Vatican Reminder: Sspx Ordinations Are Illegitimate

[Aloysius]

please, let's not create a debate about the validity of the new rite of ordination. the SSPX generally accepts the validity of novus ordo sacraments (admitting for some doubts that there may be some widespread defects in intention), so let's not debate that here.

the FSSP does not have bishops and remains relatively marginalized by hostile bishops; there are many places where the SSPX is present where there is little or no presence of the traditional latin mass within diocesan structures due to continued hostility that is intentionally blocking Pope Benedict XVI's express wishes. moreover, the issues of apparent doctrinal rupture raised by the SSPX are issues that need to be resolved and clarified by the Magisterium of the Church.

there are four Catholic bishops, 510 Catholic priests, 117 Catholic brothers, 164 Catholic sisters, and 200 Catholic seminarians involved in the priestly society of St. Pius X. I think the answer should be obvious as to "why we should have anything to do with them".

Benedict XVI has an answer: [size=4]"[font=Times New Roman]It is a matter of coming to an interior reconciliation in the heart of the Church. Looking back over the past, to the divisions which in the course of the centuries have rent the Body of Christ, one continually has the impression that, at critical moments when divisions were coming about, not enough was done by the Church’s leaders to maintain or regain reconciliation and unity. One has the impression that omissions on the part of the Church have had their share of blame for the fact that these divisions were able to harden. This glance at the past imposes an obligation on us today: to make every effort to enable for all those who truly desire unity to remain in that unity or to attain it anew."[/font][/size]

you act like having one group with a charism for the traditional mass is "good enough". should we stop bothering with the Eastern Orthodox? I mean, we already have the Eastern Catholic Churches offering all the good stuff the Eastern Churches offer without that disunity with the Roman See of Peter, so we're good, right? no need to bother trying to work things out with the Eastern Orthodox?

[bernard]

Funny that on traditional forums the members/administration are more than willing to debate with people who think the sacraments are valid. I've never heard of anyone getting banned for suggesting the pope or the sacraments are legit or certain topics being "outside the scope of the forum." But topics like this are banned on virtually every mainline Catholic forum, while at the same time they invite open debate with protestants etc. That says a lot right there.

The fellow asked a question why one might want to go to an SSPX chapel. Though they nominally accept the new mass and ordinations and largely because they believe that they have to wait for a future pope to condemn them. That's what one of their senior priests told me.

So if you are 100% sure the new ordinations are valid then there is no reason why you should go to the SSPX if you have the option. Except that a few years ago the local bishop up in alberta forced the FSSP to administer communion in the hand. This is not something that would happen in the SSPX.

Edited September 6, 2011 by bernard

[Aloysius]

I am not here to defend or argue against the rules of this phorum. I have been involved in clashes regarding these rules in which I have argued for greater freedom to discuss these issues. But as it stands, that's not the scope of this website. moreover, my point in my last post was simply that I did not want to discuss that issue, especially not in this topic.

if they are waiting for some future pope to make a declaration against the validity of those sacraments, well good for them, so long as they admit that they are not competent to make that judgment. and nor are you competent to make such a judgment, if you personally believe the Novus Ordo sacraments are invalid, you should follow the same line as said "senior SSPX priest".

I don't think invalidity of the novus ordo is the sole or only reason that people support the SSPX.

[bernard]

I don't really see how you can have a discussion about the SSPX without getting into the validity of the new mass, Pius V's Bull Quo Primum, etc.

I don't really see how you can have a discussion about the SSPX without getting into the validity of the new mass, Pius V's Bull Quo Primum, etc.

[Aloysius]

easy, the SSPX does it just fine by not claiming authority to judge the validity of those sacraments, as you yourself said a "senior SSPX priest" told you. validity and licity are two separate issues. neither one is really to be discussed in detail here, go elsewhere for that discussion. don't like that? get over it, this website is a paid internet publication that permits many varieties of opinions to be published on it, but it does not permit the publication of the idea that the current sacraments are invalid. if that's your reason for supporting the SSPX, well fine then, good luck to you and I hope you find your way, but that is certainly not an essential reason to be pro SSPX, as many people support the SSPX who do not find the NO sacraments to be invalid. I do not support the SSPX myself, but the fact is that there are some who support the SSPX who hold the NO to still be a valid mass, while there are others who support the SSPX (like yourself) who do not hold the NO to be a valid mass. whatever their reason for supporting the SSPX, the SSPX leadership has not declared the NO sacraments to be valid (though in some statements they hold them to be questionable, mostly on the basis of a possible defect of intention; they believe many of the forms of the sacraments no longer lend themselves to a presumption of proper intention to confect the sacraments.)

and of course, in the age after Summorum Pontificum, there is no violation of Quo Primum. Benedict XVI made clear that the mass was never lawfully abrogated, case closed. those who effectively abrogated/banned it were incorrect to do so according to Summorum Pontificum.

[Aloysius]

if you want more free discussion of that subject in which you would engage some SSPX supporters who believe the Novus Ordo to be valid but "deficient" in some way, I suggest you translate the phrase "under Thy protection" into Latin, Google it, and go to the third result.

[Papist]

The SSPXers hold that the Catholic Church is in error, no? If no, their website sure says otherwise. But if yes, why would they want to be inside the Church?

[Aloysius]

didn't we already go through all that?

the SSPX affirm as an article of faith that the Holy Catholic Church cannot be in error. that there are widespread errors throughout the Church, even reaching high levels, well... that is definitely possible.

the SSPX believe themselves to be within the Church. the Vatican treats the SSPX as being within the Church. their criticisms of things being done within the Church do not alter those facts.

[bernard]

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1315309108' post='2301026']
The SSPXers hold that the Catholic Church is in error, no? If no, their website sure says otherwise. But if yes, why would they want to be inside the Church?
[/quote]

This is a problem that other traditional groups have with the SSPX. If the pope is infallible then why are you disobeying him by illicitly ordaining new priests?
If he is in error that means he is not a legit pope and the Church has been hijacked. It seems to me a lot of the priests in the SSPX believe the latter but they are waiting for a future pope to condemn them, Vatican II, the new mass, etc. I don't know if they are right or wrong with this approach.

[dominicansoul]

[Papist]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1315313491' post='2301035']
didn't we already go through all that?

the SSPX affirm as an article of faith that the Holy Catholic Church cannot be in error. that there are widespread errors throughout the Church, even reaching high levels, well... that is definitely possible.

the SSPX believe themselves to be within the Church. the Vatican treats the SSPX as being within the Church. their criticisms of things being done within the Church do not alter those facts.
[/quote]
Yes, of course, the Church will always have its human aspect, which comes with failings. Point is, this so SO confusing. The Vatican treats the SSPX as being within the Church. Ok, I don't dispute that. However, the SSPX website tells me differently.


[quote name='bernard' timestamp='1315313637' post='2301037']

This is a problem that other traditional groups have with the SSPX. If the pope is infallible then why are you disobeying him by illicitly ordaining new priests?
If he is in error that means he is not a legit pope and the Church has been hijacked. It seems to me a lot of the priests in the SSPX believe the latter but they are waiting for a future pope to condemn them, Vatican II, the new mass, etc. I don't know if they are right or wrong with this approach.
[/quote]
That's conjecture. I wouldn't go there. However, I don't think I need to.
Also, I don't think ordaining priests falls under infallibility.

[Aloysius]

where does the SSPX claim not to be in the Church, papist?

bernard, the SSPX's reasons for disobedience, as discussed earlier, are that they believe a state of "emergency" exists within the Church and that thus they are permitted by canon law to act this way. the supreme legislature of the Church says they don't have the authority to declare such an emergency and that they are wrong, but that is their reasoning: legit pope, state of emergency.

papal infallibility is limited. if Benedict XVI is wrong about some things, that doesn't mean he's an illegitimate pope.

[bernard]

From an interview with the founder of the SSPX Abp. Lefebvre
http://www.catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/defense/inview.htm

[b][color="#990099"][size="+0"]Has Pope Paul VI ever said that he did not believe in papal infallibility?[/size][/color][/b][indent]
[size="+0"]No. He never actually said this categorically. But Pope Paul VI is a liberal and he does not believe in the fixity of dogmas. He does not believe that a dogma must remain unchanged forever. He is for some evolution according to the wishes of men. He is for changes that are originated by humanist and modernist sources. And this is why he has so much trouble in fixing a truth forever. In fact, he is loathe to do so personally and he is very ill at ease whenever such cases have arisen. This attitude reflects the spirit of modernism. The pope has never employed his infallibility in the matter of faith and morals to date.[/size][/indent]
[b][color="#990099"][size="+0"]Has the pope stated himself that he was a liberal or modernist?[/size][/color][/b][indent]
[size="+0"]Yes. The pope has manifested this in the council, which is not a Dogmatic council. He has also clearly stated so in his encyclical called [i]Ecclesiam Suam. [/i]He has stated that his encyclicals would not define matters but he wished that they would be accepted as advice and lead to a dialogue. In his Credo, he said that he did not wish to employ his infallibility, which clearly shows where his leanings are.[/size][/indent]
[b][color="#990099"][size="+0"]Do you feel that his evolution toward dialogue is what allows you not to be in disagreement with the pope?[/size][/color][/b][indent]
[size="+0"]Yes. From the liberal standpoint they should allow this dialogue. When the pope does not use his infallibility on the subject of faith and morals, one is very much freer to discuss his words and his acts. From my point of view, I am bound to oppose what has taken place because it subverts the infallible teachings of the popes over 2,000 years. I am, however, not in favor of such dialogues because one cannot seriously dialogue about the truth of the Catholic faith. So really this is an inverted dialogue, which is forced upon me.[/size][/indent]
[b][color="#990099"][size="+0"]What would happen if the pope suddenly utilized his infallibility to order you to obey him? What would you do?[/size][/color][/b][indent]
[size="+0"]In the measure where the pope would employ his infallibility as the successor of St. Peter in a solemn manner, I believe that the Holy Ghost would not allow the pope to be in error at this very moment. Of course, I would heed the pope then.[/size][/indent]
[b][color="#990099"][size="+0"]But if the pope invoked his infallibility to back the changes you so strongly object to now, what would your attitude be then?[/size][/color][/b][indent]
[size="+0"]The question does not even arise, because, fortunately, the Holy Ghost is always there and the Holy Ghost would make sure that the pope would not use his infallibility for something that would be contrary to the doctrine of the Catholic Church. It is for this very reason that the pope does not employ his infallibility because the Holy Ghost would not allow such changes to take place under the [i]imprimatur [/i]of infallibility.[/size][/indent]
[b][color="#990099"][size="+0"]But if this should come to pass?[/size][/color][/b][indent]
[size="+0"]It is inconceivable, but if it did, the church would cease to exist. That would mean there would be no God, because God would be contradicting Himself, which is impossible.[/size][/indent]
[b][color="#990099"][size="+0"]But isn't the fact that Pope Paul VI occupies the seat of St. Peter enough for you to heed whatever the pontiff as the vicar of Christ on earth asks you to do, just as other Catholics do?[/size][/color][/b][indent]
[size="+0"]Unfortunately, this is an error. It is a misconception of papal infallibility because since the Council of Vatican I, when the dogma of infallibility was proclaimed, the pope was already infallible. This was not a sudden invention. Infallibility was then far better understood than it is now because it was well known then that the pope was not infallible on everything under the sun.[/size]
[size="+0"]He was only infallible in very specific matters of faith and morals. At that time, many enemies of the church did all they could to ridicule this dogma and propagate misconceptions. For example, the enemies of the church often said to the unknowing and naive that if the pope said a dog was a cat, it was the duty of Catholics blindly to accept this position without any question.[/size]
[size="+0"]Of course this was an absurd interpretation and the Catholics knew that. This time the same enemies of the church, now that it serves their purpose, are working very hard to have whatever the pope says accepted, without question, as infallible, almost as if his words were uttered by our Lord Jesus Christ himself.[/size]
[size="+0"]This impression, although widely promoted, is nevertheless utterly false.[/size]
[size="+0"]Infallibility is extremely limited, only bearing on very specific cases which Vatican I has very well defined and detailed. It is not possible to say that whenever the pope speaks he is infallible. The fact is that the pope is a liberal, that all this liberal trend has taken place at the Council of Vatican II, and created a direction for the destruction of the church - a destruction which one expects to happen any day.[/size]
[size="+0"]After all of these liberal ideas have been infiltrated into the seminaries, the catechisms and all the manifestations of the church, I am now being asked to align myself with these liberal ideas. Because I have not aligned myself with these liberal ideas that would destroy the church, there are attempts to suppress my seminaries. And it is for this reason that I am asked to stop ordaining priests.[/size]
[size="+0"]Enormous pressure is being exerted on me to align myself and to accept this orientation of destruction of the church, a path which I cannot follow. I do not accept to be in contradiction with what the popes have asserted for 20 centuries. Both myself and those who support me obey all the popes who have preceded us, or we obey the present pope. If we do (obey the present pope, i.e. Paul VI), we then disobey all the popes that have preceded us. Finally we end up disobeying the Catholic faith and God.[/size][/indent]
[b][color="#990099"][size="+0"]But as the bishops (of old) obeyed the popes of their days, shouldn't you obey the pope of your day?[/size][/color][/b][indent]
[size="+0"]The bishops do not have to obey the humanist orders that contradict Catholic faith and doctrine as established by Jesus Christ and all the various popes throughout the centuries.[/size]


.....

[b] [color="#990099"][size="+0"]How can you be loyal to the church and disobedient to the pope?[/size][/color][/b]
[indent]
[size="+0"]One must understand the meaning of obedience and must distinguish between blind obedience and the virtue of obedience. Indiscriminate obedience is actually a sin against the virtue of obedience.[/size]
[size="+0"]So if we disobey in order to practice the virtue of obedience rather than submit to unlawful commands contrary to Catholic moral teachings, all one has to do is to consult any Catholic theology books to realize we are not sinning against the virtue of obedience.[/size][/indent][/indent]

[Aloysius]

yes, that's the position I just stated that the SSPX holds.

I think it's about time for this thread to die.

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1315368423' post='2301443']
I think it's about time for this thread to die.
[/quote]
You must be new here.