+
JMJ
Updated: The comment received today made it worthwhile to both bump this post as well as to respond to it.
I think this is worth repeating for the benefit of Michael Voris et al.
Last year I decided to write to Cardinal Mueller for an explicit answer.
Here's my letter:
Note the way I worded the questions, are the three classes to be regarded as members of the Catholic Church. I didn't just list those actual members of the SSPX (Bishops, Priests, Brothers, Sister), the 3rd order members and those laity who simply attend the Mass Centres.
I wasn't all that hopeful of a direct and explicit answer ... I wasn't too surprised ...
... here's the reply:
So ... those who adhere to the SSPX are to be considered as 'not in full communion'.
What does 'not in full communion' mean? Does it mean they are in formal schism?
Nope, because if they were - then the CDF would have answered directly with a yes or no.
They did not.
I realize that Michael Voris and CMTV will say that 'not in full communion' is code for schism.
Actually, if he had studied the documents of the Second Vatican Council, he will find that it doesn't really mean that - even though it is applied to those who formerly would be called or labelled as 'schismatic or heretical'.
It means that there is communion, but something is lacking. In short that the SSPX, like the various protestants and orthodox (following the Vatican II mantra) are part of the Church of Christ. It's like a huge sliding scale.
So, since Michael Voris will not criticise the Pope, then he (and his minions) should stop calling the SSPX 'schismatic' and simply use the words 'not in full communion' or the handy acronym NIFC.
This way they won't be making a judgement that is well beyond their competence to make (including the Cardinals that are secretly whispering the contrary).
That would really solve a lot of problems for Michael Voris and CMTV.
P^3
But the Vatican II mantra is incorrect. The laity who attend the SSPX Masses, and the SSPX members themselves are Catholics in communion with the Catholic Church.
ReplyDeleteThere really is no such thing as "full communion". The Church is one.
-Andrew
Hi,
ReplyDeleteYes I was just making use of the phraseology currently 'employed' by Rome to prove a point. From Rome's point of view the descriptive title for the state of the sspx is 'not full communion'. This is, I agree, a highly ambiguous phrase that has been used to describe the state of the SSPX, protestants (heretics), and orthodox (schismatics) when all three are in objectively different.
P^#
It is unfortunate that, by the document you have shown, the SSPX is officially declared "not in full communion with the Catholic Church." Pope Benedict XVI clarifies that the issue is not simply in the "disciplinary level" but also in the "doctrinal level." Thus, like the Protestants and the Orthodox, the SSPX has "no canonical status" and their ministers "do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church." Although they remain "part of the Church of Christ" as you say, they nonetheless are not in full communion with the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. Indeed, as St. Ambrose of Milan said, "ubi Petrus ibi Ecclesia, et ibi Ecclesia vita eterna."
ReplyDeleteThis is nothing new. The Pope had already said this officially and we've always known the root issue is doctrine.
DeleteHowever, you missed a few key distinctions.
First the Protestants and Orthodox are not members of the Catholic Church having separated themselves respectively vis Heresy and Schism.
The next distinction is whether or not the SSPX validly exercises a ministry via the Sacraments. The answer is simply yes.
Finally, the 'not in full communion' is an ambiguous phrase. One cannot be 'partially' in the Catholic Church ... one either is or is not Catholic.
P^3