Do you think the SSPX will come into communion with Rome?

[At_Trent]

We may not like it, but the popes love it. As Msgr, Giorg, Pope Benedict’s secretary said in an interview. It allows the pope to focus on things that he wants to do. It allows him more free time for prayer, ecumenical work and most importantly, it allows him to preach and teach instead of having to manage every detail in such a widespread Church. We have to admit, the Church is huge, not only in numbers, but all in territory. Aside from Antartica, how many other countries do not have at least one Catholic diocese? Even the Muslim countries have Catholic dioceses.

I know a few people whom we can send to start the Diocese of Antartica.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Send Card. Mahoney and Bishop Williamson down to get it up and running

just kidding, just kidding

 

[JReducation]

Br JR, that seems rather extreme. Can’t we just put them on ignore?

Bhutan easily springs to mind, and the Maldives is another. If you mean countries without real dioceses even though they may have a vicariate apostolic or prefecture apostolic, there is a decent number (Brunei, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, etc.). But even if you count vicariates and prefectures apostolic, there are quite a few countries that do not have their own and are governed from elsewhere: Oman, Yemen, Qatar, and a couple of others.

No, that’s not what I mean. Those are all part of some diocese. They are either a vicariate, a mission of a diocese, a prefacture or at the very least a custody. They are on the Church’s map and there is an Ordinary appointed over those territories, even if the see is not there.

We have a similar situation in the USA. St. Thomas and the VI have always had their own bishop, but are not a diocese. They are dependent of the Archdiocese of Washington, at least they were for a long time. I don’t know that it’s changed.

Many of the Eastern regions are uner the umbrella of one of the Eastern Patriarchs, even if there is no Catholic parish there. Therefore, they don’t need permission to erect a parish or mission, if the opportunity presents itself. For example, Mongolia is under one of the Eastern Patriarchs.

I think the Eastern Catholic Churches are a testament to this. They were Orthodox and wanted to come into communion with Rome. Not everyone came and others wanted to remain Orthodox that are out of communion with Rome. I agree this may be what will happen. Even with the Traditional Anglicans, there are a number who declined and seceded from their parishes and dioceses so that they will not join the Ordinariate. Its just how it is always.

That’s what I’m imagining will happen. Unless the Holy See creates some new canonical category that does not yet exist, the SSPX will have to accept to be an ordinariate or a prelature. The other option is to remain as a society of apostolic life. That would make them subject to the Sacred Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life as are the FSSP and under Ecclesia Dei. They would have two overseers.

The laity would still fall under the jurisdiction of the local diocesan bishop, because societies of apostolic life are not jurisdictions. They’re institutes. This is where I believe the fallout is going to be. I feel that many of the lay SSPXers are unwilling to submit to the local bishops, whereas the lay FSSPers have no problem with the local bishop. They deal with the FSSP as one would deal with the Maryknoll. They view them as another apostolic society. It’s just that the FSSP promotes the TLM and other traditional practices. But these folks do not look at the FSSP as authority. They look to the local bishop for that. There are many lay SSPXers who refuse to give the local bishop that kind of allegiance.

The other option is a prelature or an ordinariate where one of the SSPX bishops would be the Ordinary. If he accepts to be an Ordinary, he still has to answer to the Vatican.

It’s a very tough situation.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

Send Card. Mahoney and Bishop Williamson down to get it up and running

just kidding, just kidding

OMG

Felix Unger and Oscar Madison leading a Church.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[jmj1984]

A pope can sin, but he cannot teach contrary to truth. If we say that the pope knows the truth but chooses to teach error, then we have to say that he’s not a pope. That’s where I’m going here.

It’s either “the pope is teaching truth” or “the man in the pope’s chair is teaching error”. Popes cant’ teach error.

Some people contradict themselves because they claim that the man in the chair is a valid pope who is intentionally teaching error. It does not work that way.

You see what I’m saying?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

An argument used by sedevacantists but unfortunately not supported by prominent theologians or Blessed Cardinal Newman. Framing things in this way is in my humble opinion misleading, a pope cannot infallibly teach error but that is not to say that a pope cannot teach error when speaking fallibly. It is of couse daring to suggest such a thing but it is nevertheless possible.

 

[corsair]

I believe that eventually the majority of the SSPX will enter into a “Just Reconciliation”.

But in God’s time, not necessarily ours.

 

[Hadrianus]

An argument used by sedevacantists but unfortunately not supported by prominent theologians or Blessed Cardinal Newman. Framing things in this way is in my humble opinion misleading, a pope cannot infallibly teach error but that is not to say that a pope cannot teach error when speaking fallibly. It is of couse daring to suggest such a thing but it is nevertheless possible.

This is correct. The definition of the First Vatican Council, repeated in Lumen Gentium of Vatican II, is clear on the precise conditions necessary for an infallible definition. Outside of that field a Pope could say something erroneous. It’s happened before with John XXII whose views on the fate of those who die before the last judgement were mistaken. He taught that they did not enjoy the beatific vision even if saved. The opposition to this novelty was so strong he was forced to form a theological commission which upheld the traditional view that the souls of the just do enjoy the beatific vision, even before the Last Judgement. He retracted his error shortly before he died and his successor Benedict XII defined the orthodox doctrine once and for all. Such events in Church history are very rare, but they are possible.

Incidentally, a traditional sign of the infallible truth of a doctrine is the harmonious continuity of the teaching of Popes. Thus even doctrines which are not defined but which are in continuous accord with Tradition are infallibly true. Humanae Vitae of Paul VI and Ordinatio Sacerdotalis of John Paul II fall into this category.

Regarding the SSPX: There is no evidence that the meeting in Sept between Cardinal Levada and Bishop Fellay is anything other than a meeting to discuss the situation. Journalists who suggest either an immediate resolution or a dramatic excommunication are overreacting

 

[ProVobis]

Incidentally, a traditional sign of the infallible truth of a doctrine is the harmonious continuity of the teaching of Popes. Thus even doctrines which are not defined but which are in continuous accord with Tradition are infallibly true. Humanae Vitae of Paul VI and Ordinatio Sacerdotalis of John Paul II fall into this category.

Yes. Here is the way EWTN states it but also adds authoritative:

Infallible. …all that the Church teaches as being of “divine and catholic faith” is taught infallibly. Infallibility is not limited, therefore, to extraordinary acts of proposing dogmas, whether by popes or councils. Those looking to believe only such “infallible” statements deceive themselves. In both the category of divinely revealed and definitively proposed doctrines there are many which are taught only by the ordinary and universal Magisterium of the Church. This means that the Church has “always and everywhere” taught it as true, and, therefore, that the contrary position has never been taught. Perhaps, the most debated example is contraception. At no time in history has the Church taught that contraception is morally licit. Whenever in the Fathers, Doctors or the Magisterium it has been discussed it has always been as an evil. There is no formal declaration, no extraordinary act, but it is certainly infallibly taught from the beginning of the Church, to Paul VI, to today.

Authoritative. Finally, the Church teaches things which are neither proposed as formally revealed or definitively proposed. This is the category of authoritative teaching. Anything in the Catechism or a pope’s writings and addresses that is not “of divine and catholic faith” if clearly meant to take a position, without deciding it by proposing it as revealed or as definitive, is authoritively taught. It should receive “religious obedience of intellect and will,” as opposed to the assent of faith. Such obedience is an act of justice. It shows the respect Catholics owe the Pope, and it humbly acknowledges that by charism and grace of vocation the Pope is more likely to be right than those who disagree with him. **As Vatican II noted, the weight to be given such teaching is “according to the mind and the will manifested; this is shown especially by the nature of the documents, by the frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or by the tenor of the verbal expression.” Thus, more weight would have to be given to something taught many times by successive popes than to something taught once by one pope. **

ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage.asp?number=564105&Pg=Forum8&Pgnu=1&recnu=3

 

[Warrenton]

They often fail to understand that the internal infrastructure of the Church's government has changed.

I enjoyed your survey of these changes - thanks for the insight! [/CODE]

 

[Celticnovice]

To the OP…I pray that they will