Brother, given that the clergy of the SSPX are suspended
a divinis and hold no canonical place in the Church, would it be right to say that they are similar to laicised clergy, who continue to hold Holy Orders as an indelible character on their soul, but have lost all faculties to perform the sacraments? I guess the main difference is that laicised clergy have permanently lost their faculties, while the SSPX clergy could potentially have these faculties restored to them were they to reconcile themselves with the Church and be canonically regularized by the Holy See?
Not really. A laicized priest is one who is dispensed from his priestly obligations and commitments. It goes beyond not celebrating the sacraments. If the priest asked for the laicization, then he remains in good canonical standing with the Church. He can even get validly married in the Church. If the situation ever changed that he could return, such as being widowed without dependent children, the Church can reverse the dispensation.
If the priest is laicized for disciplinary reasons, he still remains in good canonical standing, can still marry validly, but he cannot ask to return.
A suspension is grave matter. Each time that you celebrate the sacraments, you sin. In a suspension, you lose your faculties, but you are not relieved of your priestly obligations. You must remain celibate. You continue bound to the LOTH and the life of prayer of a priest. You continue to be bound to a bishop or a religious superior under obedience.
In the case of the SSPX, part of the reason for their suspension is that they are not in communion with any legitimate Church authority. They have become an authority unto themselves. They claim that God is a higher authority than man. This is true. However, God does not carry the keys in his pocket. He gave them to a man who passes them down to his successors all the way down to Pope Francis. God’s authority is mediated through a man. Therefore, every deacon, priest and bishop must be in full communion with the See of Peter.
How is the unfortunate thinking of many people in the Traditionalist Movement. Many argue that folks like Fr. Hans Kung or the women in the LCSW are not in communion and they are allowed to roam around.
The truth is quite different. They are in communion. Communion is determined by the Church. One may be in error, as has been the case of Fr. Kung and some of the Sisters, but the Church still has their obedience. When the Church commands them in areas where they must obey, they have grudgingly complied. Yes, they have whined, complained, criticized and whatever else an overgrown child can do. But at the end of the day, they comply.
For example, when Fr. Kung lost his license to teach Catholic theology, he complied. He no longer teaches at any Catholic school, nor does he present himself as a formal Catholic theologian. He presents himself as a theologian who is Catholic. That’s allowed.
When the sisters were told that the LCWR has to be reconstructed, they whined, complained and did all those things that overage adolescents do, but they are complying with the bishop appointed to work with them. They may not be happy campers. That’s not a requirement for communion.
The requirement is submission when you’re told to submit. Unless you’re being asked to violate the 10 Commandments, there is no reason for you not to submit.
St. Francis wrote in our admonitions that we are to submit, even if we have a better idea on how to save our souls and the souls of others, as long as the superior does not command sin. He goes on to tell us that God is not pleased with our higher order of morality, but with out obedience and our charity toward authority. He then points to the Suffering Servant.
We are all called to be suffering servants at certain points in our lives. We’re not always going to get what we want or even what we know is best. But if like the Suffering Servant we obey, even unto the cross, we will get the very best in the end.
