Bishop Schneider backs the SSPX

  • Thread starter Thread starter smead2942
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
It seems very clear to me. Don’t go to SSPX unless it’s an emergency.

I personally have struggled with this, but I always find myself feeling as though I’m thumbing my nose at Jesus when I find myself wanting to go to SSPX; feels like I’m saying Christ was lying when He said the gates of hell would never prevail against the Church.
 
R_H_Benson said:
As I understand it, because of their canonically irregular situation, priests of the SSPX (though validly ordained with the power to confect the Holy Eucharist and administer the Sacraments) do not have any jurisdiction. Therefore, (barring emergencies) they cannot hear valid confessions or perform marriages.
Click to expand...
Actually, since they are suspended, SSPX priests can’t perform any priestly actions except in emergency. This is not limited to confessions or marriages. They can’t say Mass, for instance. In terms of “lacking jurisdiction”, jurisdiction comes through the ordinary of the diocese, usually territorial. The SSPX does not have any ordinaries of their own. They recognize the bishop in your cathedral downtown as a valid bishop, but deny his, or anyone else’s jurisdiction as the ordinary for your diocese. For laity who are de facto “affiliated” with SSPX, this creates ambiguity. Who is their ordinary? Most laity are connected to their ordinary through the pastor, but the SSPX priests don’t have relationship with the local ordinary, and they aren’t “pastors” anyway.
R_H_Benson said:
But it is important to understand that the SSPX is not schismatic. The excommunications have been lifted. The situation remains confusing, but the proper way to refer to it seems to be “canonically irregular”. Personally, I fully support Bishop Schneider’s statements.
Click to expand...
The lifting of excommunications only affects the 4 living individuals involved, it does not change the Church’s status with the SSPX and whatever new organization Bishop Williamson started. It is important to consider separately: 1) the situation of individuals in SSPX; and - 2) the situation of the SSPX organization. I believe almost all the problems with reconciliation are from the organization, not the individuals.

Bishop Schneider’s statements should be considered. Also consider that he, himself, has thus far chosen not to readmit the SSPX organization to the Church. Sometimes you have to consider what bishops are not doing, as well as what they recommend.
 
thistle said:
He is wrong. There are weighty reasons for their faculties being suspended.

THEY ARE DISOBEDIENT TO THE POPE.
Click to expand...
The problem between the SSPX and Rome is not obedience or discipline, it is doctrinal.
 
johnnyc176 said:
As in the op article the mission was discreet so I would assume that Bishop Morlino was not aware of the meetings. Bishop Morlino’s statement was on the current status of the SSPX (although he did say the SSPX status is developing). Bishop Schneider’s statements in his interview are indeed hopeful.
Click to expand...
Yes, that’s the key. And we’re probably wasting too much time speculating on what will come next. Furthermore, let’s not prejudge those in priestly formation as maybe they’re betting on things to change once they are ready for the priesthood.

I have a feeling it’s not as easy as just applying for FSSP training either as they only have limited space and teachers for those wishing to go that route.
 
ProdglArchitect said:
I think it depends. Some of their bishops are validly ordained, and as such would be able to ordain priests capable of confecting the sacraments; however, they’ve also ordained several bishops invalidly, so they would not be able to ordain priests.

I’m pretty sure we’re barred from receiving sacraments from the SSPX except for in cases of extreme need (similar to our relationship with Orthodoxy, if I’m not mistaken.), but I don’t know if there’s been a blanket statement that their sacraments are always invalid.
Click to expand...
Some of their bishops? Which ones of the 3/4 (I’ll even give you Williamson) are not validly Bishops?
 
kozlosap said:
I beg to differ. The SSPX considers itself above the Church and refuse to acknowledge that fact.🤷
Click to expand...
To a certain extent, I agree. I can’t comment on whether or not they consider themselves above the Church. All I know is that they want to preserve Traditions which they believe were lost or cast aside by Modernists at Vatican II. The problem is that at least two Popes have told them that it is not their duty to interpret Tradition for the Magisterium. Neither is it their obligation to encourage rebellion and dissent and suspicion and disobedience, even in implicit ways.
 
thistle said:
He is wrong. There are weighty reasons for their faculties being suspended.

THEY ARE DISOBEDIENT TO THE POPE.
Click to expand...
And you know the old argument for that… If priests who were disobedient to the Pope were all suspended. Well, there would be no mass around these parts…
 
commenter said:
Actually, since they are suspended, SSPX priests can’t perform any priestly actions except in emergency.
Click to expand...
I would say rather they shouldn’t, not that they can. They are obviously still saying Mass.

If when counseling a co-habiting couple about marriage, pretty much every priest would request that the couple first cease their co-habitation prior to marriage, then would the SSPX priest not see in this the same wisdom, namely, ceasing all illicit activity so they could then be allowed back into the ministry of the Church?
 
pnewton said:
I would say rather they shouldn’t, not that they can. They are obviously still saying Mass.

If when counseling a co-habiting couple about marriage, pretty much every priest would request that the couple first cease their co-habitation prior to marriage, then would the SSPX priest not see in this the same wisdom, namely, ceasing all illicit activity so they could then be allowed back into the ministry of the Church?
Click to expand...
Except the activity could become licit with one stroke of the Pope’s pen. Or whoever speaks for the Pope.

Cohabitation OTOH …
 
ProVobis said:
Except the activity could become licit with one stroke of the Pope’s pen. Or whoever speaks for the Pope.

Cohabitation OTOH …
Click to expand...
Cohabitation can, on the same hand, become marriage just as quickly.

There is a real difference in that one deals with abiding by the teaching of the Catholic Church and the other would be abiding by the authority of the Catholic Church. It is a significant difference, but I think this same principle of submission first could be applied.
 
ProVobis said:
Except the activity could become licit with one stroke of the Pope’s pen. Or whoever speaks for the Pope.

Cohabitation OTOH …
Click to expand...
The “activity” above refers to illicit priestly acts by SSPX.
No, the pope can’t make it “licit” with one stroke of a pen. There are over a thousand ordinaries involved. Even if the Church did make a change going forward, that would not make harmless what already happened.

But this is the same kind of message I hear on cohabitation. They say the Church could change on divorce/remarriage; therefore, we might as well live in the future practice, right now, and live together. The reality in both cases is that permanent harm is done by doing illicit things. This harm is not retroactively healed if - IF - the Church changes something in the future. Keep in mind for 50 years people - including “experts” - have been saying the Church will change on contraception soon, so you might as well do it now. But the Church has not changed.

For about 40 years the SSPX, or favorable websites, have been telling people to “hold the fort”, “don’t give in now”, “we are almost at an agreement, let’s not throw out everything we have been fighting for”, “just wait another 6 months”. For 40 years this has been the message.

Bishop Scheider didn’t exactly “back” SSPX. He said these are good people, they historically were responding to very real abuses, we need to respect and love them wherever they are. But he never said it’s better for laity to keep attending SSPX chapels, nor did he say it’s better for SSPX priests to continue as they are, with no ordinary. (Schneider** is** an ordinary; not recognized as an ordinary by SSPX). Most bishops would say the Church should reach out with love to cohabitating couples too, try to understand them, just as Schneider says we should try to understand the SSPX. That doesn’t mean the Church thinks cohabitation is harmless now, in the meantime.
 
pnewton said:
… but I think this same principle of submission first could be applied.
Click to expand...
commenter said:
No, the pope can’t make it “licit” with one stroke of a pen.
Click to expand...
I made my claim based on the fact a certain protocol had already been signed by Cardinal Ratzinger and the Archbishop in 1988, which at the time made everything licit.

Of course, one can counter my argument with the fact that the Archbishop reneged on that agreement, partly by consecrating three bishops which were not in the agreement. (I understand one was legitimate.) That took them out of the “submission” state as I see it.

I suppose there are some analogies with cohabitation but it doesn’t seem especially productive to bring them up. We’ve dealing here with bishops and priests, chapels, nursing homes, schools, and anything else they own and operate in many, many countries. At best I can only see some “submission” and then only in bits and pieces.
 
I think that Bp. Schneider’s heart is in the right place, and if he can convince the SSPX leadership to follow the course that they’ve been on for a few years now; namely that of not speaking out too much against the Council or members of the hierarchy (including the Pope), then perhaps the SSPX can reconcile and get it over with.

However, if they decide to once again follow the beliefs and course of their founder (Archbishop Lefebvre), then they will go the way of the FFI if they reconcile. After all the FFI were mainly suppressed and reorganized due to their “crypto-Lefebvrian tendencies,” and preference for the TLM. In other words, if the SSPX minds their manners and never says anything against the council, Pope, bishops, etc., then they might be alright if they reconcile. But then again, there are those bishops who are just plain against the TLM being celebrated in their dioceses, so that’s a problem, too.
 
Denise1957 said:
I think that Bp. Schneider’s heart is in the right place, and if he can convince the SSPX leadership to follow the course that they’ve been on for a few years now; namely that of **not speaking out too much against the Council or members of **the hierarchy (including the Pope), then perhaps the SSPX can reconcile and get it over with…
.
Click to expand...
You’re setting the bar awfully low here! 🙂

If I were my bishop, dealing with many different kinds or sources of disunity, I would be very, verrry hesitant about bringing into the fold one priest who was aligned with leaders, and perhaps himself personally, both trying not to speak out “too much” against the Pope - at least for the time being. I heard the local SSPX priest publicly denounce the pope and bishops at an ecumenical prolife rally. I realize he likely is not typical, but I suspect he isn’t rare, either.

I think reconciliation will happen on an individual basis. As some point in time a priest or seminarian realizes that he needs the guidance of an ordinary, and unity with the larger Church (especially as the secular society is increasingly anti-Catholic). He now is willing to leave the protection of the SSPX behind. If a priest is not ready to leave behind the protection of the SSPX, he probably isn’t ready to come in from the cold. If a priest has to restrain himself from speaking out too much against the Pope, he isn’t ready.
 
commenter said:
You’re setting the bar awfully low here! 🙂

If I were my bishop, dealing with many different kinds or sources of disunity, I would be very, verrry hesitant about bringing into the fold one priest who was aligned with leaders, and perhaps himself personally, both trying not to speak out “too much” against the Pope - at least for the time being. I heard the local SSPX priest publicly denounce the pope and bishops at an ecumenical prolife rally. I realize he likely is not typical, but I suspect he isn’t rare, either.

I think reconciliation will happen on an individual basis. As some point in time a priest or seminarian realizes that he needs the guidance of an ordinary, and unity with the larger Church (especially as the secular society is increasingly anti-Catholic). He now is willing to leave the protection of the SSPX behind. If a priest is not ready to leave behind the protection of the SSPX, he probably isn’t ready to come in from the cold. If a priest has to restrain himself from speaking out too much against the Pope, he isn’t ready.
Click to expand...
I was speaking of the leadership of the SSPX, not individual priests. It isn’t individual priests who will be considering reconciliation or conversing with Rome on the matter, but it will rather be the leadership of the SSPX who will be doing so
 
Denise1957 said:
I was speaking of the leadership of the SSPX, not individual priests. It isn’t individual priests who will be considering reconciliation or conversing with Rome on the matter, but it will rather be the leadership of the SSPX who will be doing so
Click to expand...
True.

The leaders of SSPX have been conversing with Rome for decades. I expect that to continue. Maybe for decades, maybe not. But really it is the individual priests who reconcile, or don’t reconcile, with the Church. They are not all the same. Some have already come over to Rome, leaving the SSPX behind. Others may be willing to come over to Rome as individuals, based on the many new bishops who may be perceived as more orthodox. Still others may be willing to come over, but very cautiously, only as part of an intact SSPX. Others may be unwilling to come over to Rome unless enormous changes are made, like repeal of Vatican II. Still others may be leaning towards SSPV, or Bishop Williamson’s new group, etc, and they will bolt from SSPX if they perceive the leaders as insufficiently vigilant. Some may switch over to “Rome” if the SSPX says so, but won’t have anything to do with their local bishop. Or they may bolt from Rome if they don’t like the next bishop. Just because there’s an MOU from Rome that says every priest is reconciled, doesn’t necessarily mean he’s really reconciled.

We can’t lump together the seminarian with the battle-scarred veteran who endured the ultra-liberal bishops of the 1970s, who ridiculed the TLM.

Nothing in the Schneider interview encourages priests who feel they are ready now, to delay coming over.
 
ProVobis said:
I suppose there are some analogies with cohabitation but it doesn’t seem especially productive to bring them up. We’ve dealing here with bishops and priests, chapels, nursing homes, schools, and anything else they own and operate in many, many countries. At best I can only see some “submission” and then only in bits and pieces.
Click to expand...
I admit it is limited, but there is a reason it is important. Should the SSPX be regularized, or its priests returned to a function within the Church, then it should be done in a way to assure its permanence, not as a stop gap until the next issue comes up. It must be expected that some of the SSPX priests will have disagreements with some diocesan bishops. The question needs to be considered whether they will split again over the next bump in the road, or will they agree to a Catholic understanding of Church authority.

That being said, if I were a bishop, I would be meeting and socializing with SSPX priests in my area in an attempt to bring back individually all I could, kind of like a Catholic version of business headhunting.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top