SSPX- Consecrations or Capitulation?

 As the clock ticks down to the planned episcopal consecrations by the Society of Saint Pius X on July 1st, there is a lot of philosophical grandstanding taking place across social media and religious news outlets.  The majority of Roman Catholic outlets and clergy seem to tow the predictable line that the SSPX is going to be straying into schism because of 'disobedience to the pope', an assumption presumably confirmed by the current bishop of Rome's own words on the matter this week at Castel Gandolfo.  The entirety of the assumption of schism centers around the SSPX's rejection of the majority of what has come to be attributed to the Second Vatican Council, although no one can ever quite cite what source from the council documents they proclaim the SSPX to be in revolt on. 

 At the very heart of the matter is, in plain fact; the very issue that the Roman church takes with other sacramental churches: liturgy and intent.  These 2 issues can be summed up quite simply in 2 forms of question:

1. Does the Roman Pontiff hold the authority to impose a new form of liturgy on the universal church, and abrogate (or ban) a liturgy which has been part of the church for numerous centuries?

2. Does the Roman Pontiff hold the authority to declare who holds apostolic succession legitimately by proclaiming whether there is "proper intent"?

To the first question- NO.  The Roman Pontiff does not hold the authority to impose a new liturgy on the church by whim.  Ardent defenders of the Second Vatican Council will sing madrigals of how the council imposed the novus ordo mass; and yet it was not imposed on the church until 1972.  It was not created in its entirety until after the council itself had ended, therefore cannot be legitimately declared to be the product of the council.  Defenders of this position also try to claim that the Pope holds such authority because of Quo Primum; wherein Pope Pius V codified and canonized the tridentine liturgy, banning other liturgical texts that did not have an equally ancient history as the mass called tridentine.  Unfortunately this is not a comparable analogy; as Pius V was speaking WITH the voice of the Council of Trent who had decided these matters, rather than the Pope on his own sparking liturgical revolution, as did Paul VI.  To put it plainly, while a COUNCIL has the authority to impose a new liturgy, a POPE does not; which is why the Novus Ordo mass is not a mass which may be considered to be obligatory.  

To the second question- also NO.  The bishop of Rome alone does not hold the authority to judge what is sacramentally legitimate in terms of intent.  The argument raised is the declaration of Pope Leo XIII when he proclaimed that Anglican Holy Orders were invalid due to lack of intent.  His basis for that declaration seemed to be more centered on non-communion with Rome as opposed to form and matter of ordination.  And yet, even Roman Catholic canon law declares that churches who maintain proper form and matter in ordination (required prayers, actions, and MALE ordinands), retain the fullness of sacramental authority.  If all bishops and ordinations were required to be approved by Rome, the Roman church certainly has a funny way of expressing that; in so recent history as approving of the bishops whom the Chinese communist government had already previously installed and consecrated without papal mandate.  Such an example proves that papal mandates are not only NOT essential to episcopal consecration, but that they are, at best; superfluous documents meant to express a paternal affinity for the new bishop, rather than a document granting jurisdiction. 

At the end of things, the argument that is always fallen back on by the Roman authorities is that councils are always infallible.   Unfortunately this is not the case.   Only the Dogmatic, Ecumenical councils are considered to be infallible; which the Second Vatican Council was never considered to be.  From its earliest days, Vatican 2 proclaimed itself a "pastoral council" rather than dogmatic; which places its decrees and judgments on a lesser footing than a Dogmatic council.  To put it bluntly, no one is required by canon law to obey a pastoral council if one feels it violates the essence of the faith.  To insist otherwise and to coerce people to do so in violation of conscience; presents a grave danger to not only the faith itself, but also the salvation of souls.  

While I as an Anglican truly have no dog in this fight, it is this Parson's view, based on history, theology, canon law, and practical application of truth: that the Vatican (though perhaps not the Pope himself) is in error in this matter, and that the true cause of the Vatican's bluster is a desire for power rather than Christian concord and harmony.  

If only the Vatican would allow the Bishop of Rome to speak for himself, instead of permitting pernicious cardinals to speak in the "name of the Pope". 




Popular posts from this blog

Freedom and Responsibility

Image
 In May of 2023 a 28 year old man in Baltimore, Maryland viciously assaulted 2 pro-life protesters outside of a Planned Parenthood facility in Maryland.  The suspect, Patrick Brice; claimed to the court that he was only seeking to debate the initial victim on the concept of 'sin', when he (in his own words) "Just snapped" and decided to tackle the 84 year old man and beat him up.  He then did the same to another man who attempted to stop him; the entire ordeal being caught on surveillance video for the whole world to see.  In most situations and other cases, such evidence and confession from a suspect would be seen as evidence enough to Garner a conviction that would lead to substantial incarceration; however this time was different.  Yes, this time both the judge and the jury seemed unable to determine that any really serious crime had been committed, despite evidence and witness testimony which supported the case.  The problem?  Both judge and jury s...
Read more

In Defense of the Priesthood

Image
 In recent decades, more so since about 2007; there has been an increasing demand from people in the world for all churches to open up the ministry to women instead of just men.  While there are some denominations where such a shift would not matter greatly, as they are focused primarily on the written word instead of any actual service; to make such a demand of the sacramental priesthood is a problem which cannot be simply overcome by political ideology or social justice cause.  To put it bluntly, women cannot be priests.   Having nailed the colors to the mast with that statement, I will elaborate: From the beginnings of the Christian Church, the services and means of worship were never intended to be divorced from their Jewish origins.  To this day, within traditional sacramental worship, there are elements of the service which correlate to ancient Jewish temple practices; from the manner in which the priest holds his hands in prayer, to the way in which ...
Read more

Law and Order: Avarice vs. Authoritarianism

Image
 In the last few months, there has been much debate about ICE and immigration law enforcement in this country.  While there is a lot of high flying emotion and anger on both sides of the debate, it is important to remember first and foremost that we are all of us, human beings; and not deserving of the manner of filth and hatred that is spewing from the mouths and hands of protesters, both in favor and opposition of the enforcement of immigration law.  That being said, it is an extremely interesting paradox in which the American Democratic party and liberal followers find themselves with regard to the immigration enforcement.   After all, not too long ago we had Democratic governors, mayors, and civic leaders who ordered people to remain in their homes; and arrested people who dared violate "quarantine".  Leaders who ordered SWAT raids and violated people's homes in order to ensure that there were no more than 10 people at family gatherings. Police raids on...
Read more