Talk:Society of Saint Pius X

Archives (Index)

1

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Current Canonical Status

Since we are having some difficulty in this matter, I thought a discussion-section might be useful on the current canonical situation of the Society.

In the canonical recognition sub-heading, we find this quotation from Benedict XVI: "Until the doctrinal questions are clarified, the Society has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers – even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty – do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church." That was true when he said it, but it is no longer indicative of the situation. I will lay out my reasoning here, but believe that it is too limited-interest for publication on the page itself.

Marriage and confession are the two sacraments of the Catholic Church which require juridical (i.e. canonical) jurisdiction, otherwise a purported matrimonial union can be annulled on the grounds of lack-of-form, and a confession would be thought to be without effect. For brevity, I will only look at marriage for now:

For validity, marital-consent must be celebrated "before the local ordinary, pastor, or a priest or deacon delegated by either of them"Canon 1108. This priest, deacon or lay-person (see can. 1112)is called the one who "assists" (is present). The one who assists is necessary in all cases except when one who is described as "competent to assist" cannot be found and either of these situations apply: "danger of death; [or] outside the danger of death provided that it is prudently foreseen that the situation will continue for a month." In that case, the parties may exchange consent before witnesses alone (Can. 1116.1).

For a priest who is not the pastor or bishop of the parties to be designated "competent to assist," it is, therefore, necessary that that priest receive the faculty from the bishop or pastor. That amounts to juridical (canonical) recognition. The letter from the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith specifically grants permission to designate SSPX priests competent to assist: "there are no priests in the Diocese able to receive the consent of the parties, the Ordinary may grant the necessary faculties to the priest of the Society who is also to celebrate the Holy Mass" Radio Vaticana; it is further confirmed by the report from Crux which is already linked in the article.

From this I conclude that "the Society has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers – even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty – do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church" is no longer applicable to the situation, because to assist at marriages is to "exercise [a] ministry in the Church," fully legal according to canon law. This means that they do, in fact, have some (i.e. not full) canonical status in the Church, and therefore that I am correct to edit the section to read that Benedict's statement "has been superseded somewhat by recent recognitions by the Holy See." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mazurkazm (talk • contribs) 17:12, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Let us distinguish between two parts of the statement of Benedict XIV. He says: "Until the doctrinal questions are clarified, the Society has no canonical status in the Church." This surely still holds absolutely. He also says: ""Until the doctrinal questions are clarified, ... its ministers – even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty – do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church." This is still true as a general rule, to which could be added: "without prejudice to the authority of a local ordinary to grant a particular priest of the Society the faculty to assist at a particular marriage for which there are no priests in the diocese able to receive the consent of the parties". Rather like the wording of canon 1108 §1: "Only those marriages are valid which are contracted before the local ordinary, pastor, or a priest or deacon delegated by either of them, who assist, and before two witnesses according to the rules expressed in the following canons and without prejudice to the exceptions mentioned in canons ...."

The general rule enunciated by Benedict XIV admitted exceptions even before the latest decrees. For instance priests of the Society, any and all, had the faculty to grant sacramental absolution to someone in danger of death. That was no reason to consider inapplicable Benedict XIV's statement.

To say: "Owing to the faculties which have been granted for confessions and marriages, therefore, Benedict XVI's 2009 declaration ".." is no longer applicable, because to assist at marriages and hear confessions is to "exercise [a] ministry in the Church" which has been recognized as legal under canon law." is surely excessive. To say so in Wikipedia is altogether excluded, because it is, so far, only original research. Athbheo (talk) 09:17, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Glad we can talk about this.

Of the three arguments you present, the second is irrelevant, because Pope Benedict was not speaking of situations in which there is danger of death. The fact that any validly ordained priest has the sacramental power to give absolution in periculum vitae says nothing about the priest's juridical situation (and, therefore, the validity of his absolutions outside in periculum vitae). At play here are the two concepts of Sacred Powers (sacra potestas) and the juridical authorization to carry it out(munus). Pope Benedict was saying that the SSPX, while possessing the Sacred Powers in virtue of valid ordination, did not possess the Munus. This is why the Holy See did not recognize the validity of SSPX marriages and confessions (outside of extreme situations); marriage and confession are the two sacraments which require the Munus, in addition to the Sacra Potestas.

Owing to the above, it certainly is not excessive (par your third argument) to say that Benedict's statement has been superseded by his successor. The SSPX is aware of it as well, which is why they recently published an article explaining that, because of these concessions, they no longer have to "invoke an extraordinary jurisdiction" for the validity of their marriages and confessions; and that would be precisely because they have been granted ordinary jurisdiction (SSPX). The granting of jurisdiction, though, is synonymous with possessing a ministry in the Church (since a ministry is the exercise of the Munus). I am only reporting a fact when I say that the granting of faculties is a change in the canonical situation.

This means that your first argument, "'Until the doctrinal questions are clarified, the Society has no canonical status in the Church.' This surely still holds absolutely," is simply untrue. The doctrinal questions have not yet been clarified, but the Society uncontestably possesses some jurisdiction right now. If they didn't, they could not be delegated "competent to assist" at Catholic marriages anymore than an Orthodox priest can be delegated competent to assist, and their confessions and marriages would, by definition, be considered invalid.

Mazurkazm (talk) 02:42, 13 April 2017 (UTC) mazurkazm

Good. And I hope others will also have their say.

I disagree that, if members of an (as yet) unrecognized association have certain limited jurisdiction (power of governance), the association possesses jurisdiction (power of governance). Am I splitting hairs?

For someone in danger of death jurisdiction (power of governance) for absolving is supplied to any priest (SThSupplQ8a6). (Munus is a different concept: to quote Benedict XVI, bishops receive "with episcopal consecration three special offices:  the munus docendi, the munus sanctificandi and the munus regendi, which all together constitute the munus pascendi".) The priest, whoever he is, then has jurisdiction (power of governance). The associations, whatever they are, to which he may belong do not.

As you know, canon 144 (on common error) could be seen as giving jurisdiction (power of governance) to SSPX priests hearing confessions even before the grant by Francis (cf. New Commentary).

SSPX priests do not have faculties to assist validly at marriages. In special circumstances (absence of any priest at all in full communion who can assist) a bishop can give faculties for that particular marriage to a particular SSPX priest. So neither individually nor collectively do SSPX priests possess the faculties: they need to obtain it. A particular SSPX priest needs to have them granted him by the bishop, who can grant them but doesn't have to. The Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches says that, if an Orthodox priest blesses a mixed (Catholic-Orthodox) marriage involving a party belonging to his Church, the marriage is valid (even if, in the view of the Catholic Church, illicit): the Orthodox priest has no need to request the local Catholic bishop to grant him faculties. (Somewhat similar is the power of a bishop to dispense from the canonical form of marriage and have the marriage celebrated before a Protestant minister who isn't even a priest, and the marriage is then both valid and "legal under canon law".)

Perhaps I should give more time to considering the question, but I trust others will.

In any case, even if your arguments are correct, they are your arguments, not a reporting of what reliable sources say: as original research, they may not be used in Wikipedia. Athbheo (talk) 17:49, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Since I'm rather busy at the moment, I'll save my replies to the points you raise for later, and address the original-research claim [update: I have moved my reply to original research claim to the page you've set up for it]. My reply to your counterclaims will come in a few days. Happy Easter! Mazurkazm (talk) 03:30, 17 April 2017 (UTC)mazurkazm

I too I'm glad this discussion is going on in such a measured and respectful manner. If I could have my twopence worth here, I would observe the manner in which the faculties to absolve were granted. It was firstly granted in the context of the Year of Mercy and thereafter extended. So it was given by way of an indulgence, not as a right. Also the faculty was not granted to the bishops of the Society as if they were ordinaries. It was given to each and every cleric directly and is dependent entirely on the pope without intermediary. For diocesan priests it is different. They receive their jurisdiction from an ordinary. If a clerical society cannot claim to have an ordinary, nor possess faculties in their right, they cannot claim to exercise a lawful ministry. Pastorally it is a wonderful thing. The faithful can receive absolution in good conscience. It is well to observe though, that doctrinal and pastoral problems and a culture of antisemitism still afflict the society. But progress is being made.Gazzster (talk) 05:01, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

It would be well, I think, to discuss separately the validity of the arguments used and their alleged character of original research. The question of this alleged character has now been raised at Talk:Canonical situation of the Society of St. Pius X#Original research, and I suggest that discussion on that matter be conducted only there. Naturally, if the arguments are found to be original research, the question of their validity is of no concern to Wikipedia and discussion of it should be ended here and left to forums and the like. Athbheo (talk) 07:45, 14 April 2017 (UTC)