Bishop Fellay's (SSPX) response to reunification

[BeReasonable]

As Br. JR has pointed out, since the SSPX has no official ministry in the Church, every priestly ordination is illicit, and canon law gives them automatic suspension. So every person of the SSPX (which is a priestly society; the laypeople cannon by definition be a member) who has been ordained has violated Canon law.

Secondly, and this is important, only Catholic are subject to Canon Law. That means non-Catholics are not subject to Canon law. Everyone on the other hand is subject to moral or natural law.

That I did get. What I mean is the following:-

Luther was a Catholic, broke Canon Law and who knows what other laws, but his followers today are not considered Canon Law violators

SSPX leader broke Canon Law, but are all its followers also guilty of breaking Canon Law? It would seem to indicate that SSPX followers are also then within the Church. So as long as they don’t endorse the ordination, they are still good Catholics. Does it not?

When you have a public position, you have to go beyond your own conscience. You need to be able to put obedience first, since the Pope is really his superior.

But this applies to one person, the one who carries out the ordination.

It’s also a pretty general rule that Bishops shouldn’t be publicly chastising the Pope. It’s dishonourable just for starters.

What if the Pope was someone like Pope Alexander VI?

I understand it is bad to insult the Pope in public. But it is quiet possible that this person has a deep conviction that his beliefs and suspicions are true. What must one do in such a scenario?

 

[maurin]

The answer to this is simple; do you have a bank/savings account? If you do, do you have a moral right to keep the money in your account even if all around you are in need?

Answer; certainly you have a moral right to retain what is yours through your own work. While it is a positive charitable act to give to those less fortunate than yourself you are not required to dispense everything you own to them. It is not against the teachings of the Church to save for a rainy day or to provide for yourself or your family now or in the future.

If the answer to your question about the moral right to do so were “no,” then every church, cathedral and even the Vatican itself would be violating the moral norm, for they all contain items that represent large sums of money that could be better used to tend to the poor.

The Catholic Churches worldwide sponsors more charities worldwide than any other institution in the world, so I am afraid I must heartily and passionately disagree with you. One does not have the moral right to horde when others are in need. This is what Our Lord is teaching us in the parable of the sheep and the goats, as well as in many other parables.

 

[maurin]

What I was asking was more what is the difference between “moral” and “legal” rights with respect to the Mass. Specific examples.

Sorry if I didn’t make that clear.

One only needs to look at the percentage of Catholics who still believe in the Real Presence of Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament. Search the threads on this forum. The percentage has been the topic of more than one discussion.

 

[Timothysis]

The Catholic Churches worldwide sponsors more charities worldwide than any other institution in the world, so I am afraid I must heartily and passionately disagree with you.

OK but you aren’t disagreeing with me.

One does not have the moral right to horde when others are in need. .

Yet, all of the Churches in the world do not give 100% of their assets to the poor. According to you, they do not have a moral right to retain their excess “*when others are in need.” * So which is it?

By the way, do you have a savings account? Is a personal savings account morally righteous when others are in need? For those of us who do have savings, are we violating the moral law by our actions?

 

[maurin]

Tim, might I suggest you re read what I have written? I’ve never suggested giving away all. One has a moral obligation to provide adequately for oneself and those for whom one has responsibility. One also has the moral obligtation to give from one’s surplus to those who have none.

 

[Timothysis]

Tim, might I suggest you re read what I have written? I’ve never suggested giving away all. One has a moral obligation to provide adequately for oneself and those for whom one has responsibility. One also has the moral obligtation to give from one’s surplus to those who have none.

And I do not disagree with you. In fact, I wrote “It is not against the teachings of the Church to save for a rainy day or to provide for yourself or your family now or in the future.”

I think that we may just be speaking past each other.

 

[choliks]

That I did get. What I mean is the following:-

Luther was a Catholic, broke Canon Law and who knows what other laws, but his followers today are not considered Canon Law violators

SSPX leader broke Canon Law, but are all its followers also guilty of breaking Canon Law? It would seem to indicate that SSPX followers are also then within the Church. So as long as they don’t endorse the ordination, they are still good Catholics. Does it not?

1. Because today’s Lutherans are not Catholic, so they are not bound by Canon Law. Like curlycool said, only Catholics are bound by Canon Law.
2. Let me ask you this: if you’re father committed a crime before you were born, does it follow that you are also guilty? And if you follow his footsteps but is not anymore governed by the laws your father broke, are you still culpable?
3. This is the same reason why the excommunications were lifted from the four ordained bishops. However, (and i’ll reiterate what others have said) their illicit ordination got them automatic suspension. And since they are suspended, the priests they ordained since then automatically got the suspension.

What if the Pope was someone like Pope Alexander VI?

I understand it is bad to insult the Pope in public. But it is quiet possible that this person has a deep conviction that his beliefs and suspicions are true. What must one do in such a scenario?

But the problem is… Blessed Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI are not [like] Pope Alexander VI.

What must one do? Obey.

I’ll go back to what Bro. JR said in one of his posts here which is based on two of the greatest Saints the Church has ever had (Sts. Francis and Dominic)…

JReducation:

No matter how sinful the pope and the bishops may be, no matter how heretical the clergy, not matter how desolute the laity, communion with this sinful Church is more desirable than excommunication.

 

[Sean_O_L]

In his “Reply to Anglican Bishops”*, Dr Leslie Rumble, MSC wrote:

“Had it been merely a question of a reform in morals, a change from laxity to fidelity and fervour in the Christian lives of Bishops, priests and people, no Catholic principle would have forbidden it. But the setting up of a constitutionally different Church by Henry VIII, with himself as its head, and the changes in doctrine and worship under Edward VI and Elizabeth, are quite a different matter. Those changes meant, not the reform of the existent Catholic Church in England, but the substitution of a new, schismatic and Protestant Church (SOL emphasis) in its place.”

Of course, the term “Ecclesial Group” only surfaced with the Second Vatican Council – for diplomatic/ecumenical reasons.

Nevertheless, the Anglican “communion” was, in fact, both heretical AND schismatical. So, I believe that it is fair to describe the parties (including the SSPX) in the was that I did. The Catechism of the Catholic Church”, in fact, describes schism as: “schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff OR of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.”

While some “traditionalists” will occasionally attend the Reformed Liturgy – much many more regard to as “evil”, and refuse “communion with the members…”

Dr Rumble says further:

“Schism means separation together with a proclamation of independence. The Elizabethan Church separated from the Papal Church and proclaimed its independence. By that it became a schismatic Church, no longer one with or a part of the Church it had abandoned.”

When Exone had its “ad experimentum” status revoked in the mid 1970’s – Lefebvre proclaimed his independence by continuing as if the strictures had absolutely no effect – the effect was the withdrawal of all priestly faculties from the priests he ordained – meaning that any Masses they said were illicit; all Confessions were invalid; any marriages performed were invalid.

Nov. 21, 1974
“On one day, Lefebvre castigates Vatican II, declaring the reform of Vatican Council II to be entirely corrupt, coming from and resulting in heresy; it is not possible for any faithful Catholic to adopt or submit to it in any way, but that it is to be categorically refused. He says that he held firmly to all that has been believed and practiced in matters of faith, morals, worship, catechetical instruction, priestly formation, Church institutions, and such things codified in the books which appeared before the Modernist influence of the Council. Rome is neo-modernist and neo-protestant. It is impossible for any alert Catholic to adopt or submit to it in any way at all.” (Declaration of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre “Catholic”, Jan 87, p6., and ECÔNE FULL STOP, Fortes in Fide, by Fr Noél Barbara.

• jloughnan.tripod.com/repangbish2.htm

 

[pnewton]

So are you saying that it is possible to make accommodations to those who would call the Pope the Anti-Christ but one who would call the Pope a modernist is hard to accommodate for?
…I am merely pointing out the logical inconsistency of your position. You would like to co-operate and have dialogue with non-Christians. But at the same time, you treat your own fellow Catholics who disagree with you differently. Shouldn’t you have dialogue and co-operate with even those who disagree with your view on co-operation and dialogue?

There is no inconsistency. You are comparing two different things. Here is why this comparison is faulty. Let us look at the ways they are the same.

1. Neither Protestant ministers nor SSPX can licitly serve as priest and administer Sacraments in the Catholic Church.
2. They both can engage in dialogue with the Catholic Church in order to consider.
3. Both can be incorporated in working relationships in practical matters.
4. Both are recognized as valid Christians.

I think you misrepresent ecumenism as more than it is. No where does the Church deny the theological differences between the Catholic Church and denominational Christians. This idea that they are receiving preferential treatment is a myth. They are outside completely of the visible Church. Maybe the SSPX will be too, maybe not, but at this point they are teetering on the brink of return, or rejection. It is only because of the closer ties to the Catholic Church proper that they fall under canon law, where Protestants do not. If they move away into schism, they will no longer need concern themselves with that, but they will cease to be part of the Catholic Church. This is the decision that now faces them. I think yearning to be treated like Protestants is a dangerous train of thought.

 

[JReducation]

(Edited)

So are you saying that it is possible to make accommodations to those who would call the Pope the Anti-Christ but one who would call the Pope a modernist is hard to accommodate for?

I am merely pointing out the logical inconsistency of your position. You would like to co-operate and have dialogue with non-Christians. But at the same time, you treat your own fellow Catholics who disagree with you differently.

Shouldn’t you have dialogue and co-operate with even those who disagree with your view on co-operation and dialogue? If you see something wrong with this statement, frankly, it is the logical inconsistency of your position rather than what is been proposed.

For it does seem logically inconsistent to want to reach out for non-Catholics who disagree with majority of what the church teaches and still be firm on being against those who oppose such a method of reaching out.

Well, not every SSPX person has violated Canon law by your definition. Because Luther would have violated Canon law as well. But you do not consider every single protestant as a violator of Canon law, am I correct?

That is good. As I said before, I was merely pointing out the inconsistency in claiming that it was in some way shocking and against progress if a SSPX leader calls the Pope a modernist while being perfectly ok with seeking dialogue, co-operation and even participation in events by non-Catholics who might call the Pope Anti-Christ.

It would only be derogatory if the label applied was given without any reason. In this case, it seems like the label given was something the man truly believed to be fitting. What would you have the person do? Go against his conscience?

The Canonical distinctions are again as you yourself stated, “I’ll bet you $5 that I can find 5 letters, 3 constitutions, 4 dispensations, 6 exemptions and 9 text messages that explain this canon very differently from what you think it says.”.

So I am not sure how much your perceived canonical difference is valid.

You are making this to be a personal matter. You keep saying “you”. I have never said anything against the SSPX or against continuing dialogue with the SSPX. I cannot see where you get that idea.

In fact, in one of my earliest posts on this thread, I clearly said that the SSPX are neither heretics, apostates, or schism.

Are they Catholic? Yes they are. Do they have a canonical place in the Church? No they do not. That is an objective truth.

Are their deacons and priests validly ordained? Yes they are. Are they licitly ordained? No they are not, because a suspended bishop is not supposed to ordain and a Catholic is not supposed to accept ordination without permission from the proper authorities, that would be his diocesan bishop or his religious superior. The SSPX bishops cannot grant such permission, because they are not canonical authorities.

Are the SSPX and the Protestants in the same situation? No they are not. As long as the SSPX remains Catholic, it is subject to the current code of Canon Law and to the wishes of the Pope and those to whom he grants authority to deal with the Society.

Since the SSPX and the Protestant community are not in the same situation, the canons that apply to the SSPX do not apply to Protestants. There are two Codes of Canon Law. The one explicitly says that it is for the Latin Church and the other explicitly says that it is for the Oriental Churches. There is no code for non-Catholics.

The Code of Canon law applied to Luther and those Catholics who rebelled against the Church. As the Holy Father has said a number of times, those born into the Protestant communities are considered people of faith, because this is the faith that was been handed down to them. Pope Benedict recently said that the Protestant community of today is in a very different situation from the original Protestant community. It does not mean that they have to like us for us to admit that we have no canonical authority over non-Catholic communities. Therefore, our dialogue with them is of a different nature than our dialogue with a society of secular priests, which is what the SSPX is. The laity is not part of the SSPX. To the SSPX only belong those clerics who are incardinated into the Society. Therefore, the canonical sanctions do not apply to the laity that is supportive of the SSPX or attends their chapels.

As to your question, “Do they belong to the Mystical Body?” Yes they do. Do Protestants belong to the Mystical Body? Ut Unum Sint says that they too belong to the Mystical Body in some incomplete or imperfect way.

The question on the table is not who belongs to the Mystical Body and who does not. The point on the table is that we have a clerical society that is suspended and needs to work with the Holy See to be released of the suspension. They are no different from any of the other Ecclesia Dei communities that were suspended and have be reincorporated to full canonical status, such as the Transalpine Redemptorists.

Should a bishop be making such comments about the Holy See from the pulpit? My opinion is that it’s inappropriate for any member of the clergy to use the pulpit to air out his concerns with the Holy See no matter how upset or how right he may be. That is not the purpose of the pulpit. It makes no difference what it is they are disagreeing with or what concerns them, whether it’s Modernism or ABC.

Please back off, because you’re accusing me of things that I have never said or done. Go back and read my posts and you will see what I have to say on the matter. If you don’t want to read them all, read the first two that I posted in this thread. You will find that they are more SSPX friendly that you have been to me.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[curlycool89]

One only needs to look at the percentage of Catholics who still believe in the Real Presence of Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament. Search the threads on this forum. The percentage has been the topic of more than one discussion.

And that has absolutely nothing to do with the Pope having the moral right to promulgate a new form of the Mass.

Yes, the people of the Church are quite imperfect. It’s always been that way.

Back in olde Christian European times they had some pretty strange interpretations too. People fought about which Saint was closer to God in Heaven (if you’re French the answer is St. Denis; if you’re English the answer is St. George).

If you really argue that the Pope caused people to stop believing in the Real Presence because of the new Mass then you’re simply wrong. At the very worst you have a pretty textbook case for double effect, so no moral wrong was committed.

Secondly, saying that the only reason for a shift in societal values was VII or the OF of the Mass is to ignore a large part of history. It was the 60s and the 70s for crying out loud! There was the sexual revolution, the advent of the Pill, anti-war protests, anti-nuclear arms protests, the Civil Rights movement, the Feminist movement, the Baby boomer generation and post-war boom. You mine as well throw in JFK too, and JFK pre-dated both the end of the council and the OF Mass.

To say that none of those movements or events contributed to cultural changes is silly. In my own humble opinion, I would say that JFK declaring that “the Church doesn’t speak for me” was far more influential on people’s values then anything the Vatican could have done, and that happened in 1960. People saw an extremely popular Catholic who essentially said “I don’t have to follow”.

To look at Vatican II and the OF in isolation for all those events does not work. Catholics didn’t live in a bubble isolated from the rest of the world and culture (especially post-JFK). To say that the rest of the culture did not have an effect is ludicrous. To conclude that the OF is responsible for people loosing their faith in the Real Presence is, frankly, a lazy answer.

 

[Sean_O_L]

A CATHOLIC DICTIONARY

By William E. Addis and Thomas Arnold, M.A.

LONDON, Kegan Paul, Trench, & Co., Paternoster Square, 1885

“SCHISM (σχισμα). A tear or rent (Matt. ix. 16; Marc. ii. 21); a division of opinion (John vii. 43 ; ix. 16; x. 19); party spirit in the Christian Church (1 Cor. i. 10; xi. 18; xii. 25); and then, in Fathers and theologians, a technical word to denote formal separation from the unity of the Church. " Schismatics,” says St. Thomas (“2 2ndæ,” II. qu. xxxix.; a. 1), “in the strict sense, are those who of their own will and intention sever themselves from the unity of the Church.” This unity of the Church, he continues, consists in the connection of its members with each other, and of all the members with the head. “Now, this head is Christ, whose representative in the Church is the Supreme Pontiff. And therefore the name of ‘schismatics’ is given to those who refuse to be under the Supreme Pontiff and to communicate with the members of the Church subject to him.” Further, he thus explains the difference between heresy and schism. Heresy is opposed to faith, schism to charity; so that, although all heretics are schismatics, because loss of faith involves separation from the Church, all schismatics are not heretics, since a man may, from anger, pride, ambition, or the like, sever himself from the communion of the Church and yet believe all that which the Church proposes for our belief. Still, a state of pure schism—i.e. of schism without heresy— cannot continue long—at least, in the case of a large number of men. The words of St. Jerome (on Titus, cap. 3), quoted by St. Thomas, are to the point: “Schism, at the beginning, may be understood as something different from heresy, but there is no schism which does not invent some heresy for itself, in order to justify its secession.” History abundantly confirms this observation. Bodies which at first separate from the Church merely because they think their personal rights have been infringed are sure, in the end, to deny the Church’s unity and to lose the spirit of faith. And so St. Thomas remarks that, as loss of charity is the way to loss of faith, so schism is the road to heresy.
Schismatics do not, of course, lose the power of order ; their priests can say Mass, their bishops confirm and ordain. But they lose all jurisdiction, so that “they cannot either absolve, excommunicate, or grant, indulgences, or the like; and if they attempt anything of the kind the act is null” (loc. cit. a. 3). Whether pure schismatics do or do not cease thereby to be members of the Church is a question controverted in the Schools. Many theologians consider that all who retain integrity of faith are members of the Church. But all agree that they are not united to the Church by charity— that, if members, they are dead members —so that the question is of no great moment."

Is Anglicanism “schismatic”? Is Methodism? Presbyterianism? SSPXism (or 'traditionalism")?

Consider the matter of “ANGLICANISM” - at jloughnan.tripod.com/anglo_diffs.htm

 

[Sean_O_L]

My advice to “traditionalists” is to be aware of the “Anything BUT Consistent Mind of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre” - as chronicled at jloughnan.tripod.com/vacilate.htm

For example:

Spring 1997
Fr. Harrison referred to “members and supporters of the Society of St Pius X (having) resorted to the most convoluted hermeneutical acrobatics and bizarre conspiracy theories in order to explain away the conclusive documentary evidence” that Archbishop Lefebvre did, in fact, sign Dignitatis Humanae and Gaudium et Spes on December 7, 1965 - having "in a moment of submissiveness, subjected his own judgment to that of Peter and, added his signature to the documents, thereby sharing in their promulgation (but that) after the Council he quickly reverted to his total opposition to these documents, especially Dignitatis Humanae."The Latin Mass , Spring 1997

 

[Sean_O_L]

One of the Society of St Pius X [SSPX] “Claims” Examined

"Rome Speaks in re Murray

"In May 1997, Norbert Brunner, Bishop of Sion in Switzerland - the diocese where the seminary founded by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre for his Society of St. Pius X is located - issued a request for Vatican clarification of the canonical status of the SSPX. He received responses, published in the French periodical La Documentation Catholique, from the Congregation for Bishops and from the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts.
“In a short statement, the Congregation for Bishops concluded that “participation at their [SSPX] celebrations is objectively illicit because they are not in full communion with the Church, and they are a source of grave scandal and of division of the ecclesial community.” It went on to say that the assistance of the faithful [at Society Masses] is not authorized except in cases of true necessity.”
"However, “those who participate occasionally AND without the intention of adhering formally to the positions of the Lefebvre community towards the Holy Father do not incur the penalty of excommunication.”
"The Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts went into somewhat more detail. It explicitly mentioned the thesis written by Fr. Gerald Murray for his license in canon law from Rome’s Gregorian University (and whose conclusions were discussed in an interview in the Fall 1995 issue of The Latin Mass magazine), but forswore direct discussion of Fr. Murray’s work because it remained unpublished and because press accounts about the thesis have been “confused.”
"Still, the pontifical council addressed itself to many of the central points of the thesis. It stated that “one cannotreasonably place in doubt the validity of the excommunication” of Lefebvre and his bishops, and rejected Fr. Murray’s original appeal to canons 1323-1324 (which may) exempt one from latae sententiae excommunication if his actions were taken “by reason of necessity”) in Archbishop Lefebvre’s defense. It also accepted some points of the Murray thesis.
"First, in examining the language the Pope employed in his motu proprio, Ecclesia Dei, the council considered what it means to “adhere formally” to a schismatic movement. According to the council, any judgment regarding adhesion to such a movement must take into account, first of all, that schism is largely of an interior nature. Has the individual freely and consciously adopted an essentially schismatic position? Usually,the council explained, one manifests such an attitude by holding positions contrary to the Magisterium of the Church.
"The council went on to concede that “it is possible for a member of the faithful to take part in the liturgical celebrations of the disciples of Lefebvre without thereby taking part in their schismatical spirit.”
"As for SSPX clergy, the council concluded that their ministerial activity within a schismatic movement constitutes more than ample indication of both an interior and an exterior adhesion to schism.
“At the pastoral level, the council emphasized the importance of taking into account the “interior disposition” of each member of the faithful who assists at SSPX Masses.”

jloughnan.tripod.com/frereplm.htm#brunner

 

[melekali]

I don’t know if I am allowed to link to the SSPX website, so I am linking to Father Z’s blog which has the Sermon by Bishop Fellay, saying no to Rome.

May God intervene in this situation.

With respect to the ‘bishop’, he is incorrect. He needs a dose of real humility. Right now he seems to be following his father the devil. Might sound harsh, except when one considers he too (Lucifer, aka devil) it was that refused to serve. Fellay is subject to the Holy See and will find that out on judgment day if he refuses to acknowledge it before.

 

[Thomas_Casey]

MODERATOR WARNING

Please remember our rules. Members must show respect for all persons. The clergy are not free targets. No one may make inappropriate and disrespectful remarks to or about any cleric or religious. You can point out what you perceive as strengths and weaknesses, but you may not show disrespect or condescension. This includes the clerics of the SSPX.

One can disagree without being disagreeable.

 

[maurin]

And that has absolutely nothing to do with the Pope having the moral right to promulgate a new form of the Mass.

And on that we will remain in utter disagreement! A Rite of Mass which has seen the erosion of Faith in the Real Presence of Our Lord diminish over 40 years, in my opinion, noone has the moral authority to promulgate. Lex orandi, lex credendi.

But my opinion, at the end of the day is as valuable-- or valueless lol, depending on who you talk to!!-- as yours, and so let’s agree to disagree.

 

[BeReasonable]

You are making this to be a personal matter. You keep saying “you”. **I have never said anything against the SSPX or against continuing dialogue with the SSPX. **

Should a bishop be making such comments about the Holy See from the pulpit? ** My opinion is that it’s inappropriate for any member of the clergy to use the pulpit to air out his concerns with the Holy See no matter how upset or how right he may be.** That is not the purpose of the pulpit. It makes no difference what it is they are disagreeing with or what concerns them, whether it’s Modernism or ABC

I am afraid I can’t continue to entertain your replies because I keep receiving infractions every-time I answer you.

But I just wanted to outline the bolded parts above. It is that after mentioned opinion that I criticized as being of inconsistent nature with your approach toward those who call the Pope Anti-Christ. If you can entertain someone who calls the Supreme Pontiff Anti-Christ very kindly by praying with them and engaging in various activities with them, to continue to engage in dialogue and just lovingly disregard or embrace what they said when the person is in-fact more CLOSER to the Catholic faith itself would seem like the logical thing to do.

I don’t think I can add further without receiving more infractions to my account so I will stop.

 

[Melchior_1]

And on that we will remain in utter disagreement! A Rite of Mass which has seen the erosion of Faith in the Real Presence of Our Lord diminish over 40 years, in my opinion, noone has the moral authority to promulgate. Lex orandi, lex credendi.

But my opinion, at the end of the day is as valuable-- or valueless lol, depending on who you talk to!!-- as yours, and so let’s agree to disagree.

Actually, there is no room to agree or disagree, If you do not believe that Rome has the legal and moral ability to change the Form of the Mass, that’s a fundamental strike against Matthew 16:18 if they went through with it.

Further, I would argue that the Form changing had very little, if not nothing, to do with the erosion of the Faith. If you actually look at the last 100 years in a historical and anthro perspective, you can see why.

 

[Filii_Dei]

I am afraid I can’t continue to entertain your replies because I keep receiving infractions every-time I answer you.

Might I recommend that you pay attention to the infractions you are receiving and make the necessary amendments? It works like a charm. I’ve stopped receiving infractions ever since.

But I just wanted to outline the bolded parts above. It is that after mentioned opinion that I criticized as being of inconsistent nature with your approach toward those who call the Pope Anti-Christ. If you can entertain someone who calls the Supreme Pontiff Anti-Christ very kindly by praying with them and engaging in various activities with them, to continue to engage in dialogue and just lovingly disregard or embrace what they said when the person is in-fact more CLOSER to the Catholic faith itself would seem like the logical thing to do.

I don’t think I can add further without receiving more infractions to my account so I will stop.

Tarring all Protestants because some choose to deny the Pope’s rightful leadership of the holy Mother Church and misrepresent the Vicar of Jesus Christ as being the Anti-Christ is a gross generalisation. By your logic, the Church should not engage traditionalists either because some of them (sedevacantists) call the Pope the Anti-Christ as well. This is why your argument is unfortunately fallacious, and it would be a tragedy if the Church were to follow the logic you propose. There is nothing inconsistent about the Church’s approach to the SSPX. In fact, it only underscores her love for the SSPX.

A distinctive virtue of the SSPX that sets them apart from any Protestant is that they consider themselves Catholic and they still recognise the authority of the Pope, even if they do not always submit themselves to it. The fact that the Holy Father liases with them through the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith and not through an external affairs department like the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity shows how much His Holiness wishes to consider them as part of his flock and care for them like a disobedient child, rather than a stranger. It is their canonical status and disobedience to the Church that is the problem, but despite that, the Church has shown tolerance and patience in bringing them back to the fold. This certainly puts them in a far, far more favourable position than the Protestants, unlike what you wish to suggest.

However, that does not entitle them to any special treatment. Canon law is fair to all Catholics. Disobedience and insubordination necessitate the corresponding canonical punishment. Perhaps it is my experience as a former member of the armed forces, but I believe loyalty and discipline are important virtues whose importance cannot be understated. When canon law is violated, there will be consequences. It is a fact of life and a fact of the Church. The fact that the Church metes out a punishment to them at all shows how much she loves them and hopes that it may provide an impetus for them to return to canonical regularity.

Those of you who are parents as well will understand very well what I speak of. We will punish our children - harshly, if we need to - but we do not will not lay a finger on other children. Our own children will point to this and exclaim, “Why, Dad! Why do you punish me but not them! Why do you continue to laugh with them and joke with them even though they call you names! Why do you love them more than me?”

No, it is not because we love them more than our own children. In fact, we punish our children because we love them and we wish to instill virtue and righteousness, so that they may grow up to be true children of God. We do not do the same to others. There is no inconsistency here. The Church is strict because she still wishes to consider them Catholic despite their disobedience, and not an outsider like a Protestant “church”. It is because of this that she works with them patiently but firmly, making it clear that the SSPX must accept the doctrinal preamble before they are restored to canonical regularity, while always keeping a diplomatic silence, never uttering a word against the SSPX or give any reason for scandal. In fact, despite the strong tongue-lashing that she has received, she remains stoic and steadfast in her mission.