Society of St. Pius X to consecrate bishops without Rome’s approval, courting excommunication

Michie · Monday at 9:27 AM

The plan threatens to harden a decades-old split between the traditionalist group and the Vatican.

The Priestly Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) announced Monday that it plans to consecrate new bishops on July 1 even without authorization from the Holy See, a move that would likely lead to automatic excommunication of all the bishops who take part and harden a decades-old split with Rome.

The SSPX, which exclusively celebrates the Traditional Latin Mass and maintains doctrinal differences with certain teachings and reforms of the Second Vatican Council, has not consecrated new bishops since 1988 when the society’s founder, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, consecrated four bishops without Rome’s approval. The move directly contravened canon law and led to their, and the archbishop’s, automatic excommunication.

Even though Pope Benedict XVI remitted the 1988 excommunications in 2009, the Vatican says the SSPX exists in a state of “institutional irregularity” or “imperfect communion” with the Holy See, lacking a formal, recognized canonical structure. Ongoing doctrinal disagreements are the stated reason why no stable canonical structure has yet been granted.

The SSPX said Monday that its superior general, Father Davide Pagliarani, requested an audience with Pope Leo XIV last August to present, “in a filial manner,” the current situation of the SSPX, including its need for bishops.

Continued below.

https://www.ewtnnews.com/vatican/sspx-to-consecrate-bishops-without-rome-s-approval-courting-excommunication

johnnypapa · Monday at 10:01 AM

Maybe finally force a decision. If they would just free up the TLM with no restrictions, it would take liturgy out of question and put the onus on the SSPX.

chevyontheriver · Monday at 2:23 PM

Michie said:
The plan threatens to harden a decades-old split between the traditionalist group and the Vatican.

The Priestly Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) announced Monday that it plans to consecrate new bishops on July 1 even without authorization from the Holy See, a move that would likely lead to automatic excommunication of all the bishops who take part and harden a decades-old split with Rome.

The SSPX, which exclusively celebrates the Traditional Latin Mass and maintains doctrinal differences with certain teachings and reforms of the Second Vatican Council, has not consecrated new bishops since 1988 when the society’s founder, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, consecrated four bishops without Rome’s approval. The move directly contravened canon law and led to their, and the archbishop’s, automatic excommunication.

Even though Pope Benedict XVI remitted the 1988 excommunications in 2009, the Vatican says the SSPX exists in a state of “institutional irregularity” or “imperfect communion” with the Holy See, lacking a formal, recognized canonical structure. Ongoing doctrinal disagreements are the stated reason why no stable canonical structure has yet been granted.

The SSPX said Monday that its superior general, Father Davide Pagliarani, requested an audience with Pope Leo XIV last August to present, “in a filial manner,” the current situation of the SSPX, including its need for bishops.

Continued below.

https://www.ewtnnews.com/vatican/sspx-to-consecrate-bishops-without-rome-s-approval-courting-excommunication

I suspect if the SSPX does that there will be a swift announcement of excommunications for all involved. But then China appoints bishops all the time and the Vatican eventually accepts them all. I expect a double standard to be in effect. Sort of a 'no enemies to the left' kind of thing.

chevyontheriver · Monday at 2:29 PM

johnnypapa said:
Maybe finally force a decision. If they would just free up the TLM with no restrictions, it would take liturgy out of question and put the onus on the SSPX.

I think the decision is already made in the Vatican. Cardinal Arthur Roche maintained his position. He released his letter to the cardinals. The TLM will be tolerated only as a temporary thing until the backwardists die out, and they will be harassed until they do die out. I suppose one could see the SSPX announcement as a negotiating ploy, But it looks more like a recognition that they know what the Vatican really does intend.

Longing for the sane old days of papa Benedict.

johnnypapa · Monday at 3:25 PM

I disagree. I think Cardinals Roche, Cupich, etc. are worried. That's why they keep coming out with statements. Pope Leo just recently met with various proponents of the TLM including the FSSP. I don't think that would be the case if the decision was already made. Remember, that survey of the Bishops that was used to suppress the TLM was proven to be inaccurate. I think there might be more support for the TLM than we might know. We shall see.

RileyG · Monday at 4:49 PM

chevyontheriver said:
I suspect if the SSPX does that there will be a swift announcement of excommunications for all involved. But then China appoints bishops all the time and the Vatican eventually accepts them all. I expect a double standard to be in effect. Sort of a 'no enemies to the left' kind of thing.

That’s what I’m thinking, too.

RileyG · Monday at 4:50 PM

johnnypapa said:
Maybe finally force a decision. If they would just free up the TLM with no restrictions, it would take liturgy out of question and put the onus on the SSPX.

We still have the FSSP, which is in full communion with the Church. They have many vocations and young families attending. Their chapels are bursting at the seams!

RileyG · Monday at 4:51 PM

The SSPX still has valid sacraments despite its rocky history with Rome? Correct?

Michie · Monday at 4:58 PM

RileyG said:
The SSPX still has valid sacraments despite its rocky history with Rome? Correct?

From what I understand, they have valid sacraments but they are exercised without Church authority.

RileyG · Monday at 4:58 PM

Michie said:
From what I understand, they have valid sacraments but they are exercised without Church authority.

That’s what I understand, too. Same with The Old Catholic Church and the Polish National Catholic Church and the Eastern Churches not in communion with Rome.

Michie · Monday at 4:59 PM

Adding… I don’t understand the sacraments being valid. :scratch:

RileyG · Monday at 5:02 PM

Michie said:
Adding… I don’t understand the sacraments being valid.

Valid bishops. Bishops consecrate bishops and priests. It’s part of apostolic succession.

Michie · Monday at 5:04 PM

RileyG said:
Valid bishops. Bishops consecrate bishops and priests. It’s part of apostolic succession.

But I thought that required being united with the Pope?

RileyG · Monday at 5:12 PM

Michie said:
But I thought that required being united with the Pope?

To be Catholic, yes. They are still validly ordained, which allows them to consecrate and ordain new bishops, priests, and deacons. Let me see if I can find an article explaining why

RileyG · Monday at 5:18 PM

RileyG said:
To be Catholic, yes. They are still validly ordained, which allows them to consecrate and ordain new bishops, priests, and deacons. Let me see if I can find an article explaining why

I couldn’t find one, but it does explain at the back of the missal some other Christians can receive the sacraments. They include the orthodox churches, Polish National Catholic Church, and the Assyrian church of the east.

chevyontheriver · Monday at 6:03 PM

johnnypapa said:
I disagree. I think Cardinals Roche, Cupich, etc. are worried. That's why they keep coming out with statements. Pope Leo just recently met with various proponents of the TLM including the FSSP. I don't think that would be the case if the decision was already made. Remember, that survey of the Bishops that was used to suppress the TLM was proven to be inaccurate. I think there might be more support for the TLM than we might know. We shall see.

I would like that to be true. But pope Leo seems to want to be in continuity with pope Francis, even though that is in rupture with all the rest of the popes. He COULD make changes. He HASN’T. Hope springs eternal.

RileyG said:
The SSPX still has valid sacraments despite its rocky history with Rome? Correct?

That has always been true. And they are currently in communion with Rome even if it is a difficult sort of communion.

RileyG · Monday at 6:04 PM

chevyontheriver said:
I would like that to be true. But pope Leo seems to want to be in continuity with pope Francis, even though that is in rupture with all the rest of the popes. He COULD make changes. He HASN’T. Hope springs eternal.

That has always been true. And they are currently in communion with Rome even if it is a difficult sort of communion.

Thanks for the response.

JSRG · Monday at 8:20 PM

Michie said:
But I thought that required being united with the Pope?

If that was required for apostolic succession then the Eastern Orthodox wouldn't have it... but the Catholic Church has long recognized they do. As the Catechism of the Catholic Church says (1399):

"The Eastern churches that are not in full communion with the Catholic Church celebrate the Eucharist with great love. "These Churches, although separated from us, yet possess true sacraments, above all - by apostolic succession - the priesthood and the Eucharist, whereby they are still joined to us in closest intimacy.""

So one can have valid sacraments and apostolic succession without communion, though I assume it's all regarded as illicit.

To clarify the meaning of these terms:
Valid: The requirements for the sacrament to do the thing it's supposed to do are met (e.g. for confession to absolve sins)
Licit: The sacrament has met the rules laid down by the church

It is thus possible for sacraments to be both valid and illicit.

The status of the SSPX in communion is one of those things where if you ask different people the question you'll get different answers. In regards to the question of whether they are licit, I know Francis gave them explicit permission to hear confessions, but I don't know if that extended to the other sacraments. Regardless of whether their sacraments are licit (allowed), though, they are valid.

RileyG · Monday at 8:25 PM

JSRG said:
If that was required for apostolic succession then the Eastern Orthodox wouldn't have it... but the Catholic Church has long recognized they do. As the Catechism of the Catholic Church says (1399):

"The Eastern churches that are not in full communion with the Catholic Church celebrate the Eucharist with great love. "These Churches, although separated from us, yet possess true sacraments, above all - by apostolic succession - the priesthood and the Eucharist, whereby they are still joined to us in closest intimacy.""

So one can have valid sacraments and apostolic succession without communion, though I assume it's all regarded as illicit.

To clarify the meaning of these terms:
Valid: The requirements for the sacrament to do the thing it's supposed to do are met (e.g. for confession to absolve sins)
Licit: The sacrament has met the rules laid down by the church

It is thus possible for sacraments to be both valid and illicit.

The status of the SSPX in communion is one of those things where if you ask different people the question you'll get different answers. In regards to the question of whether they are licit, I know Francis gave them explicit permission to hear confessions, but I don't know if that extended to the other sacraments. Regardless of whether their sacraments are licit (allowed), though, they are valid.

Thanks for the info!

Peace

Valletta · Monday at 10:00 PM

RileyG said:
We still have the FSSP, which is in full communion with the Church. They have many vocations and young families attending. Their chapels are bursting at the seams!

That's great! I was wondering, we sing a Latin antiphon at the end of mass, it is Ordinary Time and we switched to a different one than for Advent. Is that common?

We hope the site problems here are now solved, however, if you still have any issues, please start a ticket in Contact Us

Society of St. Pius X to consecrate bishops without Rome’s approval, courting excommunication

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran

Veteran

Veteran

Well-Known Member

Veteran

Well-Known Member

Veteran

Well-Known Member

Veteran

Veteran

Well-Known Member

Veteran

Well-Known Member

Veteran

Well-Known Member

Similar threads