Attending mass at an SSPX chapel

[ImmaculataFides]

How on earth did you produce those responses so quickly!?

I get the feeling Br. JR writes his responses on Microsoft Word before copy pasting them on here! Am I right Br.?

 

[JReducation]

I get the feeling Br. JR writes his responses on Microsoft Word before copy pasting them on here! Am I right Br.?

Actually, I read, cut, quote and insert write on here. It’s easy for me.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[1AugustSon7]

The immediate protection of the laity is the responsibility of the diocesan bishop, not the pope.

The care of souls belongs to both. Regardless, I am not denying that ordinarily that is the case; I am arguing that there is the possibility of an extraordinary exception for the salvation of souls.

His protection is less immediate, because he is not on the scene.

It is possible for a Superior to be sufficiently informed of a general state, condition or situation so as to competently direct and provide for that general state, condition or situation.

The Sacred Congregation for Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life settle all issues and disputes between religious and societies and the Church. The Sacred Congregation for the Clergy, does the same for the deacons and priests and the Prelate does the same for the prelature. The difference is that the Prelate has direct authority over the prelature and he is not on a committee, but he works directly with the Holy See.

Okay, so, Bp. Fellay may request such a Prelature, with faculties being given to the Society’s priests where they are presently situated and request an organisation like the Sacr. Congr. to oversee or approve of any changes from the present situation. That, I imagine, would be Bp. Fellay’s ideal; however, he may submit to an agreement that - in the future - he acquire faculties from local bishops. Personally, I think this might provide Bp. Fellay with concerns.

The Prelate can assign his men anywhere in the prelature. He does not need the bishop’s permission to assign or transfer.

That’s fine, but in the matter of valid confessions it becomes vital to have validity and, therefore, such assignments or transfering is rather hollow if the potential Prelature’s superior is uncertain whether or not his priests will be able to hear confessions validly.

Once he assigns, the priest must get faculties from the local bishop. That’s the current law.

I argue that ecclesiastical laws can change, especially for the sake of the salvation of souls.

Certainly the Pope desires souls be saved, and certainly it is obvious that granting the necessary faculties to SSPX priests so that SSPX supporters can be assured of valid confessions works to the salvation of souls.

You can’t have universal faculties, because there is no such thing as universal diocese.

Jurisdiction is given by the Pope. He can make, unmake or augment dioceses as the needs of the Church require it.

The only person who has universal faculties is the pope,

Right. “You can’t have universal faculties because there is no such thing as a universal diocese” and “the only person who has universal faculties is the pope”.

I will not attempt to reconcile your two statements because they are irreconcilable, owing to the fact that they contradict each other.

You can, of course, try to explain this to the people reading here who, like me, are ostensibly woefully ignorant of things like Canon Law (which is irrelevant, because we are talking about the Pope’s powers specifically, and the Pope is not bound by Canon Law) or you can simply admit that the Pope has universal faculties (as you said) and can therefore grant universal faculties because he is not bound by Canon Law. Again, as I demonstrated in my earlier post, we have agreed to speculate upon a potentiality and are not necessarily speaking about what that arrangement will actually be; nonetheless, I will continue to assert what is actually possible.

because he is an Ordinary in every diocese. If you read Canon Law, the term it uses is not diocese, it’s “Local Church.” That term is deliberately used to emphasize the autonomy of each bishop and his diocese.

Yes, but in the same breathe you have already admitted that the Pope is also the “Ordinary of every diocese”, which is, of course, owing to the fact that he has a universal jurisidiction over the whole Church.

The Holy See is not a diocese.

But the Pope is an Ordinary of every diocese.

Mea culpa; however, if I have described the Holy See fallaciously; nonetheless, you will next ask me to call the Holy See “the central government of the Church”, which is a way of describing the Holy See I have never hirtherto heard of before in my life, and (frankly) sounds rather Soviet.

Try telling Eastern Catholics that the Vatican is their mother diocese and you’ll trigger another schism in the East. Don’t even go there.

So the giant engraved-in-stone words of “MOTHER OF ALL THE CHURCHES” written (in Latin, of course) on (I can’t remember which) Church in Rome is inflammatory language that could trigger a schism? Or is it owing to the fact that - because it is engraved in Latin - Eastern Catholics won’t be offended, seeing as they generally do not know Latin? How very sneaky of those clever Romans!

(Next post will take up the topic of priests from New York who are on a layover in San Fran. hearing confession on their way to China)

 

[1AugustSon7]

First, the priest does not have faculties to hear confessions in San Francisco. Second, the priest is in good standing with the Church. Third, the person does not know that the priest does not have faculties. In the case of the SSPX, the second condition is not met.

So globe-trodding diocesan priests can effectively have faculties anywhere even outside of the danger of death; and further are not obliged to inform penitents that they are tourists, but the SSPX priests can’t be given faculties by the Universal Pastor of the whole Church and Christ’s Vicar for operating in the places they have likely operated in for years, because the local diocesan bishop must needs rubber-stamp their activity or else the Pope will become upset?

I am about to head to the store. If I run into a priest there and, becoming horribly sorry for my sins by being moved to penitence at the sight of an alter Christus, you are saying that I should rather hope he is on his way to the airport, and stoping in for a snack between layovers, and not, however, on his way to an SSPX chapel to celebrate Mass; or, otherwise, be some “imposter” (as you will later term the canonical odd-ball) priest.

Or perhaps I should take the Summa’s advice and confess to “[my] own priest” and avoid this difficulty altogether, though you had earlier seemed to object to the idea that there really is such a thing as Catholics having their own priests.

The primary mission of the Church is to save souls. The rule that governs faculties includes the salvation of the priest’s soul. The Church will not supply faculties to a priest who knowingly defies the law. She would be aiding him.

But she nevertheless doth everytime the penitent is in danger of death.

I said before that the Holy Father can change the law or grant an indult, etc. We can only speak using the law as it is right now. We can’t assume to know if the law will be the same next month.

I doubt, however, that you will find that law written anywhere actually in Canon Law.

 

[JReducation]

So globe-trodding diocesan priests can effectively have faculties anywhere even outside of the danger of death; and further are not obliged to inform penitents that they are tourists, but the SSPX priests can’t be given faculties by the Universal Pastor of the whole Church and Christ’s Vicar for operating in the places they have likely operated in for years, because the local diocesan bishop must needs rubber-stamp their activity or else the Pope will become upset?

I am about to head to the store. If I run into a priest there and, becoming horribly sorry for my sins by being moved to penitence at the sight of an alter Christus, you are saying that I should rather hope he is on his way to the airport, and stoping in for a snack between layovers, and not, however, on his way to an SSPX chapel to celebrate Mass; or, otherwise, be some “imposter” (as you will later term the canonical odd-ball) priest.

Or perhaps I should take the Summa’s advice and confess to “[my] own priest” and avoid this difficulty altogether, though you had earlier seemed to object to the idea that there really is such a thing as Catholics having their own priests.

But she nevertheless doth everytime the penitent is in danger of death.

I doubt, however, that you will find that law written anywhere actually in Canon Law.

This conversation is going nowhere. I’m speaking to you as the law is right now. You want to speculate how it could be. We can speculate all we want, but what’s the use if none of use can change the law except the Holy Father.

I will correct you on two things, because they are based on theology.

The pope has universal faculties and there is no such thing as a universal diocese. He has universal faculties become they come with the office of Peter.

Saying that the Diocese of Rome is the mother of all Churches and saying that all dioceses are within the diocese of the Holy See is not the same thing. There is no Diocese of the Holy See. In fact, the Holy See does not reside in any diocese. The Holy See is in Vatican City. Vatican City is not a diocese. The mother of all dioceses means that it has primacy, not control. The Eastern Patriarchs would correct you on that one immediately. They submit to the Holy Father, not to the Diocese of Rome.

Finally, yes, any “globe trotting priest” as you say, who is in good standing with the Church can hear confessions outside of his diocese or outside of his religious house while in transit and the Church provides the faculties.

The reason is three-fold:

1. He is in transit. If he were going to stay, he would need to request faculties from the local bishop.
2. He is in good standing with the Church. If he were suspended, it would not apply.
3. The faithful can approach any Catholic priest, from any of the 23 Catholic Churches, who is in good standing and receive the sacraments. They are not bound to one jurisdiction. The only thing that binds the faithful is not to ask for the sacraments from a priest whom they know is not in good standing, unless it’s in danger of death.

Those are the current laws.

Can they change? Yes. Have they changed? Not as of this morning. We can only deal in the present, not in hypothesis. It’s a futile exercise. I was sharing with a friend how everyone was surprised when Bl. John Paul added a chapter to Canon Law to accommodate Opus Dei. No one had ever heard of a prelature in the Church. But those are the current laws that govern prelatures. You can look it up on the Opus Dei site.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Melchior_1]

In the case of the SSPX, they’re a Society of Apostolic Life. Until a prelature is officially set up, they remain a Society of Apostolic Life. In being one, they still fall under the jurisdiction of the local Bishop and are granted faculties accordingly. It’s set up this way for all Society of Apostolic Life, no exceptions.

We have one such Society at my parish, the Companions of the Cross. The moderator (who is the equivalent to His Grace Fellay) was told by our Bishop “you’re being assigned this parish, run it as you see fit”. Before he even assigns the parish though, he grants them faculties to work within this area.

Often the SSPX never was given permission to enter a diocese, they just showed up. This obviously can lead to some hard feelings, and is a breach of process, protocol, and law. Doing a blanket “You call have faculties now!” may not be prudent, as Brother JR said diplomacy would be a good idea.

The reality is that the SSPX failed to follow the Law, and a part of coming back they will need to adjust to working within the Law. Until a prelature is settled, they have no exemptions.

 

[EcceAgnusDei]

Often the SSPX never was given permission to enter a diocese, they just showed up. This obviously can lead to some hard feelings, and is a breach of process, protocol, and law. Doing a blanket “You call have faculties now!” may not be prudent, as Brother JR said diplomacy would be a good idea.

I agree that prudence and diplomacy are necessary, but I, too, find it hard that Bishop Fellay would accept a canonical agreement that would allow long-standing chapels to be without faculties.

For example, the SSPX chapel I attend (out of a love for the EF and not because of a schismatic attitude, of course) has belonged to the Society since 1981 and is therefore obviously well-established (there is a school, two priests, etc). The Bishop of the diocese has been openly hostile to traditional Catholicism. For example, when one priest was quoted in the news as saying that Catholics must always oppose abortion and same-sex marriage, the Bishop released a statement saying that the priest did not speak for the diocese. He also openly said that he would never approve any plans to remodel a sanctuary to be more appropriate for the EF. The priest was later transferred hundreds of miles away and the traditional parish he was pastor of was handed over to one of the most liberal priests in the diocese. The neighboring diocese (my home diocese) contains an SSPX affiliated Benedictine monastery. My Bishop told a family that asked him for the EF (prior to SP) that he would die (!) before our diocese had a Latin Mass; this I know first hand.

But I slightly digress. My point is that neither of these Bishops, based on their actions and comments, would grant faculties to the SSPX which already resides in their diocese, which would then shut down a chapel that has been in operation for 30+ years and a thriving monastic community. I think Bishop Fellay would want an agreement that would not let such things happen.

And yes, we are speculating, but that’s what forums are for, eh?

• PAX

 

[curlycool89]

I object. The Holy See is in effect is a universal diocese. It is the link that binds us all.

… that’s just bad theology (bad ecclesiology to be precise). The Holy See is what we usually (as Br. JR said, incorrectly call) the Diocese of Rome (FYI, if you want to get technical there are 5 Holy Sees: Rome, Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, and Constantinople, aka the 5 senior patriarchs of Christendom).

What binds us together is not a universal diocese, but that each bishop (head of a particular Church) is in communion with the Pope. I believe with the Eastern Catholics, their bishops are said to be in communion with their Patriarch/Major Archbishop who is in communion with Rome.

Also a manifestly strange formulation. Invalid baptisms, for example, are a great concern even though they are invalid and most likely illegal (illicit).

What Br. JR meant was that there’s no point fighting over licitness (whether it’s legal) if it’s invalid. It’s like fighting over who let the horse out; the problem is that the horse is out, not who let it out.

I disagree; if it were between two absolute equals, then yes politely requesting is not commanding, as equals haven’t authorty over each other. However, in the case where authority exists, then politely requesting something that it is within the rights of the authority to request is to effectively command that thing.

Bishops are equal to the Pope. The Pope is the “first among equals”. All bishops are head of a particular Church and are Catholic by virtue of being in communion with the Pope.

I think we’re just seeing that you don’t really have a grasp on correct ecclesiology and thats where most of your misunderstandings are coming from.

The care of souls belongs to both. Regardless, I am not denying that ordinarily that is the case; I am arguing that there is the possibility of an extraordinary exception for the salvation of souls.

No, what you’re really arguing is that the SSPX should get special privileges that no one else gets because … I don’t know (my humble guess is personal bias).

I argue that ecclesiastical laws can change, especially for the sake of the salvation of souls.

No, again you’re arguing that the SSPX should get special privileges that no one else has while masking it under the veil of “salvation of souls”.

Remember, the Church can survive and perfectly provide for the salvation of souls without the SSPX. The SSPX is not necessary for the Church, but the Church is necessary for the SSPX.

The reality is that the SSPX failed to follow the Law, and a part of coming back they will need to adjust to working within the Law. Until a prelature is settled, they have no exemptions.

I think this is the big point we’re trying to make. The SSPX might have a suffer a little bit because they’ve done thing so illicitly. Giving them a legal pat on the back (as distinct from the moral aspect where we welcome them back joyfully) encourages others to do the same thing because they see that there are little consequences and you get to ignore legal precedents along the way.

One of the reasons that we have consequences for breaking the law is to dissuade people from doing so (under Common Law at least, I would assume it’s a similar idea in Civil Law). You can’t reward people for thumbing their nose at the law, and intentions mean squat (“the ends never justify the means”).

But I slightly digress. My point is that neither of these Bishops, based on their actions and comments, would grant faculties to the SSPX which already resides in their diocese, which would then shut down a chapel that has been in operation for 30+ years and a thriving monastic community. I think Bishop Fellay would want an agreement that would not let such things happen.

I’m sorry to say but sometimes there are consequences for breaking the law.

My own opinion is that they’ll get faculties. I hear the Pope can be pretty persuasive.

 

[giuseppeTO]

I find it hard to imagine even an EF-hostile Bishop having the desire to kick a regularized SSPX chapel out of his diocese. It would bring quite a bit of publicity that I think most bishops could frankly do without. Our bishop is currently doing battle with three individual parishes whose churches were closed down and subsequently appealed their case to Rome. Rome sided with the parishes but the diocese is still able to keep them inactive.

This is in the secular press here constantly (as religious in-fighting is good for paper sales) and I can’t imagine that a bishop would actually choose additional grief of the same type.

Additionally, I would expect that Rome may not always side with the Bishop on appeal as She shows with some parish appeals. When Rome sides with a parish, it usually has its foundation on an established and flourishing parish.

 

[Melchior_1]

I agree that prudence and diplomacy are necessary, but I, too, find it hard that Bishop Fellay would accept a canonical agreement that would allow long-standing chapels to be without faculties.

For example, the SSPX chapel I attend (out of a love for the EF and not because of a schismatic attitude, of course) has belonged to the Society since 1981 and is therefore obviously well-established (there is a school, two priests, etc). The Bishop of the diocese has been openly hostile to traditional Catholicism. For example, when one priest was quoted in the news as saying that Catholics must always oppose abortion and same-sex marriage, the Bishop released a statement saying that the priest did not speak for the diocese. He also openly said that he would never approve any plans to remodel a sanctuary to be more appropriate for the EF. The priest was later transferred hundreds of miles away and the traditional parish he was pastor of was handed over to one of the most liberal priests in the diocese. The neighboring diocese (my home diocese) contains an SSPX affiliated Benedictine monastery. My Bishop told a family that asked him for the EF (prior to SP) that he would die (!) before our diocese had a Latin Mass; this I know first hand.

But I slightly digress. My point is that neither of these Bishops, based on their actions and comments, would grant faculties to the SSPX which already resides in their diocese, which would then shut down a chapel that has been in operation for 30+ years and a thriving monastic community. I think Bishop Fellay would want an agreement that would not let such things happen.

And yes, we are speculating, but that’s what forums are for, eh?

• PAX

An extreme example, but lets run with it; the Bishop was hostile, but for all we know he could have been hostile due to a Society jumping into his diocese without permission, especially one who he doesn’t necessarily fully agree with on certain practices. People who feel slighted go overboard sometimes.

If the relationship between a Bishop and the SSPX is healthy, then I don’t see why they can’t receive faculties. If it isn’t, then there’s an issue that needs to be addressed in a case by case basis.

Simply put; Bishop Fellay is not in a position to make demands. He lost that when his predecessor broke the Law, resulting in the irregular situation. They had no exemptions, they still have no exemptions. If anything, he’s not really in a position to do much of anything except two things; he can go down as the man who caused a new schism, or go down as the man who helped bring about a powerful tale of reconciliation and humility (in His Grace Fellay’s case, it certain takes enormous humility to head home with hat in hand, asking for someone to accept their apology and for forgiveness).

 

[TrueLight]

Simply put; Bishop Fellay is not in a position to make demands. He lost that when his predecessor broke the Law, resulting in the irregular situation. They had no exemptions, they still have no exemptions. If anything, he’s not really in a position to do much of anything except two things; he can go down as the man who caused a new schism, or go down as the man who helped bring about a powerful tale of reconciliation and humility (in His Grace Fellay’s case, it certain takes enormous humility to head home with hat in hand, asking for someone to accept their apology and for forgiveness).

I think our Holy Father has a more conciliatory attitude towards the SSPX, thank goodness!

EcceAgnusDei, I think that it is hard for some to understand that there are Bishops who still do what they can to block the EF.

 

[Moore11]

I think our Holy Father has a more conciliatory attitude towards the SSPX, thank goodness!

EcceAgnusDei, I think that it is hard for some to understand that there are Bishops who still do what they can to block the EF.

Unfortunately this is true. There are bishops who are hostile to this idea. I can understand not wanting to rock the boat or open a can of worms in a diocese but some of the decisions made are hard to understand. perhaps though we should exercise some charity and assume we don’t know all the factors.

 

[Melchior_1]

I think our Holy Father has a more conciliatory attitude towards the SSPX, thank goodness!

EcceAgnusDei, I think that it is hard for some to understand that there are Bishops who still do what they can to block the EF.

All I was saying is that His Grace is going to have the final call on the SSPX side of things. And he has to be smart enough to know the Law isn’t on his side on this, and that if he pushes too much (or maybe even at all) there’s going to be problems.

I know there’s some Bishops who try to block the EF, but what some lose sight of is that some Bishops are unhappy just because protocol was breached. And like it or not, protocol in this case is very important.

 

[EcceAgnusDei]

I know there’s some Bishops who try to block the EF, but what some lose sight of is that some Bishops are unhappy just because protocol was breached. And like it or not, protocol in this case is very important.

But the Bishops I spoke of are not messing with the SSPX (where protocol was breached). They are blocking diocesan priests from celebrating the EF, or at least making it very difficult for them.

I’ve heard from two priests in my diocese that they’ve received calls from the Bishop asking what they are up to when they did the smallest “traditional” thing (such as restoring a high altar not to be used but as decoration, and singing the “Agnus Dei” in Latin in the OF).

Bishops have a lot of power over priests (rightfully so), but this means that if a Bishop is hostile to the EF, he can effectively block it by making life difficult for priests who celebrate it, such as transferring them to the middle of nowhere.

Anyways, I don’t want to derail the thread. I just wanted to point out that Bishops can and do make the implementation of SP difficult and I happen to live in an area where two neighboring dioceses are doing this. It’s probably one reason why the SSPX has a strong presence here, too.

• PAX

 

[1AugustSon7]

This conversation is going nowhere. I’m speaking to you as the law is right now. You want to speculate how it could be. We can speculate all we want, but what’s the use if none of use can change the law except the Holy Father.

Agreed: No one has universal faculties except the Holy Father and his Confessor- or does the Pope’s Confessor have to request faculties from the local ordinary to hear the Pope’s Confession whenever the Pope travels and condescends to stay for a while? I would have thought it was simply supplied, most propbably by the Pope;- or could the local ordinary deprive him of those faculties?

The pope has universal faculties

I never denied this.

and there is no such thing as a universal diocese.

But there is such a thing as universal jurisdiction.

He has universal faculties become they come with the office of Peter.

I assumed as much.

Saying that the Diocese of Rome is the mother of all Churches and saying that all dioceses are within the diocese of the Holy See is not the same thing.

I didn’t actually say that the Diocese of Rome was the Mother of all the Churches. That even sounds ridiculous. I do believe, however, that the Church of Rome is the Mother of all the Churches.

The mother of all dioceses means that it has primacy, not control.

But you said there is no such thing as a mother diocese? And how can one have a real primacy but not - at least ultimately - control?

The Eastern Patriarchs would correct you on that one immediately.

On which point? The fact that the non-existent mother diocese has a primacy, but not control? To that I would not object, because I have no idea what they are talking about; if, however, they were to say that the Holy See has primacy; but not, however - ultimately and in effect - control, then I would feel obliged to correct them, seeing as the Pope could excommunicate rebels or unbelievers so that more worthy prelates may take their place. That, to me, would signify control of the Church.

They submit to the Holy Father, not to the Diocese of Rome.

Okay, what is the Diocese of Rome then? Is this the same mother diocese you spoke of but said does not actually exist? Also, how is the Pope said to be the Bishop of Rome? I understand that the day-to-day management of the diocese of Rome may be delegated to another, but surely it isn’t a completely empty or meaningless title. Regardless, we have agreed to refer to this Mother Church as the Holy See.

Finally, yes, any “globe trotting priest” as you say, who is in good standing with the Church can hear confessions outside of his diocese or outside of his religious house while in transit and the Church provides the faculties.

Okay - I didn’t actually object here. My point was that the Church does supply faculties sometimes in extraordinary situations and, therefore, it is not impossible that the Church might supply faculties to SSPX priests - certain reasonable conditions and requirements being met and satisfied. As the legally entitled Ordinary of each diocese, the Pope could grant faculties to priests in that/a diocese to hear Confession.

1. He is in transit. If he were going to stay, he would need to request faculties from the local bishop.

If this applies to the Pope’s Confessor also, then you would certainly be making your point. But something tells me a local bishop would be unable to deprive the Pope of his Confessor’s power to absolve him of his sins.

1. He is in good standing with the Church. If he were suspended, it would not apply.

And hopefully the naughty priest has the decency to confess his unworthiness to the unwitting layman who might mistake him for a Catholic priest in good standing, perhaps on his way to China.

1. The faithful can approach any Catholic priest, from any of the 23 Catholic Churches,

I keep forgetting there are twenty-three of them.

who is in good standing and receive the sacraments. [The laity] are not bound to one jurisdiction.

Except, of course, the Pope’s.

The only thing that binds the faithful is not to ask for the sacraments from a priest whom they know is not in good standing, unless it’s in danger of death.

And so we are left to scratch our heads at Saint Thomas’s insistence on confessing to our own priests.

Can [laws] change? Yes. Have they changed? Not as of this morning. We can only deal in the present, not in hypothesis. It’s a futile exercise. I was sharing with a friend how everyone was surprised when Bl. John Paul added a chapter to Canon Law to accommodate Opus Dei. No one had ever heard of a prelature in the Church. But those are the current laws that govern prelatures. You can look it up on the Opus Dei site.

So we have a precedent of laws changing and even being added to accomodate special situations, but we are nonetheless forbidden to consider that such a precedent may be repeated, because we must deal with the present (though we have been speculating all along on a totally hypothetical eventuality: i.e., reconciliation of the SSPX).

Of course, I object to the idea that we can’t speculate on the Pope doing what it is completely in his power to do for the benefit of the Church and the salvation of souls.

 

[1AugustSon7]

No, again you’re arguing that the SSPX should get special privileges that no one else has while masking it under the veil of “salvation of souls”.

And what a *special privilege *it is to validly hear Confession! And to think I thought that a rather normal and even desirable thing for priests to do.

Nonetheless, you would seem to think that I am in some way a partisan of the SSPX. I am not. Outside of my symphathy for adherence and preservation of the traditional Mass and sacraments, etc., I am not even a fan of the SSPX. I find their recognise and resist theology to be dangerous not only to the Church but to theology itself. I find their apparent on-again, off-again dealings with Rome to accomplish nothing but confusion and controversy.

Remember, the Church can survive and perfectly provide for the salvation of souls without the SSPX. The SSPX is not necessary for the Church, but the Church is necessary for the SSPX.

I am well aware.

I think this is the big point we’re trying to make. The SSPX might have a suffer a little bit because they’ve done thing so illicitly. Giving them a legal pat on the back (as distinct from the moral aspect where we welcome them back joyfully) encourages others to do the same thing because they see that there are little consequences and you get to ignore legal precedents along the way.

So how do you recommend we punish those nauthy Eastern schismatics and rebelious Protestants? Strip them down and make them start from scratch? Last I checked, it was quite usual for the Church to be rather generous in her dealings with schismatics and to allow them to be readmitted largely as is, with only certain doctrinal assurances (and possibly necessary adjustments to anything offensive to true doctrine) and obedience being requested.

One of the reasons that we have consequences for breaking the law is to dissuade people from doing so (under Common Law at least, I would assume it’s a similar idea in Civil Law). You can’t reward people for thumbing their nose at the law, and intentions mean squat (“the ends never justify the means”).

That’s funny. I don’t recall the Orthodox Patriarchs being made to suffer any kind of punishment or humiliation whatsoever whilst treating with the Vatican; indeed, the Vatican is happy to congratulate them in their works and to praise their Churches.

But you’re right, those SSPX’ers are an especially naughty breed and should do long, long public penance for all their illicitness - not that anyone could argue from this the existence of a double-standard or the presence of hypocrisy; or (dare I say it!) something savouring even of malice.

 

[TrueLight]

But you’re right, those SSPX’ers are an especially naughty breed and should do long, long public penance for all their illicitness - not that anyone could argue from this the existence of a double-standard or the presence of hypocrisy; or (dare say it!) something savouring even of malice.

I think Br. Jr would say the Orthodox are not Catholic, and therefore Rome cannot tell them what to do and the SSPX is Catholic, and therefore has to be obedient to Rome.

I hate to have this thought, but it almost makes you wonder if in this case, it would have been better for the SSPX to be go into schism and then be welcomed back in.

No one need gasp in shock, I’m just pointing out the dichotomy.

 

[EcceAgnusDei]

I think Br. Jr would say the Orthodox are not Catholic, and therefore Rome cannot tell them what to do and the SSPX is Catholic, and therefore has to be obedient to Rome.

I hate to have this thought, but it almost makes you wonder if in this case, it would have been better for the SSPX to be go into schism and then be welcomed back in.

No one need gasp in shock, I’m just pointing out the dichotomy.

This thought has struck me as well. I certainly don’t understand the ecclesiology, but it just doesn’t make sense that non-Catholic Christians are in a “better” position than the SSPX when it comes to dealing with Rome. Talk about rewarding disobedience, heresy, and schism!

But I don’t want to derail the thread, so maybe another one should be started.

• PAX

 

[TrueLight]

But I don’t want to derail the thread, so maybe another one should be started.

I have a feeling that any thread like that would be locked in short order.

 

[Cristiano]

I think Br. Jr would say the Orthodox are not Catholic, and therefore Rome cannot tell them what to do and the SSPX is Catholic, and therefore has to be obedient to Rome.

I hate to have this thought, but it almost makes you wonder if in this case, it would have been better for the SSPX to be go into schism and then be welcomed back in.

No one need gasp in shock, I’m just pointing out the dichotomy.

There is a major difference between being in schism and being schismatic. What you are mentioning here is to become schismatic and that is never better than just being simply disobedient Catholics. There is no dichotomy here.