Why don’t members of the SSPX simply switch to the FSSP?

[HomeschoolDad]

twf:

HomeschoolDad:

I don’t know if Bishop Fellay has any sort of succession plan to consecrate “replacement” bishops, or if that is even seen as an issue “on the table”.

If he does, he will “re” excommunicate himself…unless somehow the Pope agrees to the proposal. If he doesn’t, I don’t see how the SSPX could survive. Once all current living bishops die, that’s the last generation of SSPX priests, no? Unless I’m missing something, SSPX has a ticking clock…they either reconcile fully with Rome prior to that happening, or they go full blown schism and start consecrating new bishops.

No. They will be able to find a bishop to ordain their priests. They will either find a bishop in full communion with the Church (which would be their first choice) or find a out a bishop not in communion to do the ordination (which would be their desperate action).

I would certainly hope this would be their first choice.

To do otherwise, when you get right down to brass tacks, is tantamount to saying “the new rite of consecrating a bishop is doubtfully valid, and Ordaining Bishop X may not be a bishop at all”. Some traditionalists say this. Some traditionalists say there is no “doubtfully” about it, the rite is just invalid, pure and simple. I do not say this, I don’t think the SSPX says this, and I know the FSSP doesn’t say this. The FSSP doesn’t have bishops because they don’t need bishops. In an absolute sense, the SSPX doesn’t need bishops either. There are plenty of bishops who will confer confirmation in the traditional Latin Rite — Bishop Jugis of Charlotte NC is one of them. Many bishops have ordained priests for the FSSP.

 

[phil19034]

To do otherwise, when you get right down to brass tacks, is tantamount to saying “the new rite of consecrating a bishop is doubtfully valid, and Ordaining Bishop X may not be a bishop at all”.

If the SSPX is “forced” to have ordinations by a bishop outside the church, it will be very important to see why.

It will most likely because no bishop would be willing to ordain their priests according to the status quo.

The major issue that the SSPX has is that the vast majority of their priests (eps the ones who are willing to go online and talk) believe that the Ordinary Form (while valid) is detrimental to the faith.

Their view is that that the prayers that were removed from the mass & the some of the common postures (like the priest’s back to the tabernacle) have unintended consequences (at best) of causing people not to believe in the teachings of the Church.

SSPX priests are not afraid to say these things online. Most other priests who agree with them, but who are in full communion with the Church, know not to discuss these things online.

As long as the SSPX officially/publicly takes the stance the Mass of Paul VI causes people to lose their faith, I can’t see many bishops being OK with them.

However, in the SSPX’s defense, I think it’s interesting how some people are quick to condemn the SSPX for their errors, but refuse to condemn other priests other heretical/schematic public statements, behavior, etc.

It seems to me that that any conservative/traditional heretical/schematic behavior/thoughts are quickly condemned, but any leftist heretical/schematic behavior/thoughts are often excused away or overlooked.

How about we just treat all heretical & schematic behavior/thoughts/actions all the same way?

 

[sealabeag]

So he he committed a schismatic act but he wasn’t a schismatic because he didn’t mean to be a schismatic?

 

[phil19034]

So he he committed a schismatic act but he wasn’t a schismatic because he didn’t mean to be a schismatic?

Yes. Same way that we have many people in the pews who believe in heretical things but are not “formal heretics.”

Do we go around calling every Catholic who uses birth control is a heretic? No. But they are engaging in heresy if they don’t believe it’s sinful.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

HomeschoolDad:

To do otherwise, when you get right down to brass tacks, is tantamount to saying “the new rite of consecrating a bishop is doubtfully valid, and Ordaining Bishop X may not be a bishop at all”.

If the SSPX is “forced” to have ordinations by a bishop outside the church, it will be very important to see why.

It will most likely because no bishop would be willing to ordain their priests according to the status quo.

I don’t think it would ever come to that, especially if the SSPX could move at least somewhat in the same direction as the FSSP is now. The FSSP has no problem (that I’m aware of) finding bishops to ordain their priests.

I know this would go against collegiality and all that, but if a bishop refused to ordain an SSPX priest, couldn’t the Pope use this authority to tell the bishop “oh, yes, you will ordain this priest”? Perhaps the Pope could do it himself. Ordained by the Pope — what an honor!

Imagining Pope Francis ordaining a priest for the service of the SSPX is interesting to contemplate, but stranger things have happened, no doubt.

 

[sealabeag]

The average man in the pew that has heretical beliefs is not committing public acts of heresy.
Sorry I just can’t see the sense in your argument. He committed a schismatic act, I can’t see how he’s not a schismatic.
I accept that I may very well be wrong, though. Maybe “officially” he’s not and someone could provide me with evidence from canon law or something.
Either way, not a fan.

 

[phil19034]

I accept that I may very well be wrong, though. Maybe “officially” he’s not and someone could provide me with evidence from canon law or something.
Either way, not a fan.

I’m not a fan of his either. However, the Vatican has stated several times that the SSPX has never been in schism.

 

[sealabeag]

Really? Even though the bishops were excommunicated and the act declared a schismatic act? Could you point me to the proof of this? Thanks

 

[phil19034]

Really? Even though the bishops were excommunicated and the act declared a schismatic act? Could you point me to the proof of this? Thanks

There are plenty of them around - I don’t have time to search and find them. The only thing they have ever said is that the SSPX’s status is canonically “irregular”

You have to think about this logically for a moment. If the Church declares them to be schismatic, then they will have to declare every lay person who attends them to be schismatic too.

The Church has never considered the lay people who attend Mass with the SSPX to be outside of the Church. And to make things even more clear, Pope Francis granted the SSPX the faculties to hear confessions and witness weddings.

So they can’t be in schism if the Pope is granting them faculties.

 

[Maximian]

Not that anyone who talks about lay members of Sspx would know that…

 

[sealabeag]

I know the society isn’t in schism and that the excommunications were lifted and that the faculties were restored and that those attending aren’t in schism, I know all that.
All I’m saying is that I don’t see the difference between “person who committed schismatic act” and “schismatic”. Again, not saying there is no difference, there probably is. Just looking for the facts. I’m no expert on these things. I only stuck my nose into the debate as seeing someone (not you) defending the SSPX grinds my gears somewhat.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

sealabeag:

So he he committed a schismatic act but he wasn’t a schismatic because he didn’t mean to be a schismatic?

Yes. Same way that we have many people in the pews who believe in heretical things but are not “formal heretics.”

Do we go around calling every Catholic who uses birth control is a heretic? No. But they are engaging in heresy if they don’t believe it’s sinful.

Anybody who has read my chicken-scratch here on CAF for any period of time knows full well what a foe of contraception and dissent from Humanae vitae (et al) that I am. Much more could I say about that.

However, as much of a fire-breathing dragon as I am about it, I’m not sure I would call a dissident from HV a “heretic” — a dissident here being distinguished from someone who knows the teaching, accepts the teaching, yet still sins due to weakness or some anticipated temporal advantage. Dangerously and temerariously dissenting from a perennial common Christian moral teaching (all Christians accepted this teaching until the early 20th century), yes. Taking it upon themselves to be amateur moral theologians who anticipate “development of doctrine”, yes. Even being fairly restrained and saying that Paul VI’s case in HV was not made the best way it could have been made, yes. But a heretic, either material or formal? I’m not so sure.

Even when Dr Rock “invented” the Pill. at first his mindset was that medical intervention in a woman’s otherwise natural ovulation cycle might fall under the rubric of “natural family planning” and not be contraception in the strict sense. This turned out not to be true, but it was a perfectly legitimate question to pose. I have even wondered if the Church might ever accept as morally licit the use of condoms solely to prevent transmission of disease, with the prevention of pregnancy being a foreseen but unintended and unwanted consequence, principle of double effect, if you will. I don’t know if that’s ever been considered, but if it were considered and rejected by the magisterium, I would graciously accept their decision. I wouldn’t keep dissenting and walk away saying eppur si muove.

 

[phil19034]

All I’m saying is that I don’t see the difference between “person who committed schismatic act” and “schismatic”.

I think to understand my point, you have be clear on what a schismatic is.

A schismatic:

• denies Church dogma regarding the Papacy
• or denies that the current Pope is the Pope

The reason why the Orthodox, Old Catholics, etc are all schismatic is because they flat out deny the authority of the Pope the way the Catholic Church dogmatically teaches it. Therefore, they are schismatic.

The reason why the SSPV and other schismatic “traditionalist” groups are schismatic is because they believe there has been no Pope since Pope Pius XII.

The archbishop never believed those schematic things. He publically disobeyed the Pope & publicly disagreed with the Pope, but he never denied Church dogma about the Papacy. Nor did he deny that the Pope was the Pope.

The archbishop performed an act that a schematic group would do (perform an ordination without permission), but he wasn’t a formal schismatic.

Again: I totally disagree with why he did what he did. I think what he did was wrong. But I don’t think he was a schismatic. I think he simply mistrusted the Pope, the Roman Curia, or both - and did what he thought he had to do.

 

[phil19034]

Not that anyone who talks about lay members of Sspx would know that…

It was just an FYI

 

[Margaret_Ann]

And Sisters (who are religious).

 

[commenter]

If the Archbishop had established “parishes” with pastors instead of chapels, and “Dioceses” with ordinaries instead of districts, then this would be schismatic. In effect they would have their own laity.

Some may argue that in 2020 they do now, have many laity who have no current connection, maybe not even past connection, to any parish or diocese…their chapel is their only “parish”. They may pray for the Ordinary but are more affected by the district superintendent, or overall superior.

 

[po18guy]

I could say that ego drove them to division. I get excoriated for doing so. What other force is there which causes division? Who is it in the spiritual realm that delights in division?

 

[Peeps]

could say that ego drove them to division. I get excoriated for doing so. What other force is there which causes division? Who is it in the spiritual realm that delights in division?

Interesting question, and it’s more so considering that yesterday’s Gospel reading was part of Our Lord Jesus’ prayer that His followers might be “one.”

One force that can cause people to foster division is mental illness. I’ve read quite a few pieces that suggest that Martin Luther suffered from scruples and therefore, could never be at piece even after receiving absolution in the Confessional.

My husband suffers from clinical depression. It has been under control for years, but during times when he was having problems, he could sabotage his family or friends with his upsetting and illogical conversation that somehow sounded logical because he’s so intelligent.

 

[po18guy]

First: prayer.

Now, having prayed over your situation, I think you have evaluated it extremely well. Early morning musings: Humility, submission and obedience are mankind’s triple threat. Genesis 3 seems to encapsulate this.

When we depart from it, we contribute to the brokenness of the world, society, family, self. Freedom to us seems to b e everything, but abuse of that freedom has produced the mess around us.

Humility, submission and obedience are not weaknesses, they are strength; they are medicine for a wounded world. Which leads us back to prayer. Petitioning the divine Physician is a good place both to begin as well as end.

 

[phil19034]

If the Archbishop had established “parishes” with pastors instead of chapels, and “Dioceses” with ordinaries instead of districts, then this would be schismatic. In effect they would have their own laity.

agreed

Some may argue that in 2020 they do now, have many laity who have no current connection, maybe not even past connection, to any parish or diocese…their chapel is their only “parish”. They may pray for the Ordinary but are more affected by the district superintendent, or overall superior.

True. However, Parishes are territorial. Every human on earth belongs to a territorial parish (or at least a territorial mission), even those who have never stepped into Church in their whole life.