So, can I attend a SSPX mass or not?

[ConstantineTG]

The Orthodox are in a different situation altogether. They do not claim to be Catholic. Automatically, that places them outside of the jurisdiction of the Church.

Actually, they do. But is not our modern meaning of Catholic which is to say, “one who is in communion with the Bishop of Rome.” As with the word “orthodox”, they take the meaning when it was used back in the First Millennium, prior to either word being used as labes for the factions that came out of the schisms of the Apostolic Church.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

The pope’s jurisdiction over the SSPX is granted to him by the SSPX itself. The SSPX says that it is Catholic. If you are Catholic and if the Holy See acknowledges that your are Catholic, then you’re not in schism. Therefore, the Church has authority over you.

You can be a Catholic who is not in full communion with the Church. This is the situation of the SSPX. Until the Society accepts Vatican II and the CCC on the pope’s terms, it’s communion is lacking something that the Holy See considers essential, submission.

The Orthodox are in a different situation altogether. They do not claim to be Catholic. Automatically, that places them outside of the jurisdiction of the Church.

However, the Catholic Church must recognize their apostolic succession, because all of those Churches were founded by apostles or the successors to apostles. If they have apostolic succession, then their priesthood is valid and so are their sacraments.

Now comes the next question. Do they celebrate the sacraments legally? The answer to that is a resounding “Yes”. Why? Because their Patriarchs grant their priests faculties to do so. The Patriarchs have that kind of authority as legitimate successors of the apostles.

Why are they in schism? Because they are not in full communion with the Bishop of Rome. They are in communion with the Catholic Church on all that is sacred, but not on the primacy of Peter. Their understanding of the primacy is different from what has been revealed.

In fact, issues like collegiality, aggiornamento, religious freedom, ecumenism have ceased to be issues for the Orthodox. They are in communion with the Bishop of Rome on those points.

As you can see, the break in communion can be on different points and a Catholic can be in imperfect communion with the Church, but is still a Catholic. An excommunicated person is a Catholic until he joins another faith.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

Gosh I love reading your responses, Br. JR!!

You make things so clear. Thank you.

 

[JReducation]

Actually, they do. But is not our modern meaning of Catholic which is to say, “one who is in communion with the Bishop of Rome.” As with the word “orthodox”, they take the meaning when it was used back in the First Millennium, prior to either word being used as labes for the factions that came out of the schisms of the Apostolic Church.

Let’s not bring in Eastern jargon and vocabulary. It’s only going to confuse the Western Catholic. Let’s leave it at how we understand the term Catholic. They do not claim to be Catholic.

We know that there are many definitions to this word, but it only causes confusion rather than clarify the answer to the question of jurisdiction.

Ignore the fact that the Orthodox use the term catholic, just as they ignore the fact that we use the term orthodox.

Focus on the legal use of the term Catholic, one who belongs to the Catholic Church in communion with the Bishop of Rome. If one is not part of that Church, then the bishop of Rome has no authority over that person.

For this reason, the Code of Canon Law had to redefine heretic and schismatic. Because those terms only apply to Catholics. Why? Because Church law only applies to Catholics. The Church has no authority to make laws for other faith communities. Christ did not give her that authority.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Vir_Iucundus]

If you are Catholic and if the Holy See acknowledges that your are Catholic, then you’re not in schism. Therefore, the Church has authority over you.

The problem with this statement is the Holy See does not acknowlege that SSPX priests are catholic. The same ambiguity is from both parts. “We are with the pope, but not with the pope, we are only somewhat with the pope” meet “you are not catholics, but not schismatics, you are somewhat catholic”.

Now comes the next question. Do they celebrate the sacraments legally? The answer to that is a resounding “Yes”. Why? Because their Patriarchs grant their priests faculties to do so. The Patriarchs have that kind of authority as legitimate successors of the apostles.

In the extent orthodox patriach are legitimate succesors of the apostles, in the same extent are bishop de Gallaretta legitimate succesor of the apostles. Here you seem to operate with a concept of “pope as patriarch of the West world” a title the reigning Pope himself does not use and I do not remember CIC uses as well.

Laudetur !
Vir_Iucundus.

 

[choliks]

The problem with this statement is the Holy See does not acknowlege that SSPX priests are catholic. The same ambiguity is from both parts. “We are with the pope, but not with the pope, we are only somewhat with the pope” meet “you are not catholics, but not schismatics, you are somewhat catholic”.

In the extent orthodox patriach are legitimate succesors of the apostles, in the same extent are bishop de Gallaretta legitimate succesor of the apostles. Here you seem to operate with a concept of “pope as patriarch of the West world” a title the reigning Pope himself does not use and I do not remember CIC uses as well.

Laudetur !
Vir_Iucundus.

I wish you could point us to your source for this.

With the fact that canon law is being applied on them means that the Holy See considers them as Catholic. Remember that the Canon Law only applies to Catholics. Besides, the FSSPX themselves have not declared that they are in schism with the Catholic Church.

Visually, I imagine the FSSPX is just on the churchyard, arguing amongst themselves if they will go in or not, but not outside the gates (yet).

 

[JReducation]

The problem with this statement is the Holy See does not acknowlege that SSPX priests are catholic. The same ambiguity is from both parts. “We are with the pope, but not with the pope, we are only somewhat with the pope” meet “you are not catholics, but not schismatics, you are somewhat catholic”.

Whoever told you this is mistaken. The Holy See does acknowledge the members of the SSPX as Catholics.

In the extent orthodox patriach are legitimate succesors of the apostles, in the same extent are bishop de Gallaretta legitimate succesor of the apostles. Here you seem to operate with a concept of “pope as patriarch of the West world” a title the reigning Pope himself does not use and I do not remember CIC uses as well.

Laudetur !
Vir_Iucundus.

There are two problems here.

First, the bishops of the SSPX have apostolic succession, but they have no canonical authority. Therefore, they cannot grant faculties. To grant faculties you must be an ordinary, even a male religious superior will do. You need not be a bishop, but you must be an ordinary. For example, the Master General of the Dominicans is an ordinary, but he is not a bishop. The Eastern patriarchs, Catholics and Orthodox are ordinaries.

Second, the pope remains the patriarch of the Latin Church. He does not use the title “Patriarch of the West”; but it has not been abrogated either. Only he can abrogate it. Even if did abrogate the title, there would still be a head of the Latin Church, which is always the Bishop of Rome. Only the Bishop of Rome can grant faculties to bishops in the Catholic Church. The Bishops of the SSPX are suspended. Therefore, they cannot be ordinaries. An ordinary is either a patriarch, a bishop of a diocese or a male religious superior. The SSPX does not meet any of these criteria and will not be able to do so, until they are no longer suspended.

Finally, if they were not acknowledged as Catholics, the Vatican would not have suspended them and would not have said that the bishops have no canonical place in the Church. That statement can only be made about a Catholic. It stands to reason that an Orthodox has no canonical place in the Catholic Church anymore than a Catholic has a canonical place in the Orthodox Churches.

You keep arguing with me as if I made this up. I did not. This is the tradition of the Catholic Church. It was the Holy Father who said that the bishops of the SSPX do not have a canonical place. Therefore, they do not have valid jurisdiction over their priests to grant them faculties. They have legal jurisdiction. But this applies only to matters of discipline within the Society, not to matters of sacraments. In other words, Bishop Fellay can function as the superior general, but he cannot function as a bishop. It has always been the belief of the Catholic Church that the Orthodox Churches have valid apostolic succession, have jurisdiction over their priests; therefore they can grant their men faculties to celebrate the sacraments.

1399 The Eastern churches that are not in full communion with the Catholic Church celebrate the Eucharist with great love. “These Churches, although separated from us, yet possess true sacraments, above all - by apostolic succession - the priesthood and the Eucharist, whereby they are still joined to us in closest intimacy.” A certain communion in sacris, and so in the Eucharist, "given suitable circumstances and the approval of Church authority, is not merely possible but is encouraged."

The Church recognizes and even encourages the celebration of the Eucharist in the Orthodox Churches. The Church would not make such a statement if she believed them to be suspended.

This is the difference between the SSPX and the Orthodox. The Magisterium sees their situations very differently.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[ConstantineTG]

Let’s not bring in Eastern jargon and vocabulary. It’s only going to confuse the Western Catholic. Let’s leave it at how we understand the term Catholic. They do not claim to be Catholic.

We know that there are many definitions to this word, but it only causes confusion rather than clarify the answer to the question of jurisdiction.

Ignore the fact that the Orthodox use the term catholic, just as they ignore the fact that we use the term orthodox.

Focus on the legal use of the term Catholic, one who belongs to the Catholic Church in communion with the Bishop of Rome. If one is not part of that Church, then the bishop of Rome has no authority over that person.

For this reason, the Code of Canon Law had to redefine heretic and schismatic. Because those terms only apply to Catholics. Why? Because Church law only applies to Catholics. The Church has no authority to make laws for other faith communities. Christ did not give her that authority.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

But Brother, the term “Catholic” is not meant to be a noun. It is not a specific label that the Vatican went to the patent office or a registry office and had “Catholic” exclusively belong to the Vatican and mean only one thing. The true meaning of the word “Catholic” is not “Eastern jargon”, it is Patristic jargon. If the Western Christian only thinks that “Catholic” means being in communion with the Pope of Rome, then that is not avoiding confusion. That is introducing confusion because that is not what the word means. Its not what the Fathers understood the word to be, so anyone caught in a contest with Protestants asking where in the Bible the word “Catholic” is to prove the integrity of the Church, that is not what the word is there for (or even in the writings of the Fathers) and such discussion is fruitless and completely misses the point.

Also I would have to disagree with you on seeing the word Catholic as a legalistic term. By making it legalistic, then it means it can be bestowed on anyone by someone of authority. If the Pope says the Roman Catholic Womenpriests are Catholic, then they are Catholic. If the Pope says Richard Dawkins is Catholic, then he is Catholic. But Catholic is not meant to be a legalistic word. If we appreciate the true meaning of the word then the Pope doesn’t have to lift a finger to say what is Catholic or not. Richard Dawkins can never be Catholic because he is an atheist. The Womenpriests are heretics. There’s no legality to that because the very nature of what being Catholic is, they are not. But if it is nothing but legalism, it is why people like the SSPX can wrangle around their legalistic mumbo-jumbo and explain like a high-priced mob lawyer why they are Catholic. You can argue legalism, you cannot argue nature. Nature is you either are or you are not. To understand that the term “Catholic” refers to the nature of the faith rather than a name of a Church of communion of Churches, then you can’t use legalistic arguments around that. You either are Catholic by the very nature of the faith you profess (as an individual and also as a group), or you are not.

Also, the Orthodox do not see the name “Orthodox” as a legalistic title to who they are. To them, big “O” and small “o” orthodox is the same. And no, they do not ignore the fact that Catholics use the small “o” orthodox because they believe that because of our beliefs in the Papacy (among other things) we are heterodox.

 

[JReducation]

But Brother, the term “Catholic” is not meant to be a noun. It is not a specific label that the Vatican went to the patent office or a registry office and had “Catholic” exclusively belong to the Vatican and mean only one thing. The true meaning of the word “Catholic” is not “Eastern jargon”, it is Patristic jargon. If the Western Christian only thinks that “Catholic” means being in communion with the Pope of Rome, then that is not avoiding confusion. That is introducing confusion because that is not what the word means. Its not what the Fathers understood the word to be, so anyone caught in a contest with Protestants asking where in the Bible the word “Catholic” is to prove the integrity of the Church, that is not what the word is there for (or even in the writings of the Fathers) and such discussion is fruitless and completely misses the point.

Also I would have to disagree with you on seeing the word Catholic as a legalistic term. By making it legalistic, then it means it can be bestowed on anyone by someone of authority. If the Pope says the Roman Catholic Womenpriests are Catholic, then they are Catholic. If the Pope says Richard Dawkins is Catholic, then he is Catholic. But Catholic is not meant to be a legalistic word. If we appreciate the true meaning of the word then the Pope doesn’t have to lift a finger to say what is Catholic or not. Richard Dawkins can never be Catholic because he is an atheist. The Womenpriests are heretics. There’s no legality to that because the very nature of what being Catholic is, they are not. But if it is nothing but legalism, it is why people like the SSPX can wrangle around their legalistic mumbo-jumbo and explain like a high-priced mob lawyer why they are Catholic. You can argue legalism, you cannot argue nature. Nature is you either are or you are not. To understand that the term “Catholic” refers to the nature of the faith rather than a name of a Church of communion of Churches, then you can’t use legalistic arguments around that. You either are Catholic by the very nature of the faith you profess (as an individual and also as a group), or you are not.

Also, the Orthodox do not see the name “Orthodox” as a legalistic title to who they are. To them, big “O” and small “o” orthodox is the same. And no, they do not ignore the fact that Catholics use the small “o” orthodox because they believe that because of our beliefs in the Papacy (among other things) we are heterodox.

Canon law says two things.

First, any baptized Catholics is a Catholic, even if he becomes an atheist. Ergo, Hitler was a Catholic, albeit he did not live the Catholic faith. The baptism cannot be undone.

Second, no group can call itself Catholic without the permission of the Ordinary of the diocese.

We understand this to be Catholic with an upper case C, which is what we’re talking about here. This term is a corporate name that the Catholic Church has claimed for itself and that no one else can legally use without her permission, so much so that in the United States, the Church has sued different religious groups who have used Catholic with upper case C. This word belongs only to those Churches in full communion with the Bishop of Rome.

The term that the Fathers used was “catholic” with lower case C to mean universal. That’s not what’s being discussed here in reference to the SSPX. That’s why it only adds to the confusion when it’s brought into the discussion. That term has an entirely different meaning from Catholic.

In both Latin Law and Oriental Law, the term Catholic can only be used by those groups approved by an ordinary. A perfect example of this was the case of Catholic TV, Michael Voris’ ministry. It had to drop the term Catholic, even though everyone there is as Catholic as the pope. They could not incorporate themselves as Catholic, without the permission of the Ordinary. They had not asked for such permission. Therefore, the Ordinary pushed to have them change their name. Today they are Church Militant TV. Another example is EWTN. When it was founded, it was not allowed to call itself a Catholic TV network, because it was a Franciscan network. The Franciscan Order is Catholic, but anything that we start has to receive permission from the Ordinary to be called Catholic. Today EWTN is a Catholic network.

 

[JReducation]

In speaking of the SSPX, the term catholic as used by the Fathers, does not enter into the conversation, because that’s not the catholic that the Vatican is using. It’s using the corporate Catholic, which does not apply to the Orthodox. In using it that way, the Vatican looks at several other things.

a. Were they baptized in the Catholic Church

b. Were they ordained by a Catholic bishop

c. Do they acknowledge the Bishop of Rome as the Successor of Peter and the Sovereign Pontiff?

If they meet these three criteria, then they are Catholic and all Catholic law applies to them.

Their imperfect communion comes from three reasons.

a. The bishops were illegally ordained. Therefore they are suspended with no canonical authority.

b. A suspended cleric (deacon, priest or bishop) forfeits his privilege to celebrate any sacrament.

c. If a suspended cleric violates the rules that govern the suspension, he enters into deeper sin, at least objectively. We can only judge what we see, hearts and consciences.

d. If a man accepts ordination from a suspended bishop, that deacon or priest is automatically suspended.

The suspension if reason number one for imperfect communion with the Bishop of Rome.

Now to reason number two.

a. All Catholics must acknowledge that Vatican II did not teach error and that the documents do not contain error, because a Council of the Church cannot err.

b. The SSPX does not accept this.

This is a requirement that the Holy See has placed on Catholics. Pope Benedict made this clear to the SSPX and this week to the world. Until they are on the same page with the pope on this matter, their communion is imperfect. Vatican II is the second reason for an imperfect communion.

Let’s move on to the third and last reason.

a. Every bishop makes a vow of obedience to the pope.

b. The pope can enforce this vow at his discretion.

c. Usually, popes avoid enforcing this vow.

d. However, Bl. John Paul did invoke the vow in ordering Archbishop Lefebvre not to ordain the four bishops.

e. The four priests knew of the pope’s opposition to the ordination, but accepted to be ordained. Therefore, they are complicit in the disobedience.

The third reason for the imperfect communion is disobedience to a direct order from the pope and to a canon that is very explicit.

There is nothing that can be done about the ordinations. The deal is done. The Council documents an be accepted. The last point, the bishops can ask for forgiveness. This would be done in private, not in public. For this reason, the Holy See said that it would deal with the bishops of the Society individually. Each one has to be reconciled as a person, not as part of a corporate group.

Finally, is the SSPX Catholic or acatholic?

The SSPX is as Catholic as are the Dominicans, Franciscans, Opus Dei or the Ukranians. Their Catholicism has never been in question.

Is this Catholic group in full communion with the Church?

No, not until it accepts the pope’s terms will the pope grant them full communion.

What does full communion mean?

It means that every cleric in the SSPX will receive the privilege to celebrate the sacraments.

It means that there will be no canonical impediment for any cleric in the SSPX to hold an office appropriate to his rank in Holy Orders.

It means that any Catholic can seek absolution from an SSPX priest.

It means that any Catholic can be validly married by an SSPX deacon, priest or bishop.

It means that any SSPX bishop can ask for permission to ordain another bishop.

It means that the laity can join the SSPX as do the laity of Opus Dei, with the same rights.

Until they accept the pope’s conditions, they do not have any of the above. Not having these privileges and rights, makes for an imperfect communion. But IT DOES NOT make them non-Catholic, acatholic, or in schism.

There are individuals associated with the SSPX that are probably in schism or at the very least schismatic; however, this is an individual situation, not a corporate one. The Society of St. Pius X IS TRULY CATHOLIC and incardinated in the Latin Church. It just does not have all the rights and privileges of other Catholics.

Before anyone goes off on this bishop or that bishop who does not follow the pope’s wishes, remember what I explained. St. Boniface (you can look this up yourself) stated that the pope can choose to whom he applies the law. He can apply it to an individual, a group, a sector of the Church or to the universal Church. The reverse is also true. He can choose not to enforce a rule that he has made or not to enforce a direction that he has given. The vow of obedience only kicks in, when the pope invokes the vow.

There are two degrees of disobedience, simple and solemn. If you’re not a person in vows, your disobedience is always simple, which is usually a venial sin. USUALLY, not always. If the matter is grave, then it’s grave sin.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[ConstantineTG]

Canon law says two things.

First, any baptized Catholics is a Catholic, even if he becomes an atheist. Ergo, Hitler was a Catholic, albeit he did not live the Catholic faith. The baptism cannot be undone.

The baptism cannot be undone, but one can still apostatize from the Church and therefore is no longer Catholic or Christian.

Second, no group can call itself Catholic without the permission of the Ordinary of the diocese.

We understand this to be Catholic with an upper case C, which is what we’re talking about here. This term is a corporate name that the Catholic Church has claimed for itself and that no one else can legally use without her permission, so much so that in the United States, the Church has sued different religious groups who have used Catholic with upper case C. This word belongs only to those Churches in full communion with the Bishop of Rome.

There are so many groups that call themselves Catholic but do not belong to the Catholic Church. Is this true that they have been sued? I thought that the Catholic Church does not submit to secular rulers? Why are they resorting to secular courts? There are canons for this. I’m not going to dig them up, but I’m pretty sure that there is something written as such, thus the Catholic Church will not sue anyone for matters of the faith (of course if there is something like a land dispute, which is a secular matter, then it will be dealt with in the courts).

Also, I don’t believe the term “Catholic” has ever been trademarked. Again there are so many other faux-Catholic parishes out there that has existed for such a long time using the name “Catholic” without any issues.

The term that the Fathers used was “catholic” with lower case C to mean universal. That’s not what’s being discussed here in reference to the SSPX. That’s why it only adds to the confusion when it’s brought into the discussion. That term has an entirely different meaning from Catholic.

The big/small distinction is a fairly recent innovation. If I remember correctly this even came from the Orthodox, Fr. Schmemann or Fr. Meyendorff or something like that. I cannot remember precisely but what I do remember that this is only in the mid-to-late 1900s. This distinction of big-C/small-C didn’t even exist in the minds of the Fathers (or whatever the Koine Greek equivalent of that is).

In both Latin Law and Oriental Law, the term Catholic can only be used by those groups approved by an ordinary. A perfect example of this was the case of Catholic TV, Michael Voris’ ministry. It had to drop the term Catholic, even though everyone there is as Catholic as the pope. They could not incorporate themselves as Catholic, without the permission of the Ordinary. They had not asked for such permission. Therefore, the Ordinary pushed to have them change their name. Today they are Church Militant TV. Another example is EWTN. When it was founded, it was not allowed to call itself a Catholic TV network, because it was a Franciscan network. The Franciscan Order is Catholic, but anything that we start has to receive permission from the Ordinary to be called Catholic. Today EWTN is a Catholic network.

But this is a conundrum I was talking about. A legalistic use of a name doesn’t really isn’t worth much anymore. It’s just a label. In a Scriptural Christian sense, a name isn’t just a label you slap onto someone or something, a name carries the entirety of that person or thing. That is why God said not to take His Name in vain. It’s not just using the words “God” or “Jesus” or “Yahweh” in a disrespectful manner, it is to take His very being in vain. This is why the name-and-claim thing today is so misguided. Those who use it (usually Evangelicals) believe that by the utterance of the word “Jesus” would grant them anything as if it is some magic spell. But names in a Biblical sense isn’t just these labels which are the legalistic application of a name. What is it worth if one has the words “Catholic” plastered on their chest and yet they do not live the Catholic faith? If I buy a Ferrari emblem and put in on my Toyota, do I now drive a Ferrari? This legalistic approach to names is the very reason we have problems today with people trying to call the Holy Trinity something else. They think that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are just labels, and that God can be called whatever we want. But the name God revealed to us isn’t just a label, it is who God is as He has revealed himself to us.

So the Catholic Church is Catholic not just because the Pope beat the Ecumenical Patriarch or Patriarch of Moscow to the Trademark Registry Office. We believe we possess the Catholic faith and thus we are Catholics. For someone to call themselves Catholic is not a matter of a legal right, it is a matter of spiritual manifestation that one does live and breathe the Catholic faith.

 

[JReducation]

The baptism cannot be undone, but one can still apostatize from the Church and therefore is no longer Catholic or Christian.

He continues to be a Catholic, albeit he is outside of the Catholic Church. There’s the difference. Lenin and Hitler, for example, were Christians. Lenin was baptized Orthodox and Hitler Roman Catholic. The baptism cannot be undone. Therefore, the person cannot cease to be what he became at baptism, in this case a baptized Christian. He can cease to be in communion with the Christian community. Therefore, he is apostate. Should he want to return, he need not go through another baptism. He must confess, repent and renew his profession of faith made at baptism.

There are so many groups that call themselves Catholic but do not belong to the Catholic Church. Is this true that they have been sued?

Some have been sued for misrepresentation. Misrepresentation is an injustice to the Church. In the past, some were executed, when the state was the right arm of the Church.

I thought that the Catholic Church does not submit to secular rulers?

Not exactly, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s.” We must submit to secular rulers in all things to which the secular ruler has a right to demand. We do not submit to secular rulers in those things that the ruler has no right to demand. The human person is not the property of the State. Therefore, the ruler cannot take ownership of the person and dictate over his life.

In addition, the institutional Catholic Church is never beneath the secular state. The state has no rights over the Church. It cannot indict, judge or punish the Church without serious eternal consequences. However, the Church has the right to demand that the state act on its behalf on all matters of justice. In this case, using the term Catholic when it is unjust to do so, it is perfectly legitimate for the Church to demand that the state put a stop to it. This has been done. It’s only done when great harm is being caused. We’re not about to spend our lives in courts. That would be silly.

There are canons for this. I’m not going to dig them up, but I’m pretty sure that there is something written as such, thus the Catholic Church will not sue anyone for matters of the faith (of course if there is something like a land dispute, which is a secular matter, then it will be dealt with in the courts).

Suing for a violation of justice is not the same as suing for a matter of faith. The Church does not sue for matters of faith, except in an ecclesial tribunal.

Also, I don’t believe the term “Catholic” has ever been trademarked.

The laws about this are different from one country to another. In Canon Law, it has been trademarked. Only those institutions, groups, churches, communities and other systems that have the permission of the bishop of a diocese or the pope can call itself Catholic.

When our community was severed from the larger Franciscan community, we were allowed to refer to ourselves as Franciscan, but not as Catholic. The individual brothers could say, “I’m a Catholic.” We could not say, “We’re a Catholic religious community.” That took three years to get written permission to refer to ourselves as a Catholic religious community. Prior to that we were a community of Catholic religious. The individuals were Catholic, not the community. The community was not considered to be part of the Church, even though it was made up of members of the Church. That’s how Canon Law works.

Again there are so many other faux-Catholic parishes out there that has existed for such a long time using the name “Catholic” without any issues.

Of course there are, but it does not make them Catholic.

The big/small distinction is a fairly recent innovation. If I remember correctly this even came from the Orthodox, Fr. Schmemann or Fr. Meyendorff or something like that. I cannot remember precisely but what I do remember that this is only in the mid-to-late 1900s. This distinction of big-C/small-C didn’t even exist in the minds of the Fathers (or whatever the Koine Greek equivalent of that is).

It did not exist, because the great schism had not yet taken place. It came into existence about the year 1100. You can find it very clearly stated in the rules of the Mendicants, which were approved during that period. They made a distinction as a requirement for admission. A man has to be a Catholic, with upper case C, meaning that he had to be in full communion wit the Bishop of Rome. He did not have to be Roman Catholic, but Catholic. The Orthodox were excluded from joining the Mendicants, because they were not Catholic, even though they have full apostolic succession, but not full communion.

But this is a conundrum I was talking about. A legalistic use of a name doesn’t really isn’t worth much anymore. It’s just a label.

Not in Canon Law it’s not. If you’re either Latin Catholic or Eastern Catholic, Canon Law dictates how you use terms.

In a Scriptural Christian sense, a name isn’t just a label you slap onto someone or something, a name carries the entirety of that person or thing. That is why God said not to take His Name in vain. It’s not just using the words “God” or “Jesus” or “Yahweh” in a disrespectful manner, it is to take His very being in vain. This is why the name-and-claim thing today is so misguided.

Two theological concepts. Man is not God. The laws that apply to God do not always apply to man and the other way around.

 

[JReducation]

What is it worth if one has the words “Catholic” plastered on their chest and yet they do not live the Catholic faith?

Ontologically, a great deal. Objectively, very little. Subjectively, only God knows.

So the Catholic Church is Catholic not just because the Pope beat the Ecumenical Patriarch or Patriarch of Moscow to the Trademark Registry Office. We believe we possess the Catholic faith and thus we are Catholics.

Actually, we believe that the Christian Church subsists in all of its fullness in the Catholic Church and that’s why we choose to be Catholic.

For someone to call themselves Catholic is not a matter of a legal right, it is a matter of spiritual manifestation that one does live and breathe the Catholic faith.

It is actually both. There is a temporal and a transcendent reality being expressed. When an Orthodox calls himself “catholic” he is expressing a transcendent reality. He is not speaking of a temporal reality. He does not see himself as a Catholic in full communion with the Bishop of Rome, nor does the Bishop of Rome see him as being in possession of the fullness of faith that subsists only in the Catholic Church.

He has most of it, but not all of it. Therefore, he is not granted the right to call himself Catholic until he submits to the fullness found only in the Church of Rome, which is the mother of all Churches.

This is why this does not work when one tries to apply it to the SSPX. The SSPX has never denied the fullness of faith, nor has it denied that it subsists only in the Church of Rome and in the those Churches in full communion with Rome. Therefore, the SSPX is as Catholic as the pope.

It’s problem with communion has to do with a whole different requirement. It is better not to bring the Eastern experience into this discussion, because it only confuses people. As it is, many people think that the SSPX is a modern version of the Orthodox, just another group in schism, which is not true. They are not in schism and never were in schism. They walk a fine line, maybe a dotted line, but they’re still on the Catholic side of the line.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[ProVobis]

The laws about this are different from one country to another. In Canon Law, it has been trademarked.

I believe Canon Law extends this to “Catholic” under any other linguistic label as well. (For example, catholica, catholicam, católico, καθολικός, etc.) Under English law, I’m not sure how far it extends.

 

[JReducation]

Canon Law is very clear. No organization or group is Catholic unless it has the permission of a bishop to refer to itself as such. They can claim to the Catholic and the Church does not acknowledge it. If their claim does harm, the local bishop has the legal right to take it to court.

The use of the ancient term “catholic” as we say in the creed, it applicable to the Christian Church. This includes the Protestants and Orthodox. That’s the Patristic use, which is has a very different meaning from the canonical use. The Fathers of the Church never dreamed of a great schism. As far as they were concerned, the idea of a Church not in communion with Rome was not in the stars. It’s not until the Middle Ages when the two words emerge with different meanings.

Going back to the OP, the SSPX did not do what the Catholics of the East did during the great schism. Therefore, they remain inside the Catholic Church, albeit without a canonical place. It’s like being in your home, but you have no bedroom and no chair at the table until you conform to your parents’ rules. It’s still you home.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[flameburns623]

There are innumerable organizations with the name “Catholic” which are not affiliated with the Roman Catholic Church. Christ Catholic Church. Polish National Catholic Church. Liberal Catholic Church. Used to be a list of autocephelous/vagante organizations, many or most going by the name “XYZ Catholic Church”. So far as the other thing JRREducation says: it is my understanding that NOT ALL documents of ANY Council carry the weight of infallibility; only those decrees which dogmatically define matters of faith or morals. And the position of the SSPX is that since the Second Vatican Council apparently expressly precluded itself from acting as a “dogmatic Council”, NOTHING in the Documents of VII can be presumed to possess an infallible character. They are “authoritative”–but if they are in some way contradictory to the Magisterium “of the whole Church”, (as opposed to the current or “Living Magisterium”), they are in error and without force. Clarification please, JRR? Thanks!

 

[JReducation]

There are innumerable organizations with the name “Catholic” which are not affiliated with the Roman Catholic Church. Christ Catholic Church. Polish National Catholic Church. Liberal Catholic Church. Used to be a list of autocephelous/vagante organizations, many or most going by the name “XYZ Catholic Church”.

All that Catholics need to know is that if the bishop has not given them permission to call themselves Catholic, then they are not part of the Catholic Church. The law is pretty straightforward.

So far as the other thing JRREducation says: it is my understanding that NOT ALL documents of ANY Council carry the weight of infallibility; only those decrees which dogmatically define matters of faith or morals. And the position of the SSPX is that since the Second Vatican Council apparently expressly precluded itself from acting as a “dogmatic Council”, NOTHING in the Documents of VII can be presumed to possess an infallible character. They are “authoritative”–but if they are in some way contradictory to the Magisterium “of the whole Church”, (as opposed to the current or “Living Magisterium”), they are in error and without force. Clarification please, JRR? Thanks!

About a week ago, the Holy Father himself responded to this question. He said that the Documents of Vatican II do not contain error, because a council cannot teach error. He also said that the documents must be accepted by every Catholic. This is the glitch that is holding up the reconciliation with the SSPX. They must accept that the documents do not contain error. In addition, he also requires of them that they also accept the CCC as the authoritative catechism of the Catholic Church.

One has to understand that neither a council nor a pope need define any new dogma or moral law to be error free. The documents of Vatican II, by virtue of the fact that they are the product of an ecumenical council cannot contain error, because an ecumenical council cannot teach error. In other words, it need not define anything new. However, whatever statements it makes cannot contradict the faith of the Church.

This brings us to the Vatican II documents. If the pope says that they are binding, then so they are. There is much in them that comes from divine revelation. Nothing new was defined, because there was nothing to define. However, there were many pastoral decisions made based on what had been defined in the past. Pastoral decisions are always binding. They do not require an assent of faith, because they are not statements of doctrine or morality. They do require an assent of the will.

Let’s look at another example, Canon Law. There is absolutely nothing in Canon Law that is divinely revealed dogma or moral law. However, Canon Law is based on dogma and moral law. In addition, the pope adds to it according to the needs of the Church. We do not question Canon Law, because it’s not ex-Cathedra. We accept it and we comply with it. Imagine the chaos if the law had to be infallible or declared ex-Cathedra before we assented. Imagine in a civil nation what would happen if people refused to give assent to the law, because it’s not infallible.

We must also remember that when we say that something said at the council is different from what as said before, it is not an indicator that what was said at the council is wrong. It is an indicator that something has changed. That’s what we call the hermaneutic of continuity. In order for the Church to move forward into the future, she must often break with the past. However, such a break is part of tradition. We have traditionally broken with certain positions and practices of the past for newer ones. A wonderful example of this was the Church’s position celibate Latin priests. The law remains in place. However, we’re doing something that we never dreamed we’d see. We’re ordaining married clergy that comes to us from the Anglican communion, while at the same time, we’re saying that a married clergy in the Latin Church is not up for discussion.

The argument of the SSPX is that the documents themselves contain erro. The position of the Holy Father is that they need not define to be error free. They are the product of an ecumenical council and ecumenical councils do not teach error. What they do is make changes in certain matters pertaining to pastoral care. However, the Holy Father and the Council Fathers themselves are very cognizant that pastoral care is no small matter. One cannot simply dismiss pastoral decisions, because they’re not dogma.

The Council of Jerusalem was a pastoral council. Most of Paul’s letters are pastoral, as are the Catholic letters. The dogma contained in them is lifted out of the Gospel and out of tradition. The writers of the letters, except for Peter, had no authority to define any dogma. Only popes and councils can do that. However, we don’t shelve those letters, because the writers had no authority to teach with infallibility or because they are pastoral. We believe that they are error free. Pope Paul VI, Bl. John Paul and Pope Benedict are applying the same logic to Vatican II.

Only a pope or a council can define truth. However, a pastoral council today cannot teach error anymore than the Council of Jerusalem did 2,000 years ago, or Paul, James, John or Jude.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Kat_Sherwood]

What does SSPX mean? (I’m not a cradle Catholic.)

 

[PaulfromIowa]

SSPX = Society of Saint Pius X

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_of_St._Pius_X

 

[Leon_Bloy]

“Go” as in what?

Are we Catholics allowed to “go” to a Presbyterian service?

I think you should not “go” in the sense that we Catholics mean when we say we go to mass.

 

[Dies_Irae_1]

“Go” as in what?

Are we Catholics allowed to “go” to a Presbyterian service?

I think you should not “go” in the sense that we Catholics mean when we say we go to mass.

But the SSPX are Catholic. They offer the TLM, which is Catholic. So we can go to a TLM offered by the SSPX. :banghead: