Jump to content
An Old School Catholic Message Board

Vatican Reminder: Sspx Ordinations Are Illegitimate


Lil Red

Recommended Posts

[quote name='MithLuin' timestamp='1310070792' post='2264098']
The men are ordained, and the ordination 'sticks', as it was bishops with apostolic succession doing the ordaining.

However, these priests do not have any place in the Catholic Church, so they cannot licitly minister as priests. They can't say a mass, hear a confession, or witness a marriage in any diocese. Licitly. [The exception would be deathbed confessions and the like, of course, which any priest may hear regardless of whether or not he has his bishop's permission to act as a priest.]

I do notice that the description of the SSPX seminary mentions 'power' as the key attribute of the priesthood twice. That is not language you usually hear outside of James' Joyce's [i]A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man[/i]. Sure, it's just the website, but it does make me wonder what they think the priesthood is all about.

Should the SSPX become a part of the Catholic Church again (I don't take this as a given, though I do hope they will be reconciled), then I would presume that they would continue to have vocations at a similar level within their community. Their seminary would of course have to be brought into line with current requirements from Rome, so no doubt some revamping would need to be done. (Like teaching what the popes after Pius X had to say!)
[/quote]

Well, if they ever appoint a bishop without approval of the pope then his ordinations won't be valid or licit, since he's not really a bishop and thusly you'd be missing one part of the necessary matter (is that the right word?) needed: a bishop. Right?

Edited by arfink
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Arfink,
One may validly consecrate bishops without Rome's approval but it is not licit, and it is a schismatic act which incurs an excommunication.

S.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Skinzo' timestamp='1314913257' post='2298819']
Arfink,
One may validly consecrate bishops without Rome's approval but it is not licit, and it is a schismatic act which incurs an excommunication.

S.
[/quote]

How does that work? Doesn't the pope have to consecrate them? Who else can? Just any bishop?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Skinzo' timestamp='1314903656' post='2298741']

I did not say I detest them. I do study Fellay and the SSPX, yes, I wish to understand the whole controversy. I don't see why that is a problem.

S.
[/quote]
I didn't say it is a problem. I just find it curious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1314914146' post='2298829']
I didn't say it is a problem. I just find it curious.
[/quote]

In my educational background I was trained to study the entirety of a topic in so far as that was possible so to me it seems natural, part of training to be a scholar. I think it's hard to hold an intelligent opinion on any topic without doing so. And failure to do so may lead to embarrassing moments as when the Congregation of Bishops lifted the excommunication of Bishop Williamson without being aware he was a holocaust denier.

S.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1314908762' post='2298776']
I have not defended the SSPX's actions, but throughout this whole thread I have tried to show that the SSPX's actions are NOT the same as Protestant reformers (going back to my posted analogies about the prodigal son who builds his own house to follow the rules more strictly, or the group that goes back to the entrance to the dark forest where there is light rather than continuing to wander in the darkness looking for the other side). the angry polemic that makes the SSPX out to be "just as bad" as liberal dissident groups or protestant revolutionaries is just plain wrong. they share only one thing in common, disobedience to canonical requirements.

but it remains an INTERNAL matter within the Church, as Pope Benedict insists. they do not wildly run around making up their own doctrines, they submit themselves to magisterial teachings as they were understood prior to the Second Vatican Council. which is not at all like picking and choosing what you like and do not like; and it's not some type of antiquarianism where you oppose the Church because you think you've found some secret in the bowels of the Church's ancient history that you can ressurect to justify contradicting the current magisterium; the SSPX has a direct organic connection to the period prior to the Council, they didn't dig something up, they're doing their best to try to pass on to the next generation what has been passed on to them.

this is a perspective which is absolutely vital, that while we disagree with them, we should have pity and sympathy and understanding. angry polemics about how their disobedience (which is very limited in scope, it is disobedience to certain canonical requirements of jurisdiction and faculties which they have done because they sincerely believe a crisis warrents it) is "just the same" as liberal disobedience (which is broad in scope to the point of rejecting dogmas that truly anathematize them) is unhelpful and unnecessary.
[/quote]
They sure seem like protesters to me.

If SSPX is the prodigal son, then please can they humbly come back to their father begging forgiveness. He is waiting with open arms. I believe the Church would benefit with them in FULL communion with Her.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Mr.Cat' timestamp='1314886755' post='2298615']
I thought Catholics are supposed to faithfully follow the Pope? Wasn't that a derogatory term used by protestants? Calling Catholics "Papists"? I guess that insult doesn't work anymore?
[/quote]
Don't listen to much rap music, eh?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

dells_of_bittersweet

[quote name='arfink' timestamp='1314913488' post='2298821']

How does that work? Doesn't the pope have to consecrate them? Who else can? Just any bishop?
[/quote]


The matter and form of the sacrament of ordination involves the laying on of hands of a bishop. Only a bishop can ordain a deacon, only a bishop can ordain a priest, and only a bishop can ordain another bishop.

Deacon, priest, and bishop are the three degrees of holy orders. A bishop has the fullness of holy orders and no higher order can be given. The Pope has no greater sacramental powers than any other bishop. The difference is his authority, not his powers.

Very few bishops are ordained by the Pope himself. Any time a bishop ordains another bishop it requires the permission of the Pope. SSPX directly disobeyed the Pope when Leferve (sp?) ordained new bishops, hence the problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

sigh... if you can't see a huge difference between the SSPX's position and the positions of protestant innovators, I can't help you I suppose.

you have cited a single thing that you can point to as being a "wildly invented doctrine", and it's not even a doctrine. they don't hold to some doctrine that tradition should be frozen in 1962; the analogy of getting lost in a forest and going back to where one entered the forest that I used is derived from an analogy they themselves have used. they have some distorted theology that's doctrinally problematic, but they're not going around wildly inventing doctrines; they are not innovating, trying to propose something novel. they're trying to maintain something traditional and pass it on. they do things wrong, they have some things wrong, but for goodness sakes they are nowhere NEAR the same ballpark as a womens' ordination movement, they're nowhere NEAR the same ballpark as Martin Luther or Henry VIII.

in my prodigal son analogy (which was not the biblical parable, I altered it significantly to describe the SSPX's position), I did my best to explain the problems of why they are not returning. and I made clear that I think they should return.

people seem to be arguing against SSPX support, rather than arguing against my nuanced position on the subject. "no you shouldn't take that nuanced position because the SSPX are wrong on this"... and my response is, "well, actually, my nuanced position freely admits that they are wrong on that, that's the whole point of my position: that they're wrong."

not all acts of disobedience are equal. some are more wrong than others. Martin Luther's was more wrong than the SSPX's. women's ordination movements are more wrong than the SSPX. there are degrees; and the SSPX's degrees keep it a family affair, it's still an internal matter to be settled.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1310208343' post='2264920']
more like a son who, after hearing many jarring things from his parents that made it seem like they would not be giving him the inheritance that was due, demanded his inheritance up front and left the house. though prodigal, instead of squandering it on things his parents would be against, he went off and built another house to as much specifications as the parents' house he had thought he would inherit, and went about running that house and living exactly how his parents had always taught him to live, with the notable exception that he was no longer living with/under his parents.

now we see the parents trying to assure us the proper inheritance is intact (and no right thinking person would argue it was never in danger), and this son torn, still feeling the painful wounds of what it was like when it seemed the inheritance was threatened, and thus the son is torn between the option of keeping up the house he has built away, or risking coming back to the old house where he had felt the threat before.

[b]it may be about swallowing pride and submitting and trusting and being obedient, but it'd be nothing but sanctimonious to sneer at the difficulty with which such things are approached on the SSPX side.[/b]

the inheritance, of course, is the Faith, and the liturgical spirit that embodies it. it was threatened, Summorum Pontificum admits that it was unjust for the traditional liturgy to have ever been supressed. and large numbers of officials within the Church spread nothing but heresy and disobedience FROM WITHIN. It was, in fact, an elder son who stayed living with the parents who was squandering the inheritance. Sure, the one son may have imprudently stormed out of the house, but he built a house in which he tried to follow the parents' wishes more deeply, he didn't squander the inheritance but attempted to preserve it; while certain elder sons within the house squandered the inheritance to the point where much of what passes for Catholicism in some places is nothing but feeding the pigs... except they are not pigs in a faraway land, but pigs that have been invited into the house.

[b]the SSPX prodigal son certainly needs to come home[/b], at which time those certain elder brothers will not be pleased when we slaughter the fattened calf to celebrate, though I know the large majority of the people here will join in the celebration gladly. and the Church will wisely run out to greet him when he does, and we will be all the better because they will come back with the full inheritance intact with them.

anyway,[b] I think it's distasteful the way some sit in the house of the parents of this story smugly looking out the window into the distance to sneer at the SSPX prodigal son out there[/b], we should have more of the attitude of the publican and less of the attitude of the pharisee when we evaluate the actions of the SSPX, in my opinion.
[/quote]
this is the post I was referring to, and it fully expresses the entirety of my view on the subject.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aloysius,
Disobedience is just that, disobedience. For all practical purposes they are holding to a novel doctrine as they reject the living Magisterium of the Church without which there is no Magisterium. Whether or not the SSPX wishes to admit that, is not material. Paul VI's words were never more apt.
"Hence tradition is inseparable from the living magisterium of the church, just as it is inseparable from sacred scripture. "Sacred tradition, sacred scripture and the magisterium of the church . . . are so linked and joined together that one of these realities cannot exist without the others, and that all of them together, each in its own way, effectively contribute under the action of the Holy Spirit to the salvation of souls" (Constitution [i]Dei Verbum[/i], 10)."

S..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

that's a good point, disobedience is disobedience, and it is wrong. but some disobedience is worse than others. there are different levels.

anyway, I just want to repost one of my first posts in this thread because it just sums up my whole sentiment on the subject, and I don't think everyone involved since the thread was necromanced was around for it:

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1310208343' post='2264920']
more like a son who, after hearing many jarring things from his parents that made it seem like they would not be giving him the inheritance that was due, demanded his inheritance up front and left the house. though prodigal, instead of squandering it on things his parents would be against, he went off and built another house to as much specifications as the parents' house he had thought he would inherit, and went about running that house and living exactly how his parents had always taught him to live, with the notable exception that he was no longer living with/under his parents.

now we see the parents trying to assure us the proper inheritance is intact (and no right thinking person would argue it was never in danger), and this son torn, still feeling the painful wounds of what it was like when it seemed the inheritance was threatened, and thus the son is torn between the option of keeping up the house he has built away, or risking coming back to the old house where he had felt the threat before.

[b]it may be about swallowing pride and submitting and trusting and being obedient, but it'd be nothing but sanctimonious to sneer at the difficulty with which such things are approached on the SSPX side.[/b]

the inheritance, of course, is the Faith, and the liturgical spirit that embodies it. it was threatened, Summorum Pontificum admits that it was unjust for the traditional liturgy to have ever been supressed. and large numbers of officials within the Church spread nothing but heresy and disobedience FROM WITHIN. It was, in fact, an elder son who stayed living with the parents who was squandering the inheritance. Sure, the one son may have imprudently stormed out of the house, but he built a house in which he tried to follow the parents' wishes more deeply, he didn't squander the inheritance but attempted to preserve it; while certain elder sons within the house squandered the inheritance to the point where much of what passes for Catholicism in some places is nothing but feeding the pigs... except they are not pigs in a faraway land, but pigs that have been invited into the house.

[b]the SSPX prodigal son certainly needs to come home[/b], at which time those certain elder brothers will not be pleased when we slaughter the fattened calf to celebrate, though I know the large majority of the people here will join in the celebration gladly. and the Church will wisely run out to greet him when he does, and we will be all the better because they will come back with the full inheritance intact with them.

anyway,[b] I think it's distasteful the way some sit in the house of the parents of this story smugly looking out the window into the distance to sneer at the SSPX prodigal son out there[/b], we should have more of the attitude of the publican and less of the attitude of the pharisee when we evaluate the actions of the SSPX, in my opinion.
[/quote]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1314947504' post='2299113']
that's a good point, disobedience is disobedience, and it is wrong. but some disobedience is worse than others. there are different levels.

anyway, I just want to repost one of my first posts in this thread because it just sums up my whole sentiment on the subject, and I don't think everyone involved since the thread was necromanced was around for it:
[/quote]
How does the Church define disobedience? And where does it say there are different levels of it?
You say of the SSPX " they don't hold to some doctrine that tradition should be frozen in 1962"
And yet those are the words of Benedict XVI in his letter to the bishops on the SSPX:
"The Church's teaching authority cannot be frozen in the year 1962 -- this must be quite clear to the Society."
Was the pope wrong to have such a view of the SSPX ?

[url="http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0930.htm"]http://www.catholice...gion/re0930.htm[/url]

S.

Edited by Skinzo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1314946400' post='2299108']
sigh... if you can't see a huge difference between the SSPX's position and the positions of protestant innovators, I can't help you I suppose.

you have cited a single thing that you can point to as being a "wildly invented doctrine", and it's not even a doctrine. they don't hold to some doctrine that tradition should be frozen in 1962; the analogy of getting lost in a forest and going back to where one entered the forest that I used is derived from an analogy they themselves have used. they have some distorted theology that's doctrinally problematic, but they're not going around wildly inventing doctrines; they are not innovating, trying to propose something novel. they're trying to maintain something traditional and pass it on. they do things wrong, they have some things wrong, but for goodness sakes they are nowhere NEAR the same ballpark as a womens' ordination movement, they're nowhere NEAR the same ballpark as Martin Luther or Henry VIII.

in my prodigal son analogy (which was not the biblical parable, I altered it significantly to describe the SSPX's position), I did my best to explain the problems of why they are not returning. and I made clear that I think they should return.

people seem to be arguing against SSPX support, rather than arguing against my nuanced position on the subject. "no you shouldn't take that nuanced position because the SSPX are wrong on this"... and my response is, "well, actually, my nuanced position freely admits that they are wrong on that, that's the whole point of my position: that they're wrong."

not all acts of disobedience are equal. some are more wrong than others. Martin Luther's was more wrong than the SSPX's. women's ordination movements are more wrong than the SSPX. there are degrees; and the SSPX's degrees keep it a family affair, it's still an internal matter to be settled.
[/quote]
Al,
Yes. You have good points and I agree there are differences. However, when all is said and done, the fact remains that the SSPX are our separated brothers just as the protestants. Whether you reject 1 or 1,000 teachings, you are still separated, not in union with the Church..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...