Too many Sympathetic for SSPX

[ProVobis]

There is. It even allows one to attend Liturgy an an Orthodox Church.

Here, I think I found it.

Can. 844 §2 Whenever necessity requires or a genuine spiritual advantage commends it, and provided the danger of error or indifferentism is avoided, Christ’s faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a catholic minister, may lawfully receive the sacraments of penance, the Eucharist and anointing of the sick from noncatholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid.

 

[curlycool89]

Interesting parallel. But if you or your family member needed surgery, whom would you choose, the highly skilled surgeon, who was missing his license paperwork or the surgeon down the road who had 80% of his patients leave him and who was known to laugh and joke while doing his work and deliberately ignored the surgical procedures and standards set up in his profession?

As someone who did graduate in a profession that requires licenses (engineering, at least in Canada), I find that question offensive.

Part of this profession is a code of ethics, and 1 of those specifically is to “enhance the honour, dignity and reputation of their professions and thus the ability of the professions to serve the public interest.” Doing unlicensed work is not only illegal, it does a disservice to the profession in the eyes of the public. It is offensive to professionals who have done all the steps and who do go through the hoops of being licensed and ensuring that they meet all the guidelines and requirements.

Professionals are licensed to ensure the safety of the public. Here, engineers are required to do a certain number of hours of professional development that are submitted to the governing body each year to make sure that they are keeping up with their professional obligations. There are no such guarantees for unlicensed ones.

Your case is foolish. A professional like that would be reported and his license suspended. We’re even more serious in engineering. We’ve reprimanded and even suspended people who do a disservice to the profession even by their behaviour. Their engineering technical skills could be perfect, but we still hold people to a higher standard.

Yes, but what has AL’s disobedience have to do with now, two or three generations later? As Br JR has I believe stated once or twice, even if you go to a schismatic or preach heresy, are your kids going to be schismatic or heretics as well? Correct me, Br JR, if this is not what you said or implied.

By their own assertion, the SSPX is not schismatic and claim to be Roman Catholic. Therefore, they continue to fall under Roman Catholic Canon Law.

Wait, I thought you aren’t allowed to attend an Orthodox sevice to fulfill your Sunday obligation unless you have no other options? I know you’re allowed to attend Eastern Catholic Liturgies, but that is different. Do you have a source for this?

If there are no nearby Catholic liturgies (Latin or Eastern), then your obligation is dispensed. If you wish to attend an Orthodox Divine Liturgy you may, but it doesn’t count for anything. Your obligation is to attend a Catholic liturgy.

Here, I think I found it.

Read again:

Can. 844 §2 Whenever necessity requires or a genuine spiritual advantage commends it, and provided the danger of error or indifferentism is avoided, Christ’s faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a catholic minister, may lawfully receive the sacraments of penance, the Eucharist and anointing of the sick from noncatholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid.

Only when you can’t get to a Catholic minister.

 

[thewanderer]

Can. 844 §2 Whenever necessity requires or a genuine spiritual advantage commends it, and provided the danger of error or indifferentism is avoided, Christ’s faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a catholic minister, may lawfully receive the sacraments of penance, the Eucharist and anointing of the sick from noncatholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid.

This only allows people to attend the Orthodox liturgies if it is physically or morally impossible. I guess this is getting a little off topic as well, but what qualifies as morally impossible*?* I think physically impossible is pretty obvious, but I somehow doubt that morally impossible allows for a simple preference.

 

[TrueLight]

So, what are the consequences for the Orthodox Churches for denying the Primacy of Peter? They have valid sacraments. They have licit sacraments. They have access to sanctifying grace. They have their own code of law. The Pope has no jurisdiction over them. Why do they need Peter? Why would they want Peter?

And if there is no consequence, why should anyone who disagrees with the Pope (as the Orthodox most certainly do) want to remain in communion with him or regain communion with him?

What am I missing here? It seems like schism is of little consequence in the long run.

• PAX

EcceAgnusDei,

I have asked similar questions over and over and the answer is that it is a canonical difference.

However, aside from the canonical implications, no one seems to consider the other implications.

It’s a losing battle.

 

[TrueLight]

For the purpose of understanding their argument, this is a good suggestion; but it must come with a warning. Catholics are not allowed to agree with them. Pope Benedict actually says this many times, even in his writings on the EF. No one who is in that camp has the right to ask for the EF. That’s how seriously he takes agreement with their positions.

We have to clarify here too. They have positions and they have questions. Their questions we can share in. There is nothing wrong with asking questions. If you don’t ask, you’re not going to get an answer.

Their positions are not questions. They’re assertions and they often contradict what the current Magisterium asserts. That’s when we are not allowed to agree with them, because they are not a second Magisterium.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

You’re right. Let me rephrase, if one wants to know what the SSPX thinks, one can go straight to the source instead of wondering, but keep in mind that some of the teachings are not in sync with the teachings of the current magisterium.

 

[Brofessor]

Isn’t the SSPX Anti-Semitic in some way? I feel like the Holy Father probably should make sure there are no more holocaust deniers among their bishops before he lets them in…

 

[TrueLight]

Isn’t the SSPX Anti-Semitic in some way? I feel like the Holy Father probably should make sure there are no more holocaust deniers among their bishops before he lets them in…

How would you propose he go about doing that?

 

[Moore11]

Isn’t the SSPX Anti-Semitic in some way? I feel like the Holy Father probably should make sure there are no more holocaust deniers among their bishops before he lets them in…

Being a holocaust denier is an indicator of lack of intelligence but it is apples and oranges when it comes to valid ordinations. A bishop is a Bishop. And a priest is a priest.
What is worse to you? A Bishop who protects and hides a molester or one who just denies a historical event? Both are wrong, both are evil and yet it really has nothing to do with Holy orders. You could probably make a case for both to be pulled from active ministry, but both would still be Bishops. There are holocaust deniers in both camps. especially if you are talking about the holocaust of abortion.

 

[EcceAgnusDei]

Isn’t the SSPX Anti-Semitic in some way? I feel like the Holy Father probably should make sure there are no more holocaust deniers among their bishops before he lets them in…

Let me state that I am personally appalled at Bishop Williamson’s stance on the Holocaust. However, we can’t have someone’s belief on a historical event be a determining factor as to their canonical status within the Church. It would be odd to add to our Creeds the need to believe in this or that historical event, wouldn’t you say?

Again, I am in no way defending Bishop Williamson’s beliefs. I just think it sets a dangerous precedent to have beliefs on secular/historical matters become a part of Canon Law, Holy Orders, membership in the Church, etc.

• PAX

 

[1AugustSon7]

Ah, the holocaust: the great thread derailer!

 

[thewanderer]

Ah, the holocaust: the great thread derailer!

Well originally this thread was about the problems of being too sympathetic to the SSPX. (ie condoning their disobedience) so there has been a lot of derailing going on, but it has been aninteresting conversation.

 

[thewanderer]

You’re right. Let me rephrase, if one wants to know what the SSPX thinks, one can go straight to the source instead of wondering, but keep in mind that some of the teachings are not in sync with the teachings of the current magisterium.

I’m aware that many of them believe the disobedience was necessary, however that is contrary to what the church holds as far as I can tell and so I cannot accept it as true. That was the point I was trying to make.

 

[Timothysis]

Let me state that I am personally appalled at Bishop Williamson’s stance on the Holocaust. However, we can’t have someone’s belief on a historical event be a determining factor as to their canonical status within the Church. It would be odd to add to our Creeds the need to believe in this or that historical event, wouldn’t you say?

Again, I am in no way defending Bishop Williamson’s beliefs. I just think it sets a dangerous precedent to have beliefs on secular/historical matters become a part of Canon Law, Holy Orders, membership in the Church, etc.

• PAX

Actually, Pope Benedict himself said that had he known about Bishop Williamson’s denial of the scope and scale of the holocaust, then he wouldn’t have removed his excommunication.

 

[pnewton]

Ah, the holocaust: the great thread derailer!

I would say that St. Athanasius is the greatest derailer with the holocaust being a close second when it comes to this topic. Then there is Hitler who always keeps popping in.

 

[pnewton]

I would recommend reading a little bit about how the SSPX views the issues that exist. You will probably disagree but it will give you a better idea.

Despite the caveat of caution that JR gives, I think it is a good idea to understand why they have done what they have done. I can get my head around their reasoning, though I also see the flaw in their logic. I also see the same issue with the homosexual community when I try to understand their reasoning. Such sympathy and understanding is never a bad thing. We do not have to agree to exercise charity to each other. Now the women priest dissenters is one group I can not fathom, but who can understand women? My head doesn’t stretch that much.

 

[mattkubes]

Actually, Pope Benedict himself said that had he known about Bishop Williamson’s denial of the scope and scale of the holocaust, then he wouldn’t have removed his excommunication.

Which has always struck me as ridiculous since the Holocaust and its scope/scale are not tenets of the faith. An odd-duck position? Yes. But it had nothing to do with +Williamson’s excommunication.

 

[ProVobis]

Read again:

Only when you can’t get to a Catholic minister.

Yes, but “morally impossible” can cover a lot of ground too, especially if it’s covered under the principle of “Odia restringi et favores convenit ampliari”. Fr Z tried to explain this principle here. But I’m not saying it is. I just gave one canon. When I have time, I’ll look at the Latin.

Can. 844 §2 Whenever necessity requires or a genuine spiritual advantage commends it, and provided the danger of error or indifferentism is avoided, Christ’s faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a catholic minister, may lawfully receive the sacraments of penance, the Eucharist and anointing of the sick from noncatholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid.

 

[pnewton]

Which has always struck me as ridiculous since the Holocaust and its scope/scale are not tenets of the faith. An odd-duck position? Yes. But it had nothing to do with +Williamson’s excommunication.

Uh, that would have been the Holy Father you are calling ridiculous. Christian charity is a matter of morals and anti-semitism is a matter of charity. You may not agree with the Holy Father’s position, but it is not ridiculous, that is, subject to ridicule.

 

[mattkubes]

Uh, that would have been the Holy Father you are calling ridiculous. Christian charity is a matter of morals and anti-semitism is a matter of charity. You may not agree with the Holy Father’s position, but it is not ridiculous, that is, subject to ridicule.

Strawman: not the Holy Father, just a reported opinion. Infallibility does not protect all of his opinions. Of course it didn’t happen and who knows how he would have followed through if he had known beforehand. Maybe ridiculous wasn’t the right word, but I’m free to hold that such a decision would have been wrong. It had nothing to do with the excommunication.

 

[pnewton]

Infallibility does not protect all of his opinions.

I never said it did. This is not a question of infallibility, but of respect and authority. We should at least acknowledge and respect the Holy Father’s opinions in the area of morals. Furthermore, there is no reason to disobey the Holy Father when he asked that such opinions be kept to oneself because of the offense and scandal it brings. Certainly there is no moral obligaion to be an outspoken denier of the Holocaust from anyone’s point of view.

Is it too much to ask that even traditionalists show Pope Benedict the respect due his office in their disagreement. If one thing I have noticed in the dialogue between the SSPX and the Vatican is that the Vatican has always been respectful and conciliatory, even in disagreement. The SSPX priests and bishops will often load their dialogue with rhetoric and emotional diatribe.