Rorate Caeli

Lombardi: SSPX priestly ordinations remain "illegitimate"

Reported by Radio Vaticana:

notizia del 05/07/2011 12.04.21
Father Lombardi: the recent priestly ordinations celebrated by the Fraternity of Saint Pius X are illegitimate

The recent priestly ordinations celebrated by the Fraternity of Saint Pius X are to be considered "illegitimate": that is what the director of the Vatican Press Office, Father Federico Lombardi, affirmed, responding to certain questions on the matter. Father Lombardi repeated what was affirmed by the Pope in his Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church of March 10, 2009:

"As long as the Society [of Saint Pius X] does not have a canonical status in the Church - Benedict XVI underlines -, its ministers do not exercise legitimate ministries in the Church (...) until the doctrinal questions are clarified, the Society has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers (...) do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church."

[Tip: Papa Ratzinger blog. Image: ministers who do exercise legitimate ministry in the Church - diaconal ordinations by Archbishop of Toulouse (then Bishop of Mende) Robert Le Gall in the Cathedral of Mende, France, in 2004; source: Perepiscopus.]

73 comments:

LeonG said...

Many thanks for the accompanying starkly contrasting picture of yet another in the perverse litany of illicitly fabricated NO liturgies. This puts the "official party line" well & truly in perspective.

Mr. Ortiz said...

While I am sympathetic with SSPX, the implicit logic here doesn't change the facts of their status in regard to Rome.

If a car salesman tried to pull a fast one on you while making a deal, and when caught, said you should see the frauds down the street, they are much worse...well, you can drawn the conclusion easily enough.

beng said...

What's with the picture?

Is that a picture of dancers performing during Ordination Mass?

If not, then it's irrelevant and uncharitable.

New Catholic said...

?

rodrigo said...

The problem isn't that Fr Lombardi's claims are false, but that the message from Vatican mouthpieces often seems to flow from a basic commitment: "no enemies to the left, no friends to the right".

Sects willing to participate in the never-ending ecumenical project can ordain (and simulate ordinations) as they please, and Rome will generally not only keep silent about the illegitimacy/invalidity of those ordinations, but positively celebrate them, joining in worship with rebellious hierarchs and giving episcopal rings to men whose ordinations were null and void. The SSPX carry out some ordinations in Switzerland? Well, that must surely be cause for a Vatican Press Office announcement.

It's the double standard that is infuriating. Let's hope that this situation does not obtain much longer.

Sean said...

Mr Ortiz:

Your analogy whereby you equate the priests of the SSPX with used car salesmen says MUCH more about you than about them.

Sean

Anonymous said...

So what is new? SSPX bishops and clergy are suspended a divinis and the bishops are not members of the Church hierarchy.

Hopefully Bishop Fellay will submit to Rome soon.

Pascendi said...

Two wrongs do not make a right.

poeta said...

If this is the same kind of "legitimacy" spoken of in paragraph 19 of Universae Ecclesiae, then it's a low hurdle for the SSPX to agree the Novus Ordo is "legitimate" (i.e., done under lawful jurisdiction).

Anonymous said...

beng:

"If not, then it's irrelevant and uncharitable"

well, this is a joke, isn't it?

As a humble testimony, my family and I are absolutely aware of the situation of the SSPX, and we consciously and freely decided to follow them exclusively.
To us, the only explanation remains: this are extraordinary times, and in conscience we cannot follow the NO, no matter what some say or what reasoning they make. We leave the rest to God and we humbly pray.
M.M.

Anonymous said...

More charges of illegitimacy hurled against the Fraternity coming from the Chief of the Vatican Press Office - it speaks for itself and we all know what "illegtimate" conjures up in the minds of most people. The fact remains that the traditional Mass would not have survived without the Fraternity and others like them. Yet, they continue to be abused publicly. It's just a rotten shame.

You see there are many who would like to see the Fraternity and other like-minded independents die on the vine. It's not going to happen, friends, and press releases like this just harden our resolve. Like I said in a previous post, why can't the Vatican admit that the Fraternity celebrates sacraments validly and legitimately. Why? Modernism, that's why! Holy Mother of God intercede for us.

LtCol Paul E. Haley, USAF(Ret)

Anonymous said...

1. The ordinations are illicit. Tough situation but true. Pray that the SSPX's situation gets regularized.

2. Noting that other 'legitimate' ministers had the liturgical dancers is a separate issue. It just inflames the discussion by way of adding that picture. An imprudent and uncharitable decision to link that with the post topic.

New Catholic said...

OK, then...

Anonymous said...

Sorry, but I just do not understand how the basis for the 1976 suspension by Paul VI can continue to have any logical validity when (as far as I can recall)the suspension of Lefebvre and his priests was based on the use of what was then supposed to be an abrogated form of the sacrament of Holy Orders made under the then supposedly abrogated rite.

Summorum Pontificum, at last, declared what had been known unofficially since 1986, that the TLM, and therefore its sacraments, had never been abrogated. The wildcard rogue clause in Universae Ecclesiae which, pathetically and illogically, attempts to restrict the traditional form of the sacrament of Holy Orders to TLM confraternities, reveals that the modernist vanguard in the Curia continues to obsess over this point; the very point over which was the basis for the original 1976 suspensions.

Logically, how can this aspect be allowed to continue? Whatever other matters which require resolution betwixt SSPX and the Vatican, the liceity of their ministrations as priests ought not cynically to be claimed to be a matter still requiring 'resolution'. In the interim, the obsolete suspension - imposed in 1976 for reasons surely no longer sustainable - ought to be lifted. It would also be truly pastoral for faculties to be extended for the administration of penance and marriage by SSPX priests, quite apart from other canonical regularisation issues. But, no doubt, that would be to surrender too much of a bullying bargaining chip. The hubris of some within the Curia is what really is at stake here, I fear.

I am not an attendee of SSPX Chapels, either, by the way.

Tony from Oz

Jordanes551 said...

Sorry, but I just do not understand how the basis for the 1976 suspension by Paul VI can continue to have any logical validity when (as far as I can recall)the suspension of Lefebvre and his priests was based on the use of what was then supposed to be an abrogated form of the sacrament of Holy Orders made under the then supposedly abrogated rite.

Archbishop Lefebvre's initial suspension in the 1970s was for going ahead with ordinations in a French diocese after the local bishop had withdrawn his permission and he had been warned not to do the ordinations. Granted, the bishop withdrew his permission because of the Archbishop's rejection of the new liturgy, but that was not what his suspension was based on.

Anonymous said...

If SSPX ministries are that illegitimate, perhaps I shouldn't be so concerned with legitimacy. We've seen plenty in the past 45 years of legitimacy. I don't know how much more legitimacy we can handle.

Anonymous said...

Don't overreact, gents. Lombardi and his predecessor, Navarro Vals, were frequently mistaken. He's just repeating what was said before. He does not necessarily know about any private arrangements regarding the status of the Society. In terms of authority, the Vatican Press secretary is about as low on the totem pole as one can get. Yawn!

P.K.T.P.

Cruise the Groove. said...

Jordanes,
But was it just that the Bishop of the diocese did not allow Arcbishop Lefebvre to ordain priests for the reason that the sole reason that Archbishop loved the TLM and rejected the NO as the form of the rite into which he ordained his priests?
This is the question here and this question needs to be cleared up.

Malta said...

Lombardi is correct, the ordinations are "illegitimate" (i.e. not "authorized" by law.) But then so were St. Athanasius' ordinations.

FSSPX are disobeying an unjust, immoral, law. Yes, immoral. Vis a Vis the TLM, the Novus Disorder is leading souls to hell. It's leading them to abandon the faith, or see the faith in protestant terms. No Sacrifice, no belief in the real presence. Therefore, they are taking Our Lord unworthily, and most of them in a state of mortal sin (as contraception is).

Btw: what's wrong with ironically contrasting the "legitimate" ordination picture with Lombardi's statement? "Uncharitable" puhleeez!

David Werling said...

Traditionalists are so uncharitable when they point out illicit behaviors, but the Vatican isn't?

Double standard?

If the Vatican isn't being uncharitable, then neither is New Catholic. Please, please, try to come up with some other criticism of traditionalists other than the worn out, unreasonable, and just plain stupid, uncharitable canard.

Cruise the Groove. said...

Was it just that the SSPX were suspended in 1975?

Chris said...

As infuriating as this might be, it might bear good fruit in the larger struggle (let us pray).

The likelyhood of the Holy Father reading this comment from his own newspaper is much greater than something written by other modernists in the blogosphere.

If the Holy Father is symtethetic to the plight of FSSPX, as we have cause to hope, then this type of public comment may strengthen his resolve to find a canonical solution.

Every action has a reaction ... even in Rome. ... again... let us pray.

Anonymous said...

The Traditional Latin Mass was never abrogated, right? Why then, was it not allowed by the bishops until the advent of the Ecclesia Dei indults and, even then, not allowed by most local bishops? Yet, those priests who took it upon themselves to celebrate the TLM for the people were characterized as disobedient, schismatic and not in full communion with Rome. Say what? Are we living in a real world or a fantasy world concocted by the modernists?

But the real problem is the loss of so many souls by failure to attend Mass, disbelief in the Real Presence, failure to see the Mass in its sacrificial aspects, an almost universal use of contraceptives, improper preparation for receiving the Eucharist, failure to make use of sacramental confession when offered, and list could go on almost indefinitely. Yet, we are being told that it is we traditionalists that are the real problem. If only we would shut up and accept Vatican II, all would be fine. You've got to be kidding!

LtCol Paul E. Haley, USAF(Ret)

Mr. Ortiz said...

Sean,

Respectfully, you missed my point.

I was pointing out that, as Pascendi put it, two wrongs don't make a right...I was not intending to compare the SSPX to salesmen of any type, as my statement of being "sympathetic" to them and their position made clear...or so I thought!

I agree with posters that this not a big deal.

Anonymous said...

The question many of us are struggling with is: Is the law of Rome following VII legit, or is the law of SSPX, which always was lhe law of the church, unbroken in form or tradition legit?

Did Rome, in Particular Paul VI, actually excommunicate themselves by their breaks with with tradition, by their revisions and alterations of the church?

These are only questions, not answers.

I wonder if, when Paul VI referred to the smoke of Satan in the church, he was somehow referring to himself. He may be one of the most tragic figures known on earth.

While he may not have lived a debauched life as some popes hundreds of years ago may have lived, he actively did more to ruin the church that any other human being in the history of the church.

We can not judge Paul VI as a human being, but we can clearly see the disastrous effects of his pontifcate.

Is black now pink because VII Rome says so?

We will know what is true, what is legit, by the fruits, or lack there of, which are created.

What fruits are seen in the lovely cover picture to this article?

S

Collipus said...

I prefer my “illegitimacy” to their “full communion”. At least, if by “full communion” they mean the portrayed scenes…

TH2 said...

Today, if there is a word so often abused, misunderstood and misapplied, it is "uncharitable". See comments above. It seems to be a Catholic form of Political Correctness. Those who wield it in such a manner effectively shut down discussion, as the focus appears to more so be on emotional response rather than right reason.

Brian said...

"As long as the Society [of Saint Pius X] does not have a canonical status in the Church - Benedict XVI underlines -, its ministers do not exercise legitimate ministries in the Church (...) until the doctrinal questions are clarified, the Society has no canonical status in the Church

During the doctrinal discussions in Rome, where did the Vatican arrange for Bishop Alfonso de Galarreta and the SSPX priests involved in the discussions to go to say Mass?

M. A. said...

"Please, please, try to come up with some other criticism of traditionalists other than the worn out, unreasonable, and just plain stupid, uncharitable canard."
--------------------

Their false sense of 'charity' is obviously of a double standard and hypocritical. They would say: "My side can punch you in the nose, but if you complain or make a fuss, you'll be uncharitable, so just be quite and let us continue beating you up."

Cruise the Groove. said...

Brian,
What Fr Lombardi says and what the Holy Father do are two seperate things.
There is so much disagreement and differng beliefs in the Vatican.

For many years now the SSPX has been allowed to offer Holy Mass in Saint Pters Basilica.
Either the Holy See is
a]complicit in the offering of illicit Mass.
b]it is all right to offer illicit Masses in Saint Peters.
c]SSPX Masses are not illicit.

Jack said...

\\ministers who do exercise legitimate ministry in the Church\\

Errors on the left do not mean there cannot be errors on the right.

Jack said...

\\As a humble testimony, my family and I are absolutely aware of the situation of the SSPX, and we consciously and freely decided to follow them exclusively. \\

In other words, you accept ministrations from clergy whom the Pope described has exercising no legitimate ministry in the Catholic Church.

**He does not necessarily know about any private arrangements regarding the status of the Society.**

Are you saying that you do know of such arrangements, PKTP?

Sixupman said...

Have not the Diocesan bishops lied to their flocks since Vatican II regarding the status of The Tridentine Rite? Or do they claim they were ignorant of the true position, until of late? Either way, they are charlatans.

Please someone indicate where Msgr. Lefebvre has been guilty of lying. Please someone indicate where Msgr. Lefebvre has been guilty of malfeasance, or, sexual wrongdoing. If such were available The Vatican would have leaked such wrong-doings to the press. Then take a close look at the stone-throwers.

This something akin to Alice in Wonderland and puerile.

Anonymous said...

Sorry, Cruise, but their Masses are illicit. These are Holy Father's very words: "As long as the Society does not have a canonical status in the Church, its ministers do not exercise legitimate ministries in the Church."

Johannes said...

"...Is that a picture of dancers performing during Ordination Mass?

If not, then it's irrelevant and uncharitable."

?!

Anonymous said...

It is not proper to disturbed the consciences of the Faithful who attend the Society's chapels and receive the sacraments, especially that of Penance, from their hands.

What an enormous crisis in conscience Lombardi's assertion makes among the Faithful.

Are all my confessions at hands of SSPX priests, over the past 25 years invalid?

If so, I would like a competent priest to step forward on this blog and state/explain how I can rectify this crisis in conscience.

LD Schmiodt said...

Beng said: What's with the picture? Well what is not irrelevant is the fact that at any given NO mass you might be assailed with this kind of performance,( Probably celebrating Man rather than GOD.) Please know that we find these acts (Pictured) Irrelevant and uncharitable. Not to mention very offensive to all who Love our church Traditions. You are probably the same type of bloke who is in full support and looking forward this canonization of some one who has contributed more to the declination of all things holy in our church in this last century. I hope you and your kind will wake up and smell the holy incense of the Holy Mass. Will truely Love what so many Holy Saints ,Martyrs and Popes had dedicated thier lives for, Holy Tradition. To you as a Modern Catholic, I must add: WE ARE WHAT YOU ONCE WERE. WE BELEIVE WHAT YOU ONCE BELEIVED. WE WORSHIP AS YOU ONCE WORSHIPPED. IF WE ARE WRONG NOW, YOU WERE WRONG THEN. IF YOU WERE RIGHT THEN, WE ARE RIGHT NOW.. A certain rch Bishop is noted for saying this....

Anonymous said...

There are no new implications.

The SSPX understands that per the "letter of the law" the authority of the Church has currently "illegitimized" them.

They will continue to operate on the basis of emergency until the doctrinal questions are resolved satisfactorily according to perennial Apostolic Tradition.

All this news clippit proves is that the Vatican is shoring up its position - highlighting and emphasizing the need and importance of resolving the doctrinal questions.

But in fact, the SSPX will continue in its sincere belief that the emergency situation justifies 'on its face' "disobedience" to injustice.

The holy Father knows that the abuses and hermeneutics of discontinuity in the camp of "legitimate ministry" are the cause of the SSPX's sense of a state of emergency situation to begin with. At the same time, the Vatican has locked out the SSPX too long to not present its original argument against the SSPX.

So it is perfectly natural for both sides to restate their positions. As PKTP opines, one hopes that the discussions being driven mutually will result in some resolution or way forward:

a) The Vatican and SSPX agreeing on doctrinal questions, which removes the state of emergency that the SSPX perceives

b) Results in the regularization of the SSPX in the Vatican's perception

If no resolution occurs, it will be business as usual as established in 1988.

Jack and Beng et al: While prima facie your black and white assessment may make sense, canon law does allow leniency for disobeying even a papal order if a state of emergency is legitimately perceived. Since canon law itself mandates the most charitable application of itself in any situation, I would encourage to consider the reasons why the SSPX (and Archbp Lefebvre) had stated their belief in a state of emergency.

In 1976 Pope Paul VI had wept as the first abortion clinic was opened a few blocks from St Peter's square, after remarking in 1973 that "the Smoke of Satan" had somehow inflitrated the Church. In spite of all the energy and Charisma and many encyclicals from Pope John Paul II to hold the faithful to high standards of morality, the Church has witnessed a decline unprecedented in its 2000 year history. Numbers of Catholics assisting at Sunday Mass, even (or especially) the New Mass, Catholic divorce rates, Abortion in post-Catholic countries, "Catholic" politicians, priests and bishops who express heretical views in public, etc.

You may disagree that these terrible times and massive rates of apostasy constitute a state of emergency. That's fair. But one can see the faithful at the SSPX feeling differently and seeing in that a terrible state of emergency. And if so, one can afford to be charitable even if one disagrees with their assessment. Moreover when the Holy Father himself has condemned the widespread push for regarding Vatican 2 as a 'rupture point' which has resulted in masses condemning what was once regarded as holy.

I'm not as SSPXer myself, but I will tell I feel no disgust at their position at all. I understand it if at times I feel they are excessive. But I am disgusted by the kinds of "legitimized" abuses shown in the pic attached to this news bullet. I am disgusted every time I go to a NO Mass and see people immodestly dressed taking the Eucharist in hand like a potato chip while I am subjected to hymns composed by the Beatles.

So the anti-SSPX crowd, please chill a little, consider the virtue of charity, and apply St Francis' admonition to understand a little more than you may be understood. I think the Holy Father is doing that, and I also think Bp Fellay is doing that. I pray Our Lady and the Holy Spirit will take care of the rest.

Anonymous said...

Jack,
Although your reasoning is widely used by NO against us, I'll answer anyways:
The Pope hasn't declared SSPX anathema or schismatic, or non-Catholic. We aren't outside of the Roman Catholic Church.
We cannot participate and be part of what is going on in the N.O. Sorry.
The faith of my family and I are my first and foremost important concern.
In my conscience, we cannot follow the N.O.
In Christ,
M.M.

Anonymous said...

An expression of empty legalism if there ever was one. What happened to the law of the sacred tradition of the church?

Aren't we always told that, in the political context, natural law overrides the positive law of the state. Why is it that a soulless, literalist interpretation of the positive law of the church overrides the law of her sacred tradition. According to the latter, it is the legitimacy of the protestantizing novus ordo that is in question.

Servus Traditionis

Brian said...

"until the doctrinal questions are clarified, the Society has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers (...) do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church."

Is this how the SSPX wants things to be?

Anonymous said...

Tony from Oz:

The suspension of 1976 was not for the good Archbishop's adherence to the T.L.M. alone. However, I note that the suppression of the Society in 1975 followed a *favourable* canonical visitation from Rome. The liberals simply did what they wanted because he would not comply.

Anyway, Guy Lombardo there is not referring to that suspension but to the 1975 suppression. If their Society has no canonical form, the administration of its Sacraments becomes illicit and its ministry "illegitimate" in normal circumstances. Circumstances are not normal but the Pope has himself said that no state of emergency continues, since canonical independence from the bishops has been offered. The S.S.P.X's answer is that the main problem is doctrinal, not canonical, and it emanates as much from the Holy See as from the See of Los Angeles or Paris.

So Guy Lombardo simply has the job of repeating Rome's position on the matter.

P.K.T.P.

Knight of Malta said...

For many years now the SSPX has been allowed to offer Holy Mass in Saint Pters Basilica.

Really??? (Could you please provide proof?)

If true, that is a game-changer! I knew they were allowed to at Lourdes, but St. Peter's?

That would be a de facto acknowledgment on the Vatican's part that they, in some measure, agree (and/or have sympathy) with what the FSSPX is doing...

Anonymous said...

Jack asks:

"Are you saying that you do know of such arrangements, PKTP?"

What do you think? Did I claim as much?

However, if one were to piece together what Bishop Fellay and others have said, it seems likely to me that an informal and unofficial arrangement has been 'suggested'. Had there been no informal proposal, Bishop Fellay would not likely have said that there was "no standing offer" but just that there was "no offer". Why qualify it? We normally only do that in order to make a distinction. You do know what a 'distinction' is, right?

So far, we have a source from "an Ecclesia Dei society" plus a source in Bishop Williamson and now even a tentative suport from Andrea Tornieli. And we have Bishop Fellay qualifying that no 'standing' offer has been made. Do the math.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Yes, the truth must be admitted. The S.S.P.X is not in communion with Cardinal Mahony, Bishop De Rogue, Fr. Raymond Gravel of Repentigny, and the liturgical danceers in leotards. The truth must be admitted; it must be confessed ....

P.K.T.P.

LeonG said...

The main problem for several here and elsewhee with this issue is that there are too "personal" beliefs about what is going on.

Pascendi said...

Pius XII clarified much in Mystici corporis re: jurisdiction. He further clarified this in L'Osservatorre Romano (Feb 18, 1924). Jurisdiction comes from Christ through His Vicar. We are unaware (presently) of any approval (even tacit) of jurisdiction granted by the Holy Father to the SSPX bishops. Hence, yes, Lombardi is correct - the priestly ordinations are "illegitimate" as the ordinations were/are undertaken by men who have no permission to do so.

Abbe de Nantes was indeed correct when he stated that in the battle over sacramental discipline, the bishops always win out.

Cruise the Groove. said...

Knight of Malta,

My uncle is an FSSPX priest and he has told me that he got permission and offered Mass twice at the side altars in San Pietro in Rome.
also here is a link to a site that states an FSSPX priest offered Mass at San Pietro in Rome:

http://catholicknight.blogspot.com/2009/09/breaking-vatican-permits-sspx-to.html

Anonymous said...

Grow up already about "uncharitable" enough with the dancing nuns, giant puppets, altar girls, hand waving cantors, guitars, drums, hand holding, clapping, I will take the Holy Priests of the S.S.P.X. over the Novus Ordo anyday.

Anonymous said...

His Grace, Archbishop Lefebvre will become a Saint oneday and the Novus Ordo in the dustbin of history. Long live the Traditional Latin Mass and the good Archbishop who stood alone for the Holy Roman Faith.

Daniel said...

Father Lombardi has not exactly been stingy with the amount of rubbish that has been coming from his mouth of late so I wonder why after so many embarrassments (e.g., the fabled condom discussion) the Vatican continues to allow him to speak out so recklessly. Yes, he is the "spokesman" for the Vatican but surely that doesn't mean he can just go on and on without occasionally being reined in?

And unfortunately, whether his position is at odds with Benedict's or not, it is the perception in the mind of the public that counts. If "the official Vatican spokesman" says so, then it must be true, so many an innocent soul will reason.

In short, who's minding the store up there?

Sam Gamgee said...

Sir Thomas More: You threaten like a dockside bully.
Thomas Cromwell: How should I threaten?
More: Like a minister of state, with justice.
Cromwell: Oh, justice is what you're threatened with.
More: Then I am not threatened.

Father Anthony Cekada said...

No one has yet pointed out that:

(1) The deacons' dalmatics were not cut in the traditional form.

(2) Two were made in unauthorized colors.

(3) The albs were not exactly "albae".

shane said...

Sincere apologies for going off-topic but the SSPX has just put most of Iota Unum online for free http://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/books/Iota_Unum/index.htm

Anonymous said...

It seems to me that the SSPX need to be RIGHT more than they need to reconcile with the true Church!

They have so much to offer and yet continue to dig their heels in. Perhaps they might want to remember the Psalm, "harden not your hearts."

John McFarland said...

Dear Daniel,

This issue of legitimacy turns on whether or not the SSPX is right in maintaining that there is a state of necessity that requires appeal to higher legal principles than those ordinarily applicable. There is an English translation of Dom Mauro Tranquillo's piece from SiSiNoNo on the criteria for a state of necessity in the July issue of the Angelus, which is already online at www.angelusonline.org, A year's subscription is twenty dollars.

Oliver said...

The SSPX needs to be put on the spot after half a century and not seek material benefit from its half-way position. Is it with modern Rome or not? If not, it should seek to develop its gains along with others as the Church in exile and campaign to oust the usurpers.

beng said...

MM

Did Jesus say, "and upon this SSPX I will build my Church?"


Pascendi got it right. Two wrongs don't make a right. What makes SSPX more right than your run of the mills liberal priests/bishops? In fact those liberal priests/bishops have more chance being ignorance (whether invincible or not) about their errors than SSPX.


The picture was uncharitable in a sense that it assumes that Rome would say that the event in the picture is legitimate while the SSPX ordination is illegitimate.

Malta said...

My uncle is an FSSPX priest and he has told me that he got permission and offered Mass twice at the side altars in San Pietro in Rome.

Fantastic!!

Mark VA said...

Non sequitur, New Catholic.

The abuse of the liturgy by the left does not change the fact that the SSPX chooses to remain in a non-canonical status.

Worse, while the left obliviously displays its errors for all to see, the SSPX justifies its position outside the Catholic Church under the pretence of "defending" the Catholic Faith.

How can one claim to be a Traditionalist Catholic, yet at the same time, choose not to be in communion with the Pope?

Wouldn't you agree that these are two contradictory propositions? Or is the road to Orthodoxy to be paved by this kind of relativism?

David Werling said...

"How can one claim to be a Traditionalist Catholic, yet at the same time, choose not to be in communion with the Pope?"

There's a complete lack of clarity in regards to "communion", thanks to the VCII generation.

1. Lack of canonical recognition or regularization does not equal lack of communion. These are two different things.

2. The FSSPX is seeking canonical recognition. You may disagree with their methods or concerns or even call them demands. However, that does not change the fact that they are currently, obviously, seeking regularization.

David Werling said...

"The picture was uncharitable in a sense that it assumes that Rome would say that the event in the picture is legitimate while the SSPX ordination is illegitimate."

I think you should look up the word charity. Perhaps you are searching for the word presumptuous rather than uncharitable.

Or do you mean to say, "whatever I don't like or disagree with is uncharitable"? Just asking.

deduc me said...

Mark VA:

Thomas More's final words whilst departing this life were: "I die the King's loyal subject; but God's first."

The SSPX's appeal to conscience in refusing to adhere to a number of post-Conciliar theological problematics (while insisting on their loyalty to the Pope) is arguably a very Catholic position: Conscience first. Ask Blessed John Henry Newman.

And what separates them from the liberals who use "conscience" to defend their ignoring of the Church's authorities is that traditional Catholics are insisting on believing only what Catholics have always believed; the liberals depart from Catholic perennial teaching on morals and doctrine.

Be careful about imploding the entirety of the Catholic Faith into any one element (your concept of obedience in this case). That not infrequently is the parlor of heresy. Obedience is never blind.

DefensorFidei said...

"Are all my confessions at hands of SSPX priests, over the past 25 years invalid?

If so, I would like a competent priest to step forward on this blog and state/explain how I can rectify this crisis in conscience."

The catechism is very clear, you don't need a priest to tell you what to do. If your past confessions have been bad or invalid, then you should confess all the sins that you have committed since your last good confession, and on top of that confess the fact that you made bad confessions.

It's too difficult? Get over it. Nothing's too difficult when it comes to avoiding eternal damnation.

Jack said...

\\The Pope hasn't declared SSPX anathema or schismatic, or non-Catholic. We aren't outside of the Roman Catholic Church\\

It is the Pope, not I, who said that SSPX clergy exercise no legitimate ministry in the Catholic Church, MM.

What part of "no legitimate ministry in the Catholic Church" do you not understand?

in any case, are there no Eastern Catholic Churches nearby you may frequent? I would be very surprised were this the case. In my city, there is an SSPX chapel, but also several different Eastern Catholic parishes (one of which I attend, btw) of different liturgical traditions that were not influenced by the Ordinary Form.

I know a clergyman in irregular orders who for years has been waiting patiently for regularization of his orders--not because he believes them invalid, but because he submits to the authority of the Roman Church and those in regular visible communion with her.

SSPX clergy may profit by this example.

**Is black now pink because VII Rome says so? **

The distinction that some people make between "conciliar" or in this case "VII" Rome and "eternal Rome" is nothing more than the Protestant heresy of "invisible" vs. "visible" church with slightly varying terminology.

++I prefer my “illegitimacy” to their “full communion”. At least, if by “full communion” they mean the portrayed scenes…++

God, I thank thee that I am not as other men: extortioners, unjust, or even as NO churches with liturgical dancers.

Mark VA said...

deduc me and David Werling:

Let's not nuance the meaning of "in communion with" until no one remembers what it once meant;

Neither should we readily transmute "in communion with" into "blind obedience". On the other hand, if one is blind, then what's wrong with a little bit of "blind obedience", until one's sight clears up?

Gratias said...

The photo of the four liturgical dancers with the new deacons meekly looking on tells the story of the Novus Ordo tragedy. If you prefer tambourines, come to my parish Sundays at 5:30.

Nevertheless, the SSPX should rejoin the mainstream and work from within as lesser mortals do at Una Voce.

Anonymous said...

I understand the SSPX's fears. I sit at my Sunday Mass, with the banners, the folksy...well you know the story...and it's obvious there is an entrenched system, set up to preserve all of that ugliness and heresy, and the priests and bishops committed to that entrenched system are just waiting for this Pope to...well, you know. And this Pope is already overwhelmed, and blocked, and sabotaged. There are a handful of others among the bishops, archbishops and cardinals who think like the holy father, but they are only a handful. The rest, the silent many are just waiting patienty.

In every way that counts, the SSPX are already in communion with the Holy Father, more so than most of the men who surround him. Do they dare take that next step, give up their autonomy, and submit themselves not only to Pope Benedict, but to the scheming many who surround him?

I understand fully the SSPX's fears.

Servus Traditionis

Mar said...

Mark VA,
No need to nuance, just tell us straight what *you* mean by "in communion with". And while you're at it, please, tell us "what it once meant". That would be an act of charity as it would help to clear things up, in keeping with age-old Catholic methodology, and understanding of charity. And yes, perhaps we shouldn't readily transmute "in communion with" into "blind obedience" but the reality is that many who wish to beat the SPPX about the head with a blunt instrument do do so all too readily, some of them on this blog. Finally, tell me honestly, when was the last time you suggested that someone of the NO persuasion should try a little bit of "blind obedience" until their sight cleared up?

Patrick said...

Knight of Malta, several members of the SSPX committee that travels to Rome for the "doctrinal talks" were allowed to celebrate Mass privately in St.-Peter's, just like hundreds of priests do every day.

Anonymous said...

I ahve been (bothered and thus) pondering over the issue of "2 wrongs don't make a right" and such, as posted here and in many other threads, concerning the FSSPX continuing in "illicit practices".

Here are two thoughts:
1. Hierarchy of laws - So, indeed, if one accepts that the ordinations are against this or that law, then still there is a hierarchy of laws. The highest law is the salvation of souls. That is why Mgr. Lefebvre continued ordaining, continued the Fraternity, continued what he saw as the "action survie", which our Lord Himself wanted him to do.
Hierarchy of laws is nothing strange to neither civil, nor common law countries. (Consider that no (application of a) law may violate a state's constitution). The same goes for the CIC.

2. Rome didn't force the FSSPX to stop ordaining priests, to stop its work, in order to talk. When the discussions started, there was (as so often) some upheaval in the diocese of Regensburg (where the German FSSPX seminary is located) about the ordinations. Rome kept silent, although we all can assume that Rome ahs been asked a LOT by many ppl from inside the church, but also from ppl outside the church, press, etc. to comment on this 'act of disobedience and disrespect towards Rome'.

My point is: yes, most ppl accept that there is some juridical issue to be solved. But that is not the top priority. The top priority of the Church is the salvation of souls.

Let's not be pharizean nitpickers, when even the highest authorities don't make too much of a fuzz about this irregularity. In the end, our Lord is going to judge. And He will judge all of us as well.

"... et dimitte nobis debita nostra, sicut et nos dimittimus debitoribus nostris..."

Pntecost is over, but we may always invoke the help of the Holy Spirit, who will guide us and truly enlighten us.

Holy Mother, please come to the help of your poor children!

IM

Picard said...

Mark VA:

"Non sequitur, New Catholic.

The abuse of the liturgy by the left does not change the fact that the SSPX chooses to remain in a non-canonical status."


That´s right.

But there is a sequitur:

The [massive, widespread, etc.] abuse of the liturgy [besides many other facts!!] shows that there is a very grave state of emergency.

In a state of emergency you can sometimes act illicitly morally totally justified.

Ergo...

q.e.d.

DefensorFidei said...

O God, I thank you that I am not like the rest of Catholics -- Novus-Ordo-attending, Conciliar-bishop-obeying -- or even like these "legitimate" clergy. I attend only the Traditional Latin Mass, and I read only Traditional Catholic books.

(For those of you who know SSPX polemics but don't read the Bible try looking up Luke 18 to understand what this means.)