what is the status of sspx?

[orate]

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.

ditto

[Resurrexi]

Why can't it be something like the situation with the Eastern Catholic Churches?  Within the respective churches, bishops are regularly ordained without a papal mandate. 

A papal mandate is required in Eastren Catholic Churches, too. Please read CCEO, canon 182 para 3.

Look at the first part of the sentence, "Unless particular law approved by the Roman Pontiff states otherwise,"  I don't know which individual churches this applies to, but I know in general, and what is spoken of in this canon, the practice is that the patriarch or the synond of bishops picks a few names and sends them over to Rome to make sure the Pope has no objections.  But the Pope isn't mandating a particular candidate or the erection of a particular eparchy.  That has already been decided by the head of the respective Church.  It is only sent to the Pope to make sure he has no objections.

Having the Pope approve candidates for the episcopacy in the Eastern Churches rather than choosing them himself is probably more in line with the traditional practices of the East. As long as the Pope has some role in the process, then I think Catholic ecclesiology is being followed.

In the West I think that the Pope should continue to choose Bishops himself since this is in line with Latin Catholic tradition and also demonstrates his role as Patriarch of the Latin Church.

[jovan66102]

In the West I think that the Pope should continue to choose Bishops himself since this is in line with Latin Catholic tradition and also demonstrates his role as Patriarch of the Latin Church.

Actually, the 'tradition' of the Pope choosing Bishops in the Latin Church is a fairly late development. Originally the clergy and people of the Diocese chose the Bishop contingent on approval by the Ordinaries of neighbouring Dioceses. The Second Lateran Council (1139) granted the exclusive right of choosing the Bishop to the Cathedral Chapter of the Diocese. It wasn't until the Tridentine reforms that Papal selection became the norm.

That said, I'm glad the current system exists. Can you imagine the Bishops we'd have if the clergy and people or the Chapter (where one still exists) still selected them?

[JesusFreak84]

The Church in the US (and other places) would likely be in worse shape than it already is.  :(

[LRThunder]

The Church in the US (and other places) would likely be in worse shape than it already is.  :(

Linz being one of those places.

[glgas]

Actually, the 'tradition' of the Pope choosing Bishops in the Latin Church is a fairly late development. Originally the clergy and people of the Diocese chose the Bishop contingent on approval by the Ordinaries of neighbouring Dioceses. The Second Lateran Council (1139) granted the exclusive right of choosing the Bishop to the Cathedral Chapter of the Diocese. It wasn't until the Tridentine reforms that Papal selection became the norm.

That said, I'm glad the current system exists. Can you imagine the Bishops we'd have if the clergy and people or the Chapter (where one still exists) still selected them?

In teh Apostolic times the Apostles and their delegated nominated the bishops. When Theodosius (378-395) made the Christianity the official religion of the empire, he claimed also the right to nomination of the bishops.. Fortunately for the Western Church the imperium dissolved, and the Church was left on her own.

Due to communication problems it was impossible to nominate bishops by the pope.

In France and later in Hungary the Kings declared themselves to reign under the pope, and they nominated the bishops, established dioceses etc. This system worked, in Hungary until 1918 the King choose the bishops, Rome gave only approval.

When the German-Roman empire started, the emperors wanted to use the same rights, without acknowledging themselves as under the rule of the pope. Thus started the investiture controversy, which ended with the Concordat of Worms  (1122): the nomination belonged to the chapters under the supervision of the Emperor, but they get the ring and staff in the name of the Church, rule under the jurisdiction of the Pope.

This was approved by the II Council of Lateran, but did not changed the practices in France, Hungary, and later is Spain, Portugal, Peru. where the selection belonged to the KIng ruling under the Pope.

[IrishCowboy]

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.

Best summary I've seen on the situation thus far.  Kudos to you!  +1 

[Joan of Arc]

There has been extensive study of their position and they have all the right they need to opperate as they do, but no more, and they are not seeking, nor have they ever attempted more.  They're just working and waiting out the storm.

Would you like to refer us to these extensive studies?

I should note the author of what you describe as 'blah blah blah' is none other than the Supreme Legislator of the Church, the Holy Father.

They do not have faculty. Period.

Refuted ad finitum by Canon Lawyers. Apparently, from your photo, you are an airline employee, Markadm.
Instead of commenting on a topic you don't understand; why don't you find my luggage from my last flight?

[matthew_talbot]

There has been extensive study of their position and they have all the right they need to opperate as they do, but no more, and they are not seeking, nor have they ever attempted more.  They're just working and waiting out the storm.

Would you like to refer us to these extensive studies?

I should note the author of what you describe as 'blah blah blah' is none other than the Supreme Legislator of the Church, the Holy Father.

They do not have faculty. Period.

Refuted ad finitum by Canon Lawyers. Apparently, from your photo, you are an airline employee, Markadm.
Instead of commenting on a topic you don't understand; why don't you find my luggage from my last flight?

+1 

[spasiisochrani]

That said, I'm glad the current system exists. Can you imagine the Bishops we'd have if the clergy and people or the Chapter (where one still exists) still selected them?

Yeah, but if Paul VI had not been able to appoint liberal bishops of his choosing, we might never have arrived at the state we're in.