I want to repost the whole entry of a certain Xanga Blogger named Arnobius of Sicca who wrote a provocative and very truthful commentary about the stubborness and pride and even blackmail of the Society of St. Pius X with regards to their receint ordination of Bishops and Priests in Switzerland, Germany and the US despite Vatican sanctions and warning. We can all recall the Benedict XVI has released officially in the press that the SSPX has no canonical status yet, so it means that the lifting of the excommunication bestowed on Bishop Leferbre and his cohorts (together with Bishop Fellay) by John Paul II in 1988 was just a start of an on going process of accepting the authority of the Pope and the Catholic Church including the teachings of the Vatican Council II which the society notoriously and vehemently denied for decades. And now, as the author puts it, Bishop Fellay is blackmailing the Catholic Church saying if they are excommunicated again just because they disobeyed AGAIN the church’s authority, it will jeopardize the ongoing talks (and NOT NEGOTIATION since the Catholic Church would not compromise its stance just to have them back–remember, they are the ones who sought the help and not the church) between the Vatican and the SSPX.

Read the entire post below taken from a certain blog. Its well worth your time:

Blackmail: Fellay Claims Action Against Illicit Ordinations Will “Jeopardize Everything.”
by Arnobius of Sicca

I support the Pope seeking to return the SSPX into the fold of the Church, though at times it seems the lost sheep the Holy Father embraces is actually more of a scorpion. This comes through as the SSPX — just as wrong as they were since 1975 — is planning to illicitly ordain priests and deacons for the SSPX.

Fellay claims he believes the Vatican now “has no basic problems” with the upcoming priestly ordinations.”

Excuse me for being dubious. Canon law is rather clear on who may ordain candidates to the diaconate and to the priesthood:

Can. 1016 As regards the diaconal ordination of those who intend to be enrolled in the secular clergy, the proper bishop is the bishop of the diocese in which the candidate has a domicile or the bishop of the diocese to which the candidate is determined to devote himself. As regards the presbyteral ordination of secular clerics, it is the bishop of the diocese in which the candidate was incardinated through the diaconate.

Can. 1017 A bishop cannot confer orders outside his own jurisdiction without the permission of the diocesan bishop.

Can. 1018 §1. The following can give dimissorial letters for secular clergy:

1/ the proper bishop mentioned in can. 1016;

2/ an apostolic administrator and, with the consent of the college of consultors, a diocesan administrator; with the consent of the council mentioned in can. 495, §2, an apostolic pro-vicar and an apostolic pro-prefect.

§2. A diocesan administrator, apostolic pro-vicar, and apostolic pro-prefect are not to grant dimissorial letters to those who have been denied admission to orders by the diocesan bishop, the apostolic vicar, or the apostolic prefect.

Thus we see that the SSPX despite its protests that it wants to be recognized within the Church, it persists in disobedience. Since the Bishop of Regensburg, Gerhard Ludwig Müller, has threatened excommunication if those continue with it, it is safe to assume the SSPX are not in compliance with canon law in 1016. Because the SSPX bishops cannot ordain outside of their own jurisdiction — of which they have NONE — without the permission of the diocesan bishop (who has, again, threatened excommunication) Canon 1017 again forbids them from ordaining. The candidates must have letters of dismissal in order to be ordained outside of their diocese, which has not been forthcoming. So they are at odds with canon 1018.

Other canons relevant to this case include:

Can. 1052 §1. For a bishop conferring ordination by his own right to proceed to the ordination, he must be sure that the documents mentioned in can. 1050 are at hand and that, after the investigation has been conducted according to the norm of law, positive arguments have proven the suitability of the candidate.

§2. For a bishop to proceed to the ordination of someone who is not his subject, it is sufficient that the dimissorial letters mention that the same documents are at hand, that the investigation has been performed according to the norm of the law, and that the suitability of the candidate has been established. Moreover, if the candidate is a member of a religious institute or a society of apostolic life, the same letters must also attest that he has been received definitively into the institute or society and is a subject of the superior who gives the letters.

§3. If, all these notwithstanding, the bishop doubts for specific reasons whether a candidate is suitable to receive orders, he is not to promote him.

Let’s be clear on something: These candidates were trained in an illicit seminary, and are to be ordained by an illicitly ordained bishop. The bishop of Regensburg is the one who makes the decision in the diocese. Now, while one may ask whether excommunication is the proper sanction of this illicit affair, certainly the bishop is not wrong to oppose these ordinations. Indeed, Bishop Müller is consulting with Rome over this affair.

I am sure there will be many apologists for the SSPX on this affair. Using a “We had to destroy the village in order to liberate it” argument, they will argue that the state of affairs in the Church require the ordination of these men.

I don’t buy it for a second. We don’t need disobedient dissenting priests — and that is exactly what the SSPX priests are. That the Pope is the head of the Church and from whose decisions there is nobody one can appeal to is a belief of the Church. If these priests and bishops will not subject themselves to the Catholic Church under the successor of Peter, they are not faithful priests. They are rebels and dissenters, no better than Hans Küng or Charles Curran.

Oh sure, they are very conservative, and would reject the modernist views on moral theology. However, they use the same justifications of disobedience. So long as the SSPX decides for itself that they can choose what they want to do, and the Church itself must accept the fait accompli or be deemed “heretical” in the eyes of the SSPX, they are not an asset to the Church.

Fellay and the rest of the SSPX need to reflect on what it means to be a priest. It is not a role of authority and power. it is a role of service. Jesus said in John 13:

?12? When he had washed their feet, and taken his garments, and resumed his place, he said to them, “Do you know what I have done to you? ?13? You call me Teacher and Lord; and you are right, for so I am. ?14? If I then, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another’s feet. ?15? For I have given you an example, that you also should do as I have done to you.

Is the disobedience of the SSPX the example of a faithful servant of the Church?