I posted this today on another thread, and am making it my first post here to give an idea of where I am coming from. This Letter of Pope Paul VI that I provide extracts from, is to me a good starting point to understanding the complexities of Archbishop Lefebvre’s and the present SSPX’s probems within the Church.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JReducation forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
The Orthodox don’t need authorization from the Catholic Church. Their bishops are valid and licit. They can grant such authorization to their priests. SSPX bishops are valid, but illicit. They can’t authorize anything, until they get canonical permission to exercise the ministry.
:thankyou:It always boils down to permission. Holy Mother Church will always be in charge. I can’t help thinking of this situation now in terms of a family. In this case, the SSPX, who legitimately belong to the family, have rebelled against the parent on serious issues, and refuse to acknowledge the way that this parent chooses to deal with what are, essential, family problems.
"Moreover, you act as if you had a particular role in this regard. But the mission of discerning and remedying the abuses is first of all Ours; it is the mission of all the bishops who work together with Us. Indeed We do not cease to raise Our voice against these excesses"
No child can arrogate to themselves the authority of the parent, and if they openly defy or challenge them, will have restrictions and censures as a result. This can be paralleled by the suspensions resulting in a lack of canonical status at present, and prior to this, the excommunications when they ‘went too far’ and consecrated their own bishops, which enabled them to continue their lone mission in defiance of instructions from the ‘parent’.
"You do not manifest repentance, even for the cause of your suspension a divines. You do not explicitly express your acceptance if the authority of the Second Vatican Council and of the Holy See - and this constitutes the basis of the problem - and you continue in those personal works of yours which the legitimate authority has expressly ordered you to suspend."
Not only does the parent have to protect and defend their authority, but, they also have a duty to the common good, which is to protect others from the wayward ideas and behaviours of the rebel.
**
“This is why, with the full consciousness of Our duties, We say to you, brother, that you are in error. And with the full ardor of Our fraternal love, as also with all the weight of Our authority as the successor of Peter, We invite you to retract, to correct yourself and to cease from inflicting wounds upon the church of Christ”
**
So, while that parent is not ejecting that errant child from the family home, they are insisting that the child conform to the family rules before they can enjoy all the privileges and rights of obedient family members. Hence, the SSPX are not in “full communion” with the Church.
***“Therefore, dear brother, do not delay any longer in considering before God, with the keenest religious attention, this solemn adjuration of the humble but legitimate successor of Peter. May you measure the gravity of the Hour and take the only decision that befits a son of the church. This is Our hope, this is Our prayer.” ***
**
**
From the Vatican, October 11,1976
**PAULUS PP. VI **
jloughnan.tripod.com/pvi2lefebvre.htm
(This letter was sent to Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre one month after he visited the Pope on September 11, 1976. The archbishop had rejected parts of the Vatican II decrees and some of the subsequent post-conciliar enactments of the Holy See and had been the object of widespread publicity as he celebrated Tridentine Masses in various parts of Europe. In June, 1976, the archbishop had defied a direct order from the Pope not to ordain seminarians at the seminary he founded in Econe, Switzerland. In this letter, the Pope told the archbishop that while pluralism in the church is legitimate, it must be a licit pluralism rooted in obedience. The Pope said the archbishop, rather than practicing obedience, had propagated and organized a rebellion. This, he added, “is the essential issue” in the archbishop’s regard. In this letter, the Pope outlined his conditions for rectifying matters, including a call for a declaration from the archbishop affirming adherence to Vatican II, a declaration that, among other things, retracts accusations or insinuations leveled against the Pope. The text of the Pope’s letter has been taken from
Origins, NC Documentary Service, December 16, 1976.)
very good point and I stand corrected. Yes they are “home” in the true sense, but what I was thinking of is that they are ‘without’ in the position they have taken against the head of the family and the members who are faithful to his authority.
The link below has some very good citations - so dont’ write it off because it comes from wiki