what is the status of sspx?

[Joan of Arc]

The SSPX is certainly subject to critcism: church canon is not:

Here are two lengthy articles on supplied jurisdiction: Both make copious use of the old and new canons to prove their point:

http://www.sspx.org/miscellaneous/supplied_jurisdiction.htm

http://www.sspx.org/miscellaneous/validity_of_confessions_1.htm


A suggestion? Don't post on topics you seem to know very little about.

[JesusFreak84]

The notion of supplied jurisdiction requires that their presuppositions are correct, and having read the SSPX arguments in their "New to Tradition" kit, (hey, they want to send me $35 worth of stuff for free, I'll take it,) their arguments are flimsy and weak.

[Joan of Arc]

The notion of supplied jurisdiction requires that their presuppositions are correct, and having read the SSPX arguments in their "New to Tradition" kit, (hey, they want to send me $35 worth of stuff for free, I'll take it,) their arguments are flimsy and weak.

Your speaking in generalities. Which of their arguments are  flimsy and weak ?

[Scipio_a]

Joan, I hate to tell you what you already know, some people are not going to get it no matter who much you put in front of them.  JF won't ever, Didi won't ever.  I don't know JF's reason, but I do know Didi's.  The problem comes from a deep seated anxiety about certain possitions that HAD to be rtaken and they will not own up to it.  It's kind of like US citizens who claim they love the freedoms we have (or had) and then don't acknowledge the things that had to be done and must be done to secure them.

For these guys, it is more important to be safety pinned to someone's coattails than it is to be probably right.  It's a hedged bet.  The idea is that if we are wrong, we are screwed.  If they are wrong, at least they tried to do the right thing.  It doesn't work that way (in argument), but I can understand wanting a security blanket.  Besides even if it does work objectively, the same security blanket is available to SSPXers AND to NOs.  Now I hope it does work that way in Gods eyes, but we have to make decisions in the meantime.  Here's a prayer we all get a kudo for trying the right thing.

I have never read the stuff the SSPX sends out.  Usually that sort of think is so watered down it is made to appeal to the lowest common denominator.  The only way to understand the SSPX is to read ABL.  They do everything he sent them to do.  It is truely amazing.

[Rosarium]

Joan, I hate to tell you what you already know, some people are not going to get it no matter who much you put in front of them.  JF won't ever, Didi won't ever.  I don't know JF's reason, but I do know Didi's.  The problem comes from a deep seated anxiety about certain possitions that HAD to be rtaken and they will not own up to it.  It's kind of like US citizens who claim they love the freedoms we have (or had) and then don't acknowledge the things that had to be done and must be done to secure them.

It is hard to judge what happened in 1988, but this is a different time. Does their distancing themselves in anyway from Rome help the Church in any way?

[Scipio_a]

Joan, I hate to tell you what you already know, some people are not going to get it no matter who much you put in front of them.  JF won't ever, Didi won't ever.  I don't know JF's reason, but I do know Didi's.  The problem comes from a deep seated anxiety about certain possitions that HAD to be rtaken and they will not own up to it.  It's kind of like US citizens who claim they love the freedoms we have (or had) and then don't acknowledge the things that had to be done and must be done to secure them.

It is hard to judge what happened in 1988, but this is a different time. Does their distancing themselves in anyway from Rome help the Church in any way?

Now that is a good question worthy of discussion. 
+1
In the end my personal oppinion is that nothing has really changed enough, and Rome is trying to move in the right direction.  If the SSPX needs to move, hopefully they will as well.

[PeterII]

As long as the Society does not have a canonical status in the Church, its ministers do not exercise legitimate ministries in the Church.

But heretics like Archbishop Zollitsch do exercise legitimate ministries in the Church, so please feel free to get your sacraments and spiritual formation from him.  It's the law  . 

[Scipio_a]

As long as the Society does not have a canonical status in the Church, its ministers do not exercise legitimate ministries in the Church.

But heretics like Archbishop Zollitsch do exercise legitimate ministries in the Church, so please feel free to get your sacraments and spiritual formation from him.  It's the law  . 

[QuisUtDeus]

Joan, I hate to tell you what you already know, some people are not going to get it no matter who much you put in front of them.  JF won't ever, Didi won't ever.  I don't know JF's reason, but I do know Didi's.  The problem comes from a deep seated anxiety about certain possitions that HAD to be rtaken and they will not own up to it.  It's kind of like US citizens who claim they love the freedoms we have (or had) and then don't acknowledge the things that had to be done and must be done to secure them.

It is hard to judge what happened in 1988, but this is a different time. Does their distancing themselves in anyway from Rome help the Church in any way?

Now that is a good question worthy of discussion. 
+1
In the end my personal oppinion is that nothing has really changed enough, and Rome is trying to move in the right direction.  If the SSPX needs to move, hopefully they will as well.

Yeah, I agree with Scipio here.

[MagisterMusicae]

A few points:

1. The SSPX and even Archbishop Lefebvre recognized that the consecrations of 1988 are contra legem. All ordinations since 1976 have also been contra legem. Simply because something is not lawful, does not mean it is evil to do it. The purpose and spirit of the law bow to the fundamental law of the Church, the Salvation of Souls. Just as it is illegal for you to drive above the speed limit, in an emergency those laws serve as a hindrance not a help. The Society claims that they have been unjustly treated and that emergencies which the law does not treat forced action which would have been illegal were there not some grave reason. Ultimately it is for the Pope to decide what acts were reasonable and ought to be condoned and which were unreasonable and ought to be punished.

2. Our personal opinions, like free advice are worth about as much as they cost. It really doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things what I think about the SSPX, or what anyone does. For the 1988 situation we have the documentation which describes the mind of Archbishop Lefebvre and we have the documentation from the Holy See. On the face of it, the decisions of the Holy See make the SSPX seem in the wrong. To counter this, the SSPX have appealed to very clear provisions in Law for their actions. The Holy See has never ruled on these provisions with any authority. Those who claim they do use logical fallacies to wash over these legitimate points. They would assume guilt because the judge jailed someone.

Presently there are two possible situations and a myriad of possibilities in between these two poles: (a) The SSPX was right and justified and has the Law and an emergency on their side or (b) The SSPX was wrong and has no just reason to claim what they do. It really doesn't matter which opinion you hold, but a reasonable person must admit that these two opinions or anything in between are possibilities and any person may justly hold any of these positions until the authority (the proper organ of the Holy See) makes a definitive ruling on any of these matters.

3. The SSPX bishops possess no jurisdiction and thus no right to their functions. A "right" in this Catholic sense is "a moral or legal authority to possess, use or claim something as one's own". Thus only a bishop, given authority by the supreme legislator or by the Law he has created can be said to have a moral or legal power over his use of the episcopal functions. To extend this meaning further is to do violence to what the Pope clearly wrote. Only bishops who have jurisdiction from Him, legitimately possess their privileges and act as bishops.So the SSPX bishops, having no jurisdiction, have no right to their powers, nor do they exercise them legitimately. The ironic thing is that the SSPX bishops would never claim that they possess any more than the ability to confer certain sacraments since they are actually consecrated and can do so. The priests of the SSPX also do not have a right to their ministry, since the authority that they have only comes from legitimate bishops.

4. As Bishop Fellay wrote in a recent letter, it is contrary to Charity and and hope of some normalization to continually point out that the SSPX is in an abnormal situation. As he said, they want to fix this, and are prepared to do so following doctrinal discussions, as the Pope, himself, has outline as necessary. In the meantime the abnormal situation will need to remain. It is pointless to use the Law to try to bludgeon the SSPX when the lawgiver himself has by delaying for discussions, forced the abnormal situation to remain for at least a while. There is nothing that anyone can do about that except the Pope, so there is little reason to continually harp on this.

5. The SSPX does not possess ordinary jurisdiction of any kind, so they must rely on "supplied jurisdiction" in cases of marriages and confessions. While certain Canons would seem to make invalid these sacraments, other Canons present very strong arguments for the validity of these sacraments. It is not our place to judge. That place belongs to the Holy See, who has never made any legitimate and definitive ruling on the matter. Thus, since the law clearly indicates that we must assume the validity of marriage unless it is proved invalid (why we must not presume nullity, but await the decision of the tribunal) and according to the law any priest can be legitimately asked for and validly give absolution, there is no good reason to continually make this an issue of contention. We cannot solve the problem and no one can definitively prove that the SSPX does not give these valid sacraments. It is an affront to Charity and to any hope of normalization to constantly tell SSPX supporters that they are "living in sin" or they do not have valid confessions when we cannot know this with certainty.