Rumors have been going around about an effort to reconcile the SSPX (Society of St. Pius X) with the Catholic Church.
Ed Peters has the canonical angle on the story and considers what scenarios might be possible that would allow a reconciliation, along with some commentary on how likely they respectively are.
I’d also add another scenario that strikes me as a possibility (at least hypothetically).
What we’re dealing with here is healing a schism, and the approach that has been taken in recent years in efforts to do that (i.e., in authentic ecumenism) has been to not worry about who was at fault in the past and instead make sure that we share those elements (or grow toward sharing those elements) that are needed for ecclesial communion.
Thus, for example, the joint declaration on Christology that was signed with the Assyrian Church of the East sidestepped the question of who was at fault back when the split occurred and instead said, in effect, "Look, regardless of what was said in the psat, we agree on this now, so this no longer a point that would bar us from ecclesial communion with each other."
A similar approach is used with the churches of the Reformation when it is possible to make common cause with them.
Since those in schism don’t like to admit that they’re in schism, this word also wouldn’t be used should we be able to reunite with the Assyrians. The Church would note the "separation" that existed historically between two groups but say that we now recognize that we share what is needed for full ecclesial communion, and so we’re announcing that fact.
(Forget being able to ever visibly reunite with any significant Protestant bodies–at least any time in this millennium. There’s just too much that’s not there at present.)
The thing that makes this "let’s not focus on the past" approach possible in a case like the Assyrian Church of the East or the Reformation churches is that the splits occurred so long ago that the original actors aren’t around any more.
That’s not the case with the SSPX. We’re talking about trying to heal this schism in its first generation, and that makes it a lot harder to take a "let’s not worry about who was at fault" approach.
Some version of this reasoning, though, could come into play if the SSPX schism is healed. It’ll certainly be a temptation since that’s the approach being used with others.
But it may not be prudent to proceed in that fashion with the SSPX.
A question that B16 should ask himself (and the SSPX bishops) is: "You guys disobeyed the direct orders of my predecessor in a grave matter pertaining to the structure of the Church, so what assurances do I have that you won’t do the same thing all over again?"
Only if B16 gets serious and credible assurances of fidelity should a face-saving method like the one mentioned above be considered.
SSPX has been the worst thing about being a Catholic who appreciates more traditional forms of worship. Someone visits your parish and all they can do is look around fearfully, pull someone aside and ask: “are these people excommunicated?”
By committing that act of disobedience, SSPX greatly tarnished the traditionalist movement. It is so hard to get approval to say a traditional mass because of the rebellious stigma attached by their shenanigans. The Church hierarchy is leery and parishioners want nothing to do with them.
I have friends who are lifelong Catholics who never experienced the joy of the traditional mass and have no interest whatsoever in even going to see what it is like. In their opinion, it is better to steer clear of anything resembling disrespect for the pope.
It would be nice if we could be reconciled so we can get back to correcting the widespread liturgical abuses. The members of the SSPX, like many of my Protestant friends, have a deep knowledge and a fiery zeal that needs to be shared and not hoarded.
But as long as they think obedience to the pope is optional they are no better than those who argue for women’s ordination.
Is it better to reconcile with the 4 SSPX bishops without demanding repentance or is it better to wait until they move on and reconcile with their successors?
I think the first course is the more prudent due to the extraordinary chain of events that led to the schismatic consecrations. Would Lefebvre have gone ahead with the consecrations if he had been in good health? I doubt it. The whole mess has to be understood against the backdrop of almost universal heterodox interpretations of the council, a destructive “reform” of the liturgy that even the council did not anticipate and the abuse of Catholics attached to the old liturgy and traditional forms of piety by Latin Rite bishops and priests. I think there is an opportunity to get this “rift” behind us and I would hope that once the dust settles the 4 SSPX bishops will repent of their participation in illicit and explicitly forbidden consecrations. I think there is little prospect of their walking away from Rome once the issues are worked through.
If it helps, Stubblespark, maybe remind people that the Pope celebrates Latin Masses in Rome?
There are two major problems w/this post…
1. Cardinal Hoyos, the head of the Ecclesia Dei commission, has explicitly stated that the SSPX is not in schism.
2. The “ecumenism” approach to the SSPX has already been rejected. The SSPX issue as an “internal matter” for the Catholic Church.
StubbleSpark
There wouldn’t be a traditional movement if it were not for the SSPX. Do you think the indult would have ever existed had it not been for the growing strength of the SSPX?
I doubt it very much.
In my experience many of those who attend the SSPX Masses go through agony over the question of obedience whereas in the local “official” Church disobedience and heresy are a daily occurrence but because Catholic education has effectively ceased to exist most of the people are unaware of it.
I’m about as old as Vatican II and like the vast majority of my generation in Ireland I drifted out of the Church in my teens.
It is thanks to the SSPX that I’m back and I’ll never forget them for it.
“There are two major problems w/this post…1. Cardinal Hoyos, the head of the Ecclesia Dei commission, has explicitly stated that the SSPX is not in schism.”
Oh? Why is that problem with the post? Whether SSPX is in schism, and whether 5 named clerics were excommunicated on June 30, 1988, are very different issues. Why are so many people stumbling over that?
Thank you, Mr. Peters.
Additionally, one does not have to be “in schism” to not be in communion with the Church. Groups like Call to Action, Dignity, Voice of the Faithful, et al. have not been formally excommunicated; still, we cannot doubt that they are indeed dissidents.
Clearly the reconcilation being talked about is not of simply five bishops, but of an institution with hundreds of priests and hundreds of laypersons adhering to it. Be they excommunication, suspended, disobedient, whatever, the communion is imperfect and needs to rectified.
anon. exactly, but just as triage at a disaster does not treat every injury the same, so one cannot “fix the Marcel L problem” by assuming one reconciliation method fits all.
“Oh? Why is that problem with the post? Whether SSPX is in schism, and whether 5 named clerics were excommunicated on June 30, 1988, are very different issues. Why are so many people stumbling over that?”
Jimmy made no such distinction in his post, he merely referred to the SSPX. So my commentary still stands.
Jimmy, perhaps you can answer a question I have. Karl Keating recently talked about the SSPX on Catholic Answers Live, and stated something I had never heard. He said that while their Eucharist is valid, other sacraments like marriage, confession, and confirmation are not, because the SSPX is not under the local bishop.
If reconcilliation did take place, would we have to “re-“marry and confirm all those people? Or would their sacraments become valid retroactively? I also know people who used to be in the SSPX, but when the FSSP came to town, switched to them. But they were not “re-“confirmed or anything. Would they need to be?
Maybe Ed Peters could answer this, too!
Campos was in a similar situation and their marriages, confessions, etc. were all declared valid. That’s a giant elephant in the room that neo-Catholics are not discussing, Laura.
“That’s a giant elephant in the room that neo-Catholics are not discussing, Laura.”
First off, Levebvrist *Confirmations* are valid. There is no question about this. Faculties are not needed to administer this particular sacrament validly.
Regarding marriage: This is not a difficulty at all. At the time of reunion, the formerly schismatic church is granted “sanation,” and is periodically done in the Church. Basically, an otherwise non-valid marriage is declared valid at the moment the decree of sanation is issued.
This is what happens on a much smaller scale when an invalidly married Catholic wants their marriage blessed, but their non-Catholic “spouse” refuses to go to church to get it blessed. The Church may grant the marriage a sanation, making it valid even without the ceremony of blessing.
“Regarding marriage: This is not a difficulty at all. At the time of reunion, the formerly schismatic church is granted “sanation,” and is periodically done in the Church.”
Then this “non-difficulty” is an elephant in the room that neo-Catholics fail to mention.
“First off, Levebvrist *Confirmations* are valid. There is no question about this. Faculties are not needed to administer this particular sacrament validly.”
As I understand it, in the Tridentine Rite, this is only true of those who are baptised and confirmed by the same particular priest. In my FSSP catechism class of three, two were unbaptised and I was baptised a Baptist at the age of 6. (The records of that church were destroyed the next year by fire, so I could not prove it, and was therefore baptised conditionally, but that’s not the same thing.)
Fr. Robert Fromageot, FSSP, made certain to get faculties from Archbishop Donahue before my confirmation, insisting that he could not do it otherwise. He confirmed my fellow catechumens right after baptising them, with no need to acquire faculties in their cases.
We received first communion the next day, at High Mass. It is the best weekend of my young life!!!
Count Tradula,
I would be interested in learning why not mentioning a non-difficulty is a failure?
Count Tradula:
There’s no “elephant” about this. Upon reunion with a schismatic church, those who were invalidly married under it get their marriages “sanated.” They become valid marriages without having to go through the motions of a re-blessing. This is what happened at Campos, and this is what happens in individual situations as I described above. Nothing new here, the ignorance by average Catholics of this process notwithstanding.
“Upon reunion with a schismatic church…”
1. Cardinal Hoyos has stated that the SSPX is not in schism. Should we presume that you know better than His Eminence, a prince of the Holy Roman Church and head of the Ecclesia Dei commission.
2. The SSPX is also not a church.
“Nothing new here, the ignorance by average Catholics of this process notwithstanding.”
When did I claim there was something new? And the fact that neo-Catholics are ignorant of all of this, indeed, makes it an elephant.
Count Tradula,
Do you at least admit that “5 named clerics were excommunicated on June 30, 1988”?
Take care and God bless.
J+M+J
No.
“I would be interested in learning why not mentioning a non-difficulty is a failure?”
It’s a failure b/c neo-Catholic scum are not telling the whole truth, just regurgitating words like “schism” w/o presenting all of the facts.
Q: “Count Tradula, do you atleast admit that ‘five named clerics were excommunicated on June 30, 1988’?”
A: “No.”
“To deny the facts would be illogical”–Mr. Spock, “Star Trek: A Piece Of The Action”
Count Tradula, in your use of the phrase “neo-Catholic scum” you inadvertently revealed the ugliness in your heart.
Wow, Count, I can feel that Christian love and obedience from here!
Silly rabbit. Of course most of us, neo or not, don’t know the relevant canon laws. We don’t have to. We’re laypeople, safe in the bosom of Mother Church, and busy with doing normal Catholic stuff.
Obviously, this is stuff that priests, canon lawyers, and folks fighting the goodtrad fight do need to know. It’s nice if other people learn it, especially on the YNK (You Never Know) principle. But the rest of us are scarcely “scum” if we don’t.
Furthermore, I think the elephant in the room is that people’s salvation is at risk should they die before being reconciled to the Church, whether they are formally schismatic or informally, formally excommunicated or just receiving unworthily. It’s a lot safer to stay with the Church rather than follow one’s own conscience to positions that one’s own conscience really ought to have warned one about. And probably did.
There’s a reason Jesus told us to pray that we might all be one.
“Count Tradula, in your use of the phrase “neo-Catholic scum” you inadvertently revealed the ugliness in your heart.”
The Novus Ordo has inserted a lot of ugliness into ppl’s hearts.
That’s impossible. Ugliness of heart is chosen.
Count Tradula,
Amazing that you can read this and say they were not excommunicated.
3. In itself, this act was one of disobedience to the Roman Pontiff in a very grave matter and of supreme importance for the unity of the church, such as is the ordination of bishops whereby the apostolic succession is sacramentally perpetuated. Hence such disobedience – which implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy – constitutes a schismatic act.(3) In performing such an act, notwithstanding the formal canonical warning sent to them by the Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops on 17 June last, Mons. Lefebvre and the priests Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta, have incurred the grave penalty of excommunication envisaged by ecclesiastical law.(4)
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/motu_proprio/documents/hf_jp-ii_motu-proprio_02071988_ecclesia-dei_en.html
I guess your “authority” is better than the facts.
Take care and God bless.
J+M+J
What is it about schism and excommunication that gets people so worked up. On the first Cardinal Hoyos has settled the matter.
On the second the consecration of the four Bishops was a necessity to preserve tradition. Had tradition died with the Archbishop Lefebvre (is it uncharitable to suspect that was the plan?)the crisis in the Church would be far worse now. And there would certainly not be an indult!
Rome will decide the issue but as of now I don’t believe any excommunication exists. Pressure and threats was tried and failed. Blandishments were tried and failed. Maybe genuine dialogue will now resolve this issue.
Maureen
Furthermore, I think the elephant in the room is that people’s salvation is at risk should they die before being reconciled to the Church
My concern is for the millions who have ceased to have any relationship with the Church because of the catastrophe of the last 40 years? For those who were taught heresy in Catholic schools and had no way of knowing it was heresy. For those who think salvation is more or less automatic if it exists at all.
This all happened on Vatican II’s watch. The flock was scattered. Don’t tell me those who led me to the safety of tradition are not genuine shepherds.
“I don’t believe that any excommunication exists.” In other words, any fact inconvenient to your template must be ignored.
At the Last Supper, our Blessed Lord said to St. Peter: “I have prayed for you, that your strength may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren.”–Luke 22:32. At a retreat for priests in Dublin in 1977, Archbishop Sheen pointed out that we share in that prayer of our Lord’s ONLY when we are united with Peter. Ubi Petrus, ibi Ecclesia!
jimroche,
Please point to the text of Pope John II’s Ecclesia Dei and show me where he does not publicly acknowledge the schismatic act and excommunication of the named clerics.
On the second the consecration of the four Bishops was a necessity to preserve tradition.
Your understanding contradicts the Pope John Paul II’s words. Have you even read the document or are you just repeating what someone without any authority has told you to think?
But especially contradictory is a notion of Tradition which opposes the universal Magisterium of the Church possessed by the Bishop of Rome and the Body of Bishops. It is impossible to remain faithful to the Tradition while breaking the ecclesial bond with him to whom, in the person of the Apostle Peter, Christ himself entrusted the ministry of unity in his Church.(6)
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/motu_proprio/documents/hf_jp-ii_motu-proprio_02071988_ecclesia-dei_en.html
Rome has decided the issue with the Ecclesia Dei document. If their was not a schism and excommunications there would be no talk of reconciling the SSPX.
So no matter what you believe it doesn’t change the facts. If those who led you to safety oppose the Vicar of Christ you are the blind following the blind.
Take care and God bless.
J+M+J
JMJ
I note your position about the status of the excommunications and your complete absence of a position on the substantive issue of the Catholics who were lost under VaticanII.
I have every confidence that the issue of standing of the Society will be resolved with charity on both sides and that the disputed issue of excommunications will be disposed of.
The problem of rebuilding the faith following the slow motion spiritual tsunami of the last 40 years is going to be muuch tougher and it is my view that we should focus on that. I have to ask if you accept that there is a crisis at all. Because if you don’t then we’re probably wasting each others time.
If you do then we might try to find some common ground on how to address it. I can assure you that nobody tells me what to think. But thank God somebody finally introduced me to Catholic truth.
I did go through a period of concern about the status of the society which led me with others to petition the local Bishop for an indult. We send him 200 names of people who genuinely wanted the Mass and he ignored the letter.
So I’m happy to leave the legalistic stuff to the likes of Cardinal Hoyos who appears to have missed your memo on schism.
“I did go through a period of concern about the status of the society which led me with others to petition the local Bishop for an indult. We send him 200 names of people who genuinely wanted the Mass and he ignored the letter.”
Um…the Mass is what you call the “Novus Ordo”. It’s the current rite of Mass in the Catholic Church. If you think that doesn’t count as a Mass, you need to seriously rethink your faith. I’m getting the impression that you think the gates of Hell have already prevailed against the Church and that the popes have gone into error.
jimroche-
I don’t think you’ll have any argument here that the liturgy is in crisis. But if this is eventually corrected (which it will be) it won’t be because of the SSPX.
jimroche,
Yes there is a crisis in the Church and it has been caused by people disobeying the Pope plain and simple. When people appeal to their own consciences rather than being obedient to the Pope and the bishops in communion with him we have a crisis.
Our Blessed Lord built His house upon the Rock and when the wind and rain of the 1960’s came those not on the foundation laid by Our Blessed Lord were swept away.
I ask again can you point to the text of Ecclesia Dei and say that Pope John Paul II did not publicly acknowledge the schismatic acts and excommunications of the named clerics?
Dr. Ed Peters already pointed out the difference between the five named clerics and members of the SSPX.
Ecclesia Dei also speaks to the members of the SSPX, “In the present circumstances I wish especially to make an appeal both solemn and heartfelt, paternal and fraternal, to all those who until now have been linked in various ways to the movement of Archbishop Lefebvre, that they may fulfil the grave duty of remaining united to the Vicar of Christ in the unity of the Catholic Church, and of ceasing their support in any way for that movement. Everyone should be aware that formal adherence to the schism is a grave offence against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church’s law.”
Formal adherence to the schims carries the penalty of excommunication. I don’t think anyone is saying everyone who attends the SSPX is in schism but they are definitely in danger.
Take care and God bless.
J+M+J
SeanS
Um…the Mass is what you call the “Novus Ordo”. It’s the current rite of Mass in the Catholic Church. If you think that doesn’t count as a Mass, you need to seriously rethink your faith.
You don’t need an Indult for the Novus Ordo so I think it was clear which Mass I was referring to.
For the record and to set your mind at ease I do accept that the Mass that drove the vast majority of my generation from the Church is valid.
TimJ
I’d be interested to hear how you think it will be corrected.
JMJ
Yes there is a crisis in the Church and it has been caused by people disobeying the Pope plain and simple.
Do you think it a coincidence that widespread disobedience to the Pope became so common after Vatican II or do you think they might be in some way related.
Our Blessed Lord built His house upon the Rock and when the wind and rain of the 1960’s came those not on the foundation laid by Our Blessed Lord were swept away.
That itself sounds like something from the 60’s. The answer is indeed blowing in the wind!
I ask again can you point to the text of Ecclesia Dei and say that Pope John Paul II did not publicly acknowledge the schismatic acts and excommunications of the named clerics?
There is certainly serious doubt in the minds of many people (aside from the SSPX) about the validity of the excommunications. The only question that matters is will the issue act as a barrier to a solution. I think it is clear that it won’t. I see no point therefore in going over old ground on the subject.
I don’t think anyone is saying everyone who attends the SSPX is in schism but they are definitely in danger.
I assure you it is nothing like the danger I was in when I was basing my understanding of the faith on my post Vatican II Catholic education.
Now it’s 1.30am where I am so goodnight to you. It’s interesting to hear different perspectives.
jimroche-
“I’d be interested to hear how you think it will be corrected.”
It will be corrected by the action of the Holy Spirit, through the continued work and prayers of ordinary, orthodox, communicating Catholics.
Jimroche: You deliberately avoided answering Inocencio’s question about the excommunications and schism. See my 2/6/06 2:41PM comment; you proved me right.
“Do you think it a coincidence that widespread disobedience to the Pope became so common after Vatican II or do you think they might be in some way related?” As I commented on another thread, the problems we saw in this country after Vatican II occurred in Europe BEFORE Vatican II. That things got worse after Vatican II is called “NORMAL”. There were more Arians AFTER Nicaea than before; there were more Nestorians AFTER Ephesus than before. Whenever you have an outpouring of the Holy Spirit, you always get the devil moving. I’ll trust that the Holy Spirit is the more powerful of the two.
“…the Mass that drove the vast majority of my generation from the Church…” “Vast majority”? I’d like to see the evidence you have to back that up.
And when I say “the evidence to back that up”, I mean: 1) The evidence that the “vast majority” of your generation were driven from the Church, ; 2) The percentage that constitutes a “vast majority, and; 3) The evidence that it was the Novus Ordo Mass that drove them from the Church.
jimroche,
“Do you think it a coincidence that widespread disobedience to the Pope became so common after Vatican II or do you think they might be in some way related.”
As Bill912 points out that is the reaction after every council. You might consider looking at the history of the Church Councils.
“That itself sounds like something from the 60’s. The answer is indeed blowing in the wind!”
I was paraphrasing the Gospel of Matthew chapter 6:26-27. You should consider reading the Sacred Scriptures, because Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ”-St. Jerome
“There is certainly serious doubt in the minds of many people (aside from the SSPX) about the validity of the excommunications.”
The only opinion that matters is the pope’s.
Until Pope Benedict XVI decides on a resolution Pope John Paul II decision stands. Whatever Pope Benedict XVI decides I will accept as a faithful Catholic. Will you? Will the SSPX? Or will you simply continue to disregard the Pope?
“I assure you it is nothing like the danger I was in when I was basing my understanding of the faith on my post Vatican II Catholic education.”
If you were being taught to disobey the Pope than your teachers were wrong. If you are still being taught to disobey the Pope then your new teachers are still wrong. You should consider reading the actual teachings of the Church instead of those who reject her authority.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J = Jesus, Mary and Joseph pray for us!
Bill912
1) The evidence that the “vast majority” of your generation were driven from the Church,
You only have to look in the Churches. I don’t think there is any serious dispute about this.
2) The percentage that constitutes a “vast majority,
It’s hard to put a figure on it. There are surveys of course and they show a serious decline but even that understates the problem. I’ll try to find some links for you.
3) The evidence that it was the Novus Ordo Mass that drove them from the Church.
That’s my opinion and my experience. Growing up I actually believed Mass was supposed to be a bore and I had no idea that what I was experiencing was a radical departure.
JMJ
As Bill912 points out that is the reaction after every council. You might consider looking at the history of the Church Councils.
That is a retrospective justification for the crisis. Show me where the advocates of the Council predicted the crisis as inevitable at the time
I was paraphrasing the Gospel of Matthew chapter 6:26-27. You should consider reading the Sacred Scriptures, because Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ”-St. Jerome
Touche. My disastrous post VII education lets me down again. Don’t worry. I’m trying to catch up.
If you were being taught to disobey the Pope than your teachers were wrong. If you are still being taught to disobey the Pope then your new teachers are still wrong. You should consider reading the actual teachings of the Church instead of those who reject her authority.
Don’t get the impression that I think the current situation is a good one. My prayer is always that it will be sorted out and it looks like there are grounds for optimism on that score.
Whatever Pope Benedict XVI decides I will accept as a faithful Catholic. Will you? Will the SSPX? Or will you simply continue to disregard the Pope?
Here’s the paradox for me. Having discovered my faith through the SSPX I could never disregard the Pope. If he, for example, forbade Catholics from attending the SSPX Mass then I would have a very serious problem. But I think he understands why we do.
JR: In other words, you have no evidence to back
up your allegations.
“Having discovered my faith through the SSPX I could never disregard the Pope.” You do and they do.
“If he, for example, forbade Catholics from attending the SSPX Mass, then I would have a very serious problem.” He did and you do. (See Inocencio’s quote from Ecclesia Dei, 2/6/06, 4:52PM).
“Show me where advocates of the Council predicted the crisis was inevitable at the time.” As I pointed out, the problems that occurred in America mostly AFTER the Council were well under way in Europe BEFORE the Council. You continue to ignore any facts inconvenient to what you wish to believe.
bill912
In other words, you have no evidence to back
up your allegations.
I’m here to offer and exchange views. I have no intention of wasting my time trying to prove the obvious. You are free to disbelieve me if you like.
As I pointed out, the problems that occurred in America mostly AFTER the Council were well under way in Europe BEFORE the Council.
The use of capitols on a talkboard is usually the sign of a narrow mind.
I’m posting from Ireland which is in Europe. Church attendance has fallen off a cliff and belief in Catholic doctrine has collapsed since the Council. A recent opinion has support for a celibate clergy down to 24%. Public opinion reflect failure to pass on the faith.
If I was in your position I’d be more concerned about the sinking ship than throwing stones at the lifeboats.
Where is all this anger coming from? It’s not good for you.
“If I was in your position I’d be more concerned about the sinking ship than throwing stones at the lifeboats.”
This is a very telling analogy.
The ship can not sink, JR.
And we that are still aboard wish that you in the lifeboats would come back and help us bail water.
Every Protestant church thought they were a lifeboat, too.
TimJ
On the principle that all analogies should be flogged to death, I’m ready to come on board. But don’t tell me I can’t bring the only bucket without a hole in it.
JR,
I do not understand how your perspective is different from a protestant view of the Church.
You disregard the history/teachings of the councils.
You disregard the history/teachings of the Church.
You disregard the history/teachings of the Papacy.
And you give authority to those who tell you what you want to hear, instead of seeking the Truth. The word catholic comes from two Greek words kata holos meaning according to the whole. You can not just pick and choose the things you will believe. Hopefully as you catch up on Sacred Scripture you will also consider reading Sacred Tradition and the documents of the Magisterium.
Below are two quotes to consider while you work through your problem.
“To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant” John Henry Newman
“Now, therefore, we declare, say, determine and pronounce that for every human creature it is necessary for salvation to be subject to the authority of the Roman pontiff” Unam Sanctam by Pope Boniface VIII (1302)
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Okay, JR, you bring whatever bucket you want.
But you keep talking as if the SSPX can provide something that is lacking in the True Church. That can not be.
Let’s see how far we can drive this analogy into the ground…
It could only be only hubris that would drive a person to say “Well, I’ll come back aboard, but only if you will admit that you will sink without my help.”.
It is simply false. I don’t bail water because I am afraid the ship will sink, but because the water is supposed to be on the outside of the ship, and not on the inside. I want you to return, not because you have a sound bucket, but because your lifeboat can’t stay afloat for long on the open sea.
If you will help bail once you are aboard, then we all covet your help. If you are coming aboard only so you can put the Pope straight on a few things, you will be disappointed. He doesn’t need your instruction.
JMJ
I wonder what Mass would look more Protestant to any Pope before John XXIII.
The view on Protestantism, correct me if I’m wrong, is that what they brought out of the Church with them is valid but what they came up with themselves is rubbish. The SSPX have only what they brought with them.
If you are coming aboard only so you can put the Pope straight on a few things, you will be disappointed. He doesn’t need your instruction.
Agreed. One captain one crew one direction. As it should be.
But you keep talking as if the SSPX can provide something that is lacking in the True Church.
The SSPX have nothing that doesn’t already belong to the Church.
JR,
I am at least glad that you recognize that the SSPX is a form of protestantism. The SSPX cannot just pick and choose what it will believe. The SSPX, like protestantism, does not have communion with the Pope, the Vicar of Christ. Pope John Paul II made that very clear. If it did there would be no need to discuss reconciliation.
The Church is one, holy, catholic and apostolic. The SSPX or protestants cannot just take things with them. They are either united to Pope and the Church or seperated. If the SSPX, like protestants, will not subject itself to the authority of the Pope, given by Christ, then they have seperated themselves.
Luke 10:16 “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.”
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio J+M+J
This is simply my own observation, and perhaps this is nothing more than a perspective thing, but it seems to me that good, normal, every-day conservative Catholics are more willing to BLAST so-called “Traditionalists” or SSPX-ers than they are willing to berate, bash, blast, (or anything else they to to SSPX-ers) heretical bishops or priests, such a Matthew Fox, Cardinal Bernardine, Teilhard de Chardin, and the like.
It seems to me (and again, this is my POV) that the agner/ire/angst (or similar word) against the SSPX-ers/Traditionalists is GREATER than that towards liberal/weak/pseudo-heretics.
Am I missing something?
The SSPX are not Protestants. The Church doesn’t consider them such, and the SSPX doesn’t consider them such. The SSPX are not sedevacatists. SSPX is considered to be in a state of disobedience, not heretical. The SSPX consider themselves a part of the one, holy, Catholic, and apostolic Church. Protestants do not. Eeks! You’d think people would be happier to call the Sisters of Loretto brothers rather than call SSPX members brothers. I hope the same people that deny SSPX’s catholicity deny the same for the Orthodox, because it is the same argument that gets you there.
I am at least glad that you recognize that the SSPX is a form of Protestantism.
There is no need to misrepresent what I said. Protestants reject tradition.
The SSPX cannot just pick and choose what it will believe.
It believes what Catholics have always believed. Nothing more nothing less.
The SSPX, like Protestantism, does not have communion with the Pope, the Vicar of Christ. Pope John Paul II made that very clear. If it did there would be no need to discuss reconciliation.
If the Bishops had been as generous in granting the indult as John Paul II had asked them to be people like me would have had an option other than the SSPX.
John Paul II tried to resolve the issue and Benedict XVI is building on that. The question of schism has been disposed of by Cardinal Hoyos. The excommunication issue and the right to say the traditional Mass are the only outstanding issues. I’m sure they will be resolved.
Somebody in the Bible that I think we all have a sneaking sympathy for is the prodigal sons brother. When we do come back I hope those of us who agree on so much will work together in the future.
DiscoMike,
I can only speak for myself. Nothing bothers me more than when people who call themselves catholic attack the Church. Whatever they call themselves. I don’t like the politcal terms liberal or conservative when speaking of catholics. I prefer orthodox or heterodox. If someone’s view is heterodox they need to hear that. No matter who they are.
I come from a family of fallen away catholics and am very close to many people who are either “traditionlist” or very sympathetic to them. As I try to explain to both sides only when we have communion with the Pope can we build up the body of Christ.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
M.Z. Forrest,
“The SSPX consider themselves a part of the one, holy, Catholic, and apostolic Church.”
So do many protestants who both deny the authority of the Pope and say the Creed.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
JR,
It believes what Catholics have always believed. Nothing more nothing less.
Does it believe that it has to be obedient to the Pope?
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
“Am I missing something?”
Yes.
Error is error, on the right or the left.
Did you miss the ongoing cage match featuring Realist in the Left Corner?
If you think that Trads get roughed up while Libs get a pass, you haven’t been paying attention.
I think JA.O tends to attract more comments from Trads than from dedicated Lefties, and this may give the impression that they are singled out.
I don’t think I’ve said anything uncharitable in this whole exchange, unless you count frank debate as a lack of charity.
I certainly think that most Trads have their hearts in the right place, at any rate. I’m not so sanguine about the Left. Anyone reading the bulk of my posts will see my Trad sympathies.
The change will come, and I believe is already beginning. Vocations in traditional, orthodox parishes, schools and seminaries are flourishing, while lukewarm, feel-good parishes are beginning to struggle.
But traditional MEANS keeping communion with Peter. There is Trad and there is Rad-Trad. If you have broken with the Holy See, you are not a Traditional Catholic, no matter what language your liturgy is in.
Tim J, I don’t think you have any real animus against SSPX or traditionalists. Inocencio, I’m more concerned about. So Inocencio, do you believe Greek and Russian Orthodox are Catholic?
Oh, I didn’t mean just in this thread, I meant in general.
I am not SSPX (nor have I ever been), and I adhere in obedience to Peter. I am, however, very sympathetic to SSPX because of their REASONS for doing what they do.
There is a massive crisis in the Church, not just in America, but all over the world. The problems cannot be blamed on Vatican II because the problems existed BEFORE Vatican II. Pope Leo XIII, Pope Pius X, Pope Benedict XV, Pope Pius XII, and Pope Pius XII all saw it and warned against it. Their encyclicals condemning modernism, communism, capitalism, and several other “isms” were in preparation for the tsunami they saw coming. They did their best to stop it, but in the end, all they could do was prepare a safe-house for those who were going to endure it.
It is undeniable that there was mass confusion after Vatican II. Only PARTIAL blame can be attributed to the council itself (and by partial, I mean a very small amount), for its ambiguous and inclusive language and for the release of certain heretical theologians, who were silenced by the former pontiff, who were elevated to advisorial positions during the council itself.
Most of the blame belongs to the media (who told blatent lies about the council and what it was allowing), and to liberal bishops who came back and wreaked havock on the liturgy and gutted the insides of churches.
After that, blame then falls on those weak bishops and priests who did nothing, or very little, to correct the damage done by the radical reformers.
As a reaction, LeFebvre took matters into his own hands. Was it right for him to disobey the Pope? No, it wasn’t. Is it understandable why he did what he did? Absolutly. He saw a church crumbling before his very eyes, and he saw nothing being done about it, and in fact, he saw those who SHOULD have been doing something about it (from his POV) actually standing in the way of those wishing to. So, I understand his plight.
It’s kind of like someone who knows exactly what abortion is, and what it is doing, and when they try to do something about it, gets stopped by the authorities who should be stopping it themselves.
What I was commenting on, however, is that in general, there seems to be a stronger willingness to condemn SSPX (when reconciliation would be SO easy) than against people who by all rights should be publically excommunicated and removed from their positions (**Ahem** Mahoney **Ahem**).
M.Z. Forrest,
I thank you for your concern. I have no animus against the SSPX. Again, nothing bothers me more than when people who call themselves catholic attack the Church.
I was wrong to say the SSPX is a form of protestantism. It was a cheap shot and I apologize to JR.
As Tim J. pointed out Realist was not given a free pass about his heterodox views, especially by me.
The point I wanted to make is that the SSPX is taking the form of protestantism. The SSPX are not protestants but they do have a lot of similarities. The protestant leaders such as Martin Luther (a monk) and Henry XIII (defender of the faith) were Catholics who believed they were the true Church and that they could separate themselves from the Pope. They started in schism and went into apostasy.
I believe what the Church teaches and most recently put forth in Dominus Jesus about the eastern churches. I also acknowledge that the most recent Church documents prefer the term separated to schismatic.
I hope that clarifies my views.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
So much depends on the individual. I would expect that the SSPX contains sedevacantists in much higher numbers than would the average parish, but that doesn’t make them all sedevacantists.
I would LOVE to have a Tridentine Mass within driving distance, but this will take time.
I think there is a great deal more scrutiny of bishops than there used to be, and a great deal less blind resignation.
In this information age, parishoners are less dependent on their priests and bishops to interpret every teaching for them (especially with the internet).
People are in a much better position to decide whether what they are seeing and hearing in their own parish is in line with Rome. This is a good thing, but it must be handled carefully, and with charity. We should start by assuming that priests and bishops are doing the best they can, then go from there.
Even in the worst cases, I think simply bringing it to light can have great effect. Those who dwell in darkness can’t stand the light.
“I am at least glad that you recognize that the SSPX is a form of protestantism.”
This comparison is completely ridiculous. The protestant heretics tried to change the Faith, SSPXers are simply standing in one place. Granted, in both cases, issues of obedience and disobedience may be involved, but let’s not pretend the SSPX and protestant positions are anywhere close to being the same thing.
Furthermore, your stating this puts you at odds w/the Vatican. Cardinal Hoyos has condemned rhetoric like this.
Count,
So what you are saying (and I’m only asking in order to make matters clear) is that the situation can be likened to a military platoon. When the Platoon Sgt. ordered the platoon to stand at attention, Private Martin Luther started squaking about how it is unjust that he has to stand at attention, and why do we need a military anyway. In doing so, an entire squad of the platoon broke ranks and walked away (later attacking the platoon they were once a part of).
Later on, Corpral Henry Tudor (after a series of events) decided that he should by the company commander and ordered his squad away from the platoon.
Then, in the 1980’s, during the height of the liturgical crisis in the Church, Sgt. Lefebvre was given orders to start arranging his platoon to look like and begin marching with the squads that had broken ranks and turned traitor, and instead of breaking ranks, Lefebvre ordered his troops to stand fast and not move, while the rest of the company broke ranks.
Is that, in essence, your position?
“Lefebvre ordered his troops to stand fast and not move, while the rest of the company broke ranks.”.
This makes it sound as if Lefebvre and the SSPX are the TRUE BELIEVERS and everyone else has deserted.
That’s rot.
Tim,I think Discomike was asking Count Tradula if that is what he believes.
(Of course, your last two words are a correct assessment).
Count Tradula,
I already said it was wrong for me to say SSPX is a form of protestantism.
Pope John Paul II was very clear in Ecclesia Dei in publicly acknowledging that the five named clerics by their schismatic act had incurred the penalty of excommunication. Even if you don’t accept that fact.
Now I understand Cardinal Hoyos is working to reconcile the SSPX and would like to avoid heated language. I pray it will go well. But Cardinal Hoyos cannot change the facts of Ecclesia Dei an Apostolic Letter of a pope. Only Pope Benedict XVI can resolve the issue.
I pray for the Church to be one. Believe me I would like to see more reverence for the Sacred Liturgy and for American Catholics to learn their faith. But since I know the Church as the Bride of Christ is protected I will remain loyal to Her and not those who claim authority they do not have.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
bill912-
You’re right. I was firing from the hip, running between one task and another and didn’t pay enough attention to the context.
My ‘pologies.
No problem, Tim. Having sympathy for (but not marching with) the SSPXers, I understand the way they feel. I really do. And from what I know of the organization, that really IS their position. They don’t believe that they “left the Church”, but the Church left them.
In many ways, it is true, but in one very vital way, it is not. Yes, they adhere to much of the beauty and to all of the doctrines of the Church, and have done so in a time when our liturgy was being eviscorated and our churches gutted. However, the none of this makes up for the sin of disobedience.
One thing that I have always found interesting about the SSPXers is that they are solid on all grounds BUT obedience (much like the Greek Orthodox), but they do not see themselves as being disobedient. There are certain instances in Church history they will point to where clerics have stood up to a heretical heirarchy (St. Anselm is one of their favorites), and they will point out cases where it is not (legitimately) obligatory to obey a priest, bishop, or even the pope. They then use this as the basis for their apparent (but in their eyes, non-existant) disobedience.
However, when one considers that the Church holds REAL spiritual authority (not just in matters of confession), then obedience is paramount, even if it is in the face of a perceived injustice. How many saints became saints because they suffered in silence at the hands of their superiors, always remaining obedient? How many time has the Blessed Virgin told her visionaries to do as their priest/confessor/spiritual advisor/superior tells them? She is ALWAYS beinging the message of obedience.
The point of all this is, though, that SSPXers do not believe they are being disobedient. The problem is, though, that in order for them to be justified in their position, the case must be made that what they are being asked to do is somehow immoral.
And THAT remains yet to be seen.
DiscoMike, that was eloquently put. I think that obedience is, perhaps, the most difficult of the virtues. There are times when one in authority tells us to do something that we think is not the best course of action. It’s okay (generally) to voice an objection or suggest an alternative, but, if the authority still says “Do what I said”, then our obligation, as long as it’s not something immoral or illegal, is to do it. As C.S. Lewis has Trumpkin the Dwarf say to Prince Caspian: “I know the difference between giving advice and taking orders.” Hopefully, we do, too.
Latest article on talks with SSPX
http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=42289
Read it, Inocencio. Bishop fellay is no Trumpkin.
I would also like to point out that the “Most Rev. Fabian W. Bruskewitz, on March 19, 1996, using his legitimate authority to make laws which bind members of his flock, published a legislative pronouncement naming twelve organizations, membership in which was defined to be “always perilous to the Catholic Faith and most often is totally incompatible with the Catholic Faith.”
…
The list of organizations contained in the law includes: the Society of St. Pius X and a chapel served by its priests…” (Southern Nebraska Register, March 22, 1996.)
An appeal was made and Rome rejected the appeal.
The Vatican has let stand a 1996 order from Lincoln Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz that his parishioners must sever ties with 12 groups or face possible excommunication, the Lincoln Diocese said.
AP Wire
Star News Online
Last updated: March 10. 2005 12:04PM
Religion News in Brief
The Associated Press
After reading the cwn news article one wonders why the SSPX is bothering with meeting with the pope, unless it is to ‘convert’ him. His comments were certainly not those of a prodigal son anxious to be a servent in his fathers house.
“Um…the Mass is what you call the “Novus Ordo”. It’s the current rite of Mass in the Catholic Church. ”
Um, Sean, not quite. The Novus Ordo Missae, which I accept as valid (of course, since it is the Mass I attend 6 days each week) is one of (at least)three current rites of the Latin Church, the others being the Tridentine and the Ambrosian.
But there is a whole raft of rites within the Catholic Church. I hope I don’t need to list the rites of the various sui generis Churches to make this point.
So no, the Novus Ordo Missae is not the current rite of the Catholic Church. Whoever told you this was either in error, or was misunderstood.
Franklin Jennings,
Don’t the Church documents use the term Ordo Missae? I have never seen “Novus” Ordo Missae in Church documents. I of course could be mistaken. Please let me know if you know of a document that uses that title.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Inocencio,
The following comes from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novus_Ordo_Missae
The term “Novus Ordo (Missae)” is widely used by very conservative Traditionalist Catholics critical of the post-Vatican II liturgical reforms. Some mainstream Catholics also use the term, but others regard it as pejorative. Alternative terms include Post-Tridentine Mass, Missa Normativa, Mass of Pope Paul VI, Pauline Mass, Vatican II Mass and Post-Conciliar Mass. The Catholic Church officially refers to Mass liturgies simply by the date of the edition of the Roman Missal used in the celebration (e.g., Roman Missal 1970).
The term was coined when, in advance of the 1969 decision on the form of the revision of the Roman Missal, a preliminary draft of two sections was published. One of these sections was the Ordo Missae: the Ordinary of the Mass – that is, the unvarying part of the Mass. To distinguish this from the Ordo Missae of the existing edition of the Missal, some referred to it as the “Novus Ordo Missae”, novus being the Latin word for “new”. They later applied the same term to the entirety of the revised Mass liturgy. The other section published at the same time in draft form was the Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani, General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM), on the proper way to celebrate the liturgy.
being the oldest of 12 surviving members of the offspring of parents who went into the SSPX schism; after 40 years of arguing, pleading, insisting and praying, the current ovurtures of reconciliation bring tears of joy and praise to OUR Lord Jesus for this gift of HOPE!
And the indisputable proofs of papal authority, limits to the freedom to doubt eccliastical statutes, the full range of magesterial teaching, infallibly protected papal and counciliar documents, are all found in the Catholic Encyclopedia 15 volumn, 1912 edition that we and the SSPXers (all factions) subscribe to as without error and thus binding. These pre-Vatican II records of Catholic doctrine are “untainted” by any accusation of modernism, and so can reasonably be relied upon by all parties as the undoubted will of the Holy Spirit for guidance in matters of the Faith.
One very telling paragraph in the Encyclopedia under Pope states that “…every pope has the full authority to interpret, alter, or abrogate both his own laws and those of his predecessor…” and another contentious issue explained in their Encyclopedia reveals that no “Substantial” changes were made in the words of consecration and also that the transubstantiation has always occurred at the exact moment of the pronuncement of the last syllable “…Body…” “…Blood…” and is not “held in suspension” until the rest of the words of consecration are said. When the priest runs short of consecrated hosts during the distribution of Holy Communion, he has alway been authorized to simply pronounce over additional unconsecrated communion hosts “This is My Body” and affect the transubstantiation.
The reason that that knowleged is important to those in doubt about a word change (many to all) who deny their obligation to attend Mass on that account is that this is the way it has been done for hundreds of years by the Liturgical formula published in age old Catholic Doctrine, available to all seeking truth. Those with an agenda other than truth and unity and obedience will and have ignored the facts as set out in true Tradition and have place their trust in wolves who love something more than truth. As I said, tears of joy come to me with the hope of reunion. Pray for our Pope and for each other every day, and for me. thanks, delf
When the reconciliation between Rome & the Society of Saint Pius X occures and it will, then how long will the SSPX and Traditionalist bashing continue?I converted to the Catholic faith as a youth attracted to THE CHURCH and her divine liturgy. To my loss I drifted away from her after witnessing on a continuous basis many of the horribly performed (Novus Ordo) masses that were exact renditions of the Anglican services I has left behind me. Thanks to SSPX, The Society of Christ the King Sovereign Priest, FSSP and others I have returned to the most awesome thing that has ever existed on this planet The Catholic Church. Johannim
Popular Cell Phone Search
Search by part number, product, keyword or manufacturer … As for the most popular cell phone form factor, the flip phone was the clear winner, …
It is telling that when apologists for the SSPX want to demonstrate they are not in Schism, they quote a cardinal and offer any number of arguments as to why they are in schism.
Well, past semantics the fact is the SSPX has set up a SEPERATE hierarchy, started granting anulments seperate from Rome, and is NOT under the protection or direction of any local ordinary. To say it is an internal matter is a generous understatement.
Just conjecture, but I suspect keeping this an “internal matter” keeps it easier on a few levels. Rather than having a delicate and ungoing public dialogue with the SSPX as a church, it is free to handle matters case by case while attempting to resolve this matter that is now almost 18 years old.
I don’t want to argue the mindset spirit of soul of the SSPX, but I will say that the literature they produce has given them little room to back down or meet with Rome. With each passing year and each additional article written, and every further pontification by the separate hierarchy of a separate church isolated from the Pope and the other Catholic bishops… Well it leads me to believe and suspect it might be well past the point where Rome could say “Bless This Mess, welcome back, come on in!”
What would it really mean? Given the total lack of obedience to the Holy See and the vitriolic and stern attacks on all Rome has done that the SSPX Magisterium does not approve of… Well is there even a culture in the SSPX that could submit to Rome? With no prospect of TRUE obedience that mandates a willingness to follow orders they do NOT like, how is that the model of any CATHOLIC tradition?
There is an old song out there where the singer (when talking of her many lovers) croons, “I’m always true to you darling, in my fashion, I’m always true to you darling in my way.” Well this is obedience in a rather different fashion! Obedience so long as the subordinate agrees is no obedience at all!
When you look at some of the SSPX writings and you see how reverently they speak of popes like Leo XIII St. Pius X, B15, Pius XI, Pius XII ( a favorite of mine also!) and then compare it to the constant snippets against JP2. JP2 probably demonstrated too much restraint! By heaven and earth, had the SSPX railed against St. Pius X himself, or had they been around post-Trent to urge the faithful NOT to use or listen to any priest using the “new mass of Pius V” …
Well what do you want to bet that St. Pius X himself (or St. Pius V!) would have pretty much spit fire and shot thunderbolts out his fingertips at a group with the striking audacity to claim filial love for the pope while staying isolated AND setting up a separate hierarchy?????
As it stands I am confident that should the SSPX gain full canonical regularity today, the culture of schism and self-appointed magisterium so highly rampant in that community would likely lead to further splits in the order.
Rome losing interest in reconciliation with SSPX?
WHAT WILL THE SO-CALLED “CONSERVATIVE” CATHOLICS WHO VOMITOUSLY AVOID CRITICIZING APOSTATES AND HETERODOX PRELATES LIKE MAHONEY IN LA & BROWN IN ORANGE COUNTY CALIFORNIA DO WHEN THE FRATERNAL SOCIETY OF ST. PIUS 10TH IS FORMALLY RECONCILED WITH ROME AND IT WILL HAPPEN FOLKS. THE GUTLESS CONSERVATIVES WILL HAVE TO BEND THEIR SPLEEN AGAINST SSPV OR THE PALMYRIANS FRUITCAKES IN SPAIN. THE REACTIONARY “LIBERAL” CATHOLICS WILL HAVE A COMMUNAL HEART ATTACK WHEN OVER 500 ORTHODOX SSPX PRIESTS FOUR BISHOPS AND A HOST OF GROWING RELIGIOUS COMMUNITIES, NOT TO MENTION ABOUT 6 MILLION PEOPLE WHO ATTEND SSPX MASSES WORLDWIDE AND MILLIONS MORE SYMPATHIZERS RE-ENTER THE CHURCH IN FULL COMMUNION.THE INFLUENCE WILL FAR OUT REACH THEIR NUMBERS. THE FUTURE OF THE 1,5 BILLION STRONG CATHOLIC CHURCH IS IN HER YOUTH NOT THE AGING HIPPY PRELATES WHO ARE REMNANTS OF POST VATICAN HERESIES AND THE LITURGICAL RAPE THAT TOOK PLACE FOR THE LAST FORTY YEARS. ONE ONLY HAS TO LOOK AT CATHOLIC MOVEMENTS LIKE SSPX, FSSP, CHRIST THE KING SOUVEREIGN PRIEST,ST. JOHN CANTIUS ETC ETC. THESES ORTHODOX CATHOLIC MOVEMENTS ARE RAPIDLY GROWING AND TOP HEAVY WITH YOUTH, THE CUM BY YA LIBERAL CATHOLICISM OF JP2 AND PAUL 6 VINTAGE ARE DYING A SLOW AND WELCOME DEATH. SHALOM
Johannim’s post just drips with Charity, doesn’t it?
Very interesting…
Pope prepared to lift excommunication of SSPX bishops?
I hope and pray that the Holy Father’s generosity will be fruitful.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
I hope too, Inocencio. But I think letting the rad-trads have the moral superiority is more likely to make them more arrogant than they are, not less…
Let’s wait and see (and pray, as always).
Matheus,
Yes, hope and pray. I also pray that I will be as gernerous as our Holy Father.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Inocencio,
I hope you’ll retract your statement that members of the SSPX are “protestant”. I may not be a supporter of theirs, but I recognize that they hold the entire Catholic faith. They’re obviously not interested in doctrinal innovation.
A breach of discipline does not make one a heretic. An irregular canonical situation does not put one on a path to hell.
Hopefully, the nullification of the excommunications will help to integrate them into the life of the Church. They’re desperately needed.
Inocencio apologized for that statement on Feb. 7, 2006, above. That’s almost 3 years ago.
My mistake.
Paul,
Please read more carefully in the future and let us both hope that the SSPX will be willing to retract their statements against the Holy Father and Vatican II.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J