Josh Crews

Irregular Canonical Status

Benedict XVI, 2009:

the SSPX have no canonical status in the Church and its ministers cannon legitimately exercise any ministry.

It seems it would not be correct for Pope Benedict to have said the SSPX has ‘no canonical status’ (p. 51)

Why do bloggers think Pope Benedict is wrong about his own statement? Does not the Pope determine the canonical status of priestly societies?

Given this information, it would seem impossible to say that the SSPX is without at least some sort of canonical status given the actions of Pope Benedict (p 53)

I believe Benedict had a major goal during his pontificate to regularize the SSPX.

Dialogue between the Holy See and the Society of Saint Pius X

The wikipedia article traces a history of the Vatican reaching out to offer regularization to the SSPX. The SSPX asked for

  1. Freedom of all priests to say Tridentine mass
  2. Nullification of the 1988 excommunications

as signs of goodwill to open dialogue.

Benedict grants Latin Mass freedom in 2007 and lifts the excommunications in 2009.

Through this chapter Kennedy paints it as confusion that Bishop Fellay is requested to stop ordinations in Germany, and come to Rome for discussion; perhaps with imminent regularization.

But BENEDICT LOVES THE PRIESTS AND LAITY OF THE SSPX AS A FATHER who loves children, even though wayward. He wants to offer anything to win them home. He’s willing to embarrass himself and make unreasonable concessions. He wants them to move back home and live with “dad” (the Pope) again and be a happy family.

which would indicate Pope Benedict’s 2009 statement is null and void (p. 55)

When a Pope writes a letter to clarify the SSPX to all the bishops of the world and makes a clear statement like the SSPX have no canonical status in the Church and its ministers cannon legitimately exercise any ministry.

It is not overturned by a video interview on Rorate Caeli of Bishop Fellay saying, “let me tell you, I got a letter saying…”

Most importantly the individual under penalty knows the precise punishment, the reason(s) for the punishment, and what is necessary for proper and formal reconciliation with the Church (p. 57)

He implies Rome is not clear about what is required for reconciliation from the SSPX bishops/leaders. I am not in the curia, but I can guess.

I think it is

  1. Accept Vatican II as an Ecumenical Council, and that it’s teachings are interpretable in continuity with prior magisterial teachings

  2. Accept the 1970 Missal as a holy missal

There is no precedent in Church history where priests are officially held to be suspended in the way that is alleged about priests of the SSPX while the same priests simultaneously receive authorization from the Holy See for exercise of priestly ministry (p. 58)

I appreciate acknowledgement that SSPX priests are allegedly suspended.