Vatican Reminder: Sspx Ordinations Are Illegitimate

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='SoylentGreene' timestamp='1310845346' post='2268283']
You're not mistaken.
[/quote]
The Correct Crusader strikes again!
[img]http://api.ning.com/files/RXcQeQHbiFlLNw1vbxbs1Pdv5595GJBdRgD64pFvqoGdE9JVscKZuFjb4SEl8NoDI8Qvn2Vm9fiRcIiFI76ronXS8gL1MOe3/superhero.jpg[/img]

[dominicansoul]

Give us, O Spirit of Love, new heavens and a new earth, where the Most Holy Trinity will be loved and glorified; where men can live together as in a single large family; where the wounds of egoism and of hatred, of impurity and injustice, may be entirely healed.

Give us, O Spirit of Love, a Church renewed by the irresistible force of your divine action, straightening what is contorted, bending what is inflexible, healing what is wounded, bringing water to what is parched, throwing open what is closed.

Give us O Spirit of Love, a Church faithful to the Gospel, a herald of truth, resplendent in great sanctity.

Give us, O Spirit of Love, a humble Church, evangelical, poor, chaste and merciful.

By your divine fire, burn away whatever in it is imperfect, despoil it of so many human means of power, free it from compromise with the world in which it lives and which it should save; cause it to come forth from its purification completely renewed, ever more beautiful, without stain or wrinkle, in imitation of Mary, its immaculate Mother and your most loving Spouse.





















[size="1"]edited cos i mis-spelled a word[/size]

Edited July 17, 2011 by dominicansoul

[Skinzo]

Those who think the SSPX is motivated by "necessity" or an emergency situation would do well to read the Vatican's ruling on this issue which was issued by the Supreme Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts :

"As far as the state of necessity in which Mons. Lefebvre thought to find himself, one must keep before one that such a state must be verified objectively, and [b]there is never a necessity to ordain Bishops contrary to the will of the Roman Pontiff, Head of the College of Bishops. This would, in fact, imply the possibility of "serving" the church by means of an attempt against its unity in an area connected with the very foundations of this unity[/b]."

http://jloughnan.tripod.com/schmex2.htm

[dells_of_bittersweet]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1310511515' post='2266585']
I do not support the SSPX, and clearly state again and again that they are wrong in what they do in defying Church authority, but I think people's attitudes about them and especially their analogies are over the top. By a lot. They are not protestants.
[/quote]

An SSPX Mass is a far greater sin than a Protestant service. A Protestant service involves the sin of schism. An SSPX Mass involves both the sin of schism, as well as sacrilege.

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='dells_of_bittersweet' timestamp='1314761513' post='2297911']

An SSPX Mass is a far greater sin than a Protestant service. A Protestant service involves the sin of schism. An SSPX Mass involves both the sin of schism, as well as sacrilege.
[/quote]
I won't touch the sacrilege thing, but it is factually inaccurate to say that the SSPX is in schism.

[Aloysius]

[quote name='dells_of_bittersweet' timestamp='1314761513' post='2297911']

An SSPX Mass is a far greater sin than a Protestant service. A Protestant service involves the sin of schism. An SSPX Mass involves both the sin of schism, as well as sacrilege.
[/quote]
this is not the position taken by the Vatican. at all. talk about trying to be more Catholic than the Pope.

the SSPX is on the verge of schism, but it is not a formal schism. that is the position held by the Vatican.
the Ecclesia Dei commission has specifically stated on numerous occassions that it is not necessarily a sin for a Catholic to attend an SSPX Mass; in fact, it fulfills one's Sunday obligation. it is strongly recommended against, but you don't exactly have to go to confession if you attended an SSPX mass on some given sunday. if you do so with the express intention of separating yourself from the Pope and those in communion with him, you are committing a schismatic act. but if you go to a bus stop with the express intention of separating yourself from the Pope and those in communion with him, you are also committing a schismatic act. the priests themselves are committing sins of disobedience when they exercise ministry while being suspended; the laity who attend SSPX chapels have NOT incurred any canonical penalty, however.

the SSPX does NOT commit sacrilidge against any sacred objects, and definitely not against the Eucharist. they are extremely reverent and adore the Eucharistic Lord. the fact that they consecrate Him illicitly is a canonical crime, to be sure, but it is NOT sacrilidge. that is an offensive allegation against very well meaning pious Catholics who simply find themselves in an irregular canonical situation.

[Aloysius]

anyway, on the whole I agree that Archbishop Lefebvre was indeed incorrect about a state of emergency as justifying his Econe consecrations. I don't think there's anyone on this thread that thinks he was wholly correct; I am sure one or two might sympathize with the feeling he had that there was an emergency... I may be among that number in sympathy, for there were very radical things happening all over the Church during those times. the waves were high, crashing over the barque of Peter, it seemed as if the very mast of this great ship might crack... a flash of a memory of when St. Athanasius held up the mast almost on his own once upon a time could flash like lightning before a zealous Archbishop's pious mind's eye and suddenly he could find himself in a very difficult position. sure, he should have had faith in the Lord's promise that hell would not prevail; sure, he should have fostered more of a spirit of obedience. but he panicked, and with great courage and at great personal sacrifice, he flung himself into unknown territory because he desperately wanted to ensure that he was able to hand down to the next generation the faith that was handed down to him.

wrong, sure. but I can look at his situation with pity and understanding, and hope that the Society he left behind as his legacy will one day be canonically regularized and be a great blessing for the Church. I doubt very much that the Lord held him fully culpable for the sin of schismatic actions... I think it very likely that, despite the faults of his reasoning, the Lord still smiled upon his zeal with which he tried to preserve the faith of His Church.

so anyway, yes, canonically there was no state of emergency. but it sure felt like one, and high officials in the Vatican will recognize even today that there is a widespread crisis in the Church, a crisis which is liturgical and doctrinal.

[dells_of_bittersweet]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1314776751' post='2297973']
this is not the position taken by the Vatican. at all. talk about trying to be more Catholic than the Pope.

the SSPX is on the verge of schism, but it is not a formal schism. that is the position held by the Vatican.
the Ecclesia Dei commission has specifically stated on numerous occassions that it is not necessarily a sin for a Catholic to attend an SSPX Mass; in fact, it fulfills one's Sunday obligation. it is strongly recommended against, but you don't exactly have to go to confession if you attended an SSPX mass on some given sunday. if you do so with the express intention of separating yourself from the Pope and those in communion with him, you are committing a schismatic act. but if you go to a bus stop with the express intention of separating yourself from the Pope and those in communion with him, you are also committing a schismatic act. the priests themselves are committing sins of disobedience when they exercise ministry while being suspended; the laity who attend SSPX chapels have NOT incurred any canonical penalty, however.

the SSPX does NOT commit sacrilidge against any sacred objects, and definitely not against the Eucharist. they are extremely reverent and adore the Eucharistic Lord. the fact that they consecrate Him illicitly is a canonical crime, to be sure, but it is NOT sacrilidge. that is an offensive allegation against very well meaning pious Catholics who simply find themselves in an irregular canonical situation.
[/quote]


They commit a sacrilege by celebrating Mass illegitimatley.

[Aloysius]

source?

that's simply not what the Vatican says in its words or actions. that is your personal erroneous position. the priests are being disobedient, definitely, which is in itself a sin for those priests (though there is likely a mitigation to their culpability in their sincere belief in a state of emergency necessity for their disobedience), but they are not committing sacrilidge.

we should not be harsher than the Church herself is. their valid Eucharist is done against the laws of the Church on the sole count of their suspension from ministry... it would be a sacrilidge if their valid Eucharist was being done with irreverent and illicit rituals, but their ritual is licit they are just not permitted to exercise it. so it's disobedience, it's breaking canon law; but not sacrelige. that would be a very legalistic view that is not supported by the Church's actual position, IMHO.

Edited August 31, 2011 by Aloysius

[Skinzo]

I think perhaps what dells is trying to say is that the priests know perfectly well they are suspended a divinis from all priestly functions as are the bishops Lefebvre consecrated in disobedience. A priest or a bishop who defies the Vatican in such a serious matter with full knowledge could well be in mortal sin and offering Mass in such a condition would be gravely sinful as well. For a layperson to receive Communion when we know we are in mortal sin is a sacrilege. I think the case can be made that it is a sacrilege to offer Mass when you are in a state of sin. The Vatican has already ruled on the idea that priests of the SSPX think they act out of necessity or emergency. As I've already shown the Vatican clarified that one cannnot make such claims. Only the Supreme Pastor can decide if such an emergency exists. This is really an old story, and long ago settled by Paul VI. Go back and read the correspondence between Lefebvre and Pope Paul VI. The pope warned Lefebvre over and over again of the gravity of his actions. Every one who enters the SSPX knows perfectly well the SSPX defies papal authority and in some very serious ways. We cannot of course judge them and be certain, but I think it's pretty hard to make a case that they are acting in invincible ignorance. I find it very odd how the SSPX and its supporters like to trumpet the lifting of the excommunications but regard their suspensions a divinis as something minor. They are not. This remains serious business.
So are their assaults on papal reputations.

S.

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1314826200' post='2298280']
source?

that's simply not what the Vatican says in its words or actions. that is your personal erroneous position. the priests are being disobedient, definitely, which is in itself a sin for those priests (though there is likely a mitigation to their culpability in their sincere belief in a state of emergency necessity for their disobedience), but they are not committing sacrilidge.

we should not be harsher than the Church herself is. their valid Eucharist is done against the laws of the Church on the sole count of their suspension from ministry... it would be a sacrilidge if their valid Eucharist was being done with irreverent and illicit rituals, but their ritual is licit they are just not permitted to exercise it. so it's disobedience, it's breaking canon law; but not sacrelige. that would be a very legalistic view that is not supported by the Church's actual position, IMHO.
[/quote]
Supa props.

[Skinzo]

One cannot judge every case. But the fig leaf of "necessity" or "emergency" does not exist according to the Vatican. Disobedience to papal authority is not a minor matter.
"Canon 916: "A person who is conscious of grave sin is not to celebrate Mass or receive the body of the Lord without previous sacramental confession unless there is a grave reason and there is no opportunity to confess; in this case the person is to remember the obligation to make an act of perfect contrition which includes the resolution of confessing as soon as possible (see also Canon 1335)."
From Father Edwin McNamara:
"Normally, to celebrate Mass or receive Communion while in a state of mortal sin would be to commit a sacrilege. Yet, the sacrament would be valid; that is, there would be a true consecration and a true sacrifice."

[url="http://www.ewtn.com/library/liturgy/zlitur68.htm"]http://www.ewtn.com/...gy/zlitur68.htm[/url]

S.

Edited August 31, 2011 by Skinzo

[bernard]

If you didn't notice there is an emergency in the Church. The Irish are abandoning the Church like it was the Titanic. Known perverts were shuffled around from parish to parish not in a few isolated cases but as standard procedure for several decades. At world youth day 2005 the bishops wore rainbow vestments (international colors of sodomy). The mass was changed, the words of consecration of the wine were changed. Homosexuals have taken over half the seminaries (Micheal S Rose "Goodbye Good Men" is the book) and you guys are condemning the SSPX.

[Skinzo]

[quote name='bernard' timestamp='1314835668' post='2298344']
If you didn't notice there is an emergency in the Church. The Irish are abandoning the Church like it was the Titanic. Known perverts were shuffled around from parish to parish not in a few isolated cases but as standard procedure for several decades. At world youth day 2005 the bishops wore rainbow vestments (international colors of sodomy). The mass was changed, the words of consecration of the wine were changed. Homosexuals have taken over half the seminaries (Micheal S Rose "Goodbye Good Men" is the book) and you guys are condemning the SSPX.
[/quote]

Sorry but there is surely a crisis in the Church but no emergency. Emergency would mean there is a danger of no more priests and no more bishops. We are far from that. And only the Supreme Pastor can determine when the Church is in a state of emergency.
The Church in every age is in crisis but the crisis in fact is never serious because of the promise of indefectibility given to the Church by the Lord himself. "The gates of hell will not prevail". If Peter is not panicking in the storm, then we his followers should follow his example.

S.

[bernard]

[quote name='Skinzo' timestamp='1314836365' post='2298352']

Sorry but there is surely a crisis in the Church but no emergency. Emergency would mean there is a danger of no more priests and no more bishops. We are far from that. And only the Supreme Pastor can determine when the Church is in a state of emergency.
The Church in every age is in crisis but the crisis in fact is never serious because of the promise of indefectibility given to the Church by the Lord himself. "The gates of hell will not prevail". If Peter is not panicking in the storm, then we his followers should follow his example.

S.
[/quote]

Head in the sand.

The SSPX has preserved the old mass and the old ordinations.
The pope said the new mass is "banal, man-made thing"

That's sounds like a pretty good endorsement of the SSPX to me.

[font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif][size=4]CARDINAL RATZINGER'S PREFACE[/size][/font]
[font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif][size=4]"J.A. Jungmann, one of the truly great liturgists of our century, defined the liturgy of his time, such as it could be understood in the light of historical research, as a 'liturgy which is the fruit of development"....[/size][/font]
[font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif][size=4][b]"What happened after the Council was something else entirely: in the place of liturgy as the fruit of development came fabricated liturgy. We abandoned the organic, living process of growth and development over the centuries, and replaced it--as in a manufacturing process--with a fabrication, a banal on- the-spot product." [/b][/size][/font](Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger)

Edited September 1, 2011 by bernard