When an SSPX priest says Mass, he always prays for the Pope. The head of the SSPX recently sent out a letter to their supporters in defending the Pope from the recent media attacks. If you compare them to a really schismatic group the differences are obvious.
Right, as if reading through a 500-post thread of opponents hurling insults back and forth is a useful substitute for first-hand experience. An insult is an insult. Calling a Catholic “borderline schismatic” is like calling him borderline freemason, borderline protestant, or borderline homosexual. I know, its a free country and you can say what you want, but is it useful to this discussion?
tell 'em what they don’t want to hear and they ignore it. like Humanae Vitae, Misterium Fidei…eh there’s a lengthy list these days.
Is telling the truth detraction in your estimation? The question by the OP was the differences. Most of the posts have focused on those differences. The fact that the Vatican is in discussion with the SSPX and not the FSSP is indicative that there are differences.
I would agree if one had a Mass of questionable validity, or more to the point, other Sacraments of questionable validity, but I have not ever seen this situation myself.
For the record I completely agree with what the Holy Father did. These priests were his guests and were valid priest. Accommodating their needs was the right thing to do. If I had guests that attended an SSPX where they lived, I would too would be accommodating to their needs and assist them in locating and attendin Mass at an SSPX chapel if they desired. So yes, I think I do hold much in common with the Pope on this topic, including the desire that the differences with the SSPX be resolved.
Unless individually relieved of the suspensions, which is reserved to the Pope, they are suspended and violate their suspensions by saying public masses. This is a problematic behavior; they are acting as if the suspension does not matter, and have set up parishes without the ordinary’s permission. They continued to ordain men even while the bishops were excommunicated.
I think the way Msgr. Perl put it was that one might be in danger of schism. I agree that we should avoid insults, including the ones going the other way of accusations of heresy and modernism.
I was referring to the statistically not insignificant number of priests who do not believe in the True Presence. I’m sure you make certain that the sacraments you and your family receive are valid to the best of your knowledge, as do I, but like you said, even in the Novus Ordo, it can be a **** shoot.
My question is why are they suspended in the first place…beyond the automatic answer of the four bishop ordinations. What is the root cause for this division?
It is a valid question, and I don’t pretend to totally understand the answer and don’t care to get into a debate about it. But whatever the reason, the fact remains that they are suspended and thus generally shouldn’t be celebrating public Masses (possible special permissions in the Vatican on special occasions notwithstanding).
They are permitted to say Mass at the Vatican during the talks. I wouldn’t be surprised if I heard there were such permissions elsewhere. It’s not a complete blackout.
I’ll try to be as charitable as possible here. Archbishop Lefebrve, Archbishop Mayer, and the four bishops they ordained were excommunicated by the Pope following the consecrations of 1988. The priests were not excommunicated but as they were not given any canonical status, they weren’t allowed any licit celebrations of the Mass. As it turned out, last year the excommunications were lifted for the four consecrated bishops (the consecrating bishops had died) but the status of the priests did not change. Hopefully we’ll see some if not all of the suspended priests being brought into full canonical status within the framework of the Church within a few years. However, details of how or when this might come about are unknown at this time.
It boils down to a chain of errors.
I hate to keep having to correcting you folks but this is not accurate. The Pope did not excommunicate anyone involved. The Pope proclaimed that they were automatically excommunicated by canon law for their actions. It is an important distinction.
Not to quibble too much but because of the “necessity/fear” code in the 1983 Canon Law, it may be argued that it couldn’t be a latae sententiae excommunication but a ferendae sententiae excommunication. If it’s automatic, like having an abortion, it just takes effect. It doesn’t have to be announced to the world to take effect unless you wish to further the penalties, such as suspending all priests involved, in which case the penalties aren’t automatic.
Sorry Aramis, but this is also not an accurate answer to the question. The suspension of Archbishop Lefebvre and the priests of the Society of St. Pius X happened more than a decade before the illicit consecrations of 1988. The root of the problem, as the poster asked, happened in 1974 after the original Diocesan Bishop under whom the Society was erected, retired. The new Bishop was not interested in the Traditional charism of the SSPX or the TLM. Abp Lefebvre’s outspoken views on the aftermath of the council and the New Mass caused the Bishop to revoke his sponsorship of the Society. This removed the canonical standing that the Society enjoyed and caused the Archbishop and the priests to be suspended for lack of a canonical structure.
Not to quibble but the suspensions predate the consecrations by a decade and are the result of a lack of canonical structure.
