The Reunification Of The Sspx May Be At Hand

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' timestamp='1308158427' post='2254063']
Except the Pope said the differences are doctrinal. That's kind of a big deal. Like saying, "Oh yeah, I'm Catholic and all, but that whole Transubstantiation thing is silly."
[/quote]
Saying that a disagreement is doctrinal does not imply that level of difference.

[KnightofChrist]

A big reason for the doctrinal talks between Rome and the SSPX is clarification on what Vatican II teaches, distinguishing between what is the hermeneutic of discontinuity of the spirit of the Council, and the hermeneutic of reform of the Council. Benedict himself acknowledges that there has since the time of the council confusion between the hermeneutic of discontinuity, and the hermeneutic of reform of the Council. He even acknowledges a great portion of what has said to have been of Vatican II over the last 50 years has been part of the hermeneutic of discontinuity. The SSPX's doctrinal issues do not necessarily mean they reject doctrine, but there is doctrinal confusion over what the Council teaches and what it doesn't.

Edited June 15, 2011 by KnightofChrist

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1308159549' post='2254070']
A big reason for the doctrinal talks between Rome and the SSPX is clarification on what Vatican II teaches, distinguishing between what is the hermeneutic of discontinuity of the spirit of the Council, and the hermeneutic of reform of the Council. Benedict himself acknowledges that there has since the time of the council confusion between the hermeneutic of discontinuity, and the hermeneutic of reform of the Council. He even acknowledges a great portion of what has said to have been of Vatican II over the last 50 years has been part of the hermeneutic of discontinuity. The SSPX's doctrinal issues do not necessarily mean they reject doctrine, but there is doctrinal confusion over what the Council teaches and what it doesn't.
[/quote]
Yes, this.

[Vincent Vega]

I think I found our problem.
The Cardinal said that Bishop Fellay had accepted Vat II.
In the same letter that the quote from the Pope came from, he says:
"Another mistake, which I deeply regret, is the fact that the extent and limits of the provision of 21 January 2009 were not clearly and adequately explained at the moment of its publication. [b][i]The excommunication affects individuals, not institutions.[/i][/b] An episcopal ordination lacking a pontifical mandate raises the danger of a schism, since it jeopardizes the unity of the College of Bishops with the Pope."

In light of this, I am now interpreting KofC's quote as referring to only a "few difficulties" before "full communion" as applying to the individuals involved with the SSPX, not the society itself.

[XIX]

I must say, I really love our German Shepherd.

[Aloysius]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' timestamp='1308159716' post='2254072']
In light of this, I am now interpreting KofC's quote as referring to only a "few difficulties" before "full communion" as applying to the individuals involved with the SSPX, not the society itself.
[/quote]
That ignores the context of the quote. There are few doctrinal difficulties for the SSPX delegates that remain according to Castrillion. if the SSPX delegates agree, if Fellay agrees as the Superior General, then the Society enters full communion. some individuals involved in the SSPX may rebel, but they will have to form a splinter group if they do. those involved in the discussions in Rome speak for the society, not for themselves as individuals. The agreement will obviously not declare that all Catholic have to hold the clarified SSPX viewpoints, but that the clarified SSPX viewpoints are allowed to be held by Catholics.

as to what the doctrinal difficulties are, which particular things need clarified on both sides, that's above our paygrade. if Fellay recognizes the council theologically, then there's something specific about certain interpretations of parts of the council that still need to be hashed out. we don't know what details those are, but I imagine any reconciliation and normalization of canonical status will include some type of joint statement from the SSPX and Rome.

Edited June 15, 2011 by Aloysius

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1308167159' post='2254127']
as to what the doctrinal difficulties are, which particular things need clarified on both sides, that's above our paygrade. if Fellay recognizes the council theologically, then there's something specific about certain interpretations of parts of the council that still need to be hashed out. we don't know what details those are, but I imagine any reconciliation and normalization of canonical status will include some type of joint statement from the SSPX and Rome.
[/quote]
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.)

[Aloysius]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' timestamp='1308118688' post='2253942']
What does this mean, exactly? Seems to me that it could imply such severe consequences as causing illicit confection of the Eucharist or excommunication latae sententiae of those who are attempting to exercise the ministries that they do not legitimately hold. Am I way off on this?
[/quote]
there is only a latae sentantiae interdict for those who attempt to confect sacraments without being ordained to the priesthood (cf. canon 1378 §2). SSPX priests are ordained, so this does not apply to them.

this is the canon that applies:
Can. 1381 §1 Anyone who usurps an ecclesiastical office is to be punished with a just penalty.
§2 The unlawful retention of an ecclesiastical office after being deprived of it, or ceasing from it, is equivalent to usurpation.

just penalties are determined by the ecclesiastic authority. thus far, the only penalties declared are the latae sentantiae suspensions. all priests of the SSPX are under a suspension [i]a divinis[/i] with the exception of Bishop Tissier, who incurs an automatic suspension [i]a collatione ordinum[/i] for a year each time he ordains, under canon 1383, and those ordained by him are automatically under suspension [i]a divinis[/i]

the OP has indicated the possibility of an Ordinariate for the SSPX. if that is true, that would make them freer to act around the world than the FSSP, and they would no longer be prevented from ordaining under canon 1383 as those who joined the ordinariate would be their proper subjects.

[Nihil Obstat]

Specifically on the Ordinariate structure, would that imply that they could operate in any diocese they want without the permission of the local Ordinary?

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1308168536' post='2254154']
there is only a latae sentantiae interdict for those who attempt to confect sacraments without being ordained to the priesthood (cf. canon 1378 §2). SSPX priests are ordained, so this does not apply to them.

this is the canon that applies:
Can. 1381 §1 Anyone who usurps an ecclesiastical office is to be punished with a just penalty.
§2 The unlawful retention of an ecclesiastical office after being deprived of it, or ceasing from it, is equivalent to usurpation.

just penalties are determined by the ecclesiastic authority. thus far, the only penalties declared are the latae sentantiae suspensions. all priests of the SSPX are under a suspension [i]a divinis[/i] with the exception of Bishop Tissier, who incurs an automatic suspension [i]a collatione ordinum[/i] for a year each time he ordains, under canon 1383, and those ordained by him are automatically under suspension [i]a divinis[/i]

the OP has indicated the possibility of an Ordinariate for the SSPX. if that is true, that would make them freer to act around the world than the FSSP, and they would no longer be prevented from ordaining under canon 1383 as those who joined the ordinariate would be their proper subjects.
[/quote]
Interesting, thanks for the correction.

[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.