Now you are way off on a tangent regarding the current status of the SSPX. I don’t think your assessment is correct. My belief is that the SSPX recognizes the jurisdiction of the Pope and all bishops, and that none of the SSPX bishops have any jurisdiction. The SSPX bishops only have office for the purpose of ordaining priests in the traditional rite, of confirmation, and of ordaining new bishops. The jurisdiction of SSPX priests only comes from necessity, which arises from an emergency situation.
For example, what if all the priests and bishops started to preach the Aryan heresy? The priests who are truly loyal to the Church would not preach the heresy, but could continue to offer Mass even if the heretic Aryan bishop ordered him not to. That is because the primary role of the Church is the salvation of souls. In order to exercise this primary function is is NECESSARY for priests to offer Mass. If the faithful go to a mass offered up by a heretic, then his soul may be in danger. Therefore an orthodox priest could say Mass in a diocese that was under the control of a heretic bishop regardless of that Bishop’s orders to the contrary. This is actually what happened during the Aryan heresy in the time of St Athanasius. The Pope at that time, Lieberius, even excommunicated St Athanasius! St Athanasius said,
“It is a fact that they have the premises — but you have the Apostolic Faith. They can occupy our churches, but they are outside the true Faith…Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ.”
Another example of necessity is found when a priest is in mortal sin. Normally any person in mortal sin should not receive the Blessed Sacrament. But if a priest is in mortal sin, and he has to offer Mass, but he is not able to go to confession, then there is no sin for the priest to receive the Blessed Sacrament because it is NECESSARY to offer up the Holy Mass. (Of course the priest should make an act of contrition, and should go to confession as soon as possible.)
Although I believe that Pope Liberius was a valid Pope, I do not believe that the excommunication of St. Athanasius was valid. For how could a Saint be cut off from the Church for doing Saintly things? Similarly, I do not believe that the excommunications of the SSPX bishops were valid.
It is my understanding that when a person is baptized he becomes a member of the Body of Christ. When a person commits mortal sin, or is excommunicated, then he is cut off from the Body of Christ. Regardless of whether the excommunications were valid, when Pope Benedict lifted the excommunications, it would seem that the Vatican was essentially recognizing that the bishops were not cut off from the Body of Christ.
It seems to me that one is either part of the Body of Christ or not. I am not aware of some tertium quid: (semi-permanent, rotating, oscillating, bi-weekly member of the Body of Christ?)
Another example. There are certain sins that bring on automatic excommunication. Even after the sin is confessed, the excommunication can only be lifted by the Pope. The SSPX are not sedevacantist, and so it is their practice to write to Rome in order that those excommunications be lifted by the Pope. They do this on a regular basis, and the is always the practice of Rome to write back with notice that the excommunications have been lifted. Now: if the SSPX did not have jurisdiction to hear confessions, then the Vatican could not lift the excommunications. Therefore, these actions on the part of Rome are a recognition of the valid jurisdiction of the SSPX.
–Remember that you are the one dragging this conversation off topic. The original point was the passing of the very holy priest Fr Gruner. RIP.
–It was wrongly asserted that Fr Gruner was not in good standing, and no authority was cited for this assertion.
–You attempted to prove that Fr Gruner was not in good standing by saying that his funeral mass was offered by an SSPX priest.
–I showed that the excommunications of the SSPX were lifted, and that the Vatican permitted the SSPX to offer Mass in St Peter’s basilica.
–Now you are attempting to say that the SSPX, although officially sanctioned, and excommunications officially lifted, are not in “full communion”, and by that prove that Fr Gruner was not in good standing?
)