you, Brother, for your straight answer. It was what I needed!

 

[system]

Actually, The Holy Father lifted the excommunications of the four Bishops recently. I have also found out that Bishop Fellay, who is currently in charge of the SSPX, can actually hold Mass in Rome if he wanted to; all he has to do is show his paperwork declaring that he is a Bishop. Now, if the Society’s Masses are to be avoided, then why would one of their Bishops be allowed to hold Mass in Rome? I suggest going onto the Society’s website and reading about their history, then just listening to some media sound bites.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Actually, The Holy Father lifted the excommunications of the four Bishops recently. I have also found out that Bishop Fellay, who is currently in charge of the SSPX, can actually hold Mass in Rome if he wanted to; all he has to do is show his paperwork declaring that he is a Bishop. Now, if the Society’s Masses are to be avoided, then why would one of their Bishops be allowed to hold Mass in Rome? I suggest going onto the Society’s website and reading about their history, then just listening to some media sound bites.

I suggest going with the Church, who has already declared the ordinations Illegitimate and the bishops and priests without a ministry in the Church. Website vs. Holy Mother Church? Hmmmm…

 

[JReducation]

Actually, The Holy Father lifted the excommunications of the four Bishops recently. I have also found out that Bishop Fellay, who is currently in charge of the SSPX, can actually hold Mass in Rome if he wanted to; all he has to do is show his paperwork declaring that he is a Bishop. Now, if the Society’s Masses are to be avoided, then why would one of their Bishops be allowed to hold Mass in Rome? I suggest going onto the Society’s website and reading about their history, then just listening to some media sound bites.

You’re dealing with two different things here.

At the lifting of the excommunication the Holy Father said that the priests (including bishops) of the SSPX hold no canonical place in the Church and they remain suspended. This means that Bishop Fellay and the others cannot function as bishops. They are not allowed to ordain, hear confessions, confirm, baptize, withness marriages, run a diocese, serve as auxilary bishops or hold any other office that would normally be held by a deacon, priest or bishop.

As to celebrating mass, that’s a whole other canon. A suspeneded priest may celebrate mass, but not in a public forum. In fact, canon law says that no priest may be denied the privilege of celebrating mass, except by his religious superior. Bishop Fellay and the clergy of the SSPX are not religious. They don’t have a superior who can order them not to celebrate mass.

The canon says that as long as the priest can prove that he is validly ordained and as long as he has not been laicized or dismissed, he must be allowed to celebrate mass in any public church around the world. He can only be denied in a chapel or church that belongs to a religious community, because the religious superior is the highest authority there.

St. Peter’s is a public church and Bishop Fellay is not celebrating at a public function. Even if he has a few people with him on a pilgrimage, let’s say, it’s not a public fuction.

There are two different laws. One governs faculties and the other governs the privilege to say mass. Unless he is dimissed from the clerical state, he does not forfeit the latter. Any other ministry that requires canonical permission, he is not allow to exercise. If he does so, it is illegal.

The reason for discouraging attendance at SSPX chapels is the fear of contamination. There is a concern at the Vatican that many SSPX priests are biligerent toward Rome and pass this attitude to the faithful. It is also the Vatican’s concern that the regular attendance at an SSPX chapel can signal a support to the Society. The onlly legitimate reason to attend a mass at at SSPX chapel is because there is no other Extraordinary Form mass in your area. If you have an EF mass in your area and you attend mass at an SSPX chapel, there is no justification for it, unless you’re making a statement that you support more than the Extraordinary Form, but you also support their other positions.

Is that clearer?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF