To be fair, the local bishop couldn’t grant faculties if he wanted to. The faculty originates with Rome and passed to the bishop. Though each of the four FSSPX bishops is no longer in excommunication, they have not received faculties to pass to their priests, which unfortunately are still in the state of suspension. Confessions would only be valid if there was immediate danger of death to someone.
So they are frozen out, not because they wish to be, but because Rome chooses (for reasons we must accept and respect) to do so. The SSPX never ‘walked away’ from us, they are not a ‘splinter group’, they are being disciplined because of issues of disobedience. They are part of our Catholic Church.
The events of the 1970s and 1980s were complicated, and likely involved fault on both sides. That being said, in 2015, some of those attached to the TLM are now involved in groups such as FSSP, ICKSP, and others that offer the diocesan TLM. Those laity also benefit from unity with their local bishop, some of whom are attuned to their spiritual needs and offer local guidance. They benefit from unity with local ministries such as prolife and evangelism, and benefit the local diocese; and influence the local diocese sometimes, in a good direction. None are in a perfect diocese, but are in dioceses that are good in some aspects.
Well said, Brendan64. I lived through the 70’s & 80’s and attended what became an SSPX chapel. In 1988 I returned to the establishment church. Since then we have been blessed with the FSSP.
PV - I’m not exactly sure that is accurate. When the SSPX was first recognized in Frebourg in 1970 by that bishop, I don’t think that required papal concurrence. The irregularity the SSPX is in stems from the withdrawal of that diocese’s patronage in 1974, not from any other event. The discussions between the Vatican and the Society have had, as their basis, the erection of a prelature that would act as a means to transmit ordinary jurisdiction to the SSPX. But I do not think there is anything from preventing a bishop from incardinating an SSPX priest into his diocese. It might, however, be the very last thing he would do as a bishop before being transferred to the diocese of Antarctica.
So when Bishop Archbishop Lefebvre ordained priests and then later consecrated bishops in open defiance of Pope John Paul II, he hadn’t “walked away” from us and the rest of the Church?
A couple of extra observations as to the SSPX being considered Catholic by Rome. I don’t think you will find any Greek Orthodox, Anglicans, Lutherans, schismatic Cathothics, or Womenpriests allowed to offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass or any other formal service at St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome. But on any given day, you will find an SSPX saying Mass at an altar in St. Peter’s. I’ve been to several of them myself - mostly on the very altar that entombs the sacred relics of St. Pius X. I have personally served a Mass by an SSPX priest on the altar in the Clementine Chapel in the crypt of St. Peter’s over the very bones of St. Peter.Well said, Brendan64. I lived through the 70’s & 80’s and attended what became an SSPX chapel. In 1988 I returned to the establishment church. Since then we have been blessed with the FSSP.
Your statements regarding the SSPX are spot on.
Yes, I quite agree with this sentiment. What Archbishop Lefebvre did was an openly disobedient and schismatic event. Equal to what occurs often in the Patriotic Catholic Church in China.
This is my understanding as well.
As just been mentioned, much of this occurred BEFORE the consecrations of the four bishops and BEFORE Pope John Paul II.
No he hadn’t walked away from the Church. He was disobedient yes, defiant probably, but he did not, nor never intended to, walk away from the Church.
This could be said of Marin Luther, too…
It is up to their bishops to correct this matter. They (the particular bishops) have recourse to the law as necessary.
Martin Luther rejected the Church, he didn’t simply disobey an instruction. That was very different. And the Church does not regard the SSPX as having left her. There are issues regarding obedience, and I agree that one should avoid in particular the sacraments of penance and matrimony as the SSPX has no faculties granted by the Church for these sacraments (and these sacraments require legal jurisdiction to be valid).
And what happens when bishops themselves seem to have themselves abandoned advocating complete obedience to Catholic moral teaching?
If a diocesan bishop refuses to accept the rite of Mass promulgated by the Church, denounces it, goes off on his own and consecrates bishops committed to following him, yes, that means he’s effectively walked away from the Church. And that’s exactly what Lefebvre did. And if the people in that diocese follow him, attend Masses celebrated by him and his priests, rejecting the Mass offered at the regular diocesan churches, they’ve walked away too.
Regardless of what your view on the SSPX is, the Church does not view the SSPX as being outside the Church. Rome considers the SSPX to be part of the Catholic Church. The Church considers the SSPX in the same way that a mother would consider a disobedient son; he may be disobedient, and he may need chastisement, but she still loves him and considers him part of her family, and he considers himself to also be part of that family, and while he dearly loves his mother, he has not quite brought himself to be fully obedient to her.
And what if a diocesan bishop tried to prevent the TLM being said in his diocese?
A priest or layperson has recourse to the law. Something regarding a bishop will be adjudicated in Rome.
It seems as if he would be defying Summorum Pontificum in my book.
Despite Summorum Pontificum, in reality, a bishop could still make things difficult.
And yet, since the excommunications of the four SSPX bishops were lifted, the SSPX bishops can now go into any Catholic church and receive the sacraments, just like any other Catholic.