SSPX: I guess ecumenical councils are no longer infallible

[Tallguy88]

Well yes but he did not ordain his own priests and refuse to follow the Council.

I thought it was only ordination of bishops that required Vatican approval? That a bishop could ordain priests at his discretion.

 

[Davidnic]

I thought it was only ordination of bishops that required Vatican approval? That a bishop could ordain priests at his discretion.

That is true at first. He ordained four Bishops after being prohibited from doing so directly. At that point all ordinations are conducted while facilities are suspended A Divinis. They are valid but illicit. All priestly functions after the Ordination of the four Bishops are illicit.

Now that does not count for confessions by the SSPX this year because of the Mercy shown by the Pope. But all other functions are suspended. That was confirmed by B16. So things they do are valid but illicit. And after he ordained the bishops all ordinations are acts of defiance against the Holy see.

There are mechanisms to resolve this. And, as I said in the other thread...we will have to see what the Pope does. I can not think he will say just ignore Vatican II. I am sure the language will be one of reconciliation while dialog continues.

 

[Tallguy88]

That is true at first. He ordained four Bishops after being prohibited from doing so directly. At that point all ordinations are conducted while facilities are suspended A Divinis. They are valid but illicit. All priestly functions after the Ordination of the four Bishops are illicit.

Now that does not count for confessions by the SSPX this year because of the Mercy shown by the Pope. But all other functions are suspended. That was confirmed by B16. So things they do are valid but illicit. And after he ordained the bishops all ordinations are acts of defiance against the Holy see.

There are mechanisms to resolve this. And, as I said in the other thread...we will have to see what the Pope does. I can not think he will say just ignore Vatican II. I am sure the language will be one of reconciliation while dialog continues.

I believe SSPX have valid Baptism and Eucharist as well. And I read that we can attend SSPX mass if it is done out of love for the TLM and not out of a desire to not be united with Rome.

 

[benedictaoo]

I believe SSPX have valid Baptism and Eucharist as well. And I read that we can attend SSPX mass if it is done out of love for the TLM and not out of a desire to not be united with Rome.

Of course they do. I thought we could if there wasn't a LM option for us or if there wasn't a Catholic option for us but the reality of us is not having options are non existent. But since 16 lifted the ex communication, can we? I know they can come to us but can we go to them?

 

[Davidnic]

I believe SSPX have valid Baptism and Eucharist as well. And I read that we can attend SSPX mass if it is done out of love for the TLM and not out of a desire to not be united with Rome.

Valid but not licit. That is what all this restores, the licit nature. All of them are still suspended a divinis, which will have to be removed.

 

[mea kulpa]

There is no real obstical though in doctrine or dogma.

 

[Davidnic]

Of course they do. I thought we could if there wasn't a LM option for us or if there wasn't a Catholic option for us but the reality of us is not having options are non existent. But since 16 lifted the ex communication, can we? I know they can come to us but can we go to them?

You can, it is prudentially unwise but possible. There are a few places we consider having valid but illicit Sacraments that the faithful can go to, but the intention must not be wrong. For instance if someone goes because they view it as valid and the one of the standard mass as invalid, that is not acceptable.

 

[Tallguy88]

Valid but not licit. That is what all this restores, the licit nature. All of them are still suspended a divinis, which will have to be removed.

Attending is licit if done out of love for the TLM, maybe the offering itself isn't licit, but attending is allowed, per the CDF.

And I don't believe faculties are required to perform marriages or baptisms, which is why Protestant marriages and Baptisms are considered valid and licit.

So that leaves Eucharist (valid, illicit), Confirmation (valid, illicit), Confession (invalid except during the Jubilee Year, illicit), Oridination (valid, illicit) and Anointing of the Sick (presumably valid but illicit) where validity or licitness is questionable or non existant.

 

[Davidnic]

There is no real obstical though in doctrine or dogma.

There are some hurdles. But they are manageable as long as it is all done properly. I can think of several forms of wording that will allow SSPX to reunite and give them some leeway on things. But I am not sure it would be acceptable to most members.

We will have to see what the Pope does. He is, after all the one God has empowered to make the call on bringing the Prodigal Son back. What mercy he shows will be the mercy the Holy Spirit guides him to show.

None of us know the mind of God, but there is a powerful feeling if this happens under Pope Francis rather then Benedict XVI. Many would have painted it as Benedict XVI being lenient toward those he agreed with deep down or some such nonsense. You would have seen that on OBOB in a heartbeat bashing B16. But under Pope Francis...he can not be accused of that. It if happens it will be a powerful message of Mercy from God. And it will, I would think, be a road map for how those divided in the laity can also heal divides.

I trust the Holy Spirit...all else is speculation.

 

[Davidnic]

Attending is licit if done out of love for the TLM, maybe the offering itself isn't licit, but attending is allowed, per the CDF.

And I don't believe faculties are required to perform marriages or baptisms, which is why Protestant marriages and Baptisms are considered valid and licit.

So that leaves Eucharist (valid, illicit), Confirmation (valid, illicit), Confession (invalid except during the Jubilee Year, illicit), Oridination (valid, illicit) and Anointing of the Sick (presumably valid but illicit) where validity or licitness is questionable or non existant.

Right; attendance is allowed for proper reasons. Non divisive ones. So restoring the licit nature of the Sacraments and facilities is not too hard. It would really depend on how much a reunification is built on an ongoing dialog. Essentially I would be shocked if an agreement was you get to not follow Vatican II and that is that. I assume it will be come home, we will grow closer over time. Part of an ongoing dialog. I expect many members and some clergy will not accept. I would hazard the gues that a more extreme faction will split off, but I expect that to be small. That is usually the way of things. Some SSPX I know are far less militant than the non-factual, hyper intense blogs that skirt the line of full blown dissent.

 

[Davidnic]

A very positive part of the leaked memo is that Fr. Schmidberger says how SSPX should normalize because there danger has grown that they are seeing their situation as normal. Which is in essence a large problem. I have seen that feeling on the blogs and other outlets...that they do not see the deficiency and problem with the situation. It good that powerful forces inside do indeed see that an abnormal situation is not normal.

 

[benedictaoo]

You can, it is prudentially unwise but possible. There are a few places we consider having valid but illicit Sacraments that the faithful can go to, but the intention must not be wrong. For instance if someone goes because they view it as valid and the one of the standard mass as invalid, that is not acceptable.

and like you can confess to one of the clerics if you are grave and there is no one else.

 

[Davidnic]

and like you can confess to one of the clerics if you are grave and there is no one else.

At the moment for the year of mercy the Pope has made their confession both valid and licit as a mercy to their parishioners.

 

[benedictaoo]

At the moment for the year of mercy the Pope has made their confession both valid and licit as a mercy to their parishioners.

Oh, well that's nice and if they ever do come back would the sacraments just be licit. I mean you would not have to do them over again, right?

 

[benedictaoo]

Okay, so I get it... hey, it takes me a minute, the pope is showing mercy to the far right as he is showing it to the far left.

 

[concretecamper]

Let's just make sure everyone understands the terms and what the Church teaches

9f: Outside Communion

223: 10 Q. Who are they who do not belong to the Communion of Saints?

A. Those who are damned do not belong to the Communion of Saints in the other life; and in this life those who belong neither to the body nor to the soul of the Church, that is, those who are in mortal sin, and who are outside the true Church.

224: 11 Q. Who are they who are outside the true Church?

A. Outside the true Church are: Infidels, Jews, heretics, apostates, schismatics, and the excommunicated.

225: 12 Q. Who are infidels?

A. Infidels are those who have not been baptised and do not believe in Jesus Christ, because they either believe in and worship false gods as idolaters do, or though admitting one true God, they do not believe in the Messiah, neither as already come in the Person of Jesus Christ, nor as to come; for instance, Mohammedans and the like.

226: 13 Q. Who are the Jews?

A. The Jews are those who profess the Law of Moses; have not received baptism; and do not believe in Jesus Christ.

227: 14 Q. Who are heretics?

A. Heretics are those of the baptised who obstinately refuse to believe some truth revealed by God and taught as an article of faith by the Catholic Church; for example, the Arians, the Nestorians and the various sects of Protestants.

228: 15 Q. Who are apostates?

A. Apostates are those who abjure, or by some external act, deny the Catholic faith which they previously professed.

229: 16 Q. Who are schismatics?
A. Schismatics are those Christians who, while not explicitly denying any dogma, yet voluntarily separate themselves from the Church of Jesus Christ, that is, from their lawful pastors.

230: 17 Q. Who are the excommunicated?

A. The excommunicated are those who, because of grievous transgressions, are struck with excommunication by the Pope or their Bishop, and consequently are cut off as unworthy from the body of the Church, which, however, hopes for and desires their conversion.

231: 18 Q. Should excommunication be dreaded?

A. Excommunication should be greatly dreaded, because it is the severest and most terrible punishment the Church can inflict upon her rebellious and obstinate children.

232: 19 Q. Of what goods are the excommunicated deprived?

A. The excommunicated are deprived of public prayers, of the Sacraments, of indulgences and of Christian burial.

233: 20 Q. Can we in any way help the excommunicated?

A. We can in some way help the excommunicated and all others who are outside the true Church, by salutary advice, by prayers and good works, begging God in His mercy to grant them the grace of being converted to the faith and of entering into the Communion of Saints.

 

[Meowzltov]

Sigh... No curse today. Cursed 2000 years ago.

Just checking. You never know what people are going to say in here.

 

[Meowzltov]

They are fully Catholic.

Not when they reject Vat 2. They are not Sede-Vacantists. That was never the problem.

 

[Meowzltov]

Well, they aren't in union.

right. they are out of union because they reject the Vat 2 reforms.

 

[Tallguy88]

right. they are out of union because they reject the Vat 2 reforms.

That's what's keeping them separated, but not what caused the separation. The original separation was caused by Archbishop Lefavbre illicit consecration for bishops.