Attending mass at an SSPX chapel

[1AugustSon7]

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.

Please inform us of how you differentiate between being simply disobedient with what the SSPX are marked for doing? I don’t know of any marked heresies the SSPX are supposed to teach: I believe their curious status is owed to a fact of deliberate disobedience: i.e., the illicit ordination of four bishops. That is quite simply being disobedient; likewise, their apparent refusal to deal with the local ordinaries also seems to be pure and simple disobedience.

If anyone is supposed to be, then the SSPX’ers are “simply disobedient Catholics.”

 

[Cristiano]

Please inform us of how you differentiate between being simply disobedient with what the SSPX are marked for doing? I don’t know of any marked heresies the SSPX are supposed to teach: I believe their curious status is owed to a fact of deliberate disobedience: i.e., the illicit ordination of four bishops. That is quite simply being disobedient; likewise, their apparent refusal to deal with the local ordinaries also seems to be pure and simple disobedience.

If anyone is supposed to be, then the SSPX’ers are “simply disobedient Catholics.”

I think that you did not understand my point. I was trying to convey the message that today the SSPX should be seen as “simply disobedient Catholics” and nobody should suggest that they take the path of schism to “facilitate” the most convenient conditions for complete communion with Rome. Being a disobedient Catholic is not as bad as becoming schismatic. The SSPX is disobedient but it is not schismatic and there is no reason to go down that path.

 

[1AugustSon7]

I think that you did not understand my point. I was trying to convey the message that today the SSPX should be seen as “simply disobedient Catholics” and nobody should suggest that they take the path of schism to “facilitate” the most convenient conditions for complete communion with Rome. Being a disobedient Catholic is not as bad as becoming schismatic. The SSPX is disobedient but it is not schismatic and there is no reason to go down that path.

My apologies for misrepresenting you.

My point, however, is little changed because there is virtually no difference between the classic definition of a schismatic act and simple disobedience. To shirk the authority of the Holy See is a schismatic act. In the practical order, the SSPX is in schism and effectively render the Holy See what amounts to a primacy of honour alone. This is why I earlier lamented the SSPX’s recognise and resist theology. It runs dangerously close to legitimising general disobedience and seems to be highly confused.

On the other hand, materially speaking the SSPX are doctrinally orthodox except for a few potentially (yet undeclared) heterodox points, and they profess the Catholic Faith; further, at least theoretically, they recognise Peter’s Primacy. They have valid holy orders: Now in all other situations this tends to be looked upon as a good and praiseworthy thing; however, in this situation, it is instead treated negatively and hence the appearance of a double-standard. Further, the Vatican is noted for bending-over backwards to accomodate people. Also, according to the *elements of truth *doctrine, the SSPX is like 99.9% in “full-communion”; how is it, therefore, that they aren’t treated with the same honour and praise that those with only a fraction of those elements receive, such as say the Anglicans or the Lutherans, who at least have something certainly and markedly less than the SSPX in the way of “elements of truth”?

Now if there was a definitive break, would we have to understand the SSPX as practising a different religion than Catholicism? I highly doubt that the SSPX would deny the Primacy, so it would be a rather odd situation I think - certainly a head scratcher for modern theologians and those who specialise in ecclesiology.

 

[curlycool89]

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.

You know, you’re very good at twisting things around until they’ve lost the original meaning. Very politician like.

Let’s be clear here. What you’re asking for is special permission for SSPX priests to be able to hear confession without requiring the permission of the local bishop, something every single other priest (save the Pope) has to get in order to hear confessions. That’s asking for special treatment.

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.

Neither Protestants nor Eastern Orthodox are canonically Catholic, and therefore Canon Law does not apply to them. The SSPX on the other hand are canonically Latin Catholics and therefore must obey Canon Law.

They are also different situations with say the Anglican Ordinariate because they’re coming from a different tradition, although still within Western Christianity but not Roman Catholic. The SSPX have always claimed to be (are are) part of the Roman Catholic Church. That’s why the former Anglicans get an Ordinariate with their own bishop and diocese (US and Canada territorially) while the SSPX don’t. The SSPX are Catholic and have never been not-Catholic, so we can’t separate them from other Catholics just for convenience sake. Nor has the SSPX ever been an exempt religious order. The SSPX belongs to the ordinary Latin-diocesan structure of the Church, and former Anglicans do not.

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.

I didn’t heard, are the Orthodox trying to re-enter into full communion with the Pope? Oh right, they’re not. It’s a totally different situations (ecumenism vs. dealing with an internal matter)

Also, as Br. JR and others have mention a bunch of times, the Eastern Orthodox comprise a Church while the SSPX are not a Church (in the proper sense of the word Church).

 

[1AugustSon7]

What you’re asking for

Let’s be clear: I am not the one asking for it.

special permission for SSPX priests to be able to hear confession without requiring the permission of the local bishop, something every single other priest (save the Pope) has to get in order to hear confessions. That’s asking for special treatment.

Oh? And the Eastern Orthodox wouldn’t request - nay, likely demand - the same thing, for example? Or would each of their priests need to request it from their local Catholic ordinary? Or, if the schism were healed, would Orthodox piests need to (from their perspective) reacquire faculties from their newly Catholic (but previously schismatic) local ordinaries? Or wouldn’t it be more practical, prudent and absolutely agreeable to simply grant a dispensation of such faculties for all those who accepted the authority of the local ordinary and became, like him, Catholic?

Neither Protestants nor Eastern Orthodox are canonically Catholic, and therefore Canon Law does not apply to them. The SSPX on the other hand are canonically Latin Catholics and therefore must obey Canon Law.

Okay, but what happened to your punishing disobedience theory? Or was the double-standard problem that comes with that too evident and therefore embarassing to continue?

Regardless, Canon Law is supposed to serve the Church and Catholics. If the Church benefits and it works to the salvation of souls, Canon Law can certainly be bent in purely ecclesiastical matters.

But it would be completely absurd to expect that, upon a reconciliation agreement, there will be line-ups of SSPX priests at the local diocesan office seeking faculties, not to mention a managerial nightmare. Prudence would seem to suggest that this will be by-passed with some system or mechanism governing future interactions between local ordinaries and the activity of the SSPX - assuming, that is, an agreement can be reached.

They are also different situations with say the Anglican Ordinariate because they’re coming from a different tradition,

A tradition of resisting Rome and generally ignoring what Rome says or does… wait, are we talking about Anglicans or the SSPX?

The SSPX have always claimed to be (are are) part of the Roman Catholic Church.

Last I checked, you can scarcely find anyone who claims to be Chistian who does not believe they are part of the True Church. Further, many Anglicans and Luthers do call themselves Catholic.

That’s why the former Anglicans get an Ordinariate with their own bishop and diocese (US and Canada territorially) while the SSPX don’t.

Right, so if the SSPX ditch some Catholic doctrine and maintain disobedience for another few hundred years, then they can get special privileges - err - permissions.

The SSPX are Catholic and have never been not-Catholic,

Really? Not even those who were, for a long time, excommunicated?

so we can’t separate them from other Catholics

But we can excommunicate them!

I didn’t heard, are the Orthodox trying to re-enter into full communion with the Pope? Oh right, they’re not. It’s a totally different situations (ecumenism vs. dealing with an internal matter)

Right. So the SSPX are now internally part of the Church - except that they haven’t an ounce of jurisdiction, disregard Rome and run around handing out invalid and illicit sacraments. Let’s see: no jurisdiction, disregard Rome and run around handing out invalid and illicit sacraments… Wait, are we talking about the Anglicans, the Orthodox or the SSPX?

Also, as Br. JR and others have mention a bunch of times, the Eastern Orthodox comprise a Church while the SSPX are not a Church (in the proper sense of the word Church).

Oh yes, the all-illusive proper sense of the word “Church,” which I find means just about anything except as being synonymous with the Mystical Body of Christ or the Roman Catholic Church. But let’s not allow Pope Pius XII to get in our way.

So if the SSPX went outright schismatic, reorganized themselves and renamed themselves, gifted themselves jurisdiction and territory, etc., and then sought reconciliation we would, ostensibly, have to speak of the proper Church of the SSPX, which now should deserve our respect and esteem? Or must they be in rebellion for at least a few centuries before they earned that? And would we credit them these last few decades or start from the day talks with Rome were no longer worth anyone’s while?

 

[JReducation]

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.

Also they are not schismatic. Their ancestors were. They make the same claim about our ancestors. So the agreement is to forget both sets of ancestors and deal in the here and now. Neither they nor we are guilty of our current situation. We have to figure out how to fix it.

In addition, the Orthodox Patriarchs are equal to any Catholic Patriarch. We can’t deal with them vertically. We have to deal with them horizontally.

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.
.

There would have been canonical censures and penalties placed on them in order to come back. The first generation is morally culpable for the schism. It’s the future generation who are not culpable, because they were born into that tradition.

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.

It’s something that every priest may desire to do, but not every priest has the right to do it.

So how do you recommend we punish those nauthy Eastern schismatics and rebelious Protestants?

None of them can be punished. a) The Church has already ruled that they are not guilty the sins of their fathers. b) The Church has not authority over them.

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.

That’s because they are valid Churches with Apostolic Succession. Did you think they were something different?

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.

You’re twisting things around. The SSPX is a society inside the Church. Therefore, it is bound by Canon Law. If it violates the law, it has to fix what it breaks, just like any other institute in the Church. You’re comparing two bodies that are not in the same domain. Non-Catholics and Catholics.

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?

Actually, the pope’s confessor does not have universal faculties. He has faculties in his home diocese and in Vatican City. If he travels with the pope, which is rare, the same rule applies to him. He’s a priest in transit. The Church supplies. He need not ask for faculties.

I would have thought it was simply supplied, most propbably by the Pope;- or could the local ordinary deprive him of those faculties?

Since he’s in transit, this question would never come up.

But there is such a thing as universal jurisdiction.

Yes, Peter has universal jurisdiction.

 

[JReducation]

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 Church of Rome is the diocese of Rome. There is a difference between the Church of Rome and the Latin Church. The Diocese of Rome is in the Latin Church. But the primacy goes with Rome, not with the Latin Church or the Roman Catholic Church. That’s why all Catholic prelates can vote in a conclave and any of them can be elected pope. However, as soon as he is elected pope, he becomes Bishop of Rome, because the Pope is Bishop of Rome by default, since the Church of Rome is the Mother of All Churches. Motherhood, does not grant it authority over the other Churches. The authority rests in the person of the pope, not the Church of Rome.

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?

I said there is no such thing as a universal diocese. There isn’t. Primacy means the first. If you look at the Church in the USA, the Diocese of Baltimore enjoys that distinction. It is the first diocese in the nation. Then you have primacies by areas. For example, the Archdiocese of NY is the primate diocese of the State of NY and Cardinal Dolan is the Primate. But he has no authority over the bishops in the different dioceses of NY State. His duty is to fill in the blanks when a bishop cannot take care of his diocese.

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 would correct you if you said to them that Rome has authority over them. They would tell you that their communion is different from authority. The arrangement between them and the Latin Church is that they remain in communion with the Bishop of Rome and the Latin Church will respect their freedom, their laws, their customs, their liturgy and everything that makes them a sui iuris Church.

Okay, what is the Diocese of Rome then? Is this the same mother diocese you spoke of but said does not actually exist?

You were using Rome and the Holy See interchangeably. They are not the same thing. The Holy See is not in Rome. It’s in Vatican City. It’s the headquarters for the Catholic Church. Rome is the mother church.

Also, how is the Pope said to be the Bishop of Rome?

It’s by default. Only the Bishop of Rome can be pope. Whomever you elect has to become the Bishop of Rome and has all of the same duties and rights as any other bishop. Obviously, he has a lot more help. There is diocesan administrator. But the pope makes the big decisions for his diocese and ordains his own men.

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.

That, the Church cannot guarantee.

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

Why? Who died and made St. Thomas pope? The Church did not incorporate everything that Thomas ever thought and said. Thomas also said that deacons could not touch the host, because their hands are not consecrated and the Church voted him down on that, because the consecration of the hands is not to be able to hold the Eucharist, but to consecrate bread and wine. When you read what St. Thomas said, check out to see if the Church incorporated it into her rules or her doctrine.

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).

You’re stretching words. When those changes were made and those indults were granted, not one asked for them. They came from the Holy Father. Opus Dei did not ask for a prelature. The word did not exist in Catholic vocabulary. Bl. John Paul made it up. You can’t ask for what you don’t know.

In this case, it sounds as if you’re asking the Church to make concessions. That is the difference between your approach and previous approaches. As I said in an earlier post. Those of us who have indults and special considerations had to grovel to get them. We did not approach the Holy See and make conditions. We approached the Holy See and presented our problem and humbly asked for help. The Holy See, seeing our willingness to do whatever it said, helped us. Sometimes the help they gave was only partial. The said, “You can have A & B, but you cannot have C.” We had to bite the bullet. But my take is that you don’t want to hear that the SSPX is like the rest of us and may have to bite some bullets.

Unless their status changes or until its status changes, it is a Society of Apostolic Life bound to grovel, beg and negotiate, like every society, every religious order, every congregation and every secular order. Why do you want them to be treated differently?

If they were to become a prelature, their canonical status would change. They would be like the Holy Cross priests of the Opus Dei, with their own statutes. Until that happens, we deal with what we have.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[TrueLight]

So if the SSPX went outright schismatic, reorganized themselves and renamed themselves, gifted themselves jurisdiction and territory, etc., and then sought reconciliation we would, ostensibly, have to speak of the proper Church of the SSPX, which now should deserve our respect and esteem? Or must they be in rebellion for at least a few centuries before they earned that? And would we credit them these last few decades or start from the day talks with Rome were no longer worth anyone’s while?

:sad_yes:

 

[1AugustSon7]

Neither they nor we are guilty of our current situation.

The Roman Catholic Church didn’t fall into schism, heresy or apostasy - what sins did we commit? Were we persecuting them for being faithful Catholics, and thus drove them into a desperate need to enter into heresy, schism or apostacy?

We have to figure out how to fix it.

Conversion would help. Accepting the undeniable, historical fact of the Petrine Primacy would help.

In addition, the Orthodox Patriarchs are equal to any Catholic Patriarch. We can’t deal with them vertically. We have to deal with them horizontally.

Right: we no longer command them; instead, we crawl into bed together - nice and horizontal like. But the difficulties of your Orthodox Patriarch being equal to a Catholic of the same title and dignity I will just pass over for now.

There would have been canonical censures and penalties placed on them in order to come back. The first generation is morally culpable for the schism. It’s the future generation who are not culpable, because they were born into that tradition.

Okay. So God certainly is not a jealous God, Who visits the iniquities of the fathers upon their children; also, the SSPX are really acting silly and should spare their children sin by completely exiting with any relationship or association with Rome and the next generation can enjoy innumerable benefits and a much more privileged status and treatment; like, for example, their potential future Patriarchs being perfectly equal to their Catholic counterparts.

I’m curious, would an SSPX Pope be treated with the same dignity as the Bishop of Rome? Or could only the Orthodox elect their own Pope? Afterall, their Patriarchs get all the benefits - why stop there? If some Roman Cardinals defected to Lefebvrism we could be in serious trouble!

But so far we can be almost certain the SSPX clergy are all going to burn in hell. Well, at least we can be certain about some of their status!

It’s something that every priest may desire to do, but not every priest has the right to do it.

I meant that the faithful and the Church desire valid confessions for obvious reasons: e.g., to save (their) souls.

None of them can be punished.

But we should punish the SSPX by adding an obstacle to potentially healing what might become another major schism?

That’s because they are valid Churches with Apostolic Succession. Did you think they were something different?

Schismatic and heretical churches are “valid”? I think they are invalid because they broke from Catholic union and doctrine and don’t keep it. As for Apostolic Succession - wonderful, the SSPX also have that.

The SSPX is a society inside the Church. Therefore, it is bound by Canon Law. If it violates the law, it has to fix what it breaks, just like any other institute in the Church. You’re comparing two bodies that are not in the same domain. Non-Catholics and Catholics.

Right. I keep forgetting that of all the rebellious, heterodox Catholics we have running around today it is the SSPX who must be made an example of; indeed, they should all be made to line-up before their local ordinaries and ask for the faculties to release penitential Catholics from their sins.

Actually, the pope’s confessor does not have universal faculties. He has faculties in his home diocese and in Vatican City. If he travels with the pope, which is rare, the same rule applies to him. He’s a priest in transit. The Church supplies. He need not ask for faculties.
Since he’s in transit, this question would never come up.

A most convenient way to dodge the question - as if it had never came up: If Rome and the Vatican were tomorrow sacked by Pirates - perhaps from Somalia - and the Pope had to move into another diocese, would the Pope’s Confessor need to ask permission to be the Pope’s Confessor from the local ordinary? Could the local ordinary deny him? Could the Pope provide them anyways? Or would the Pope simply transit about and never settle down so as to be sure his Confessor always had faculties? Perhaps he should hop on board one of the pirate ships?

So far JR you seem to make a good case for the SSPX going into full-blown schism, which God forbid. But at least that way they can avoid the Church’s punishment(s) or not worry about having to fix anything and, in due time, receive the same treatment everyone else seems to get. But if you don’t want to see the SSPX return to full communion with Rome, then certainly insisting that they get faculties from the local ordinaries who they quite likely know little or nothing about, then continue. I, however, don’t see the likelihood of it - in either this generation or the next.

 

[1AugustSon7]

Unless their status changes or until its status changes, it is a Society of Apostolic Life bound to grovel, beg and negotiate, like every society, every religious order, every congregation and every secular order. Why do you want them to be treated differently?

Hold on here. I am not saying they shouldn’t be obedient or shouldn’t even beg forgiveness for whatever sins they may have committed. What I am saying is it should suffice for them to grovel before the Holy Father rather than making them grovel to countless different ordinaries with no effective guarantee that such grovelling will even be fruitful; indeed, what point is their grovelling before Christ’s Vicar if he hasn’t the power or authority to fix the situation? This sounds more than punitive - it almost sounds like retribution or malice.

Or should they wait until the next generation and be accepted back in with open arms? What benefit does the Church acrue from such a delay?

By submitting to Rome they are accepting obedience, no? So why must they repeat the grovelling all over again across the whole world? When was the last time any disobedient Catholic was expected to grovel before the Pope then again before his local ordinary?

 

[Melchior_1]

You’re missing the entire point that the SSPX is a Society of Apostolic Life. There are rules and laws in place when you are such a group, the SSPX broke those rules. They are dealing with the consequences of breaking said rules. They are being “punished” just as a child would be punished by a parent.

People say “oh, they might as well go into schism then!” do that the SSPX can “get what they want” is not only incredibly selfish and childish, but also very short sighted. Although there is reduced/different sorts of culpability for the generations that follow, the first generation of schismatics if a different matter entirely.

 

[wasserfall]

This whole thread has turned into a waste of time.

The SSPX isn’t going to be groveling in front of anybody. They are willing to be regularized if the Church will accept them as they are.

Of course they don’t have the right to make demands of the Pope, and they won’t really make demands. They’ll say: Either it happens in a manner we can accept, or it doesn’t happen at all. Anyone who thinks the SSPX is begging the Pope for a favor doesn’t understand the SSPX.

Everyone here (including me) can huff and puff about that attitude, but that won’t change what’s going to happen.

 

[TrueLight]

People say “oh, they might as well go into schism then!” do that the SSPX can “get what they want” is not only incredibly selfish and childish, but also very short sighted.

Love, love name calling.

 

[Lujack]

Imagine a world where corporations were allowed to operate freely in every country without requiring anything like permission from a local or State level; they could establish business headquarters and retail stores wherever and whenever they liked.

Now imagine if the U.S Federal Government one day said, “We want your businesses to ask permission from each State government to do business in their State.” How do you think businesses would react? Many would be worried that their competitors might try to monopolise the market in a State by lobbying State governments to deny permission to certain businesses to operate or do business in their State. Others would note the potential managerial nightmare that could result from establishing a plethora of contacts and networks that hitherto didn’t exist. Further, it would not only mean establishing one-time agreements, but even maintaining relationships and keeping (potentially a lot of) people happy or at least content: i.e. State lawmakers, bureaucrats and politicians. It wouldn’t be enough to simply acquire a permission slip, but potentially it could also mean constantly keeping a lot of people satisfied so as to just retain or maintain that permission slip.

The only issue is that the SSPX was never allowed to do that; they did it, this is the situation they arrived at, but they weren’t supposed to be doing it to begin with.

Now imagine if later the U.S Federal Government said, “Okay, we recognise you don’t want to have to ask permission from each of the (fifty) States. We offer instead that you simply receieve permission from us to do business in the whole country.”

Consider also that there are many more than fifty dioceses.

Now of the two options, which do you think businesses would prefer?

Just because the SSPX would prefer one option to the other doesn’t make the second option unreasonable. I haven’t even said that the first option (no need for permission from local bishop) is unreasonable, but I don’t think that the second option is unreasonable either, since practically every order ever has needed the local bishop’s permission.

 

[Melchior_1]

Love, love name calling.

My apologies, perhaps I should have been more specific; I hold the belief that the ends should never justify the means, and the process of using that method is one that is selfish. Saying “they might as well go the schismatic route” so that anyone can get “what they want”, to me, is a selfish act.

Essentially, I’m calling the act and the thought process selfish, not the person themselves. In most cases they probably mean well, after all.

 

[TrueLight]

My apologies, perhaps I should have been more specific; I hold the belief that the ends should never justify the means, and the process of using that method is one that is selfish. Saying “they might as well go the schismatic route” so that anyone can get “what they want”, to me, is a selfish act.

Essentially, I’m calling the act and the thought process selfish, not the person themselves. In most cases they probably mean well, after all.

Apology accepted.

I don’t think anyone who cares about the SSPX would like to see them go into schism. The option was offered to show the irony of certain groups being welcomed, certain disobedient leaders not being confronted, while a disobedient group who just wants to hold onto catholic tradition is treated differently.

In any case, this thread is draining. I think I’ll take my leave.

 

[Melchior_1]

Apology accepted.

I don’t think anyone who cares about the SSPX would like to see them go into schism. The option was offered to show the irony of certain groups being welcomed, certain disobedient leaders not being confronted,** while a disobedient group who just wants to hold onto catholic tradition** is treated differently.

In any case, this thread is draining. I think I’ll take my leave.

I think you’re right regarding leaving the thread, which I’ll probably do likewise. But regarding the bolded; adhering to Canon Law, the statutes set forth for Societies of Apostolic Life, and obedience to the Pope should be considered hallmarks for traditional Catholics.

The Society has not followed the statutes set forth for Societies of Apostolic Life during their irregular status. They “broke away” in the first place due to an untraditional act. In doing all of the above, they’ve come incredibly close becoming what they fight against.

 

[Moore11]

They are dealing with the consequences of breaking said rules. They are being “punished” just as a child would be punished by a parent.

This is just not true. No one is being “punished” it is closer to the prodigal son than it is a child getting “punished”.
While the SSPX has it’s fair share of egos in their midst they do not have the market cornered on this “us VS them” mentality.

If in fact the SSPX are able to humble themselves before Peter, and I understand that is a BIG if then it is the people with the attitude above who will have to also humble themselves, lest they whine to the father about the brother who gets a party.

 

[Moore11]

I think you’re right regarding leaving the thread, which I’ll probably do likewise. But regarding the bolded; adhering to Canon Law, the statutes set forth for Societies of Apostolic Life, and obedience to the Pope should be considered hallmarks for traditional Catholics.

The Society has not followed the statutes set forth for Societies of Apostolic Life during their irregular status. They “broke away” in the first place due to an untraditional act. In doing all of the above, they’ve come incredibly close becoming what they fight against.

I think this is a fair assessment. And I agree with it. It is accurate and more balanced than the previous post.
But, it is an emotional issue for many:shrug:

 

[curlycool89]

Oh? And the Eastern Orthodox wouldn’t request - nay, likely demand - the same thing, for example?Or would each of their priests need to request it from their local Catholic ordinary? Or, if the schism were healed, would Orthodox piests need to (from their perspective) reacquire faculties from their newly Catholic (but previously schismatic) local ordinaries? Or wouldn’t it be more practical, prudent and absolutely agreeable to simply grant a dispensation of such faculties for all those who accepted the authority of the local ordinary and became, like him, Catholic?

Number 1 (again) since you seemed to miss this point, the Eastern Orthodox is a Church. They have their own separate hierarchy. When (if/when) the schism is healed, they would be similar to an Eastern Catholic Church where they would have their own bishops who would be able to give faculties, so the Roman Catholic hierarchy would not need to be consulted. The SSPX is not a Church and are Roman Catholic, so they should follow the Roman Catholic norms of getting faculties from the local Roman Catholic bishop.

Last I checked, you can scarcely find anyone who claims to be Chistian who does not believe they are part of the True Church. Further, many Anglicans and Luthers do call themselves Catholic.

I never said Catholic, I said Roman Catholic. The SSPX are Roman Catholic and should follow the Roman Catholic norms.

Really? Not even those who were, for a long time, excommunicated?

I think we call that imperfect communion, but they never apostatized.

But we can excommunicate them!

The bishops were excommunicated for disobedience, that is consecrating a bishop without a papal mandate. That’s an excommunicable offence.

Right. So the SSPX are now internally part of the Church - except that they haven’t an ounce of jurisdiction, disregard Rome and run around handing out invalid and illicit sacraments. Let’s see: no jurisdiction, disregard Rome and run around handing out invalid and illicit sacraments… Wait, are we talking about the Anglicans, the Orthodox or the SSPX?

The SSPX is currently under suspension - that means they have no canonical ministry in the Church. Until Rome says otherwise, they are suspended.

Oh yes, the all-illusive proper sense of the word “Church,” which I find means just about anything except as being synonymous with the Mystical Body of Christ or the Roman Catholic Church. But let’s not allow Pope Pius XII to get in our way.

This is where you’re missing out on the ecclesiology again. The Orthodox are a Church because they have valid apostolic succession and give valid sacraments according to their traditions. A group like the Anglicans or Lutherans are not a Church (they are an Ecclesial community) on the other hand.

The SSPX is not a Church because they are a part of the Roman Catholic Church.

So if the SSPX went outright schismatic, reorganized themselves and renamed themselves, gifted themselves jurisdiction and territory, etc., and then sought reconciliation we would, ostensibly, have to speak of the proper Church of the SSPX, which now should deserve our respect and esteem?

Maybe… I don’t really know, that would be a big unknown. The only thing I think anyone could say is “it’s a possibility”.

The Roman Catholic Church didn’t fall into schism, heresy or apostasy - what sins did we commit? Were we persecuting them for being faithful Catholics, and thus drove them into a desperate need to enter into heresy, schism or apostacy?

I don’t think you will find a real Church historian who will say with a straight face that the Catholic Church did the most prudent action all the time. The mutual excommunications between the Pope and the Ecumenical Patriarch (Constantinople) is one example where … let’s say better actions could have been taken. Catholics do bear some of the blame for that, and that’s why the Pope lifted the excommunications several decades ago.

I’m curious, would an SSPX Pope be treated with the same dignity as the Bishop of Rome? Or could only the Orthodox elect their own Pope? Afterall, their Patriarchs get all the benefits - why stop there? If some Roman Cardinals defected to Lefebvrism we could be in serious trouble!

No, because there’s no historical basis for a “SSPX Pope”. The Patriarchs are equal because their Sees were founded by an apostle (Constantinople - Andrew, Alexandria - Mark, ect) and have always been recognized as heads of their particular Church. The SSPX is less than 50 years old and was not founded by an apostle, and is not a Church.

But we should punish the SSPX by adding an obstacle to potentially healing what might become another major schism?

Since when did SOPs (standard operating procedures) become “obstacles”? Again, we’re just saying they have to do what every single other permanently based priest has to do (let’s forget about the travelling arguments, the SSPX priests are permanently based so the travelling is an irrelevant case).

I want to remind you that Br. JR is a consecrated religious, a Superior (ordinary) of a religious community, and has studied Canon Law. Just the first one means that he deserves your respect (also, it’s a forum rule so you are required to), but he also has the background and experience in these matters to know what he’s talking about.