|
Post by Pacelli on May 11, 2016 16:17:55 GMT -5
WHAT ARE WE TO THINK OF INDEPENDENT PRIESTS?
Independent priests do not exist in the Catholic Church, nor can they licitly exercise the power of Holy Orders. The first reason for this is that only the bishop receives the fullness of the power of holy orders, so that a priest’s exercise of this power is necessarily limited. Furthermore, the exercise of the power of holy orders, being a power of the mystical body of Christ, is necessarily limited by the power of government, or jurisdiction, given to the Church’s hierarchy. It is by jurisdiction that the Church is bound into one visible body. It is for this reason that a priest is forbidden to exercise his power of holy orders unless he has received “faculties,” namely the authority to do so from his religious superior or his ordinary. To deny this is to deny the Church’s hierarchical structure and to reduce it to the level of a Protestant sect.
From the earliest ages of the Church, consequently, clerics were not to be ordained except for service in a definite territory or diocese. Unattached clerics were called headless (“acephali ”) and were forbidden to exercise the sacred ministry. During the Middle Ages the abuse of clerics unattached to a bishop or to a superior developed, with considerable scandal and detriment to the Church. Hence the Council of Trent (Session XXIII, Chapter XVI; July 15, 1563) decreed
that no one shall in the future be ordained who is not assigned to that church or pious place for the need or utility of which he is promoted, where he may discharge his duties and not wander about without any fixed abode. This is called the title of ordination, still strictly required to this very day. The holy Council continues to determine what shall be the consequence if a priest abandons that title, namely his bishop or his superior, to go it alone:
But if he shall desert that place without consulting the bishop, he shall be forbidden the exercise of the sacred orders. Furthermore, no cleric who is a stranger shall, without commendatory letters from his Ordinary, be admitted by any bishop to celebrate the divine mysteries and to administer the sacraments. A priest’s submission to his bishop or to his religious superior, called in both cases his ordinary, since he has ordinary jurisdiction over him, remains strictly obligatory in canon law. It is called incardination. It is contained in the 1917 Code of Canon Law, Canon 111, §1 which states: “Every cleric must be incardinated in a diocese or religious community, so that unattached clerics are in no way to be accepted.” The 1983 Code of Canon Law repeats the same (Can. 265).
Before Vatican II, this principle was everywhere accepted. A priest who left his diocese or religious community knew full well that he could not preach, administer the sacraments (outside of danger of death), or publicly celebrate Mass until such time as he found a new religious superior or bishop to incardinate him and to give him the authority to do so. The breakdown of the Church’s authority structure in the wake of Vatican II has caused quite some confusion on this issue.
There were many older priests who were unjustly stripped of their faculties, or declared suspended or even excommunicated. Such sentences, being manifestly unjust, were canonically null and void. Consequently, such traditional priests continued, rightly, their pastoral administration of the sacraments and the celebration of Mass. In justice they retained their incardination, whether it be in their diocese from which they had been unjustly excluded, or likewise in their religious community to whose rule they alone remained attached. In case of need the Church supplied jurisdiction and they administered the sacraments validly and licitly. However, most importantly the “independence” of such priests was purely apparent, due to the crisis of authority and their rejection by their own superiors. They remained attached for life to their diocese or religious community. However, most of these older priests have passed to their eternal reward, and few traditional priests remain in this situation.
Entirely different is the situation of the new generation of “independent” priests, who have been ordained by rogue bishops such as sedevacantists and Old Catholics without any canonical attachment at all. They set up their chapels where they can find a few faithful and set up their churches in the same way that a Protestant pastor would gather a congregation around him. They are in no way attached to the Church’s hierarchy. It is consequently forbidden for them to celebrate Mass or administer the sacraments, and likewise for the faithful to assist at their Masses, or to receive the sacraments from them, except in case of danger of death.
Many such priests allege as the justification for their behavior the crisis in the Church, and certainly with some degree of credibility. However, the modernists’ abuse of authority cannot be a justification for bypassing the entire authority structure of the Church. Evil cannot be overcome by doing evil, by ripping apart the Church’s structure even more. Here it is a question of the divine institution of the Church itself, for it was Christ Himself who established the power of jurisdiction as distinct from that of holy orders. Consequently, the Catholic response cannot possibly be to dispense with all authority in the Church and to act as if it did not exist at all. This would be to admit that the gates of hell have prevailed against the Church, which is impossible, being directly opposed to the words of God Himself. In fact, such independent priests are nothing less than opportunists, taking advantage of the particular situation of the crisis in the Church to set up their own congregation as if it were a private business.
Some folks will respond to this by saying that given the fact that there are no traditional dioceses, future priests and the faithful have no choice but to choose the independent, acephalous, unattached option. God would never reduce the Church to such limits that would deny her very nature, and even in these desperate circumstances has provided religious communities and clerical congregations, correctly and canonically established, with superiors who are ordinaries (at least for their members), to provide for the spiritual necessities of the faithful. These are such communities as the Society of St. Pius X and the associated Franciscan, Dominican, Benedictine, and many other communities world wide. All are just as attached to the holy virtue of obedience upon which the Catholic Church is built as they are opposed to the horrible illusion of an “independent” priesthood.
Consequently, the faithful have always the right to ask a priest about his incardination, or faculties, or about his ordinary, whether it be a superior or a bishop. If it is an older priest, having been many years in a religious community or diocese, who is persecuted for his love of Tradition, there will not be any doubt in this regard. If it is a priest of a regularly constituted community, such as the Society of St. Pius X, he would certainly not take umbrage at such a question, but consider that the faithful have the right to know, and that it is his great honor to declare his superior and his community, through which he is attached to the Church.
However, there are some priests who will refuse to answer the question, and who will be indignant that it is even asked. The faithful are forbidden to attend the Masses of such priests. These are the priests, usually Feeneyites, Sedevacantists, or Old Catholics, who have no attachment to the Catholic Church at all, who are either without superior or bishop, or who have as their “bishop” a non-Catholic, schismatic, sedevacantist bishop who himself has no attachment to the Catholic Church. They will make every effort to compare their false bishops (if they have any) to the Society’s bishops. However, the difference is manifest. The Society’s bishops have their attachment to the Church through the Society of St. Pius X, a legitimately established community of which they are but auxiliary bishops, and through which they receive their entire authority to administer the sacraments of confirmation and holy orders.
|
|
|
Post by semperfidelis on May 11, 2016 17:42:36 GMT -5
WHAT ARE WE TO THINK OF INDEPENDENT PRIESTS? "However, the modernists’ abuse of authority cannot be a justification for bypassing the entire authority structure of the Church. Evil cannot be overcome by doing evil, by ripping apart the Church’s structure even more. Here it is a question of the divine institution of the Church itself, for it was Christ Himself who established the power of jurisdiction as distinct from that of holy orders. Consequently, the Catholic response cannot possibly be to dispense with all authority in the Church and to act as if it did not exist at all. This would be to admit that the gates of hell have prevailed against the Church, which is impossible, being directly opposed to the words of God Himself. In fact, such independent priests are nothing less than opportunists, taking advantage of the particular situation of the crisis in the Church to set up their own congregation as if it were a private business." If this isn't the height of hypocrisy! Isn't this exactly what the SSPX has done for years?"...God would never reduce the Church to such limits that would deny her very nature, and even in these desperate circumstances has provided religious communities and clerical congregations, correctly and canonically established, with superiors who are ordinaries (at least for their members), to provide for the spiritual necessities of the faithful. These are such communities as the Society of St. Pius X and the associated Franciscan, Dominican, Benedictine, and many other communities world wide. All are just as attached to the holy virtue of obedience upon which the Catholic Church is built as they are opposed to the horrible illusion of an “independent” priesthood." The SSPX was never set up "correctly and canonically" as a religious order. This seems to be written to be priming the laity for an integration into the NO!"Consequently, the faithful have always the right to ask a priest about his incardination, or faculties, or about his ordinary, whether it be a superior or a bishop. If it is an older priest, having been many years in a religious community or diocese, who is persecuted for his love of Tradition, there will not be any doubt in this regard. If it is a priest of a regularly constituted community, such as the Society of St. Pius X, he would certainly not take umbrage at such a question, but consider that the faithful have the right to know, and that it is his great honor to declare his superior and his community, through which he is attached to the Church." How can one be attached to the Church through a superior and community which is not attached to the Church? The SSPX is not a religious order, never was. It has no right to operate independent of the Ordinary of the diocese where it is located. Hence the SSPX has had no faculties until the last year when "pope" Francis has granted them "jurisdiction" in the area of confessions."The Society’s bishops have their attachment to the Church through the Society of St. Pius X, a legitimately established community of which they are but auxiliary bishops, and through which they receive their entire authority to administer the sacraments of confirmation and holy orders." Auxiliary bishops have no ordinary jurisdiction like that of an Ordinary or Superior of an Order nor have they been delegate jurisdiction by one who has. Therefore they cannot grant nor have jurisdiction. This entire statement is a lie from one who I deem not is ignorant of what he presents. There is malice in this statement, malice and deception.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on May 11, 2016 17:48:10 GMT -5
Some thoughts on Fr, Scott's tract:
Fr. Scott wrote: True, but let's keep the facts straight. All "traditional priests" that were ordained without a mission by +Lefebvre, +Thuc and +Mendez are all "independent". The fact that the SSPX has organized these "independent" priests into a structured group is beside the point, they still operate without approval from the Church, they are mission-less and vagrant.
Fr. Scott wrote: All true, and that is why all of these "traditional" priests ordained in this circumstance exist outside of the Divinely established structure of the Church. The entire "traditional" system is a made up anomaly that is not supported by the teaching of the Church, not in papal teaching, Canon law, or in any approved writing of the theologians.
It it appears to me that Fr. Scott is exempting himself and his group (SSPX) from the status which he correctly describes in his analysis. I would ask Fr. Scott, "who sent you, who authorized you to use your orders, who authorized you to enter various different dioceses and use the power of your orders, to preach or hear confessions outside of the danger of death?" If you answer, "+Lefebvre" or "+Fellay" let it be said that neither of these bishops has any authority to commision any priests to do anything.
Archbishop Lefebvre was a titular bishop, meaning he had no lawful control over any diocesan See. He had no lawful authority to use his own episcopal/priestly powers in any diocese without approval of the local ordinary, never mind send unapproved and privately trained priests into a diocese.
Fr. Scott wrote:
Well said, Fr. Scott, but let's not pretend that this does not apply equally to the SSPX.
Fr. Scott wrote:
Again, all true, and I agree that the chaos since Vatican II had only created widespread confusion on these principles. Unfortunately, the SSPX was one of the first to embrace the confusion by ordaining priests without a lawful commission, (unsent) in the 1970s with splinter groups and others following suit. We are so far gone now, that many Catholics no longer see a problem with this, and accept it as a norm. Many erroneously give such a priests a status that they do not possess, and many of the "traditional" bishops and priests tolerate or encourage the laity in their mistaken ideas regarding their non-status.
Fr. Scott wrote:
Yes, agreed, the older priests (ordained and sent by lawful bishops) are in a completely different category. The unjust orders stripping them of their faculties by bishops who may have already lost their offices for adhering to the new sect and publicly embracing and imposing heretical propositions upon their "flocks" along with the notoriously impious and possibly heretical Novus Ordo Missae.
The few still alive in this category, even though they are often called "traditional priests" are not the same as the other "traditional" priests. These priests are still the diocesan and religious priests of the Catholic Church, who, still, until death, unless they lose it for a lawful cause, possess their lawful commision, and lawfully use their sacerdotal orders.
Fr. Scott wrote:
Yes, there has been a new generation of "independent" priests, but that also includes those of the SSPX. The SSPX bishops are just as "rogue" as the sedevacantists. I'm not sure why the Old Catholics are being included as they are not Catholics at all, and are in both heresy and schism, having cut themselves off long ago from the Catholic Church. Are you unaware of that Fr. Scott, or just throwing this in for emotional effect?
I agree with everything else you have written, and it is well said, but as I have said before, the principles you have enunciated apply equally to the SSPX as they do to the other "traditional" groups and priests.
Fr. Scott. wrote:
Again, well written, but let's not pretend that this does not equally apply to the SSPX
Fr. Scott wrote:
Let's also not pretend that these religious orders affiliated with the SSPX, when they ordain priests through the SSPX, are lawfully sent priests with a legitimate commision from the Church. Even if their religious orders can be shown to be legitimate, a fact that I have not seen proved, this still does not legitimize their priests, who still must be lawfully sent and commissioned, as you, yourself, have enunciated so well above.
The SSPX, however, is not on the same category as a legitimately erected religious order, (and I am not conceding that the religious orders mentioned above are legitimate continuations of the pre-Vatican II orders, that fact has not been proven) the fraternity has no lawful status, and is a private entity made up of acephalous and uncommissioned priests banded together by private agreement.
Fr. Scott wrote:
In regards to the older, lawfully commissioned priests, agreed. In regards to the SSPX priests, they can declare their affiliation with SSPX and name their superior, but that does not change their status. They are acephalous, non-comissioned priests banded together by private agreement, and agreed upon non-binding submission to uncanonical superiors.
Fr. Scott wrote:
Let's sort this out. The Feeneyites are in a separate category, as they publicly deny Catholic teaching on at least two doctrines, one of which is de Fide. This makes them public heretics, and except for those in inculpable ignorance, makes them outside the Church. The Old Catholcs were already discussed above, and as they. Are both schismatics and heretics have no bearing on this subject. Catholics who are labeled as "sedevacantists" believe and profess the Catholic Faith and who remain untied with all other Catholics are no ether heretics nor schismatics, and are members of the Church.
The bishops of the "sedevacantists" are in the same category as the SSPX bishops. All were unlawfully consecrated, have no legitimate commision to operate as a bishop in the Church, and have no jurisdiction. There is no essential difference between the vagrant bishops consecrated by +Thuc and Mendez and those further consecrated through those lineages than those consecrated by +Lefebvre.
The organization, SSPX, as you must know, was only canonically erected under a temporary trial, which has expired. It no longer legally exists. It remains, as I said above a private association of acephalous, uncommissioned priests who privately and freely submit themselves to a non-canonical governing structure.
The SSPX bishops are not auxiliary bishops. They are acephalous and non-commissioned bishops who have absolutely no legitimate authorization to use their episcopal powers in the Catholic Church or intrude themselves into dioceses. They have no authorization to confirm or ordain. No one has ever given them such authorization, and if you disagree, Fr. Scott, please name the Pope who has commissioned or sent them, or which bishops have allowed them into their dioceses to ordain or confirm?
|
|
|
Post by Clotilde on May 11, 2016 21:15:58 GMT -5
I don't want to take away from this excellent post but if you, Pacelli or anyone else, would be willing to spell out a history of the foundations of the SSPX using Catholic terminology, in relation to their true status. I don't recall seeing something clearly outlining their history with an unbiased explanation of their status. For example, what were they approved for, where and by whom, and what does that approval entail? Does that make any sense? I just want to see it all laid out because the exact timeline and terms are a jumble in my mind. This is would probably merit a separate post.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on May 12, 2016 11:02:42 GMT -5
Can any one get father scott or sspx priest to respond at TC?
|
|
|
Post by EricH on Jul 22, 2016 11:00:38 GMT -5
I don't want to take away from this excellent post but if you, Pacelli or anyone else, would be willing to spell out a history of the foundations of the SSPX using Catholic terminology, in relation to their true status. I don't recall seeing something clearly outlining their history with an unbiased explanation of their status. For example, what were they approved for, where and by whom, and what does that approval entail? Does that make any sense? I just want to see it all laid out because the exact timeline and terms are a jumble in my mind. This is would probably merit a separate post. The canonical history of the SSPX was explained by John Daly in his book Michael Davies: An Evaluation (chapter 7, pp. 273-89 in the 2015 edition). Pete Vere treated the subject in more depth in this essay. He looks at the topic from a "Novus Ordo conservative" perspective.
|
|
|
Post by EricH on Jul 22, 2016 11:20:45 GMT -5
Independent priests do not exist in the Catholic Church, nor can they licitly exercise the power of Holy Orders. There were many older priests who were unjustly stripped of their faculties, or declared suspended or even excommunicated. ... Entirely different is the situation of the new generation of “independent” priests, who have been ordained by rogue bishops such as sedevacantists and Old Catholics without any canonical attachment at all. They set up their chapels where they can find a few faithful and set up their churches in the same way that a Protestant pastor would gather a congregation around him. They are in no way attached to the Church’s hierarchy. It is consequently forbidden for them to celebrate Mass or administer the sacraments, and likewise for the faithful to assist at their Masses, or to receive the sacraments from them, except in case of danger of death. Many such priests allege as the justification for their behavior the crisis in the Church, and certainly with some degree of credibility. However, the modernists’ abuse of authority cannot be a justification for bypassing the entire authority structure of the Church. Evil cannot be overcome by doing evil, by ripping apart the Church’s structure even more. Here it is a question of the divine institution of the Church itself, for it was Christ Himself who established the power of jurisdiction as distinct from that of holy orders. Consequently, the Catholic response cannot possibly be to dispense with all authority in the Church and to act as if it did not exist at all. This would be to admit that the gates of hell have prevailed against the Church, which is impossible, being directly opposed to the words of God Himself. In fact, such independent priests are nothing less than opportunists, taking advantage of the particular situation of the crisis in the Church to set up their own congregation as if it were a private business. ...Consequently, the faithful have always the right to ask a priest about his incardination, or faculties, or about his ordinary, whether it be a superior or a bishop. If it is an older priest, having been many years in a religious community or diocese, who is persecuted for his love of Tradition, there will not be any doubt in this regard. If it is a priest of a regularly constituted community, such as the Society of St. Pius X, he would certainly not take umbrage at such a question, but consider that the faithful have the right to know, and that it is his great honor to declare his superior and his community, through which he is attached to the Church. However, there are some priests who will refuse to answer the question, and who will be indignant that it is even asked. The faithful are forbidden to attend the Masses of such priests.In addition to Pacelli's well-stated comments, I would add that this article from Fr. Scott contradicts his own published opinion and the SSPX's longstanding practice on two additional points: 1. By saying that the faithful can only go to an independent priest in danger of death, Fr. Scott implies that people are not effectively in danger of death all the time nowadays because of the spiritual necessity caused by the Vatican II revolution. Fr. Scott said just the opposite in this article on the SSPX website. Here's the quote: 2. The SSPX has had long-term friendly relations with independent priests in the past, without requiring that they join the SSPX. One example is Fr. Ronald Ringrose of Vienna, VA. I don't know the details, but I get the impression many priests have been in the same situation over the years. Did the SSPX change its policy to require them to officially join the SSPX? If not, then it's hard to see how Fr. Scott's recent remarks aren't hypocritical.
|
|