It depends. There are ways to disagree. There are ways to move in other directions. Formally, though, if the pope demands obedience of an individual or group, including censure and/or excommunication ...
I just don't see how they're "out of the boat," especially now, when Pope Francis of all people explicitly gave them faculties for hearing Confessions (something no one outside the boat can ordinarily be given) and witnessing marriages, and the laity have explicitly been told by the Church that Masses with the SSPX fulfill their Sunday obligations, and that they may support them financially.
It seems to me that the worst thing for which the Society could be found guilty (come July 1) is validly consecrating four auxiliary bishops - - with zero jurisdiction, solely for the purpose of providing sacraments to the Church's faithful (particularly, priestly ordinations) -- without a papal mandate.
It seems odd considering the string of gay-friendly, communist, modernist bishops that have been consecrated with approval.
I just finished re-reading a good Padre Pio biography, so I appreciate the virtue and value of obedience to religious superiors with humility. But surely, at some point, that has its limits in cases where foxes are in charge of the hen house. Where do our loyalties reside?
If strict, unbending obedience to one's superior is the end-all be-all standard in the Church, how is it that within the Code of Canon Law there is the stipulation about cases of necessity or believing them to be so? (I'm no lawyer and can't cite the reference at the moment, but I'm sure you've heard of it, too. It's what LeFevre [and the Society today] often pointed to in order to show an automatic excommunication does not automatically happen in this situation.)
Since Church law is supposed to be primarily concerned with the salvation of souls, it seems wrong to get tied up in legal knots which can result in harming them.
Do you really believe SSPX is insincere about believing we are in a state of emergency that allows for certain extraordinary measures for the sake of the Church?
I don't claim to have all the answers. Just honestly sharing my thoughts and beefs.
It seems to me that the worst thing for which the Society could be found guilty (come July 1) is validly consecrating four auxiliary bishops - - with zero jurisdiction, solely for the purpose of providing sacraments to the Church's faithful (particularly, priestly ordinations) -- without a papal mandate.
It seems odd considering the string of gay-friendly, communist, modernist bishops that have been consecrated with approval.
I just finished re-reading a good Padre Pio biography, so I appreciate the virtue and value of obedience to religious superiors with humility. But surely, at some point, that has its limits in cases where foxes are in charge of the hen house. Where do our loyalties reside?
If strict, unbending obedience to one's superior is the end-all be-all standard in the Church, how is it that within the Code of Canon Law there is the stipulation about cases of necessity or believing them to be so? (I'm no lawyer and can't cite the reference at the moment, but I'm sure you've heard of it, too. It's what LeFevre [and the Society today] often pointed to in order to show an automatic excommunication does not automatically happen in this situation.)
Since Church law is supposed to be primarily concerned with the salvation of souls, it seems wrong to get tied up in legal knots which can result in harming them.
Do you really believe SSPX is insincere about believing we are in a state of emergency that allows for certain extraordinary measures for the sake of the Church?
I don't claim to have all the answers. Just honestly sharing my thoughts and beefs.
1