SSPX Update - Redux

[Melchior_1]

I love the Pope, but we really need to get out of the habit of thinking that everything which comes out of his mouth is either infallible or another form of magisterial teaching. This is not accurate. The Pope is human and is only protected by the Holy Spirit from error when he is teaching in communion with the other bishops of the Church or in the deliberate exercise of his authority as the successor of Peter. Furthermore, a statement was made earlier that everything which the Pope says is law. This is also inaccurate. The idea that the Pope walks around re-writing Canon Law every time he opens his mouth or picks up a pen is completely wrong.

I am not for one minute suggesting that we ignore the Pope when he is teaching authoritatively or, for that matter, that we get into the habit of dismissing his other thoughts because they are not authoritative. However, presenting Papal authority in that manner is entirely false.

Jason,

The crux of the matter is not creating law, but rather the enforcement and interpretation of the existing law. As the chief judge, the power of Matthew 16 and the keys he was given does give the Pope the authority to bind and loose Canon Law.

Not everything the Pope says is infallible, I agree. However when it comes to being the judge of Canon Law, we owe assent.

 

[choliks]

Jason,

The crux of the matter is not creating law, but rather the enforcement and interpretation of the existing law. As the chief judge, the power of Matthew 16 and the keys he was given does give the Pope the authority to bind and loose Canon Law.

Not everything the Pope says is infallible, I agree. However when it comes to being the judge of Canon Law, we owe assent.

Don’t forget the God-given right to govern the Church.

 

[choliks]

That he is - and it seems (as seen in this extract from the same article) that he is re-enforcing the law of the Church on who can and who cannot celebrate or be admitted to use Roman Catholic churches and chapels.

"The bishop…has published a decree forbidding Lefebvrian priests to celebrate mass in churches and chapels in his diocese. He also stressed that the Fraternity’s priests are suspended “a divinis”.

"The document which was signed last 20 January regards “the admission of other religions, denominations or religious groups, such as the SSXP and groups of “independent theologians”, to Roman Catholic churches and chapels.”

In the document, Mgr. Morerod, a prelate whom Benedict XVI knows well, explains that if non Christian religious communities ask to use a Catholic church the answer will be no. In as far as Christian communities and denominations go, on the other hand, the bishops said that based on the indications of the Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms on Ecumenism of 1993, “permission for placing churches and chapels at the disposal of communities of other Christian confessions may be granted for reasons of pastoral need.

If the aforementioned pastoral need presents itself, Catholic churches and chapels can only be placed at the disposal of Catholic-Christian, Evangelical-Reformed, Lutheran, Orthodox, and Anglican communities.”

According to the decree, SSPX priests do not fall into these categories.
vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/world-news/detail/articolo/lefebvriani-lefebvrianslefebvrianos-21883/

The keywords here are bolded. It’s still up to the bishop to allow the use of Catholic churches to non-Catholics depending on the pastoral need. If and only if there’s a pastoral need. That is also assuming proper steps are taken to avoid desecration and sacrilege.

So Catholic chapels can be used by Lutherans and Anglicans which have women ministers, but not by SSPX?

You are comparing apples and oranges here, my friend. The former is asking the bishop for permission to use the Catholic churches and chapels, the latter is about permission to set up shop in the bishop’s territory.

 

[jwinch2]

Jason,

The crux of the matter is not creating law, but rather the enforcement and interpretation of the existing law. As the chief judge, the power of Matthew 16 and the keys he was given does give the Pope the authority to bind and loose Canon Law.

Not everything the Pope says is infallible, I agree. However when it comes to being the judge of Canon Law, we owe assent.

I agree. However, the Pope having the ability to interpret Canon Law or even change it is not remotely the same as everything he states being law, as was claimed earlier in this thread. Furthermore, Canon Law while important, is not Sacred Tradition, it is not Sacred Scripture, nor is it Magisterial Teaching. Canon Law is not Divine Law. It was not received from God but rather written by people. It can be changed, and it can be in error.

Finally, it is not only about infallible statements when it comes to teaching, but all authoritative teaching. Only those Papal statements which are deliberately stated as such rise to the level of the Magisterium.

As I have mentioned, I am not supportive of the actions taken by the SSPX. However, misrepresenting the teaching authority of the Pope does us no good at all and in fact, only serves to confuse the issue.

 

[jwinch2]

Hello everybody!

Cheers!

 

[Dee_S]

I agree. However, the Pope having the ability to interpret Canon Law or even change it is not remotely the same as everything he states being law, as was claimed earlier in this thread.
That’s not my interpretation of what was said earlier can’t recall anyone saying that? I recall it being about respect for the Pope’s authority.

Furthermore, Canon Law while important, is not Sacred Tradition, it is not Sacred Scripture, nor is it Magisterial Teaching. Canon Law is not Divine Law.** It was not received from God but rather written by people.** It can be changed, and it can be in error.
By the same people that he gives the authority (keys) to bind or loose, in earth and heaven

Finally, it is not only about infallible statements when it comes to teaching, but all authoritative teaching. Only those Papal statements which are deliberately stated as such rise to the level of the Magisterium.
See the article below to sort out this ‘plate of spaghetti’

As I have mentioned, I am not supportive of the actions taken by the SSPX. However, misrepresenting the teaching authority of the Pope does us no good at all and in fact, only serves to confuse the issue.
Well, let’s make a start to understand it.

The Magisterium or Teaching Authority of the Church
by Fr. William G. Most
By the Magisterium we mean the teaching office of the Church. It consists of the Pope and Bishops. Christ promised to protect the teaching of the Church : “He who hears you, hears me; he who rejects your rejects me, he who rejects me, rejects Him who sent me” (Luke 10. 16).

This is true even if the Church does not use the solemn ceremony of definition. The day to day teaching of the Church throughout the world, when the Bishops are in union with each other and with the Pope, and present something as definitive, this is infallible. (Vatican II, Lumen gentium # 25). It was precisely by the use of that authority that Vatican I was able to define that the Pope alone, when speaking as such and making things definitive, is also infallible. Of course this infallibility covers also teaching on what morality requires, for that is needed for salvation.

 A "theologian" who would claim he needs to be able to ignore the Magisterium     in order to find the truth is strangely perverse: the teaching of the Magisterium is the     prime, God-given means of finding the truth.

Nor could he claim academic freedom lets him contradict the Church. In any field of knowledge, academic freedom belongs only to a properly qualified professor teaching in his own field. But one is not properly qualified if he does not use the correct method of working in his field, e.g., a science professor who would want to go back to medieval methods would be laughed off campus, not protected.

Now in Catholic theology , the correct method is to study the sources of revelation, but then give the final word to the Church. He who does not follow that method is not a qualified Catholic theologian.

Vatican II taught (Dei Verbum # 10): “The task of authoritatively interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on [Scripture or Tradition], has been entrusted exclusively to the living Magisterium of the Church, whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ.”

Taken from The Basic Catholic Catechism
PART FIVE: The Apostles’ Creed IX - XII
Ninth Article: “The Holy Catholic Church; the Communion of Saints”
ewtn.com/faith/teachings/chura4.htm

LUMEN GENTIUM
“But the college or body of bishops has no authority unless it is understood together with the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter as its head.** The pope’s power of primacy over all, both pastors and faithful, remains whole and intact. In virtue of his office, that is as Vicar of Christ and pastor of the whole Church, the Roman Pontiff has full, supreme and universal power over the Church. And he is always free to exercise this power.** The order of bishops, which succeeds to the college of apostles and gives this apostolic body continued existence, is also the subject of supreme and full power over the universal Church, provided we understand this body together with its head the Roman Pontiff** and never without this head.(27*) This power can be exercised only with the consent of the Roman Pontiff.** For our Lord placed Simon alone as the rock and the bearer of the keys of the Church,(156) and made him shepherd of the whole flock;(157) it is evident, however, that the power of binding and loosing, which was given to Peter,(158) was granted also to the college of apostles, joined with their head.”

"But when either the Roman Pontiff or the Body of Bishops together with him defines a judgment, they pronounce it in accordance with Revelation itself, which all are obliged to abide by and be in conformity with, that is, the Revelation which as written or orally handed down is transmitted in its entirety through the legitimate succession of bishops and especially in care of the Roman Pontiff himself, and which under the guiding light of the Spirit of truth is religiously preserved and faithfully expounded in the Church."
vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html

 

[Moore11]

1. Aquinas is not infallible, he was never Pope. Yes his method is used, but we have other methods from other Doctors and other Saints.
2. You do understand you are sounding like a Protestant when you say things like this, right?

My friend, you need to assent. Not assenting on matters like this will take you down a dangerous road.

Absolutely spot on!

 

[jwinch2]

Dee S,

I am certainly not suggesting, nor is anyone else that I have seen, that the Pope is only authoritative when he speaks Ex Cathedra. In fact, I specifically stated the opposite in the post you responded to. Papal Encyclicals have a certain amount of authority to them and teaching which takes place in union with the rest of the Bishops is certainly to be viewed as Magisterial in nature, which I readily accept. However, this does not mean that everything which comes out of the Holy Father’s mouth or is written down by him is authoritative in nature.

However, as I already noted, Canon Law is not Divine Law and was not received from God. Yes, it is promulgated by the same Church Christ gave the powers of binding and loosing, so it is important. But, it is not part of the deposit of Faith, it has been changed, and can theoretically be in error. The Church is protected from error on Faith and Morals, not Canon Law. Finally, yes, someone earlier did make the express claim that all of the Pope’s words are law, which is patently false.

The Pope is in charge of the Church. All of it. In every possible way. The Pope’s word is law. All his words may not be dogma, but all his words are law.

 

[Dee_S]

Dee S,

I am certainly not suggesting, nor is anyone else that I have seen, that the Pope is only authoritative when he speaks Ex Cathedra. In fact, I specifically stated the opposite in the post you responded to. Papal Encyclicals have a certain amount of authority to them and teaching which takes place in union with the rest of the Bishops is certainly to be viewed as Magisterial in nature, which I readily accept.

However, as I already noted, Canon Law is not Divine Law and was not received from God. Yes, it is promulgated by the same Church Christ gave the powers of binding and loosing, so it is important. But, it is not part of the deposit of Faith, it has been changed, and can theoretically be in error. The Church is protected from error on Faith and Morals, not Canon Law. Finally, yes, someone earlier did make the express claim that all of the Pope’s words are law, which is patently false.

OK I get your point in regard to general statements like that - but there is a more complete picture that we need to assent to - see my previous post on Lumen Gentium:

**“But when either the Roman Pontiff or the Body of Bishops together with him defines a judgment, they pronounce it in accordance with Revelation itself, which all are obliged to abide by and be in conformity with, that is, the Revelation which as written or orally handed down is transmitted in its entirety through the legitimate succession of bishops and especially in care of the Roman Pontiff himself, and which under the guiding light of the Spirit of truth is religiously preserved and faithfully expounded in the Church.”
**vatican.va/archive/hist_c…entium_en.html

In this extract, Archbishop Muller makes a clear point on how the Pope must be obeyed:

In the second part of this interview with Archbishop Gerhard Ludwig Müller (Part 1* can be read here), the new CDF prefect discusses the latest on efforts to bring the Society of St. Pius X back into full communion with the ChurchWhat stage have we reached in the dialogue between the Vatican and the Society of St. Pius X?*
I wouldn’t call it a dialogue between two Church partners. This was a brotherly colloquium to overcome difficulties with an authentic interpretation of Catholic doctrine. This authentic interpretation is guaranteed by the Pope. The SSPX must accept the Holy Father, the Pope, as the visible head of the Church. They have a great respect for Tradition. They must, therefore, accept the position of the Pope as stated in the First Vatican Council. They must also accept the doctrinal pronouncements made since the Second Vatican Council, which have been authorized officially by the Pope.**

They [SSPX] need to accept the complete doctrine of the Catholic Church: the confession of faith, the Creed, and also accept the magisterium of the Pope as it is authentically interpreted. That is necessary. They also need to accept some forms of development in the liturgy. The Holy Father recognized the perennial validity of the extraordinary form of the liturgy, but they also must accept that the new ordinary form of the liturgy, developed after the Council, is valid and legitimate.Read more: ncregister.com/daily-news/archbishop-mueller-on-the-sspx-and-his-controversial-writings/#ixzz2K5azOnsv

 

[Melchior_1]

Regarding Canon Law, yes it is man made. However if we look at the enforcement of the law, the parallel would be in civil law where we have a president and supreme court. In Canon Law’s case, the Pope is both the president and the supreme court rolled into one. Unless he’s leading us to sin, what he publicly binds via the law is bound to us.

One could say that the ability to have canonical authority to bind via Canon Law is actually given through Divine Law.

 

[Dee_S]

Regarding Canon Law, yes it is man made. However if we look at the enforcement of the law, the parallel would be in civil law where we have a president and supreme court. In Canon Law’s case, the Pope is both the president and the supreme court rolled into one. Unless he’s leading us to sin, what he publicly binds via the law is bound to us.

One could say that the ability to have canonical authority to bind via Canon Law is actually given through Divine Law.

The First Vatican Council drew out the implications of the doctrine of papal primacy for the question of obedience:
"Hence we teach and declare that by the appointment of our Lord the Roman Church possesses a sovereignty of ordinary power over all other Churches, and that this power of jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff, which is truly episcopal, is immediate to which ail, of whatsoever rite and dignity, both pastors and faithful, both individually and collectively, are bound, by their duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, to submit, not only in matters which belong to faith and morals, but also in those that appertain to the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world; so that the Church of Christ may be one flock under one supreme pastor through the preservation of unity, both of communion and of profession of the same faith, with the Roman pontiff." (Pastor Aeternus, Ch. III; Denz. 1827)
culturewars.com/CultureWars/Archives/Fidelity_archives/SSPX7.htm

 

[Melchior_1]

The First Vatican Council drew out the implications of the doctrine of papal primacy for the question of obedience:
"Hence we teach and declare that by the appointment of our Lord the Roman Church possesses a sovereignty of ordinary power over all other Churches, and that this power of jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff, which is truly episcopal, is immediate to which ail, of whatsoever rite and dignity, both pastors and faithful, both individually and collectively, are bound, by their duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, to submit, not only in matters which belong to faith and morals, but also in those that appertain to the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world; so that the Church of Christ may be one flock under one supreme pastor through the preservation of unity, both of communion and of profession of the same faith, with the Roman pontiff." (Pastor Aeternus, Ch. III; Denz. 1827)
culturewars.com/CultureWars/Archives/Fidelity_archives/SSPX7.htm

That you for posting this very traditional (and Traditional) section of Vatican I, Denise.

 

[Thomas_Casey]

TIME TO REGROUP AGAIN

You have an interesting discussion going, but . . .

there is too much defending and justifying the SSPX to the point that it’s looking like a promotion of a group whose status is irregular. Therefore, we cannot promote it or encourage anyone to go to the SSPX.

there is too much by way a long quotes and rehashing was the last five popes have said about the SSPX. We can go so overboard, that it begins to look like agenda posting.

some comments sound as if they’re targeting a group or an individual, rather than expressing an opinion or simply sharing information.

Therefore . . .

let’s keep it to sharing information, asking questions, expressing opinions without promoting the SSPX and without demonizing it either. Both are completely inappropriate.

share experiences and your thoughts on those experiences, but remember that not everyone has the same experience.

allow others to have an opinion without finding fault.

The secret of a good ecclesiastical diplomat is that he has the skill to disagree without ever saying, “You’re wrong.” The ecclesiastical diplomat leaves anathemas and scolding to popes. His job is to deliver a message in a polite, rational, organized and clear manner.

 

[Alfonsus]

Dee S,
However, as I already noted, Canon Law is not Divine Law and was not received from God. Yes, it is promulgated by the same Church Christ gave the powers of binding and loosing, so it is important. But, it is not part of the deposit of Faith, it has been changed, and can theoretically be in error. The Church is protected from error on Faith and Morals, not Canon Law. Finally, yes, someone earlier did make the express claim that all of the Pope’s words are law, which is patently false.

We are agree that not all contained in the Canon Law is Divine Law.
But even if it is not divine, if it is only a norm, if it is only temporary, we owe assent to the authority who put them in place. Now this part, obedience, is part of Deposit of Faith.

Of course the ecclesiastical law can be changed, but we never have the rights to overstep our boundaries. Meat abstinence on Friday is a pious ruling. Divine? Absolutely not. But you expect the faithful to obey in good conscience.

Priest laicization is an ecclesiastical law, serious as it is. What is contained in the Deposit of Faith is the person ordained is ordained for life. Also included in the Deposit of Faith is the legitimate authority power to give/restrict faculties.
Can the norm of laicization, all rights and responsibility of a laicized priest be changed? Of course.
Should a laicized priest, who cannot accept the laicization in good conscience advertising Mass everywhere? Hey, once a priest is always a priest, right? So why have ‘a part time job’ offering requiem Masses and keeping the stipend privately? The parish church priest is too busy anyway and his Mass schedule already full until the next decade…

True that the pope private interpretation as provided in interviews or personal writings are not law. He must put his mind into official promulgation. When he does, it have the effect of a law. Can be universal if he intend it to be universal, can be proper to individual cases.

With the SSPX, the Popes did put themselves clear following proper procedures. Trough the official letter Ecclesia Dei, trough the Summorum Pontificium, trough document Universae Ecclesiae, and trough official relations of Ecclesia Dei commision and CDF.

All contained there are proper interpretation of the law and have the effect of law per canon 16 of 1983 Code of Canon Law.
Objectively we know the ruling of the legislator (the Pope), in a formal and proper channel of giving interpretation of the law (the letter Summorum Pontificium), that the SSPX clergy are all suspended a divinis, have no canonical place in the Church.

Did the Pope take the consideration of “emergency”? John Paul give the ruling that the bishops are excommunicated after several correspondence with Mgr. Levebre personally and trough the CDF, negotiating and agreeing about having a bishop for the SSPX, including about his motive and “state of emergency” of the Church. The ruling is? The legislator (John Paul II) said it didn’t apply, wrong interpretation.

This judgement is confirmed by Benedict XVI, because he maintained the validity of the excommunication by lifting it and ruled the suspension of all SSPX clergy.

From the law side of seeing things, no, you can’t budge the law anymore to justify the SSPX position. Their case reached the highest possible tribunal already, which the Sacred Tradition said, demand obedience.

The last position a person can do if unable to accept it is, “Here I stand, I can do no other, so help me God. Amen” with all its consequences.

 

[Melchior_1]

The secret of a good ecclesiastical diplomat is that he has the skill to disagree without ever saying, “You’re wrong.” The ecclesiastical diplomat leaves anathemas and scolding to popes. His job is to deliver a message in a polite, rational, organized and clear manner.

Thomas Casey, you’re wrong!

*I’m just kidding, please don’t ban me.

 

[Dee_S]

Well first you need to assent to the canonical authority of the Pontiff. My primary concern is regarding your spiritual health, since you seem insistent on saying that several Pontiffs abused their canonical powers regarding the SSPX.

Second, maybe listening to this guy. Seeing what this fella says too.

When I first joined the SSPX I was given a book about Faith being greater than Obedience. It is very well read and known in traditional circles. (Not recommended reading if one wants to remain a faithful & obedient Catholic) and Archbishop Lefebvre uses this basis for his rejection of Authority.

The deep mistrust of the Church and those who govern it - leads up to this point of accusations of abuse of canonical powers etc. and provides a justification of why they pledge their obedience only to the The Eternal Rome, a creation of their own making.

Spiritual health is of prime concern here. Acquiring through imprudent association, a mindset that may lead a person to reject papal authority, and break communion with the members of the Church, is walking on dangerous ground.

I thought these definitions might be of interest to this thread:

The traditional Catholic teaching is expressed by St. Thomas Aquinas:
“Schismatics are those who refuse obedience to the Sovereign Pontiff and who refuse to communicate with the members of the Church subject to him.” {Summa Theologiae IIa, IIae, 39).

This definition is virtually identical to that in the 1983 Code of Canon Law:
“Schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.” (Canon 751).

The old 1917 Code of Canon Law is to the same effect:
“If anyone refuses to be subject to the Supreme Pontiff, or if he refuses communion with those members of the Church who are subject to him, he is schismatic.” {Canon 1325)

 

[Dee_S]

TIME TO REGROUP AGAIN

You have an interesting discussion going, but . . .

there is too much defending and justifying the SSPX to the point that it’s looking like a promotion of a group whose status is irregular. Therefore, we cannot promote it or encourage anyone to go to the SSPX.

there is too much by way a long quotes and rehashing was the last five popes have said about the SSPX. We can go so overboard, that it begins to look like agenda posting.

some comments sound as if they’re targeting a group or an individual, rather than expressing an opinion or simply sharing information.

Therefore . . .

let’s keep it to sharing information, asking questions, expressing opinions without promoting the SSPX and without demonizing it either. Both are completely inappropriate.

share experiences and your thoughts on those experiences, but remember that not everyone has the same experience.

allow others to have an opinion without finding fault.

The secret of a good ecclesiastical diplomat is that he has the skill to disagree without ever saying, “You’re wrong.” The ecclesiastical diplomat leaves anathemas and scolding to popes. His job is to deliver a message in a polite, rational, organized and clear manner.

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR2vlouEAtckoqyrMA4iPS13n0hVToi3Ij7Yw3EHDBJchVYIXFO

 

[Jerry-Jet]

I became Catholic in 2011 so forgive me if this is a dumb question.

I have no desire to go to an SSPX Church.

What I would like to know though is which sacraments in an SSPX Church are valid and which ones aren’t?

Would it be OK for me to attend an SSPX Church if i were on a journey and it was Sunday and it was the only Catholic Church in town?

Would if be OK for a Roman Catholic to be married in an SSPX Church?

Would it be OK to go to confession in an SSPX Church?

What about any of the rest of the sacraments?

Like I said I have no desire to go to one of their churches–just wanted to know which sacraments are valid or not or licit or not and which ones I could take or not and under what circumstances?

 

[Dee_S]

I became Catholic in 2011 so forgive me if this is a dumb question.

I have no desire to go to an SSPX Church.

What I would like to know though is which sacraments in an SSPX Church are valid and which ones aren’t?
Confession and marriage are invalid

Would it be OK for me to attend an SSPX Church if i were on a journey and it was Sunday and it was the only Catholic Church in town?
I would get the advice of my parish priest on this one, given the moral impediment.

Would if be OK for a Roman Catholic to be married in an SSPX Church?
No

Would it be OK to go to confession in an SSPX Church?
No

What about any of the rest of the sacraments?
Valid but illicit

Like I said I have no desire to go to one of their churches–just wanted to know which sacraments are valid or not or licit or not and which ones I could take or not and under what circumstances?
Here again, the advice of your parish priest/confessor would be best.

The link below to the canonical situation of the SSPX will provide all the answers you need, here is an extract that explains the moral impediment.
Moral impediment

In 1995, it declared it “morally illicit for the faithful to participate in these (the SSPX) Masses unless they are physically or morally impeded from participating in a Mass celebrated by a Catholic priest in good standing”, and added that “the fact of not being able to assist at the celebration of the so-called ‘Tridentine’ Mass is not considered a sufficient motive for attending such Masses.”[12] The Commission recognized the validity of the ordination of the SSPX priests, but added that they were prohibited from exercising their priestly functions because of not being properly incardinated in a diocese or religious institute in full communion with the Holy See. It also said that the **Masses they celebrated were valid but illicit, but the lack of proper faculties on the part of the SSPX priests meant that celebrations of Penance and Matrimony under their auspices were invalid. **The Pontifical Commission reaffirmed various of these statements in 2003.[13]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canonical_situation_of_the_Society_of_St._Pius_X
(even though it is wiki, the citations are excellent)

 

[Dee_S]

We are agree that not all contained in the Canon Law is Divine Law.
But even if it is not divine, if it is only a norm, if it is only temporary, we owe assent to the authority who put them in place. Now this part, obedience, is part of Deposit of Faith.

Of course the ecclesiastical law can be changed, but we never have the rights to overstep our boundaries. Meat abstinence on Friday is a pious ruling. Divine? Absolutely not. But you expect the faithful to obey in good conscience.

Priest laicization is an ecclesiastical law, serious as it is. What is contained in the Deposit of Faith is the person ordained is ordained for life. Also included in the Deposit of Faith is the legitimate authority power to give/restrict faculties.
Can the norm of laicization, all rights and responsibility of a laicized priest be changed? Of course.
Should a laicized priest, who cannot accept the laicization in good conscience advertising Mass everywhere? Hey, once a priest is always a priest, right? So why have ‘a part time job’ offering requiem Masses and keeping the stipend privately? The parish church priest is too busy anyway and his Mass schedule already full until the next decade…

True that the pope private interpretation as provided in interviews or personal writings are not law. He must put his mind into official promulgation. When he does, it have the effect of a law. Can be universal if he intend it to be universal, can be proper to individual cases.

With the SSPX, the Popes did put themselves clear following proper procedures. Trough the official letter Ecclesia Dei, trough the Summorum Pontificium, trough document Universae Ecclesiae, and trough official relations of Ecclesia Dei commision and CDF.

All contained there are proper interpretation of the law and have the effect of law per canon 16 of 1983 Code of Canon Law.
Objectively we know the ruling of the legislator (the Pope), in a formal and proper channel of giving interpretation of the law (the letter Summorum Pontificium), that the SSPX clergy are all suspended a divinis, have no canonical place in the Church.

Did the Pope take the consideration of “emergency”? John Paul give the ruling that the bishops are excommunicated after several correspondence with Mgr. Levebre personally and trough the CDF, negotiating and agreeing about having a bishop for the SSPX, including about his motive and “state of emergency” of the Church. The ruling is? The legislator (John Paul II) said it didn’t apply, wrong interpretation.

This judgement is confirmed by Benedict XVI, because he maintained the validity of the excommunication by lifting it and ruled the suspension of all SSPX clergy.
**
From the law side of seeing things, no, you can’t budge the law anymore to justify the SSPX position. Their case reached the highest possible tribunal already, which the Sacred Tradition said, demand obedience.**

The last position a person can do if unable to accept it is, “Here I stand, I can do no other, so help me God. Amen” with all its consequences.

(MY bold)
thanks for the (name removed by moderator)ut here, I like the logic, summary and conclusion.

Recently it dawned on me, thanks to earlier posts on a similar line, that it really is Mother Church’s problem to fix, as it would be with a parent of a rebellious child. We are just children ourselves in the scheme of things, so the only influence we can have is that of siblings in a similar situation.

No way we can condone or side with them, but we can offer sympathy and advise them to respect the parent.

The patience of the parent will determine how long they can endure the situation as it stands. Also their sanctions/punishments may be ignored but only up to a point.