(This is a summary from several sources and was the product of the enlightenment of my own ignorance on the subject. So please feel free to comment and or correct! Quotes taken from several sources that will be listed at the bottom of the post)
Found in the document “Presbyterorum ordinis“, a product of the Second Vatican Council, we find the origins of a Personal Prelature (PP). The PP is comprised of a hierarchy (a prelate, priests, deacons and sometimes lay faithful) and is established to carry out a specific pastoral function for the Church. The “Personal” refers to the jurisdiction of the SSPX would have. Unlike a diocese, their jurisdiction is linked to persons as opposed to any particular territory.
The personal prelature is similar to a religious order, in that “the prelate governs the prelature with ordinary power (that power given to those who hold a valid office and may execute Church law) and is selected according to the statutes of the prelature (can. 295), which could mean election by the members of the prelature or some other method. Also, the clergy of the prelature are incardinated into the prelature itself as opposed to the local particular church (dioceses).” For those of us unfamiliar with the term incardinated, it refers to the fact that no priest functions without a head, be that a bishop, superior or in this case a prelate.
Where the PP differs from a religious order is that they don’t take religious vows, they may have a different relationship to the local ordinary (i.e. they may be exempt from the laws and the governance of the particular church where they live and work, which might be good in the DoR), the prelature defines its own relationship with the laity dedicated to its mission and finally the prelate may be a bishop which generally doesn’t happen in religious order.
The personal prelature is also different from an ordinariate that, is technically a diocese of persons rather than being defined by a geographical location.
An example of a personal prelatures in the Church is Opus Dei
The good news, in my view, is that we may soon be able to apply the above to the SSPX.
Sentire Cum Ecclesia,
JBC
Source 1, Source 2, Source 3 (For those academics among us, don’t judge me for using Wikipedia.)
(Edit: Pope Benedict XVI’s provision for the Anglicans is actually a personal ordinariate.)
Tags: Latin Mass, SSPX
|
Thank you, JBC for this clarification. My follow-up questions are on the more mundane level. Are there SSPX priests in the dicese of Rochester (separate from the bishop, obviously)? Is the Latin Mass in (I think it is) Geneva which I think is not permitted by Bishop Clark an SSPX Mass? If the PP occurs, would SSPX be able to use/buy/rent closed DoR churches and celebrate their faithful form of the Mass so that we could attend? I have a few churches in mind for them 🙂 Hopefull,and Very Hopefull!
PS Bishop Clark’s rush to wreck-ovation (assuming the Vatican rumors on SSPX have been around for some time) continues to make increasing sense. I praise Pope Benedict for his shepherd’s heart!
There are currently no SSPX priests in Rochester. Do not confuse Holy Name of Mary Chapel with the SSPX, although it used to be. This is owned by the SSPV which was orginated by a group of dissenting SSPX priests about 25 years ago. The SSPV priests left the SSPX primarily over issues regarding the SSPX’s acceptance of the 1962 missal, acceptance of the New Mass as valid, and acceptance of the Pope as valid. The SSPV are all but sedavedantist, meaning they don’t believe the popes after PiusXII are valid, though they do not like to advertise it. They also do not believe the new sacraments are valid including holy orders, meaning that they don’t think any priest ordained after 1969 is valid.
The closest locations of the SSPX are Syracuse and Buffalo. The Gevena mass is offered by an independent priest who has associations with the SSPX but is a Celesian. He left his Celesian order about 10 years ago and studied and learned the traditional mass from the SSPX. He assisted the SSPX by teaching at their school in Syracuse (the Celesians are a teaching order). About 5 years ago he helped some families establish an independent chapel in Geneva.
Celesian should be Salesian, named after St. John Bosco founded..
Correction to above: *named after the order founded by St. John Bosco.
Sorry about the error in the previous entry. Some days the porch light is on but nobody is home. I have to learn to sync up my brain with my fingers.
Sorry, what can I say, I attended public schools.
Pietro: I attended the SSPX chapel on Winton Road. We must know each other from there somehow. The SSPX school in Syracuse has moved to Warners, slightly north of Syracuse. The school now takes in boarders from all over this country and Canada (the last I knew). Here is a link to their website: http://www.bvmacademy.org/faculty.php
The school property includes an amazing amount of land.
I did not know about the new school. How many diocesan school can boast that type of growth? The only thing sad about it is that the orginal plan was to have that type of growth in Rochester, up until the infamous 12 (is that the right number?) wrecked the thing and stole Holy Name.
I think it was 7, but it could have been 12.
You are 100% correct about the proposed growth in Rochester. We would have drawn people from both Syracuse and Buffalo. I attended the SSPX in Buffalo quite a few times and many families drove in from Olean, Ellicottville and Pennsylvania for Mass. The church was packed even 20 minutes before Mass started. Confession lines were so long that not everyone could have their confession heard before Mass. Have you been to the Buffalo Mass recently?
Hopefull: I think most of your questions have been answered in the above comments but to your question, “If the PP occurs, would SSPX be able to use/buy/rent closed DoR churches and celebrate their faithful form of the Mass so that we could attend?” I would think that if we are willing to sell our properties to Protestants and Muslims that this might be a possibility.
JBC
There are several documented cases where the SSPX has tried to buy Church properties and have been refused. It seems like many bishops would rather sell to protestants and muslims before the SSPX, and our bishop most likely fits that mold.
Choir: Haven’t been to syracuse or buffalo in years.
I think I am correct on this (Choir will have to cofirm this for me), but I think that before Holy Name was purchased the SSPX tried to purchase Holy Redeemer and was turned down. That was thirty years ago before the excommunications and today we have the same bishop. Now Holy Redeemer is owned by protestants.
Pietro – I somewhat remember that time. Wasn’t the possiblity of buying Holy Redeemer to be done through a third-party because, at the time, Pat Lucci was in dialogue with the then pastor of HR and it seemed a long-shot as any we had then.
Our diocese sold St. Francis Xavier to the Muslims and St. Andrew’s to a Protestant group. The sale of St. Andrew’s won’t be consummated until the severe water damage has been fixed to the buyers satisfaction.
I remember before the diocese sold Saints Peter and Paul’s to the Coptics (they turned out to be good owners and stewards) the boiler went. The diocese had to fix it to the tune of $200K before the Coptics would sign.
Isn’t there some doubt as to whether this will actually happen since as part of the agreement the SSPX will be required to in some way acknowledge Vatican II? I’m not an expert, but I think the SSPX does not accept the teachings of Vatican II. This differs from what could be called the “conservative” Catholic view which accepts Vatican II but believes that the teachings have been misinterpretated, deliberately or otherwise, by dissenters in the Church. I’m not sure what I think about the whole SSPX debate, but I admire Pope Benedict for his efforts to patch up this wound in the Church.
What was the Holy Name of Mary chapel before the SSPX bought it?
Immediately before SSPX it was, to the best of my recollection, the Lutheran Church for the Deaf. The sanctuary had to modified slightly and a whole choir loft put in, however the time, money and effort was generously donated by parishioners. Before SSPX, there was a Masonic symbol (maybe it the ashlar, I forget)in one of the windows that absolutely had to be replaced. Which it was.
A Catholic: This idea that the SSPX does not “accept the teachings of Vatican II” is mostly a canard. Most everyone knows that Vatican II was a pastoral council not a dogmatic one. It was supposed to reaffirm what was already known. The problem is that many of the texts led to a poor if not incorrect interpretation of Catholic doctrine. The SSPX has and does accept any text which does in fact correctly reaffirm the truths of the church. It has to or else it couldn’t call themselves catholic. The problem is there are several instances where texts, for whatever reason, can be (and were) interpreted in a light which is incompatible with what the church had always taught.
So when one asks “does the SSPX accept Vatican II” what are they really asking? They do not accepts any document or “teaching” which contradicts catholic doctrine nor should they. However, after the council one of the only mortal sins remaining was to question Vatican II. For this reason many catholics: laymen, priests and bishops alike were ostracized.
After 40 years of distaster a pope (hopefully) is finally affirming the right for catholics to question or disagree with the texts and interpretations that were presented during Vatican II.
Pietro,
Of course the leftists and modernists have sure been able to question or disagree with just about everything in the Church for the Last 40 years with out much problem. Our own bishop is a case in point.
It is my sincerest hope that the SSPX is brought in from the cold this time. Holy Mother Church sure does need them, and so does her people. God Bless and be well,
Yours in Christ,
CPT Tom
Do we really understand the Pope’s overtures to SSPX to mean he is affirming the right for Catholics to question or disagree with the texts of the Constitutions and Decrees of the Second Vatican Council?
What about interpretations? Who has the authority and competence even to form official interpretations of (let alone question or disagree with) the texts of an Ecumenical Council’s constitutions and decrees? Me? You? SSPX?
In reviewing comments on this post, it occurs to me that many of us might be offering sincere but uninformed opinions. Personally I know even less than our brothers and sisters who have commented, so I do not presume to correct anyone.
But, why not seek those resource people who know? So I googled http://www.catholic.com and searched SSPX. Look at what I discovered:
http://www.google.com/cse?cx=008187825485874300314%3A1bfkl0u3vji&ie=UTF-8&q=SSPX&sa=Search.
After a little reading we could develop a better sense as to whether, for example, “This idea that the SSPX does not “accept the teachings of Vatican II” is mostly a canard.”;or “The SSPX has and does accept any text which does in fact correctly reaffirm the truths of the church. It has to or else it couldn’t call themselves catholic.”
Pietro, I must admit your last sentence really caused me to pause. What do you mean by:
“…..a pope (hopefully) is finally affirming the right for catholics to question or disagree with the texts and interpretations that were presented during Vatican II.”
I welcome some input and correction to what I am about to say and post. It is my understanding that the Holy Spirit certainly provides protection for the decisions of an Ecumenical Council, and that Vatican II is no exception. However, it is also my understanding that such protection does not extend to each and every implementation of the Council, and perhaps that is where much disagreement arises.
In doing research on the St. Jan’s altar situation, I came across a little booklet called
“The Catholic Sanctuary: And the Second Vatican Council” by Michael Davies. This is just one of a number of paragraphs which I included in my Newsletter. The problem now is that so many good people identify V-II with the implementations and policies to which it was reduced. If there is interest in the whole Newsletter article and quotes, I’d be glad to post it.
Have you seen the book entitled, MORE CATHOLIC THAN THE POPE?
I admit that all I have read is a review of it in THIS ROCK, January 2005 issue.
Ann Applegarth introduces readers to Patrick Madrid’s and Pete Vere’s so called “inside look into extreme traditionalism”.
Personally, I am pleased that there is more hope now than ever before for reconciliation between the Church and SSPX. That being said, I cannot help but pause at less than clear statements which call into question the legitimacy and authority of the Second Vatican Council, its Dogmatic Constitutions, its Decrees or Declarations.
It is one thing to rejoice over the necessary healing to be effected through a coming home by SSPX. It is quite another thing to hope Pope Benedict’s overtures to SSPX give a positive affirmation to their former schism and rejection of Vatican II.
And what ever we do, let’s avoid thinking SSPX’s coming home to Rome opens a door to legitimate rejection of an Ecumenical Council.
Go ahead, beloved, check out : http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0501revw.asp
On July 2, 1988 in APOSTOLIC LETTER “ECCLESIA DEI” OF THE SUPREME PONTIFF JOHN PAUL II,
Blessed John Paul II wrote, “In the present circumstances I wish especially to make an appeal both solemn and heartfelt, paternal and fraternal, to all those who until now have been linked in various ways to the movement of Archbishop Lefebvre, that they may fulfil the grave duty of remaining united to the Vicar of Christ in the unity of the Catholic Church, and of ceasing their support in any way for that movement. Everyone should be aware that formal adherence to the schism is a grave offence against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church’s law.” (see Code of Canon Law, can. 1364.)
That was then. Today, there is great hope.
It does no good to “spin” the facts about SSPX. They are in schism. Many of the statements of Vatican II are doctrinal. It is wrong for any Roman Catholic to support them in their schism.
It is an abomination to have a PP inserted into a diocese without the approval of the local bishop. Otherwise the authority of a bishop is compromised.
I cannot see how the Pope would deliberately undermine the authority of one of the bishops in communion with the Holy See. It would be a sin against Unity (which, by the way,was the grievous sin committed by Jim Callan and the Spiritus Christi people).
So, my good people, stop this encouragement of the SSPX – except to encourage them to submit in heart and mind to the declarations of Vatican II and to admit that the Novus Ordo is the true Sacrifice of the Mass.
Are they? Does disobedience equate to schism?
That was all? I think it also had to do with heresy and doing things like offering communion to Protestants, blessing gay marriages, pretending women could be priests, etc.
Can you provide some examples?
obviously. I didn’t hear anyone say anything different.
Are we in need of moderator clarification? I ask the question because of the confusion over what was meant by what was written.
So could the following be clarified by moderators or commenters?
* In the comment “Pietro says: September 17, 2011 at 11:31 AM”, is Pietro stating that in contrast to the SSPV priests, the SSPX priests “accept the 1962 missal, accept the New Mass as valid, and accept the Pope as valid; the SSPX believe the new sacraments are valid including holy orders, meaning that they think any priest ordained after 1969 is valid”?
* In the comment “A Catholic says: September 17, 2011 at 6:57 PM”, he states :”part of the agreement the SSPX will be required to in some way acknowledge Vatican II? I’m not an expert, but I think the SSPX does not accept the teachings of Vatican II.” Is A Catholic correct?
* Pietro wrote :”This idea that the SSPX does not “accept the teachings of Vatican II” is mostly a canard.” Is this correct or wrong?
* Pietro also wrote : “After 40 years of distaster a pope (hopefully) is finally affirming the right for catholics to question or disagree with the texts and interpretations that were presented during Vatican II.” Do Catholics have the right to question or disagree with the texts and interpretations presented during Vatican II?
* Lastly, I am open to any and all moderator clarification of anything on this subject that I posted as an assertion or a question.
I await the moderator clarification that should help us understand the situation as it is untils the Church and SSPX are reconciled.
Brother Pietro,
Even though moderator clarification never came,
I am satisfied now that your above statements were incorrect.
See this link to realize that SSPX still does not accept the teachings of Vatican II
and that the pope is not affirming the right for catholics to question or disagree with
the texts of Vatican II.
In effect, SSPX has a ways to go to be reconciled with the Catholic Church.
See http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1104316.htm