Suscipe Domine Traditional Catholic Forum

The Church Courtyard => Traditional Catholic Discussion => Topic started by: St.Justin on January 11, 2021, 11:05:37 PM

Title: Suspension a Divinis
Post by: St.Justin on January 11, 2021, 11:05:37 PM
How I missed this I don't know but it is very important as for all practical purposes it means means that the Suspension a Divinis has been lifted.

May 24, 2017

Bishops of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) have been authorized by Pope Francis to ordain new priests without the approval of the local diocesan bishop, according to Bishop Bernard Fellay, the superior of the traditionalist group.

“Last year, I received a letter from Rome, telling me you can freely ordain your priests without the permission of the local ordinary,” Bishop Fellay reported. He said that the move indicated that although the status of the SSPX remains irregular, “the ordination is recognized by the Church not just as valid but in order.”

The SSPX has been involved in talks with the Vatican, aimed at regularizing the status of the group, and informed sources have indicated that an agreement is close to establish the SSPX as a personal prelature. Pope Francis has already said that SSPX priests have the authority to hear sacramental confessions and preside at weddings that will be recognized by the Catholic Church. Bishop Fellay remarked that the permission to ordain bishops is “one more step in his acceptance that we are... ‘normal Catholics.
Title: Re: Suspension a Divinis
Post by: Miriam_M on January 11, 2021, 11:56:19 PM
I'm surprised that you were not aware, but come to think of it, I just realized that there's still that myth of illegitimacy or "non-canonical" status floating around among trad groups and N.O. alike.
Title: Re: Suspension a Divinis
Post by: St.Justin on January 12, 2021, 03:21:25 PM
I'm surprised that you were not aware, but come to think of it, I just realized that there's still that myth of illegitimacy or "non-canonical" status floating around among trad groups and N.O. alike.

Never bought into myth of illegitimacy or "non-canonical" status floating around among trad groups and N.O. alike.
But the article sure gives ammunition against all of the people who do.

That was three years ago and not only do I not recall it but I don't recall any post on the topic.
Title: Re: Suspension a Divinis
Post by: Daniel on January 12, 2021, 07:00:34 PM
I'm surprised that you were not aware, but come to think of it, I just realized that there's still that myth of illegitimacy or "non-canonical" status floating around among trad groups and N.O. alike.

Define "illegitimate" and "non-canonical". As far as I know, it's no myth.

Legitimacy: The SSPX's argument still makes little sense. In 1970 the SSPX was canonically established, and received temporary permission from the Church to operate as a pia unio for 6 years, presumably as part of the process to becoming a religious order. Then in 1975 the SSPX was still on that same trajectory, but was unjustly (and perhaps illegally) suppressed. Granting both of these claims, how does it follow that the SSPX is (today) a full-fledged religious order? Unless and until they receive this status from the Church, they don't have this status. It doesn't matter that they were on the trajectory... they nevertheless have not (yet) received it. And while Francis may have given them many allowances, not even Francis has given them the status of being a full-fledged and autonomous religious order. Again, their argument makes little sense. What they're basically saying is not only that the 6-year period was stretched indefinitely into the future (which, at least in my opinion as a non-lawyer, sounds pretty absurd), but also that they somehow acquired a status above the status that they had back in 1975 (in 1975 the SSPX was a mere pia unio, and not even a permanent one. Now the SSPX claims itself to be a full-fledged religious order, and has proceeded to set up its own chapels and its own hierarchy).

Canonicity: Even Bishop Fellay (in the article that user St.Justin quoted) admits that the SSPX is "irregular". If everything was perfectly fine and legal, then why would Bishop Fellay acknowledge the SSPX to be "irregular"? Why wouldn't he insist that the SSPX is not at all irregular, and further assert that the conciliar hierarchy is wrong for failing to acknowledge this simple fact? Seems that the SSPX, or at least Bishop Fellay, believes that the SSPX does not have the same legal status as e.g. the FSSP.
Title: Re: Suspension a Divinis
Post by: St.Justin on January 13, 2021, 12:17:20 AM
I'm surprised that you were not aware, but come to think of it, I just realized that there's still that myth of illegitimacy or "non-canonical" status floating around among trad groups and N.O. alike.

Define "illegitimate" and "non-canonical". As far as I know, it's no myth.

Legitimacy: The SSPX's argument still makes little sense. In 1970 the SSPX was canonically established, and received temporary permission from the Church to operate as a pia unio for 6 years, presumably as part of the process to becoming a religious order. Then in 1975 the SSPX was still on that same trajectory, but was unjustly (and perhaps illegally) suppressed. Granting both of these claims, how does it follow that the SSPX is (today) a full-fledged religious order? Unless and until they receive this status from the Church, they don't have this status. It doesn't matter that they were on the trajectory... they nevertheless have not (yet) received it. And while Francis may have given them many allowances, not even Francis has given them the status of being a full-fledged and autonomous religious order. Again, their argument makes little sense. What they're basically saying is not only that the 6-year period was stretched indefinitely into the future (which, at least in my opinion as a non-lawyer, sounds pretty absurd), but also that they somehow acquired a status above the status that they had back in 1975 (in 1975 the SSPX was a mere pia unio, and not even a permanent one. Now the SSPX claims itself to be a full-fledged religious order, and has proceeded to set up its own chapels and its own hierarchy).

Canonicity: Even Bishop Fellay (in the article that user St.Justin quoted) admits that the SSPX is "irregular". If everything was perfectly fine and legal, then why would Bishop Fellay acknowledge the SSPX to be "irregular"? Why wouldn't he insist that the SSPX is not at all irregular, and further assert that the conciliar hierarchy is wrong for failing to acknowledge this simple fact? Seems that the SSPX, or at least Bishop Fellay, believes that the SSPX does not have the same legal status as e.g. the FSSP.

They have everything except Ordinary Jurisdiction but have been given delegated Jurisdiction for specific acts Like Confession matrimony and Ordinations. So the only irregularity seems to be one of Ordinary Jurisdiction.
Title: Re: Suspension a Divinis
Post by: King Wenceslas on January 13, 2021, 01:25:18 AM

Quote
Bishops of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) have been authorized by Pope Francis to ordain new priests without the approval of the local diocesan bishop, according to Bishop Bernard Fellay, the superior of the traditionalist group.

To bad he got the authorization from Francis the Apostate.
Title: Re: Suspension a Divinis
Post by: lauermar on January 13, 2021, 10:15:01 AM
Does Mike Voris know?
Title: Re: Suspension a Divinis
Post by: Prayerful on January 13, 2021, 04:04:00 PM
How could suspension apply to any but the persons? It isn't  hereditary and doesn't transmit like a disease to allies of a suspended priest or bishop. +Lefebvre is deceased and Benedict lifted penalties on those still living who were under penalty. The canonical standing of the SSPX and a report from +Fellay, not contradicted by anyone with standing, still leaves a mite's worth of uncertainty, but many would hold doubts on the authority of Francis to bind and loose, and that to me is more uncertain. He materially holds the Papacy at best. The SSPX are the only easily accessed body of priests. There are still older diocesan priests with valid orders (altho I also count those ordained in say, 1970 say, by traditionally consecrated bishops, as the Pauline ordination rite has what Pius XII specified as a minimum. It is  missed a good deal, but is sufficient.