Rorate Caeli
Photos from recent SSPX ordinations and engagements

There aren't many things on the Internet that are both visually stimulating and positive at the same time. Today, via its new email update service, SSPX America released photos of recent ordinations and engagements as their number of priests and religious continue to grow.
Click here to view the photos.
Also, two reminders:
First, keeping with the SSPX, don't forget that their publishing house, Angelus Press, has generously offered $300 worth of incredible books for the winner of the Rorate Caeli website redesign. Click here for more details.
Also, as always, we will post this week's list of souls enrolled into the Rorate Caeli Purgatorial Society tomorrow (Thursday).
Advent is a time of penance and sacrifice -- so please, take some extra time, write in every name you can think of and email them to me using the proper formatting (click the Society's button on the right for more details).
Let's get as many souls into Heaven as we can by Christmas!

And don't forget to follow @RorateCaeli on Twitter.

21 comments:

  1. Cruise the Groove4:59 PM

    Wonderful Photos!

    God bless these young priests as they sally forth to save souls!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous6:19 PM

    Did the SSPX receive permission from the local ordinary, or the pope, for the carrying out of the ordination of these priests?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous7:28 PM

    Anon, no, the SSPX bishops do not get permission from other bishops to ordain.

    And, if you remember from last year when the Pope asks the Society to delay some ordinations and move location, he certainly didn't tell them they didn't have the right to ordain.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Lumpy Rutherford8:07 PM

    Actually, we do not know for sure if the FSSPX do not have permission from the Holy Father to ordain priests.
    For at least the last several years Society priests have been given permission to offer Mass in various Basilica and diocesan churches throughout the world. St Peters in Rome and the Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Washington DC come to mind.
    If the Holy See allows FSSPX priests to offer Mass in approved churches, why would it not allow these same priests to be ordained?
    And, according to Bishop Fellay, the Holy Father allowed FSSPX seminarians to be ordained to the diaconate fairly recently.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anonymous8:29 PM

    The building of the SSPX in Argentina is really beautiful.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anonymous8:35 PM

    Mr. Rutherford, that's basically what I said: the Society doesn't ask a local ordinary to ordain, and the Pope at least gave tacit approval if not outright approval.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anonymous10:14 PM

    Canon 1017: A Bishop may not confer orders outside his own jurisdiction except with the permission of the diocesan bishop.

    Episcopus extra propriam dicionem nonnisi cum licentia Episcopi dioecesani ordines conferre potest.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anonymous12:15 AM

    "Canon 1017: A Bishop may not confer orders outside his own jurisdiction except with the permission of the diocesan bishop."


    I'm now Canon Law expert, but I'm pretty sure the permission of the Bishop of Rome trumps this.

    Now, I know that doesn't fit in the "collegiality" model of Vatican II, but I'm still pretty sure I'm right.

    ReplyDelete
  9. True, the Roman Pontiff can grant an indult or exception to the law. However, he has not done so in this case, and we know that he has only remitted the excommunications of the SSPX bishops while stating that they are not at this time authorised to exercise thier episcopal ministry. Declining to announce that an ordination is illicit is not the same as approving an ordination. Presumably the Church will address the SSPX's unauthorised ordinations after regularisation.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Anonymous1:17 AM

    Jordanes, you're absolutely correct.

    However, he did indeed ask H.E. Fellay to move the ordination site last year -- he certainly did not tell him he could not ordain.

    That's textbook definition of tacit approval.

    If the Holy Father didn't believe they had the right to ordain, which would have meant the death of the Society years ago, then he would have told Fellay that.

    He didn't.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Anonymous1:14 PM

    That first anonymous' comment was posted for no reason but to get a reaction. Okay anon, here we go again. Say the year is 1980, and you have a son who has the vocation to the priesthood. He would love to stay home and become a priest of his local diocese, however, you have taught him the traditional faith, and he only wishes to be an orthodox priest saying the traditional Mass. The only place for him to go is the SSPX seminary, then at Ridgefield. Some years later, he is ordained. However, since Abp. Lefebvre, the ordaining prelate was suspended in the 1970s, and the local ordinary did not approve of the ordinations, your son is suspended.
    Now we fast forward 30 years. Yes, the times have changed. We have gained ground, we have SP, the tide is turning. But is everything really OK? I don't go to Society Masses, but I have no qualms about doing so. We have a traditional Mass each Sunday, approved by the local ordinary, said by a diocesan priest with faculties. I don't officially support the Society. But if they were to cease functioning at this moment, imagine all of those faithful who atten their Masses, their priest and religious, etc. This is a very unique situation in the Church, an irregular situation. However, do you honestly think the Society is in this irregular situation just "for the heck of it," or as disrespect to the Holy Father? I don't think so.

    May everyone have a very Blessed and Merry Christmas.

    Phillip Carrion

    ReplyDelete
  12. The Society moves forward with a "wink & a nod" from Rome.

    No doubt many older bishops, worldwide, are rapidly approaching "stroke mode."

    God bless the SSPX. Semper Fi.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Anonymous2:34 PM

    So Saul was justified after all in offering the sacrifice, because Samuel was so delayed, and he was in a hurry, is that it?

    I don't see how what is construed as tacit approval is sufficient to undermine Can. 1017.

    This keep-what-you-want-and-throw-the-rest-away approach sounds a lot like ___________.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Anonymous4:53 PM

    Anon: "This keep-what-you-want-and-throw-the-rest-away approach sounds a lot like ___________."

    Yes, that's exactly what happened after the Council, and that's exactly why the Society had to do when it did.

    If you don't understand how tacit approval from a Pontiff could trump Canon Law, that's fine, but who you are questioning is the Pontiff, who knows the Law and is ignoring it or sees the interpretation in a different light than you.

    ReplyDelete
  15. However, he did indeed ask H.E. Fellay to move the ordination site last year -- he certainly did not tell him he could not ordain.

    Not exactly. The Vatican issued a statement on 17 June 2009 reiterating that "As long as the Society does not have a canonical status in the Church, its ministers do not exercise legitimate ministries in the Church." In other words, he should not ordain.

    That's textbook definition of tacit approval.

    Saying the pope tacitly approves of ordinations that violate canon law is a conclusion that the evidence cannot support. We must keep in mind several important facts, such as the pope's inability to prevent the SSPX from doing whatever it wants whenever and wherever it wants. Even more important is that he wants reconciliation and unambiguous unity between the Catholic Church and the members and adherents of the SSPX, whereas the Bishop of Regensburg last year seems to have been trying to pressure the pope into re-excommunicating the SSPX bishops. The pope refused to walk into the Bishop of Regensburg's trap: rather, he issued the statement reminding everyone that, of course, the SSPX should not be ordaining anyone, and expressing concern that the outstanding doctrinal issues first be resolved and that nothing endanger the dialogue, and then, to appease Regensburg's ordinary, asking the SSPX to move the ordinations.

    However, just because the pope doesn't issue a formal, stern monitum every time an illicit or invalid ordination takes place somewhere in the world, that doesn't mean he approves even tacitly (just as we may not conclude that God tacitly approves our sins just because He has not rained fire from heaven to punish us). It may be that the pope sees no need to repeat what the Church thinks about illicit ordinations, and for other, perfectly legitimate reasons is electing not to take disciplinary measures but instead is taking the road of mercy and patience.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Anonymous7:33 PM

    "As long as the Society does not have a canonical status in the Church, its ministers do not exercise legitimate ministries in the Church."

    I worked in politics for over a decade. The Church is about the oldest -- and best -- political apparatus in the world.

    This statement is pure, and purposeful, ambiguity and, from my perspective, tacit approval.

    ReplyDelete
  17. "That's textbook definition of tacit approval."

    Christopher, very true. Many years ago, Michael Davies said that then Cardinal Ratzinger was on the side of Traditionalists. Pope Benedict also wrote movingly of Davies' death (the two were friends.) Michael Davies, more than almost anyone, was a huge fan of Archbishop Lefebvre. So, by connecting the dots, one can get a pretty clear indication of what Benedict thinks of FSSPX: he sees legitimacy in their cause.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Anonymous10:51 PM

    Jordanes --

    Thank you for your posts, especially from 18:06 p.m. Very well put and informative.

    It's worth mentioning that in traditional terms of moral law, Canon Law is presumed to be in possession, that it is presumed to bind unless there is really clear evidence to the contrary. That means more than "a tacit assumption" on the part of those who are eager to take exception to it. Derogations from general law are to be taken strictly, and hence they should be expressed and not be presumed.

    The exercise of the power of the Keys entrusted to St. Peter and His successors is a gift from Our Lord; one should not deem it as "pharisaism."

    ReplyDelete
  19. Joe B2:58 PM

    Though certainly not an expert on this particular aspect of history, I wonder if Rorate's readers would consider the suppression of the Jesuits in the 1770s by the Pope to be helpful in this debate. It was not motivated out of justice but out of political expediency by a Pope who did not really want to do it. Nonetheless, the Jesuits continued to function in Russia because the bull suppressing them was simply and deliberately not promulgated by the Russian civil government. In 1814, they were restored by another Pope. No reordinations were required, no reconfessions, no remarriages, etc.

    Should they not have continued to ordain, knowing they were suppressed? Should they not have heard confessions? Were their confessions valid? Was the Pope unjust in suppressing them?

    Perhaps someone with some expertise in this matter could dispel the parallels.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Arnold1:43 PM

    The SSPX seems to be going ahead by leaps and bounds in America ... which makes me wonder why its prospects Down Under are now so bad that the Society seminary in Goulburn, New South Wales, has had to reduce drastically its teaching program through the sheer paucity of seminarians. Anybody know why the SSPX should now be so weak in a country (Australia) where it has been present continuously since, if memory serves me, 1983?

    ReplyDelete
  21. Gratias2:04 AM

    Let us pray the SSPX will accept the olive branch extended by Benedict XVI and reconcile. There will not be a better time than the present. Although we do not like it, we have to accept the Vatican II Council did happen. Unfortunately, it cannot be wished away. A house divided will not stand.

    ReplyDelete

Comment boxes are debate forums for readers and contributors of RORATE CÆLI.

Please, DO NOT assume that RORATE CÆLI contributors or moderators necessarily agree with or otherwise endorse any particular comment just because they let it stand.

_______
NOTES

(1) This is our living room, in a deeply Catholic house, and you are our guest. Please, behave accordingly. Any comment may be blocked or deleted, at any time, whenever we perceive anything that is not up to our standards, not conducive to a healthy conversation or a healthy Catholic environment, or simply not to our liking.

(2) By clicking on the "publish your comment" button, please remain aware that you are choosing to make your comment public - that is, the comment box is not to be used for private and confidential correspondence with contributors and moderators.

(3) Any name/ pseudonym/ denomination may be freely used simply by choosing the third option, "Name/URL" (the URL box may be left empty), when posting your comment - therefore, there is no reason whatsoever to simply post as "Anonymous", making debate unnecessarily harder to follow. Any comment signed simply as "Anonymous" will be blocked.

Thank you!