SSPX Inconsistency on Holy Order Rites
Dec 9, 2023 11:45:25 GMT -5
RitaMarita, Didymus, and 1 more like this
Post by Pacelli on Dec 9, 2023 11:45:25 GMT -5
In my recent post, (found HERE), I asserted that the SSPX is acting inconsistently by using the pre-Vatican II ordination rites, rather than the rites approved by "Pope" Paul VI in all SSPX ordinations, including episcopal consecrations since the beginning.
The SSPX has held an ambiguous position on this matter of the validity of the new rites, always focusing on a defective intent of the minister rather than the rite itself, but not really defending the validity of the rite, at least until the publication of Fr. Pierre Marie's defense of the validity, followed by other defenses. The publication of these defenses in their official publications, without any qualification or disclaimer, is a tacit agreement with its contents.
A key argument used by SSPX in their rejection of the use of the Novus Ordo missal was that it was not promulgated in such a way that mandated its use. The argument runs like this: Paul VI made a law to publish the new missal, but in this law, he did not clearly bind his subjects to use this missal, so Catholics must continue to use the law as it existed previously as it was not abrogated and replaced by this new law. It's not really relevant to this post whether this argument holds up to scrutiny or not. The point of this post is to show that this was not the only law that is being rejected by SSPX, and the argument does not hold up in other places, as Paul VI did clearly bind the universal Church to these laws.
Paul VI, in his 1968 law, Pontificalis Romani recognitio, promulgating the new rites of Holy Orders, diaconate, priesthood, and bishops stated:
In this new law, Paul VI is clearly abrogating the previous law, and mandating the use of the use of these new rites. The fuzzy terminology used in Missale Romanum is not found here. He doesn't order a liturgical book to be published and then not mandate it's use, he is much more clear here.
If SSPX argued something to the effect that "since this crisis is so confusing and we are not certain if Paul VI was Pope, but we don't want to judge this grave matter on our own, so we are therefore not sure of his new rites, and in the meantime, until Rome speaks on this and settles this, we will only use the sacramental rites as existed prior to the crisis," I think that this would be fine. There is no mandate on Catholics to settle all of this. Our only duty is to hold firm to Tradition, and wait for the authority to settle this mess.
In this case, though SSPX is inconsistently found on both sides of this issue. On one side, they, by their use of the old rites in ordaining, are being disobedient to the law of Paul VI, while at the same time professing moral certainty that these rites approved by him are certainly valid. They are so certain of the validity of the new rites that they allow priests ordained in the new rite, and ordained by bishops whose episcopal orders come from the new rite, to say mass and administer the sacraments in their chapels throughout the world.
By allowing these priests in question in their chapels, they are taking this matter out of the theoretical realm of academic debate, as to whether these orders are invalid, doubtful, or valid, and putting the matter into the practical realm, where real life consequences of a mistake on this really may happen. If a priest's orders are invalid, he cannot confect any sacrament that orders is required for, it's that simple. Their decision to use these priests demonstrates the highest level of moral certainty that is possible. A simple way to say this is: one can in theory say an airplane can fly and stay in the air, and write numerous papers explaining why, but no one in their right mind would fly in one if they had any doubt that it would actually stay in the sky. One would need moral certainty that the plane can actually stay in the air.
Since SSPX is so certain that the new rites of orders of Paul VI are certainly valid and there is no doubt whatsoever to the contrary, what is the basis of disobedience to the law? The law is not ambiguous, it's clear. If it's not about validity, then what other reason could there be to disobey? Could they say, it's not "Traditional?" The answer is that it is for the Pope, not private individuals to judge Tradition.
It's inconsistent to defend the validity of these new rites, and to allow priests whose orders come from these rites, and at the same time reject these rites for use for their own priests. There is no way to reconcile this contradiction, in my opinion.
I will end with this, the SSPX position is unreasonable and illogical, and only demonstrates that it is untenable, but their mistake in consistently reasoning this out has on one hand benefited Catholics by providing hundreds of validity ordained priests, maybe even over 1,000 such priests ordained through their bishops since their founding, but on the other hand, their inconsistency and rash conclusion that these rites must be valid has potentially harmed many souls who trust them, as if the orders of these crossover priests ordained with the new rites are invalid, countless souls have been and still are on a daily basis being spiritually harmed.
SSPX has always said, they will obey Catholic Rome, not the the modernist Rome, the Catholic Church, not the "Conciliar Church," yet on this matter, their practice is one that is both obedient and disobedient at the same time to the Conciliar sect and the Catholic Church, as it is clearly not grounded in principle, rather, in my opinion, seems to be based on an emotional misunderstanding that refusing these orders completely leads them to where they don't want to go: sedevacantism.
The SSPX has held an ambiguous position on this matter of the validity of the new rites, always focusing on a defective intent of the minister rather than the rite itself, but not really defending the validity of the rite, at least until the publication of Fr. Pierre Marie's defense of the validity, followed by other defenses. The publication of these defenses in their official publications, without any qualification or disclaimer, is a tacit agreement with its contents.
A key argument used by SSPX in their rejection of the use of the Novus Ordo missal was that it was not promulgated in such a way that mandated its use. The argument runs like this: Paul VI made a law to publish the new missal, but in this law, he did not clearly bind his subjects to use this missal, so Catholics must continue to use the law as it existed previously as it was not abrogated and replaced by this new law. It's not really relevant to this post whether this argument holds up to scrutiny or not. The point of this post is to show that this was not the only law that is being rejected by SSPX, and the argument does not hold up in other places, as Paul VI did clearly bind the universal Church to these laws.
Paul VI, in his 1968 law, Pontificalis Romani recognitio, promulgating the new rites of Holy Orders, diaconate, priesthood, and bishops stated:
This rite for the conferring of the orders of diaconate, presbyterate, and
episcopate has been revised by the Consilium for the Implementation of the
Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy "with the employment of experts and with the
consultation of bishops, from various parts of the world." [10] By our apostolic
authority we approve this rite so that it may be used in the future for the
conferral of these orders in place of the rite now found in the Roman
Pontifical.
It is our will that these our decrees and prescriptions be firm and effective
now and in the future, notwithstanding, to the extent necessary, the apostolic
constitutions and ordinances issued by our predecessors and other prescriptions,
even those deserving particular mention and amendment.
Given at Rome, at Saint Peter's, 18 June 1968, the fifth year of our
pontificate.
Paul VI
(emphasis added, SOURCE)
episcopate has been revised by the Consilium for the Implementation of the
Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy "with the employment of experts and with the
consultation of bishops, from various parts of the world." [10] By our apostolic
authority we approve this rite so that it may be used in the future for the
conferral of these orders in place of the rite now found in the Roman
Pontifical.
It is our will that these our decrees and prescriptions be firm and effective
now and in the future, notwithstanding, to the extent necessary, the apostolic
constitutions and ordinances issued by our predecessors and other prescriptions,
even those deserving particular mention and amendment.
Given at Rome, at Saint Peter's, 18 June 1968, the fifth year of our
pontificate.
Paul VI
(emphasis added, SOURCE)
In this new law, Paul VI is clearly abrogating the previous law, and mandating the use of the use of these new rites. The fuzzy terminology used in Missale Romanum is not found here. He doesn't order a liturgical book to be published and then not mandate it's use, he is much more clear here.
If SSPX argued something to the effect that "since this crisis is so confusing and we are not certain if Paul VI was Pope, but we don't want to judge this grave matter on our own, so we are therefore not sure of his new rites, and in the meantime, until Rome speaks on this and settles this, we will only use the sacramental rites as existed prior to the crisis," I think that this would be fine. There is no mandate on Catholics to settle all of this. Our only duty is to hold firm to Tradition, and wait for the authority to settle this mess.
In this case, though SSPX is inconsistently found on both sides of this issue. On one side, they, by their use of the old rites in ordaining, are being disobedient to the law of Paul VI, while at the same time professing moral certainty that these rites approved by him are certainly valid. They are so certain of the validity of the new rites that they allow priests ordained in the new rite, and ordained by bishops whose episcopal orders come from the new rite, to say mass and administer the sacraments in their chapels throughout the world.
By allowing these priests in question in their chapels, they are taking this matter out of the theoretical realm of academic debate, as to whether these orders are invalid, doubtful, or valid, and putting the matter into the practical realm, where real life consequences of a mistake on this really may happen. If a priest's orders are invalid, he cannot confect any sacrament that orders is required for, it's that simple. Their decision to use these priests demonstrates the highest level of moral certainty that is possible. A simple way to say this is: one can in theory say an airplane can fly and stay in the air, and write numerous papers explaining why, but no one in their right mind would fly in one if they had any doubt that it would actually stay in the sky. One would need moral certainty that the plane can actually stay in the air.
Since SSPX is so certain that the new rites of orders of Paul VI are certainly valid and there is no doubt whatsoever to the contrary, what is the basis of disobedience to the law? The law is not ambiguous, it's clear. If it's not about validity, then what other reason could there be to disobey? Could they say, it's not "Traditional?" The answer is that it is for the Pope, not private individuals to judge Tradition.
It's inconsistent to defend the validity of these new rites, and to allow priests whose orders come from these rites, and at the same time reject these rites for use for their own priests. There is no way to reconcile this contradiction, in my opinion.
I will end with this, the SSPX position is unreasonable and illogical, and only demonstrates that it is untenable, but their mistake in consistently reasoning this out has on one hand benefited Catholics by providing hundreds of validity ordained priests, maybe even over 1,000 such priests ordained through their bishops since their founding, but on the other hand, their inconsistency and rash conclusion that these rites must be valid has potentially harmed many souls who trust them, as if the orders of these crossover priests ordained with the new rites are invalid, countless souls have been and still are on a daily basis being spiritually harmed.
SSPX has always said, they will obey Catholic Rome, not the the modernist Rome, the Catholic Church, not the "Conciliar Church," yet on this matter, their practice is one that is both obedient and disobedient at the same time to the Conciliar sect and the Catholic Church, as it is clearly not grounded in principle, rather, in my opinion, seems to be based on an emotional misunderstanding that refusing these orders completely leads them to where they don't want to go: sedevacantism.