What does "canonically irregular" mean?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Thomasbradley312
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

Thomasbradley312

Guest
In real definition, the group known as the Society of Saint Pius X are classified as canonically irregular. Of course, traditional groups such as the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter and the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priests are completely regular and in good standing with the Holy See. Others such as the Society of Saint Pius V and Congregation of Mary Immaculate Queen are schismatic and many times don’t even acknowledge the Pope.
My question is where is this middle line of irregularity and what does it mean? I always thought it was a case of either you are in the Church or you are not. Doesn’t this classification make it somewhat confusing?
 
Last edited:
I am frequently confused by canonically irregular. I’ve given up trying to define it. The Bishop in my diocese recommends not attending the SSPX but is also very supportive of the Latin Mass. On most Holy Days of Obligation there is a Latin Mass held in the Cathedral, there is also an FSSP parish, and a couple other parishes offer the Latin Mass.
 
Canonically Irregular means that they are in situation that doesn’t fit according to Canon law, but they are recognized as not being schismatic.

One perfect example is that the SSPX is operating chapels without the permission of the local Bishops.

The SSPX was created as a new Society of Apostolic Life, but basically operated similarly to a Personal Prelature and arguably changed their operation more like a Personal Ordinariate without permission.

Also, what is unique to them is that they can’t simply start following Canon Law without practically destroying their fraternity. So the only way they can start following Canon Law is for the Pope to revised the Code of Canon Law to being them into compliance.
 
Last edited:
I’m simply means not in full communion. For the SSPX, it means they reject and have questions about some the Church’s teaching. As long as they reject those teachings, they will remain in an irregular status.

Pope Benedict XVI said it well:
In the same spirit and with the same commitment to encouraging the resolution of all fractures and divisions in the Church and to healing a wound in the ecclesial fabric that was more and more painfully felt, I wished to remit the excommunication of the four Bishops illicitly ordained by Archbishop Lefebvre. With this decision I intended to remove an impediment that might have jeopardized the opening of a door to dialogue and thereby to invite the Bishops and the “Society of St. Pius X” to rediscover the path to full communion with the Church. As I explained in my Letter to the Catholic Bishops of last 10 March, the remission of the excommunication was a measure taken in the context of ecclesiastical discipline to free the individuals from the burden of conscience constituted by the most serious of ecclesiastical penalties. However, the doctrinal questions obviously remain and until they are clarified the Society has no canonical status in the Church and its ministers cannot legitimately exercise any ministry. (emphasis added)
Click to expand...
 
phil19034 said:
Also, what is unique to them is that they can’t simply start following Canon Law without practically destroying their fraternity. So the only way they can start following Canon Law is for the Pope to revised the Code of Canon Law to being them into compliance.
Click to expand...
What was there situation before the excommunications in 1988? Were they in a regular situation? I don’t know much but I know they were around since the early 70s. What was that period for them like? It seems it was tense but at the same time they were still regular or am I mistaken?
 
Thomasbradley312 said:
What was there situation before the excommunications in 1988? Were they in a regular situation? I don’t know much but I know they were around since the early 70s. What was that period for them like? It seems it was tense but at the same time they were still regular or am I mistaken?
Click to expand...
I don’t know if they were truly regular or not.

I don’t know how many (if any) of their chapels / apostolates were started in dioceses with permission from the local bishop vs. how many started without permission from the local bishop.

They were founded as a Pius Union (which was the first step in becoming a Society of Apostolic Life.) But they arguably began running like a Personal Prelature and/or a Personal Ordinariate by setting up their own chapels - independent of the local diocese. And they were never granted the next step in the process by a local bishop.

EDIT: After researching this a little, they became irregular pretty quickly (I think by 1975). Before their status could be upgraded from Pius Union to Diocesan Level approval, the Bishop of the sponsoring diocese pulled his support and no other Bishops backed them. However, they already had seminaries, etc as they grew rapidly during their first 5 years. So their status became irregular pretty quickly.
 
Last edited:
Fauken said:
Lay people can join Opus Dei. Lay people cannot join the SSPX.
Click to expand...
Just as a clarification - the SSPX does have a third order according to their international website.

But yes, in general people who attend their masses are not part of the SSPX just like people who attend mass with Dominicans or FSSP are not members of those orders either (again unless third order Dominicans)
 
Thomasbradley312 said:
What is that like an Opus Dei kind of thing?
Click to expand...
I didn’t mean to imply it was like SSPX isn’t like Opus Dei, because it’s not.

The SSPX was intended to be like the Vincentians, the Paulist Fathers (C.S.P), the Maryknoll Fathers & Brothers, and the Oratory of Saint Philip Neri (Oratorians)
 
Regula is latin for “rule.” Canonically irregular means that they do not conform to the canonical regulations, or rules. It is not exactly clear what this means, because it is not covered by the canonical rules. The canons describe situations a, b, c are allowed, situations d, e, f are disallowed. Situation h is irregular because it is not covered by the canons.

The problem now is actually fairly simple imo. A profession of faith is required of anyone holding an office in the Church. This profession includes the Creed and atatements accepting definitive teachings, and “Moreover I adhere with submission of will and intellect to the teachings which either the Roman Pontiff or the College of Bishops enunciate when they exercise their authentic Magisterium…” SSPX members have difficulties with this, which every priest professes.

This is pretty basic. It could be changed, but it is hard for me to see why it would be justified.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top