SSPX update?

[Dee_S]

Again, what if the Pope took matters into his own hands and consecrated a new SSPX bishop himself? Who would he choose, and how? How might it play out, and what might the consequences be? I can think of a wide range of possibilities…

Sorry :nope: highly unlikely considering their canonical status at present.

"In his letter of 10 March 2009 concerning his remission of the excommunication of the four bishops of the Society of St Pius X, Pope Benedict XVI reaffirmed: “Until the doctrinal questions are clarified, the Society has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers - even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty - do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church.”
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canonical_situation_of_the_Society_of_St._Pius_X

Not possible for the Church to contradict themselves. Although, a cute fantasy idea

"The Catechism of the Catholic Church defines these three sins against the faith in this way: 2089 ** Incredulity** is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it.

             "**Heresy** is the                  obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be                  believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an                  obstinate doubt concerning the same;

             **apostasy** is the total                  repudiation of the Christian faith; 

             **schism** is the refusal                  of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the                  members of the Church subject to him." *Code of Canon Law*                  c.751]"

“There is within the Church today a special danger for those who, often for seemingly legitimate reasons (abuses of the liturgy, the open promotion of heresy even by clergy, and similar causes), have sought refuge in traditionalist movements on the margins of the Church.”

“These groups, distinguishable from those who love the Tridentine tradition of the Mass and sacraments and who celebrate them in Communion with the Pope, go their own way outside of the laws of the Church.”

“They typically rationalize their disobedience by attacking the Second Vatican Council, the current liturgical rites, ecumenical and interreligious dialogue, and often Pope John Paul II/Pope Benedict XVI personally, never distinguishing between teaching and law on the one hand, and the abuse of it by dissenters and the disobedient on the other.”

“These groups, such as the Society of St. Pius X, of Pius V, the “We Resist You to Your Face” movement, Br. Dimond and Holy Family Monastery, make ready use of scandals to gain support among the unwary, who, discouraged by their local situation, may think they are joining a more perfect orthodoxy and a more loyal remnant of Catholics.”

**“However, there is a great danger that starting from the material schism of refusing submission to the Pope, that all these groups have in common, the Catholic cannot long maintain the schizophrenic position of saying they are being submissive to the Pope while disobeying him.” **

“At some point they must choose and formally adhere to the schism of the group. In some cases the group identity depends on some formal repudiation of the “Novus Ordo” Church, very effectively hastening the spiritual demise of the lay adherent.”
.
“Also unfortunate for such souls is the fact that these ultra-traditionalist groups profess to be doctrinally orthodox, an orthodoxy which necessarily includes the teaching that Outside the Church There Is No Salvation…”

"Unlike the non-Catholic Christian, can the super-orthodox claim invincible ignorance of this teaching? Can they escape the condemnation of Pope Boniface VIII, who in first elaborating it said, “this authority, although it is given to man and is exercised by man, is not human, but rather divine, and has been given by the divine Word to Peter himself and to his successors in him, whom the Lord acknowledged an established rock, when he said to Peter himself: Whatsoever you shall bind etc. [Matt. 16:19]. Therefore, whosoever resists this power so ordained by God, resists the order of God …?”

"No wonder that given enough time such groups inevitably produce those who claim that the See of Peter is vacant, since the logic of their schismatic attitude is ultimately irreconcilable with the doctrine of papal primacy, as enunciated by both Pope Boniface and Vatican I."
ewtn.com/expert/answers/heresy_schism_apostasy.htm

As I’ve mentioned before on this thread, the mentality that tends towards ‘No Salvation within the Church’ is illogical given the above qualifications.

 

[Cicero54]

Their leaders do seem to imbue the worst of clericalism when Bsp. Williamson’s biggest public pet peeves are women who exercise their human right to be educated, and women who wear trousers.

We all see Christ as the center of the Mass, and as much as we revere and honor our holy priests, it is wrong when they want to parade their vocations and conferred powers, lording it over the faithful. “It is I who confect the gifts. It is I, in persona Christi, who forgives sins. It is I alone who am worthy to touch the Holy Sacrament.” We all can use a little less of I and a lot more of Thee.

Bishop Williamson has been suspended from the SSPX. In a move to draw off priests and faithfull from the Society, he has become somewhat of a belligerent and a trial for Archbishop Fellay. Williamson is operating on his own and doesn’t, nor has he ever been a spokeman for the SSPX. I’m not sure where his disobedience to his superior places him exactly, but stay tuned, we may have another bishop Tuk on our hands.

Cicero

JMJ

 

[Mike30]

Aside from the fact that you have to wait many generations to do this, the Anglicans have not been accepted back unconditionally. They have several conditions that they have to meet, besides the profession of the Catholic faith.

1. They must accept Vatican II and its documents.
2. They must adopt the CCC
3. They must accept that the OF is valid and licit.
4. They must accept the the pope is the only authority who can say what is and is not part of tradition
5. They must accept to be governed by whomever the Holy See appoints
6. Their bishops can no longer be bishops, they are reduced to presbyters
7. Their clergy must go through a formation program before ordination
8. They must be conditionally ordained
9. As far as absolution is concerned, the Church must take them through radical sanation, which is not an easy process
10. They must be self-supporting
11. Once this generation of priests dies, the Anglican form of the mass may die as well, because newly ordained priests are not allowed to celebrate it. That question is still on the table. Unless the permission is granted to any priest who wants to celebrate it, the ite will die. Right now, it’s a case by case basis and there are not many Latin Rite priests asking to celebrate the Anglican form.

They are a Church as soon as they break away, because they have bishops. Their clergy and probably their laity will be excommunicated as was the case with the Orthodox and the Roman Catholics until the 1960s and 70s. We lifted the excommunication against them and they lifted the excommunications against us.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

If they do enter into schism would it be a fair statement to say that they would be seen in much the same way as the 0rthodox, the Anglicans and even the protestants are today? As merely another Church or group following a sightly different but still valid path to God, or would they still be looked upon in basically the same way as they are today, when they are vilified and hated by many?

 

[Dee_S]

I thought that the response of SSPX (thus far) to the statements of Archbishop Mueller was less reactive then I might have expected- sspx.org/sspx_and_rome/is_the_sspx_heretical_1_11-30_2012.htm

Certainly a quick enough reactionat that. Suppose they’re not used to the boot being on the other foot:shrug: It was always ‘one-way traffic’ previously…
Thursday, June 14, 2012

                     ** 200 SSPXers sign petition calling Benedict XVI a heretic and protesting a return to Rome**

“May we remind you that this is the very same man (as Cardinal Ratzinger) whom Archbishop Lefebvre felt he could not trust in 1988? That this is the same man who has professed heresies that he has never retracted, as Bishop Tissier de Mallerais has pointed out on several occasions?”
ad-orientem.blogspot.com/2012/06/200-sspxers-sign-petition-calling.html

From the article** “Is the SSPX Heretical” Nov 30,2012**

“It is less usual and rather ironic for the SSPX to be called ‘heretical’ on a par with the avant-garde modernists who reject Vatican II as being outdated.** During the doctrinal discussions, as explained by Bishop Fellay, the Roman theologians accused us of having a Protestant attitude because we followed our own judgment against the Church Magisterium**,…”
sspx.org/sspx_and_rome/is_the_sspx_heretical_1_11-30_2012.htm

 

[Dee_S]

If they do enter into schism would it be a fair statement to say that they would be seen in much the same way as the 0rthodox, the Anglicans and even the protestants are today? As merely another Church or group following a sightly different but still valid path to God, or would they still be looked upon in basically the same way as they are today, when they are vilified and hated by many?

There is an old saying that goes something like this “one must identify with society, in order to be protected by it”. The same principle seems at work here, in that the SSPX rejects & openly rebels against Mother Church, attracting and calling down upon itself the censure and dislike of those who belong/identify with it. Naturally so, in so many ways, as their challenges and insults imply a criticism of all who belong to the Church and not just the Pope and Magisterium.

Who can get away with insulting & criticizing a mother (the Church) and a father (the Holy Father) without getting an angry reaction from their children (the Faithful)?:blackeye:

 

[Melchior_1]

If they do enter into schism would it be a fair statement to say that they would be seen in much the same way as the 0rthodox, the Anglicans and even the protestants are today? As merely another Church or group following a sightly different but still valid path to God, or would they still be looked upon in basically the same way as they are today, when they are vilified and hated by many?

Well, first off, If they go into schism the SSPX becomes what they fight against`. Second, it took centuries for Protestants and Orthodox to reach the status where they are now. Please not that Vatican II documents and Pope Benedict XVI’s comments reflect current Protestants, not the ones during Luther’s time.

 

[Mike30]

Well, first off, If they go into schism the SSPX becomes what they fight against`. Second, it took centuries for Protestants and Orthodox to reach the status where they are now. Please not that Vatican II documents and Pope Benedict XVI’s comments reflect current Protestants, not the ones during Luther’s time.

Still the above groups are now above reproach apparently as are other groups, who were at one time in a similar situation.

When the current generation of the SSPX is gone, would not those remaining in the SSPX be entitled to the same status and consideration as is given the other groups?

 

[Mike30]

There is an old saying that goes something like this “one must identify with society, in order to be protected by it”. The same principle seems at work here, in that the SSPX rejects & openly rebels against Mother Church, attracting and calling down upon itself the censure and dislike of those who belong/identify with it. Naturally so, in so many ways, as their challenges and insults imply a criticism of all who belong to the Church and not just the Pope and Magisterium.

Who can get away with insulting & criticizing a mother (the Church) and a father (the Holy Father) without getting an angry reaction from their children (the Faithful)?:blackeye:

Surely you are not suggesting that the SSPX is the only group within the Church today that has engaged in such heinous activities?

 

[ProVobis]

Still the above groups are now above reproach apparently as are other groups, who were at one time in a similar situation.

When the current generation of the SSPX is gone, would not those remaining in the SSPX be entitled to the same status and consideration as is given the other groups?

Yes, if you hold on to the principle that children (or the next generation) are not responsible for their parents’ actions. However, the Pope has the final say on this.

 

[pnewton]

When the current generation of the SSPX is gone, would not those remaining in the SSPX be entitled to the same status and consideration as is given the other groups?

IAs merely another Church or group following a sightly different but still valid path to God, or would they still be looked upon in basically the same way as they are today, when they are vilified and hated by many?

Other non-Catholic Christians are not “above reproach.” The SSPX is not vilified or hated by so many. They do not desire to be outside of the Catholic Church.

 

[JReducation]

The issue is not that non-Catholics are beyond reproach. The change in heart by the Vatican is due to the fact that the Vatican recognizes

a. The Catholic Church, especially the Latin Church, is not beyond reproach. People in glass churches should not throw stones.

b. There is a group of Catholics who believes that unless you reproach non-Catholics you’re not doing your Catholic duty, which is total bunk. If we reproach non-Catholics we make no progress, because they expect that from us, just as we expect it from them.

c. These Churches and ecclesial communities have evolved into complex faith systems. While there are errors in their theology, nonetheless they are true faith systems and they are not simple. As Pope Benedict recently said in one of his weekly catechesis, we can’t take a black and white approach to Protestantism or Orthodoxy. They are not what they started out as.

I do believe that there is an almost perverted wish in some people to see non-Catholics crushed or converted, with nothing in between. That kind of person is very frightening. We must be careful not to let them influence us.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[1AugustSon7]

The issue is not that non-Catholics are beyond reproach. The change in heart by the Vatican is due to the fact that the Vatican recognizes

a. The Catholic Church, especially the Latin Church, is not beyond reproach. People in glass churches should not throw stones

Brother, I think statements like the above run the risk of being too easily interpreted as the Church being fundamentally and absolutely the same or equal to (all) other Churches/ecclesial communities. Only with the Church united to Saint Peter and his successors is there a special promise attached that the gates of hell cannot prevail against her. So throwing rocks at that Church might break the windows, still the foundation can never be broken. This makes for an important difference. Consequently, while I agree with the thrust of what you are saying here, especially from a human and practical perspective, I think it might be less objectionable to phrase this such that it doesn’t sound like the Catholic Church can really (or even easily) be broken as, e.g., a ‘glass church’ could be by having stones thrown at it.

Aside from that quibble, God bless you Brother and thank you for all the helpful information you are providing us with here on this complicated issue.

 

[Dee_S]

Surely you are not suggesting that the SSPX is the only group within the Church today that has engaged in such heinous activities?

This thread concerns the SSPX, my post remarks on their challenging Holy Mother Church.

The only other high profile case that Archbishop Mueller is working on is the LCWR and they may be resisting verbally, but are accepting the Vatican intervention and correction.

"WASHINGTON – The Vatican has launched a crackdown on the umbrella group that represents most of America’s 55,000 Catholic nuns, saying that the group was not speaking out strongly enough against gay marriage, abortion and women’s ordination.

Rome also chided the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR) for sponsoring conferences that featured “a prevalence of certain radical feminist themes incompatible with the Catholic faith.”

The Vatican’s disciplinary action against the LCWR was announced on Wednesday, one day before Pope Benedict XVI marked seven years as pontiff."
usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/religion/story/2012-04-18/american-nuns-vatican/54396560/1

The SSPX have ‘broken away’ and refuse full communion and the authority of the Church. Please enlighten us if you know of a comparable group at present

 

[JReducation]

Brother, I think statements like the above run the risk of being too easily interpreted as the Church being fundamentally and absolutely the same or equal to (all) other Churches/ecclesial communities. Only with the Church united to Saint Peter and his successors is there a special promise attached that the gates of hell cannot prevail against her. So throwing rocks at that Church might break the windows, still the foundation can never be broken. This makes for an important difference. Consequently, while I agree with the thrust of what you are saying here, especially from a human and practical perspective, I think it might be less objectionable to phrase this such that it doesn’t sound like the Catholic Church can really (or even easily) be broken as, e.g., a ‘glass church’ could be by having stones thrown at it.

Aside from that quibble, God bless you Brother and thank you for all the helpful information you are providing us with here on this complicated issue.

This is not my statement. I just paraphrased what the Holy See put into a formal and official document on ecumenism that it made public to the Catholic hierarchy and to non-Catholic ecclesial communities and Churches. The Holy See acknowledged that the separation between Christians was just as much the fault of the Latin Church as it was of those who opposed the Latin Church.

The Holy See has also acknowledged that the Latin Church has treated the other 22 Catholic Churches as if they were non-existent. Pope Benedict recently said this when the announcement was made that there was going to be a consistory and a cardinal was an Eastern Catholic. He acknowledged that the Latin Church, even in her writings, has always promoted the “one holy Roman Catholic Church,” to the chagrin, disappointment and exclusion of the Eastern Catholics.

In revising the Code of Canon Law, Pope Paul VI wanted it to be clear that the new code was only for the Latin Church and that the other Catholic Churches were free to write their own Code of Canon Law that reflected their tradition and their theology, to be submitted to the pontiff for approval. If one reads it, in some parts, it’s very different from our own.

Pope Paul did not finish the work, but Pope John Paul II did. When he promulgated the Code of Canon Law for the Oriental Churches he acknowledged that the Roman Catholic Church owed something to the Eastern Catholic Churches.

In a more recent statement, Pope Benedict said that the Orthodox and the Catholics are the two lungs of the Church, which is a much more conciliatory statement than, “You’re wrong on this and that and we’re right.”

The truth is that we are right on matters of doctrine, but we were very wrong on matters of discipline. The layman in the pew was more affected by the laws than by the doctrine. The doctrine was an issue for the theologians on all sides. Then, just as it is today, most layman do not sit and analyze doctrine. However, they do feel the benefits or the unpleasantness of the disciplines, depending on the case.

They also felt the anger and at times mean spirit of both sides. The arguments often derailed from doctrine to name calling and condescension. This is what the Vatican is trying very hard to avoid in its dealings with the SSPX. It’s trying to avoid a war of words. Unfortunately, there are some who seem to enjoy wars of words. This only feeds fuel to the fire.

Everyone needs to back off and let the people who can make decisions be the ones to talk to each other and decide how to best close this chapter of our history before it turns into a full blown schism. That’s not the image that we want the world to have of Catholicism, nor the heritage that we want to leave our children.

Enough is enough. It’s time that we all grow up and stop the bickering over who is right and who is wrong. Rather we should begin by building trust that leads to friendships, which facilitates discussion about similarities and differences. These are processes and they take time. This was what was missing in the past, the processes. There was a great deal of arrogance and very little empathy. Even when someone is wrong, we have a duty to try to understand their point of view and to understand how they feel about it. Otherwise, dialogue is fruitless. This applies to Catholics and non-Catholics.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Aramis]

Yes, if you hold on to the principle that children (or the next generation) are not responsible for their parents’ actions. However, the Pope has the final say on this.

Canon Law makes a distinction between material schismatics and formal schismatics & manifest schismatics. The specific terms are not in the 1993 CIC, but are present in other elements of Canon Law.

The Orthodox, and others born into schism, are material schismatics - they are in schism, but it’s not by formal act for which they are personally culpable.

Formal schismatics are those who openly state schism or who have been formally excommunicated and/or anathematized for their schism. They are usually held to be culpable for their schismatic acts.

Manifest schismatics are those who commit schismatic acts or make schismatic statements but do not yet bear formal sanction as schismatics. They may or may not be culpable, but generally are not labeled as schismatic prior to trial, and if found guilty but not culpable, may not become formal schismatics.

There are manifest schismatics amongst the SSPX; to date, I’ve not heard of any being tried under canon law for this, and Rome prefers not to use the terms openly for manifest nor material schismatics out of christian charity, and in hopes of rapprochement and correction. The SSPX as a whole can’t be said to be formally in schism until tried or electing to be in schism. And while the leadership has made a number of provocatively worded statements, but they stop short of manifest schismaticism.

 

[JReducation]

Canon Law makes a distinction between material schismatics and formal schismatics & manifest schismatics. The specific terms are not in the 1993 CIC, but are present in other elements of Canon Law.

The Orthodox, and others born into schism, are material schismatics - they are in schism, but it’s not by formal act for which they are personally culpable.

Formal schismatics are those who openly state schism or who have been formally excommunicated and/or anathematized for their schism. They are usually held to be culpable for their schismatic acts.

Manifest schismatics are those who commit schismatic acts or make schismatic statements but do not yet bear formal sanction as schismatics. They may or may not be culpable, but generally are not labeled as schismatic prior to trial, and if found guilty but not culpable, may not become formal schismatics.

There are manifest schismatics amongst the SSPX; to date, I’ve not heard of any being tried under canon law for this, and Rome prefers not to use the terms openly for manifest nor material schismatics out of christian charity, and in hopes of rapprochement and correction. The SSPX as a whole can’t be said to be formally in schism until tried or electing to be in schism. And while the leadership has made a number of provocatively worded statements, but they stop short of manifest schismaticism.

I’m not so sure that it’s Rome trying to be diplomatic with Protestants and Orthodox why she does not use terms as schismatic. She certainly says that we’re in schism.

I think that it’s because of Canon I. Canon one specifically says that what’s in the code only applies to Catholics in the Latin Church. It does not even apply to all Catholics. Material, formal and manifest schismatics, as well as heretic, are canonical terms. One can’t apply canonical terms to those who are not Latin Catholics.

Terms such as schism and heresy are not legal terms. They are used differently. One can say that this is a heresy or that we’re in schism without charging either side with being a heretic or schismatic.

To it’s like being American. Everyone who is born on the American continent is American. However, the term is also used in legal language to refer to those born in the United States. The context determines the correct term to use. In context A one can say that a Protestant is a material heretic, but not in context B.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[pnewton]

Brother, I think statements like the above run the risk of being too easily interpreted as the Church being fundamentally and absolutely the same or equal to (all) other Churches/ecclesial communities.

I think it is only a risk to those who already believe, or want to believe this. People of both extremes are subject to this temptation. On one hand, we have those ignorant of the Catholic faith that want to see all Christians, or in some cases all religions, as equal paths God. On the other hand, we have statements from the traditional side that says the Church is teaching indifferentism because they want a good reason to stay “special” or as it is said, “the remnant.”

I have never seen anything from the Church that teaches indifferentism. The Holy Father has always maintianed precision. One must add to or twist his words to get to a position of indifferentism

 

[JReducation]

I think it is only a risk to those who already believe, or want to believe this. People of both extremes are subject to this temptation. On one hand, we have those ignorant of the Catholic faith that want to see all Christians, or in some cases all religions, as equal paths God. On the other hand, we have statements from the traditional side that says the Church is teaching indifferentism because they want a good reason to stay “special” or as it is said, “the remnant.”

I have never seen anything from the Church that teaches indifferentism. The Holy Father has always maintianed precision. One must add to or twist his words to get to a position of indifferentism

You are correct. From Pope John XXIII to Pope Benedict XVI, no pope has ever promoted indifferentism or separatism.

Indifferentism is really a subcomponent of relativism. Separatism is a subcomponent of division. Both are extremes to be avoided. The only way to avoid them is through honesty.

Here is the key, just because some ecclesial communities are not forthcoming in their admission of culpability as it pertains to the division of Christianity, it does not follow that we Catholics hold back from admitting our culpability. At the end of the day, each of us has to stand before God as an individual, not as a collective.

If I’m culpable of either indifferentism or separatism, I will have to answer for it. I’m not really very concerned about what my non-Catholic brother or sister is willing to admit or what he tries to deny. I’m more concern about not denying my own culpability in the matter or that of my ancestors.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[1AugustSon7]

Brother, I agree with all of this, and what I meant by my qualifications in my previous statement - e.g., about from a human and practical perspective - was meant to cover this. I know that ‘stone throwing’, in certain categories that tend to prevail when groups simply argue with each other, goes both ways: both/all sides did things, or their members or representatives did, that were legitimately objectionable, and never necessarily the best, wisest or most prudent decision or action. Consequently, there exist legitimate complaints and both sides can walk away embarassed -especially when the outside observer sees the whole squabble as ridiculous and is, as a consequence, effectively scandalized by it.

Still, the Church united to St. Peter and his successors remains the safe harbour of salvation, quite in spite of the serious faults and deficiencies of her members though, to be sure, this scarcely excuses them. At that point, to equate or place the Church united to her head on earth (i.e., the Pope or the Papacy) with a glass-house seems to undermine and misrepresent the unique reality of that Church’s ultimate infallibility: if demonic forces cannot prevail against her, surely neither can human ones; nor, moreover, can ‘stone throwing’, be it howsoever true or deserved (when aimed at the members at fault).

This is not my statement. I just paraphrased what the Holy See put into a formal and official document on ecumenism that it made public to the Catholic hierarchy and to non-Catholic ecclesial communities and Churches. The Holy See acknowledged that the separation between Christians was just as much the fault of the Latin Church as it was of those who opposed the Latin Church.

The Holy See has also acknowledged that the Latin Church has treated the other 22 Catholic Churches as if they were non-existent. Pope Benedict recently said this when the announcement was made that there was going to be a consistory and a cardinal was an Eastern Catholic. He acknowledged that the Latin Church, even in her writings, has always promoted the “one holy Roman Catholic Church,” to the chagrin, disappointment and exclusion of the Eastern Catholics.

In revising the Code of Canon Law, Pope Paul VI wanted it to be clear that the new code was only for the Latin Church and that the other Catholic Churches were free to write their own Code of Canon Law that reflected their tradition and their theology, to be submitted to the pontiff for approval. If one reads it, in some parts, it’s very different from our own.

Pope Paul did not finish the work, but Pope John Paul II did. When he promulgated the Code of Canon Law for the Oriental Churches he acknowledged that the Roman Catholic Church owed something to the Eastern Catholic Churches.

In a more recent statement, Pope Benedict said that the Orthodox and the Catholics are the two lungs of the Church, which is a much more conciliatory statement than, “You’re wrong on this and that and we’re right.”

The truth is that we are right on matters of doctrine, but we were very wrong on matters of discipline. The layman in the pew was more affected by the laws than by the doctrine. The doctrine was an issue for the theologians on all sides. Then, just as it is today, most layman do not sit and analyze doctrine. However, they do feel the benefits or the unpleasantness of the disciplines, depending on the case.

They also felt the anger and at times mean spirit of both sides. The arguments often derailed from doctrine to name calling and condescension. This is what the Vatican is trying very hard to avoid in its dealings with the SSPX. It’s trying to avoid a war of words. Unfortunately, there are some who seem to enjoy wars of words. This only feeds fuel to the fire.

Everyone needs to back off and let the people who can make decisions be the ones to talk to each other and decide how to best close this chapter of our history before it turns into a full blown schism. That’s not the image that we want the world to have of Catholicism, nor the heritage that we want to leave our children.

Enough is enough. It’s time that we all grow up and stop the bickering over who is right and who is wrong. Rather we should begin by building trust that leads to friendships, which facilitates discussion about similarities and differences. These are processes and they take time. This was what was missing in the past, the processes. There was a great deal of arrogance and very little empathy. Even when someone is wrong, we have a duty to try to understand their point of view and to understand how they feel about it. Otherwise, dialogue is fruitless. This applies to Catholics and non-Catholics.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Mike30]

This thread concerns the SSPX, my post remarks on their challenging Holy Mother Church.

The only other high profile case that Archbishop Mueller is working on is the LCWR and they may be resisting verbally, but are accepting the Vatican intervention and correction.

"WASHINGTON – The Vatican has launched a crackdown on the umbrella group that represents most of America’s 55,000 Catholic nuns, saying that the group was not speaking out strongly enough against gay marriage, abortion and women’s ordination.

Rome also chided the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR) for sponsoring conferences that featured “a prevalence of certain radical feminist themes incompatible with the Catholic faith.”

The Vatican’s disciplinary action against the LCWR was announced on Wednesday, one day before Pope Benedict XVI marked seven years as pontiff."
usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/religion/story/2012-04-18/american-nuns-vatican/54396560/1

The SSPX have ‘broken away’ and refuse full communion and the authority of the Church. Please enlighten us if you know of a comparable group at present

A comparable complete group at present, no. However, in other orders there are individuals and groups who constantly challenge the Church and her doctrines and dogmas.Constantly. So it would appear that the safe path of action would be as follows.

1. pay lip service to what the Church says and publically swear fealty
2. continue to attack, disparage and otherwise refute that which the Church truly teaches
3. when called on the issue, deny that you are in conflict with the Church,state publically that you are a true son or daughter of the Chucrh and blithely continue on your way, teaching whatever you want and doing whatever you want…

At least the SSPX is honest about their position as opposed to the others as mentioned.