SSPX

  • Thread starter Thread starter giuseppeTO
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I imagine the Pope will “grandfather” their current chapels in, allowing the currently-operating ones to remain without having to seek the permission of the bishop, then for the ones being built in the future, imposing that requirement.
 
YoungTradCath said:
I imagine the Pope will “grandfather” their current chapels in, allowing the currently-operating ones to remain without having to seek the permission of the bishop, then for the ones being built in the future, imposing that requirement.
Click to expand...
The same thought had crossed my mind. I can’t come up with a better idea; but then again, I don’t have to. 😃

Can you imagine being an adviser to the Holy Father on a committee that advises him and being asked to come up with a plan ASAP? No pressure. :eek:

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV 🙂
 
JReducation said:
The same thought had crossed my mind. I can’t come up with a better idea; but then again, I don’t have to. 😃

Can you imagine being an adviser to the Holy Father on a committee that advises him and being asked to come up with a plan ASAP? No pressure. :eek:

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV 🙂
Click to expand...
Maybe you’ll get a call from Apb. Vigano or Mons. Ganswein in the morning with a ticket to Rome waiting on you!
 
YoungTradCath said:
Maybe you’ll get a call from Apb. Vigano or Mons. Ganswein in the morning with a ticket to Rome waiting on you!
Click to expand...
I’d rather go to the dentist than to sit on one of those committees. Ask anyone what it takes to get me to sit still in a dentist’s chair. :eek:

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV 🙂
 
JReducation said:
The same thought had crossed my mind. I can’t come up with a better idea; but then again, I don’t have to. 😃

Can you imagine being an adviser to the Holy Father on a committee that advises him and being asked to come up with a plan ASAP? No pressure. :eek:

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV 🙂
Click to expand...
My wife and I were discussing this question as well. “Grandfathering” existing chapels seems like a bad fix (but what do I know). For one thing it gives some bishops (those wihout the SSPX in their diocese now) more authority than others (those with existing chapels). Secondly, if fully regular, the SSPX isn’t going to stay in gymnasiums for ever. So what happens when the “existing chapel” closes so they can move into a new building?

It would seem obvious that what the SSPX would want (among other things) is to have the ability to operate anywhere without the local bishops approval. This is the case with Opus Dei is it not?

We are all praying heartily for a full reconcilation. Looking at things from the SSPX perspective is illuminating as well. I’ve read recent comments by folks who go to a chape, that claim 50% of the attendants are sedevacantists and are letting be known, agreement or not, they are not coming back. I find that number credible. I think it’s possible the SSPX Bishops have realized they need to bring their people back now, or there won’t be any left to bring.
 
ConstantineTG said:
Confessions are not a separate manner. As long as their situation is regularized and the bishop overseeing them gives them the faculties and the context is that they can do so within the area they operate in, then those are valid confessions. For example, the Ukrainian Catholic priests do not need faculties from the Roman Catholic Archbishop to hear confessions from Roman Catholics. They have faculties from their own Bishop whose territory overlaps with the RC Bishop. I can see a personal prelature in the same way. The Church would have to give the SSPX the authority to define their authority and they would do so for every parish, or maybe just give a blanket authority to their priests if that’s what having a prelature means. We’d have to see what the limits and restrictions are of a prelature if and when it becomes official.
Click to expand...
I see your point. But the problem I have with that argument is that there are certain excommunications a priest can’t lift. It’s more than absolving mortal sins. For example, if that local bishop (or his predecessor) had previously excommunicated Call to Action or even SSPX individuals, I doubt if a priest outside the diocese can be of help in that matter. How would a Ukrainian priest handle that?
 
ConstantineTG said:
Can he still kick them out? Or at the very least, can he ask for those priests to be reassigned, perhaps the next set of priests will be much better.
Click to expand...
Or he could suspend them as what happened in 1975. (Don’t forget the FSSPX were legitimately formed in 1970.)

Is there anything to stop the local bishop in suspending a member of Opus Dei today?
 
I dont get why this would be so hard. The SSPX swears to Rome, they are brought back in, are given the “personal prelature” stature and that can be constructed to mean anything. I can almost guarantee that the SSPX would not sign anything if it were just up to a local Bishop if they could exist or not. That is why the personal prelature thing is so interesting. Only one has been formed and we dont really know how it works or how it could be changed for the SSPX. The Pope has ultimate authority here, he can do as he wishes. Bottom line, in my opinion the SSPX would not sign anything that has limiting factors on what sacraments it can preform. It has it’s own Bishops, I seen no reason aside from geography why that would change, and how important is geography really? Except to Big Feet.😃
Me thinks that in the US the Bishops have more perceived authority than reality.
 
ProVobis said:
Or he could suspend them as what happened in 1975. (Don’t forget the FSSPX were legitimately formed in 1970.)

Is there anything to stop the local bishop in suspending a member of Opus Dei today?
Click to expand...
Good question, Imagine the Dan Brown novel and Tom Hanks movie that would make.🤷
 
JReducation said:
I think St. Francis would roll over in his grave if he read how they speak about the pope on this blog.
Click to expand...
Perhaps they are being fed the wrong information.

I’ve never seen the Popes or the Vatican as the problem. They have been quite accommodating actually. The Agatha Christie Indult and the setting up the FSSPX Econe seminary show some compassion for the traditionalists. Even in 1988 the Vatican granted the AB his initial request though later he reneged. Do the question is, without blaming anyone, are we going through all that again? Is the climate that much different today?
 
jwinch2 said:
Between the SSPX situation and the report on the investigation of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and, by extension Pope Benedict, are having a heck of a week!

I really hope that this continues to progress in a positive direction…

Peace,
Click to expand...
👍
 
ProVobis said:
I see your point. But the problem I have with that argument is that there are certain excommunications a priest can’t lift. It’s more than absolving mortal sins. For example, if that local bishop (or his predecessor) had previously excommunicated Call to Action or even SSPX individuals, I doubt if a priest outside the diocese can be of help in that matter. How would a Ukrainian priest handle that?
Click to expand...
Its more or less the same way. The bishop would be consulted in such matters to make sure any jurisdiction lines are not crossed. But in cases like abortion for example, if the penitent is Roman Catholic, then the Eastern priest should be able to forgive sins and if the Bishop has allowed for him to lift the excommunication in this case, then he can do it as well.

I’m just thinking of regular confessions. The SSPX shouldn’t have a problem hearing confessions. But again, it depends really how the prelature is set up and how their territories are set up.
 
ConstantineTG said:
Maybe he should keep the streak going and give Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I a call today ;)👍
Click to expand...
It’s just a wonderful week, isn’t it? I just can’t WAIT until that new CDWDS architecture/music office releases a publication!
 
ProVobis said:
Or he could suspend them as what happened in 1975. (Don’t forget the FSSPX were legitimately formed in 1970.)

Is there anything to stop the local bishop in suspending a member of Opus Dei today?
Click to expand...
The problem is, at least for the local bishop, is if the SSPX has their own separate and overlapping territory over his own. Which means they are not under his authority but they do operate within what is his boundaries. A Latin bishop cannot suspend a Ukrainian priest who is in his territory because technically the Ukrainian priest is operating within his Eparchy. The only thing the Ukrainian priest cannot do is perform his ministry inside RC parishes without permission from at least the parish pastor.

If the SSPX is set up the same way, then the Latin bishop can’t do anything about it. He can petition their bishop or file a complaint with Rome, but unless the SSPX bishop or Rome agrees to his request, then he cannot do anything.

I’m sure when this becomes official, I’ll hear what will happen. I think its just better if they “kiss and make up”. But it is also interesting to see how much Local Ordinaries can do about SSPX in their canonical territories, both in a positive and a not so positive way.
 
YoungTradCath said:
It’s just a wonderful week, isn’t it? I just can’t WAIT until that new CDWDS architecture/music office releases a publication!
Click to expand...
I’m interested in this too, if for no other reason that a former Chairmen of OCP is now the current Prefect of the CDF, and he is still on the Board of Directors there.

Ironically, as much as what everyone complains about OCP, the man who was in charge of them from 1986 to 1995 led the talks to get the SSPX back into the fold.
 
ConstantineTG said:
The problem is, at least for the local bishop, is if the SSPX has their own separate and overlapping territory over his own. Which means they are not under his authority but they do operate within what is his boundaries. A Latin bishop cannot suspend a Ukrainian priest who is in his territory because technically the Ukrainian priest is operating within his Eparchy. The only thing the Ukrainian priest cannot do is perform his ministry inside RC parishes without permission from at least the parish pastor.

If the SSPX is set up the same way, then the Latin bishop can’t do anything about it. He can petition their bishop or file a complaint with Rome, but unless the SSPX bishop or Rome agrees to his request, then he cannot do anything.

I’m sure when this becomes official, I’ll hear what will happen. I think its just better if they “kiss and make up”. But it is also interesting to see how much Local Ordinaries can do about SSPX in their canonical territories, both in a positive and a not so positive way.
Click to expand...
I have a hard time imagining that set-up being the one that is settled on. Part of the benefits of this reconciliation is bringing the SSPX back into the full life of the Church; if they don’t have and don’t need any relations with the local bishop, I don’t see how that will be accomplished.

I have no idea exactly what the final arrangement will be, but I do not think “SSPX does its own thing, local bishops have little or nothing to do with it” will not be it. I imagine it would be closer to a situation where the chapels already established are “grandfathered in”, but anything further needs the permission of the local ordinary.

But then again, I don’t have the slightest idea.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top