What should the SSPX do?

You know, the SSPX might be wise to simply declare victory here and rejoin the Church.

They got a Pope to say that the old mass was never suppressed (Which really genuinely shocked me), they got that thing in 2007 that opens up the old mass to the average parish, they're being offered their own prelature or semi-prelature where they can almost govern themselves and have their own seminary and say the old mass exclusively, and their excommunications have been lifted. That's basically the best offer they're going to get. They could probably get guaranteed their own bishop in perpetuity to ordain their deacons and priests in the old the rite. All they have to do is admit that Vatican II and the new mass are valid. Subsequent Popes won't be as generous. If you believe you're Catholic and want to be in communion with Rome, this is your chance. Otherwise, you as might as well just admit you're something else and move on.

It seems to me that this apostolic succession, with which those schismatics are still accredited, arises from a misconception - in the same way as I believe the mark of priestly ordination, which I believe Thomas Aquinas identified, is also misunderstood.

Both, it seems to me are not official badges of rank, still less, personal accolades bestowed on the member of the hierarchy by God, but are personal commissions by Him to preside over the church and evangelise - as they do. Must we not admit that we are 'unprofitable servants?' What we are privileged to 'do', even, we do by the grace of God.

In any case, there are only twelve Apostles, who, the Apocaypse informs us, constitute the foundation stones of the New Jerusalem. (Please correct me on this, someone, if my memory is at fault.) So, it is the commission that is inherited, not the status.

Does Judas remain an apostle in hell? I don't think so, nor wicked priests, remain as priests there - offering praise and sacrifice. Let them keep the mark of their commission on their soul. It just serves to highlight their dereliction of that commission, and consequent ignominy.

It seems a shame when such a controversial teaching (to the world) as papal infallibility, speaking ex cathedra, has prevailed, that it should be hamstrung by yet another one of numerous impediments to the faith erected by an excessive clericalism; that mistaken perspective, prioritizing the personal status over the personal commission. Surely, God would be nothing, if not practical.

Thus popes should be viewed as successors to Peter, not in his person, but in terms of his Christ-given commission; the rock upon which Christ was to build his Church was Peter's fulfilment of that commission.

When someone is baptised, the intention of the minister baptising them is apparently pivotal. How could the intention of a schismatic 'minister' be bona fide?

This is not a 'dig' at mainstream Protestantism, which seems to have arisen as a deliberate part of God's providence at a time when our institutional church was, to put it mildly, disgraceful beyond belief. Nevertheless, I don't believe that, for all its merits, the Church of England is apostolic, for the reasons I adduced above. Well, in the customary narrow sense, it may be described as formally apostolic - which to me, makes no sense, since it is not actually 'apostolic', their own orders having been rendered invalid of their own volition.

Does not this narrow, aridly formal sense of the word, 'apostolic' represent a form of moral relativism. And we are denying them the dignity of opting for the indignity for which they do, in fact, opt. They can deny elementary truths of the faith, without the full consequences. But for the fact that, in this, it is they who are 'calling the shots', on the questionable basis of our traditional usage of the term, it seems rather akin to the denial of the elementary dignity of free choice by certain respondents to a Catholic forum to a young woman who, while baptised a Catholic did not believe in Roman Catholic Christianity, nor ever had done - much as she loved her parents, and was very anxious not to hurt them.

She wanted to marry a young man who was, I think, a Methodist, mainstream Protestant, anyway, and she had found that church very, very congenial, cordially welcoming and sociable. And for this she was repeatedly taunted and baited by one or two scandalously vindictive respondents, who insisted to her: 'once a Catholic, always a Catholic.' Catholic baptism was permanent and indelible.

So, in this case, the young woman was being denied the elementary dignity and respect due to her in the matter of her Christian belief - one character even quoting to her Canon Law 47, sub-section 6, paragraph 4, lines 7-21, inclusive ... if you get my drift.

Rhamiel said:

the Church has allways believed that those who not in formal union with the Church have a possibility of Salvation
those who have heard the good news and still reject it are held accountable are they not? St.Augustine said that they are not to be counted as heretics if they do not have "passionate obstinacy" and " and if they are with anxiety seeking the truth, and are prepared to be set right when they have found it, such men are not to be counted heretics"
so it sounds like he is saying that the only excuse for heresy would be ignorance?
and i have allways believed in that, same for the natives of the New World that you mentioned in your post, before the coming of Columbus they had no oppertunity to hear the Gospel.

I will try to look up Cardinal Manning and read what he has to say on the issue

Jesus said this in Luke 10:16

Click to expand...

There's more to it than just having access to information, and such an understanding was common well before the Council too without ill effect. For example, the old Catholic Encylopedia notes this on heresy in 1910:

We have seen how heresy originates and how it spreads; we must now answer the question why it persists, or why so many persevere in heresy. Once heresy is in possession, it tightens its grip by the thousand subtle and often unconscious influences which mould a man's life. A child is born in heretical surroundings: before it is able to think for itself its mind has been filled and fashioned by home, school, and church teachings, the authority of which it never doubted. When, at a riper age, doubts arise, the truth of Catholicism is seldom apprehended as it is. Innate prejudices, educational bias, historical distortions stand in the way and frequently make approach impossible. The state of conscience technically termed bona fides, good faith, is thus produced. It implies inculpable belief in error, a mistake morally unavoidable and therefore always excusable, sometimes even laudable.

Click to expand...

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Heresy

EDIT: I found one of the writings of Cardinal Manning I was thinking of online, which is about the work of the Holy Spirit in the Anglican Church. Read from the end of page 16 to the end of the first paragraph on page 23. He goes through all the classes of people in England--the poor and uneducated, those with restricted freedom, and the educated and says why they can be considered inculpable. He notes that with each successive generation removed from the original separation, the proportion of the inculpably becomes greater and greater (and Vatican II was another century after from this writing). He goes on later to say this is even more the case for those in sects greater removed from Catholicism (he calls them Dissenters, meaning Protestants).

http://books.google.com/books?id=-d5EAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA17&lpg=PA17&dq=The+Church+teaches+that+men+may+be+inculpably+out+of+its+pale.+Now+they+are+inculpably+out+of+it+who+are,+and+have+always+been,+either+physically+or+morally+unable+to+see+their+obligation+to+submit+to+it.&source=bl&ots=yO0d4gW1cO&sig=biCvYVpY-Ujd52BXcZ2k6XjHKRs&hl=en&sa=X&ei=w6Z2UP_DLoWE8ATvyoHwBQ&ved=0CCAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=The%20Church%20teaches%20that%20men%20may%20be%20inculpably%20out%20of%20its%20pale.%20Now%20they%20are%20inculpably%20out%20of%20it%20who%20are%2C%20and%20have%20always%20been%2C%20either%20physically%20or%20morally%20unable%20to%20see%20their%20obligation%20to%20submit%20to%20it.&f=false