It matters because the only reason the SSPX has any clout at all is because of the laity. There are like 500 priests. There are 1,000,000ish lay followers. The numbers of laity are what give the SSPX power.
We seem to be talking about definitions as to who is in the SSPX versus the reality on the ground.
People who attend an SSPX chapel are often shunned by other Catholics, including their own families. These laity are faithful to the priests and the priests are faithful to them.
And before anyone says we should be faithful to God and the Catholic Church, that goes without saying. But shepherds are also faithful to their flock.
Regardless of the relationship between the priests and the Society, in this case, Canon Law only applies to the priests. The Sacred Congregation and the Discastry is not allowed to factor in the laity in their decisions. If they do so, the Signatura can step in and stop the whole process. Canon law is deliberately very cold. This way, there are no speculations and no second chances unless the pope himself grants a second chance.
The poster who said that the SSPX is very small, it canonically correct. In comparison to the religious orders, the SSPX is about the size of medium size province. Your average province has from 200 to 800 members. The SSPX has about 500 priests.
The laity, brothers, sisters and tertiaries are not counted. They do not exist for this purpose. What is being reconciled is the society of apostolic life. None of these other people are members of the Society. That’s why the Signatura would step in, if the laity are mentioned. The laity belongs to the bishop of the diocese, not to an institute, unless they have made profession in an institute.
One can be affectionate toward the priests of the SSPX, but one has to be very careful how one defines oneself. Even referring to the priests of the SSPX as one’s shepherds can get one into canonical trouble with the local bishop. Shepherd is a very specific canonical place that belongs exclusively to the bishop of the diocese. The auxiliary bishops pastors and associate pastors share in the shepherd’s ministry. Observe that only the bishop of the diocese carries the crosier when there are several bishops. He is the only shepherd. A suspended cleric cannot be a diocesan bishop; therefore, he is not a shepherd.
Even after this mess is resolved, you don’t want to use that term to refer to the SSPX where you can be heard by a pastor or a bishop. You get set off a lot of dander. If you ask the people who are part of Opus Dei, they never use that term for the Society of the Holy Cross (Opus Dei Priests). That’s exclusively for the clergy that is attached to the diocesan bishop. They refer to them as the priests and the laymen continue to be part of the diocese in which they live and in which they were baptized. They are not incorporated into the prelature.
Some mainstream Catholics are mean to Traditionalist, because they’re mean. It’s that simple. Thee is never an excuse for that.
Some are mean, because they get angry at the language that Traditionalists use. It is language that often sets them apart from other Catholics. This is not a legitimate excuse for being mean either. However, the Traditionalist individual must also take responsibility for using language that sets off fireworks. This is often done deliberately.
I agree that there are Traditionalists the use terms incorrectly, because they don’t know the correct language, just like many other people. But there are some who do know and deliberately use incorrect terms.
I’ll give you a simple example of this, which is not an SSPX example, but simply a person who wants to define things his way. I ran into a lady who asked me, “Where is the Franciscan of Life monastery?” I told her where our community house is and explained that we do not live in monasteries, because we’re not monks. We’re one step below monks in dignity and in canonical status. She insisted on calling our house a monastery. After a while, it became annoying.
Now she knew. I had explained it to her. I even put it in terms of dignity. The monk is above the rest of us. His consecration is superior to our own. His vocation is higher than any other Christian vocation.
She kept using the word monastery. I wanted to tell her to go away. I was good, really good. I took a deep breadth and repeated, "Madam, I’m not a monk. I’m not even dignified enough to be a monk. I’m a friar. We live in community houses or in friaries. Some friars live in monasteries that are lent to them by monastic orders or that are owned by dioceses. That’s not our case. She still uses the term “monastery.”
When you explain and people still insist, then it becomes annoying and it is tempting to respond in a mean way. I try very hard to bite my tongue. I have a callus on my tongue.
Some Traditionalist people know what words will trigger a knee-jerk reaction from the mainstream Catholic. In fairness, most do not. You can tell, because when they’re corrected, they are very nice about it and use language appropriately.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
