This probably explains why he refuses to join up with the Resistance.

WHAT ARE WE TO THINK OF INDEPENDENT PRIESTS?

Independent priests do not exist in the Catholic Church, nor can they licitly exercise the power of Holy Orders. The first reason for this is that only the bishop receives the fullness of the power of holy orders, so that a priest’s exercise of this power is necessarily limited. Furthermore, the exercise of the power of holy orders, being a power of the mystical body of Christ, is necessarily limited by the power of government, or jurisdiction, given to the Church’s hierarchy. It is by jurisdiction that the Church is bound into one visible body. It is for this reason that a priest is forbidden to exercise his power of holy orders unless he has received “faculties,” namely the authority to do so from his religious superior or his ordinary. To deny this is to deny the Church’s hierarchical structure and to reduce it to the level of a Protestant sect.

From the earliest ages of the Church, consequently, clerics were not to be ordained except for service in a definite territory or diocese. Unattached clerics were called headless (“acephali ”) and were forbidden to exercise the sacred ministry. During the Middle Ages the abuse of clerics unattached to a bishop or to a superior developed, with considerable scandal and detriment to the Church. Hence the Council of Trent (Session XXIII, Chapter XVI; July 15, 1563) decreed

that no one shall in the future be ordained who is not assigned to that church or pious place for the need or utility of which he is promoted, where he may discharge his duties and not wander about without any fixed abode.
This is called the title of ordination, still strictly required to this very day. The holy Council continues to determine what shall be the consequence if a priest abandons that title, namely his bishop or his superior, to go it alone:

But if he shall desert that place without consulting the bishop, he shall be forbidden the exercise of the sacred orders. Furthermore, no cleric who is a stranger shall, without commendatory letters from his Ordinary, be admitted by any bishop to celebrate the divine mysteries and to administer the sacraments.
A priest’s submission to his bishop or to his religious superior, called in both cases his ordinary, since he has ordinary jurisdiction over him, remains strictly obligatory in canon law. It is called incardination. It is contained in the 1917 Code of Canon Law, Canon 111, §1 which states: “Every cleric must be incardinated in a diocese or religious community, so that unattached clerics are in no way to be accepted.” The 1983 Code of Canon Law repeats the same (Can. 265).

Before Vatican II, this principle was everywhere accepted. A priest who left his diocese or religious community knew full well that he could not preach, administer the sacraments (outside of danger of death), or publicly celebrate Mass until such time as he found a new religious superior or bishop to incardinate him and to give him the authority to do so. The breakdown of the Church’s authority structure in the wake of Vatican II has caused quite some confusion on this issue.

There were many older priests who were unjustly stripped of their faculties, or declared suspended or even excommunicated. Such sentences, being manifestly unjust, were canonically null and void. Consequently, such traditional priests continued, rightly, their pastoral administration of the sacraments and the celebration of Mass. In justice they retained their incardination, whether it be in their diocese from which they had been unjustly excluded, or likewise in their religious community to whose rule they alone remained attached. In case of need the Church supplied jurisdiction and they administered the sacraments validly and licitly. However, most importantly the “independence” of such priests was purely apparent, due to the crisis of authority and their rejection by their own superiors. They remained attached for life to their diocese or religious community. However, most of these older priests have passed to their eternal reward, and few traditional priests remain in this situation.

Entirely different is the situation of the new generation of “independent” priests, who have been ordained by rogue bishops such as sedevacantists and Old Catholics without any canonical attachment at all. They set up their chapels where they can find a few faithful and set up their churches in the same way that a Protestant pastor would gather a congregation around him. They are in no way attached to the Church’s hierarchy. It is consequently forbidden for them to celebrate Mass or administer the sacraments, and likewise for the faithful to assist at their Masses, or to receive the sacraments from them, except in case of danger of death.

Many such priests allege as the justification for their behavior the crisis in the Church, and certainly with some degree of credibility. However, the modernists’ abuse of authority cannot be a justification for bypassing the entire authority structure of the Church. Evil cannot be overcome by doing evil, by ripping apart the Church’s structure even more. Here it is a question of the divine institution of the Church itself, for it was Christ Himself who established the power of jurisdiction as distinct from that of holy orders. Consequently, the Catholic response cannot possibly be to dispense with all authority in the Church and to act as if it did not exist at all. This would be to admit that the gates of hell have prevailed against the Church, which is impossible, being directly opposed to the words of God Himself. In fact, such independent priests are nothing less than opportunists, taking advantage of the particular situation of the crisis in the Church to set up their own congregation as if it were a private business.

Some folks will respond to this by saying that given the fact that there are no traditional dioceses, future priests and the faithful have no choice but to choose the independent, acephalous, unattached option. God would never reduce the Church to such limits that would deny her very nature, and even in these desperate circuмstances has provided religious communities and clerical congregations, correctly and canonically established, with superiors who are ordinaries (at least for their members), to provide for the spiritual necessities of the faithful. These are such communities as the Society of St. Pius X and the associated Franciscan, Dominican, Benedictine, and many other communities world wide. All are just as attached to the holy virtue of obedience upon which the Catholic Church is built as they are opposed to the horrible illusion of an “independent” priesthood.

Consequently, the faithful have always the right to ask a priest about his incardination, or faculties, or about his ordinary, whether it be a superior or a bishop. If it is an older priest, having been many years in a religious community or diocese, who is persecuted for his love of Tradition, there will not be any doubt in this regard. If it is a priest of a regularly constituted community, such as the Society of St. Pius X, he would certainly not take umbrage at such a question, but consider that the faithful have the right to know, and that it is his great honor to declare his superior and his community, through which he is attached to the Church.

However, there are some priests who will refuse to answer the question, and who will be indignant that it is even asked. The faithful are forbidden to attend the Masses of such priests. These are the priests, usually Feeneyites, Sedevacantists, or Old Catholics, who have no attachment to the Catholic Church at all, who are either without superior or bishop, or who have as their “bishop” a non-Catholic, schismatic, sedevacantist bishop who himself has no attachment to the Catholic Church. They will make every effort to compare their false bishops (if they have any) to the Society’s bishops. However, the difference is manifest. The Society’s bishops have their attachment to the Church through the Society of St. Pius X, a legitimately established community of which they are but auxiliary bishops, and through which they receive their entire authority to administer the sacraments of confirmation and holy orders.

http://www.angelusonline.org/index.php?section=articles&subsection=show_article&article_id=3028



That last line doesn't sound like the classic SSPX position as laid out by Archbishop Lefebvre.

The Society’s bishops have their attachment to the Church through the Society of St. Pius X, a legitimately established community of which they are but auxiliary bishops, and through which they receive their entire authority to administer the sacraments of confirmation and holy orders.

This is probably the first time that I can think of that I seriously disagreed with a few of the things Fr. Peter Scott has to say. I agree with him about the Old Catholics and some other parts here, but there are a few things that I would dispute. This last line of his states clearly that the priests of the Society receive their authority to administer the sacraments through the Society. This explains why Fr. Peter Scott has not joined ranks with Resistance priests. He is completely off on this one, and he is completely off base on the entire position of the SSPX regarding supplied jurisdiction. He even goes against the Archbishop on this one...

Here is what the Archbishop had to say about the authority of a consecrated bishop with an emergency Mandate and where his authority comes from:

This is not the case with the new bishop, who has no other basis for jurisdiction than that which comes from the requests of the priests and the faithful to take care of their souls and those of their children, and who have asked him to accept the episcopacy so as to give them true Catholic priests and the grace of the Sacrament of Confirmation[...] Thus it is clear that the jurisdiction of the new bishop is not territorial but personal, as becomes also the jurisdiction of the priests.Inasmuch as the faithful request from the priests and the bishop the sacraments and the doctrine of the Faith...

http://www.archbishoplefebvre.com/blog/on-a-new-bishop-for-campos

So, if a bishop gets his juridiction and authority from the need or "requests" of the faithful...so much more so would this apply to the priests. There is nothing in what the Archbishop says about the priests or bishops receiving their authority from the SSPX. In fact, it is quite the opposite. Neither the priests or the bishops receive any authority by merely being members of the SSPX.

Quote

Independent priests do not exist in the Catholic Church, nor can they licitly exercise the power of Holy Orders

The SSPX is a union of independent priests.

The argument here that I believe is in Fr. Peter Scott's claim is that the SSPX was canonically erected and illegitimately suppressed on the merit of remaining faithful to the Tradition and the Church. This would keep them from being a group of "independent" priests in view of being a pious union of priests canonically founded. They have a legitimate superior just like any Benedictine monastery has a legitimate prior. The law of necessity and the fact that Faith is a virtue much higher than obedience oblige them to "disobey" the modern Roman authorities. I can agree with this for the most part.

The part I would disagree with is in saying that a SSPX priest's authority comes from being a member of the SSPX. Even the FSSP, which is regularized, doesn't make such claims. He lifts the SSPX up to the status of The Church, outside of which there is no authority to disobey Rome or administer the Sacraments. Fr. Scott is really off on this one. It is a good explanation of why he hasn't left the neo-SSPX.

Being an "independent Priest" is like driving your car on a flat tire to the nearest gas station. It's not something you choose. It's not ideal. But it is something that can and SHOULD be done in a state of necessity.

People are going to honk at you and point out the tire about to fall off the rim of your vehicle, they are going to point out the obvious problem, and they are going to think you're crazy when you respond to them, "I know, it's flat!" while continuing to drive on the flat.

But if you don't have a spare and you walk with a cane, you either die of exposure/dehydration, or get yourself to a gas station. Even if it means doing something that you ideally would NOT be doing (ruining a good tire, possibly damaging the vehicle as well)

That's very interesting.  Fr. Scott must have changed his position from when I knew him.  He never brought this issue up with me, and he certainly had cause to if he held this position at the time.

A priest, like a physician, must have permission or be "licensed" to ply his trade.  All things being equal, everyone would agree that a priest must have faculties, and a physician must have a license.  To practice without a license is a big no-no.

In the case of an unlicensed physician, who in their right mind could possibly find fault with him practicing his healing arts in the wake of some disaster, where there aren't enough doctors or medical staff around?  Perhaps he should just "move along" like the Levite who came across the man waylaid by robbers?  If the principle that "necessity knows no law" applies in the case of the physical needs of men, how much more for the spiritual?  Is the body not worth more than the raiment?  Is the soul not worth more than the body?

And does Fr. Scott seriously believe that it is according to the mind of the Church and the intention of the council (of Trent) fathers that such laws be followed absolutely, even in light of the current crisis?  Does he truly hold that it is the intention of the Church that such laws deprive the remnant faithful of the sacraments and the means of saving their souls?  This is clearly a case of the letter of the law killing, without regard for the spirit.

But if the SSPX is to justify itself, this is a position it must necessarily take.  They have to have some way to "set themselves apart".

The pharisees are alive and well.  

When was this written? The link takes me to an article about copyrights from 2010.

Quote from: wallflower

Independent priests scare me.

I take it that you don't go to the SSPX then because ALL SSPX priests are independent.  

Frankly, in these times, it is the non-independent priests, i.e., those affiliated with the Conciliar church and have the "official" backing of the Conciliar dioceses that scare me.

We do. And we've attended Masses of independent priests not affiliated with the SSPX. And Resistance priests' Masses too. What I meant was they scare me because it's such an unnatural state for the Church. So I guess it is more in theory, not so much in person. There is a reason why the Church doesn't normally operate that way and the risks of "rogue" priests are high, even if they start out well. Though I understand the necessity of our times, it doesn't mean we are somehow immune to human nature. I just trust and hope that God supplies enough grace to keep those potential problems to a minimum. My fear is very natural and we should all have it to a degree, if we know anything of our Church's preferences, and perhaps as a little antidote against presumption. But of course understanding our Faith and understanding the necessity keeps the fear in check and we do what we must do regardless.

...there is a part of me that wishes someone would start another order or society

...is that the SSPX was canonically erected and illegitimately suppressed on the merit of remaining faithful to the Tradition and the Church. This would keep them from being a group of "independent" priests in view of being a pious union of priests canonically founded.

When was this written? The link takes me to an article about copyrights from 2010.

You have to use the right sidebar on the scroll and scroll down. You will find the article if you do that.

Under normal circuмstances, a priest gone "independent" would be a huge red flag for all the faithful. Today we've got Popes and Bishops declaring (in so many words) their own independence from traditional Catholicism and so we're left with trying to sort out who's who on our own. It's like complaining about all the bad drivers on the road during a hurricane.

It does help that the SSPX was canonically established, but we all know that meant little to those who always pulled rank on the Society whenever the excommunications were brought up. Now almost 30 years later, we're on the reverse side of that extreme looking down into the unhinged jaw of Bergoglio. Let's get with it and stop wasting time on straw men!