I understand that the laity does not belong to the SSPX, but doesn’t the statement, “Everyone should be aware that formal adherence to the schism is a grave offence against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church’s law.”, include the laity?
The key words here are “formal adherence”. The only ones capable of being formally attached to the schism are those ordained bishops. Everyone else can leave at any time. Loot at the young men who later became the FSSP.
You know my stance on documents
Actually, I think that some of the rules have been changed. Take for example, the American Procedural Norms which took effect on July 1, 1970. Looking at just one of the stipulations, we can consider Norm23, which effectively dispensed with automatic appeal of an affirmative decision to a higher tribunal. The previous rule in effect since 1917, was that an affirmative decision required a second affirmative decision at a higher tribunal.
Right, but since everyone does not share the same opinion or conscience, some clear direction would help.
I think Brother JR already touched on that to some degree. For example, if there is no TLM in your area you it would be understandable to go to SSPX for Mass. However, if there was a TLM offered and you chose to go to SSPX despite that, you would probably be in the wrong.
Actually, I was thinking of the requirements for a valid bond. Those have never changed. There have been procedural changes here and there, but when a case goes to trial, the guiding principles are the eternal ones, those that constitute a valid bond.
Emphasis mine.
Not particularly. Did I miss the documentation?
Asked and answered from what I can tell. Brother already stated that their Eucharist is valid and that people can fulfill their obligation there. As for the rest, I would suggest getting up on time so that you don’t miss.Not particularly. Did I miss the documentation?
So what if you miss your Sunday obligation in the morning and it is the only TLM in the afternoon?
And where does it say you cannot receive communion again?
I think just by the statement of “no ministry in the Church” is already a red flag. It doesn’t matter how well done the Liturgy is, should I go to them? Would you approve me, as an Eastern Catholic, to go to an Orthodox parish just because they have better executed Liturgy than some Eastern Catholic parishes? They have valid priests and a valid Eucharist as well.Not particularly. Did I miss the documentation?
So what if you miss your Sunday obligation in the morning and it is the only TLM in the afternoon?
And where does it say you cannot receive communion again?
Interesting analogy…
As I see the problem is that if the SSPX wants to say that it has never left the Church, then it must also agree to be governed by the rules that govern all Catholic societies of apostolic life. They can’t be the exception to the rule. There are only two communities that are exceptions to almost every rule governing religious and secular societies. These have been identified as such by the popes: Opus Dei and the Jesuits. The Jesuit Exemptions go back to Trent. The Opus Dei exemptions were created for the by Bl. John Paul.
If events post-Vatican II is considered a revolution in the Church like I read on the internet, would the SSPX be sort of a counter-revolution? Although not canonicaly in the Church, still by higher wisdom *allowed to exist in the world *to keep the Church from going off the edge of a cliff?As I see the problem is that if the SSPX wants to say that it has never left the Church, then it must also agree to be governed by the rules that govern all Catholic societies of apostolic life. They can’t be the exception to the rule. There are only two communities that are exceptions to almost every rule governing religious and secular societies. These have been identified as such by the popes: Opus Dei and the Jesuits. The Jesuit Exemptions go back to Trent. The Opus Dei exemptions were created for the by Bl. John Paul.
The SSPX do not have such exemptions. If they’re inside the Church, they have to follow the same rules that we do. My community cannot go into a diocese and setup a pregnancy center, because it’s the right thing to do. The bishop must give his consent. If the situation does not allow the bishop to give his consent, we can’t enter his territory.
I hope this does not set a precedent. If more bishops start to write these kinds of letters, it’s going to set off a chain reaction among the Church’s 3,000+ religious communities. The question is going to be, “Why can they go wherever they want to go and we have to get permission to move across the street?”
The last thing that the Sacred Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life wants is to have to answer these questions to a team of Franciscan, Dominican, Jesuit, Carmelite, Salesian, Augustinian, Benedictine and Jesuit general superiors. Then there would be the major superiors of the great women’s communities: Daughters of Charity, Missionaries of Charity, Sisters of St. Joseph, Poor Clares and a few others whose members number in the 5,000+ each and who have been given Pontifical status. The Sacred Congregation would not know what to say. It would fall on the Holy Father to give an answer. The Holy Father does not like getting involved in these issues. It would get punted to Cardinal Levada at the Congregation for the Faith.
This makes it more urgent that the SSPX respond soon to the Preamble and get some kind of defined status. That would end the questions. Even if the were given a prelature or an ordinariate, the other institutes would be OK with that. Everyone understands that prelature sand ordinariates have their own rules. They can’t get the same benefits as the Jesuits, because they’re not consecrated men. The Jesuits are consecrated by solemn vows. They’re in a very special class of clerics. They’re the only order of clerics with the same privileges as friars, but without the obligations of friars.
The SSPX is neither fish nor fowl. That’s the problem. They’re not consecrated religious. They’re not diocesan priests. They’re not a secular order. They’re a congregation. They are a society of apostolic life with no canonical standing. It’s a very strange space to be in.
Can you imagine the mess this would cause if bishops started writing these letters to the SSPX and the SSPX ignored the letters and got away with it, while the major religious orders who have the protection of Trent get punished for the same activities?
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
So, if the 4 Bishops do not accept the preamble, that would be “formal adherence” ‘to the schism’.
TLNot particularly. Did I miss the documentation?
So what if you miss your Sunday obligation in the morning and it is the only TLM in the afternoon?
And where does it say you cannot receive communion again?
How would that end the questions concerning Bishop Williamson?
I can’t say, because I don’t know what is in the preamble. It all depends on what’s in the preamble, how it’s worded and how they word their response.So, if the 4 Bishops do not accept the preamble, that would be “formal adherence” ‘to the schism’.
If I’m understanding you correctly.
It’s not a secret that Pope Benedict considers Bishop Williamson an anti-Semite and that he has not great respect for him. The pope has publicly said so, in print. He even went down on record to say that had he known, he would have left him outside of the Church.