The Reunification Of The Sspx May Be At Hand

[Aloysius]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' timestamp='1308167535' post='2254135']
So are you considering Fellay and the SSPX to be one-in-the-same? (I'm not being snooty, I merely want clarification as I consider you easily one of the most learned around these parts.)
[/quote]
Fellay is the Superior General. He will take the society with him. if the society splinters from him, it will no longer be the society but a different group.

Fellay will not go if he does not think at least a large majority of the society will go with him, of course. I think ownership of SSPX assets is an issue if it came to open rebellion against the Superior General. It is my understanding that there are laypeople involved in the actual ownership of some assets (I could be wrong but that was my understanding), so ensuring that they're on board with any reconcilliation with Rome would obviously be crucial. But I suspect if the Superior General of the Society goes, the society itself will go. Though it may be possible that we would see a small splinter gather around Bishop Williamson, much more marginalized than before (and likely only a small portion of those who follow the society IMO)

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1308168936' post='2254160']
Though it may be possible that we would see a small splinter gather around Bishop Williamson, much more marginalized than before (and likely only a small portion of those who follow the society IMO)
[/quote]
I've brought up that possibility in the past. I imagine that if that happened, the splinter group would likely turn out to be outright sede-vacantist, -privationist, or less likely, conclavist.
Bishop Williamson isn't exactly in the best graces of Fellay already, I think.

[Aloysius]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1308168684' post='2254157']
Specifically on the Ordinariate structure, would that imply that they could operate in any diocese they want without the permission of the local Ordinary?
[/quote]
that would be my understanding. basically, there would be SSPX ordinaries over specific territories, and for those who joined ordinariate, the SSPX bishop of that territory would be their ordinary.

the SSPX ordinary would fall "underneath" the diocesan bishop in some hierarchecal sense, but mostly would act autonomously, if I understand it correctly.

this is my understanding, the concept of ordinariates for anything other than the military is relatively novel, though, so it's hard to say exactly how the SSPX thing will work. keep an eye out to the Anglican Ordinariate for details.

[Aloysius]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1308169302' post='2254170']
I've brought up that possibility in the past. I imagine that if that happened, the splinter group would likely turn out to be outright sede-vacantist, -privationist, or less likely, conclavist.
Bishop Williamson isn't exactly in the best graces of Fellay already, I think.
[/quote]
that's my sense too. any potential Williamson group might somehow unite with the SSPV, I suppose.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1308169348' post='2254171']
that would be my understanding. basically, there would be SSPX ordinaries over specific territories, and for those who joined ordinariate, the SSPX bishop of that territory would be their ordinary.

the SSPX ordinary would fall "underneath" the diocesan bishop in some hierarchecal sense, but mostly would act autonomously, if I understand it correctly.

this is my understanding, the concept of ordinariates for anything other than the military is relatively novel, though, so it's hard to say exactly how the SSPX thing will work. keep an eye out to the Anglican Ordinariate for details.
[/quote]
It would be extremely interesting to see it work out, if that was indeed proposed.
We'd certainly see conflict. I mentioned the Archbishop of Glasgow earlier... to see that conflict be worked through, with Bishop Fellay in a position of properly exercised authority would be pretty aw[u][/u]esome.

[mortify]

Dont hold your breath

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='mortify' timestamp='1308248334' post='2254658']
Dont hold your breath
[/quote]
What, do you not trust Rome's delegates and Ecclesia Dei? Seems like Rome wants the SSPX around more than you do.

[Ash Wednesday]

Naturally I don't support the SSPX as they stand now, at least as far as my understanding of it. But to be honest it almost seems like a lot of Catholics demonstrate less charity and are more openly hostile to traditionalists than they are to other separated bretheren.

[Jaime]

[quote name='Ash Wednesday' timestamp='1308254466' post='2254730']
Naturally I don't support the SSPX as they stand now, at least as far as my understanding of it. But to be honest it almost seems like a lot of Catholics demonstrate less charity and are more openly hostile to traditionalists than they are to other separated bretheren.
[/quote]

that's been my point. SSPX cannot be considered tradtionalists because of their separated state.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Ash Wednesday' timestamp='1308254466' post='2254730']
Naturally I don't support the SSPX as they stand now, at least as far as my understanding of it. But to be honest it almost seems like a lot of Catholics demonstrate less charity and are more openly hostile to traditionalists than they are to other separated bretheren.
[/quote]
I'm glad you notice it too.

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='Ash Wednesday' timestamp='1308254466' post='2254730']
Naturally I don't support the SSPX as they stand now, at least as far as my understanding of it. But to be honest it almost seems like a lot of Catholics demonstrate less charity and are more openly hostile to traditionalists than they are to other separated bretheren.
[/quote]
I'll have you know I try to be as rude to Protestants and their whore of a religion as I can!! (fist-shaking smiley)

[Ash Wednesday]

[quote name='jaime (the artist formerly known as hot stuff) (the artist formerly known as hot stuff) (the artist formerly known as hot stuff) (the artist formerly known as hot stuff) (the artist formerly known as hot stuff)' timestamp='1308259562' post='2254771']
that's been my point. SSPX cannot be considered tradtionalists because of their separated state.
[/quote]

And I understand that, I'm not really talking about what they should be considered or their state of separation itself. We're all more than familiar with the debates regarding that -- but even if people choose to call them Protestants, at the same time it seems to me that Catholics don't treat them with the same charity that they would a Protestant. In addition to the lack of charity, any news of reconciliation efforts is often received with a lot of negativity and cynicism that I don't see as much in other scenarios, and the feeling I get whenever things like this come up is that some people really don't want to see any efforts made at reconciliation or even see them in the fold of our Church despite how ardently we insist that they're not in full communion.

Edited June 17, 2011 by Ash Wednesday

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Ash Wednesday' timestamp='1308272221' post='2254861']
And I understand that, I'm not really talking about what they should be considered or their state of separation itself. We're all more than familiar with the debates regarding that -- but even if people choose to call them Protestants, at the same time it seems to me that Catholics don't treat them with the same charity that they would a Protestant. In addition to the lack of charity, any news of reconciliation efforts is often received with a lot of negativity and cynicism that I don't see as much in other scenarios, and the feeling I get whenever things like this come up is that some people really don't want to see any efforts made at reconciliation or even see them in the fold of our Church despite how ardently we insist that they're not in full communion.
[/quote]
Also, I'm sure you do know this, but for the sake of anyone who may not, we really cannot in any meaningful sense compare the SSPX to Protestantism. The SSPX are Catholic and not heretics. They have valid orders, valid Masses (illicit, still valid), and we can fulfill our Sunday obligation by assisting at their Masses with no canonical penalty.

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1308279297' post='2254921']They have valid orders, valid Masses (illicit, still valid), and we can fulfill our Sunday obligation by assisting at their Masses with no canonical penalty.
[/quote]
One can knowingly attend an illicit mass with no canonical penalty? That doesn't seem to make sense.

[mortify]

[quote name='jaime (the artist formerly known as hot stuff)' timestamp='1308259562' post='2254771']
that's been my point. SSPX cannot be considered tradtionalists because of their separated state.
[/quote]

We can probably discuss for a while on whether they are "separated." Afterall, even the separated brethren are in "partial communion." And if they can hold on to their heretical views and still maintain a "partial communion," what are we to say of our SSPX brothers and sisters? But even if they are separated that doesn't discount their traditionalism. Archbishop Lefebvre sincerely believed heresy was taught in Vatican II, and that the sacraments were so substantially altered that they were rendered useless. It was preserving Catholic doctrine and tradition that was his aim, even if that had the double effect of going against Rome.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' timestamp='1308279571' post='2254923']
One can knowingly attend an illicit mass with no canonical penalty? That doesn't seem to make sense.
[/quote]
The penalties involve the priests. The faithful are caught in the crossfire, so to speak.
Of course, I think it is correct to say that a layperson would incur a Latæ sententiæ excommunication if they began to believe extra SSPX nulla salus, which I hasten to add, is not a position accepted by the SSPX itself.
First edit: It is not like receiving at an Orthodox Mass (bad, except in extreme circumstances), because the SSPX is not in a state of schism.
Second edit: Keep in mind that only regular priests are 'part' of the SSPX. Bishops are not, in a technical sense, part of the Society, and the faithful are not either. Except perhaps their Third Order, and I do not know how that functions in a canonical sense.

Edited June 17, 2011 by Nihil Obstat

[Jaime]

[quote name='mortify' timestamp='1308279616' post='2254924']
We can probably discuss for a while on whether they are "separated." Afterall, even the separated brethren are in "partial communion." And if they can hold on to their heretical views and still maintain a "partial communion," what are we to say of our SSPX brothers and sisters? But even if they are separated that doesn't discount their traditionalism. Archbishop Lefebvre sincerely believed heresy was taught in Vatican II, and that the sacraments were so substantially altered that they were rendered useless. It was preserving Catholic doctrine and tradition that was his aim, even if that had the double effect of going against Rome.
[/quote]
ed
We don't have to discuss it. They are separated. They are not in full communion with the Church. And OF COURSE it discounts their Traditionalism. Obedience is at the core of Traditionalism. Without it, there is no Traditionalism. If you don't accept all the teachings of the Church, YOU CANNOT be an advocate for Traditionalism.

If an American believes in the Constitution but doesn't believe that women should be allowed to vote, are they a traditional American?

[Nihil Obstat]

[Lil Red]

sigh. this is going round and round in circles. thread closed.