I think that excommunication makes sense for those who refuse to attend the NO, accepting the SSPX teaching that it is an objective sin to do so. It is consistent with the anathema declared at the 7th session of the Council of Trent on those who despise "received and accepted rites of the Church."
There’s a difference between not wanting to attend the N.O. and teaching that it’s a sin so to do. I agree that the SSPX’s apparent teaching that one shouldn’t attend the N.O. even if it’s the only option is deeply problematic. But I think there’s an important distinction here.
Its defenders typically talk about the SSPX providing the TLM and downplay what they teach about the NO. They claim it is doubtfully valid, certainly illicit, spiritually dangerous, a sin to attend, and does not fulfill the Sunday obligation. They claim all this even when it's celebrated with no abuses because the problem allegedly lies in the NO itself. They also teach not to attend the TLM when it is celebrated by Ecclesia Dei groups, in effect because it is contaminated by their union with Rome. Here is a link that documents most of these teachings: https://laportelatine.org/formation/crise-eglise/nouvelle-messe/petit-catechisme-de-la-nouvelle-messe
I don't dispute that, and I agree that it’s wrong. My point was merely that in my view, "refusing to attend the NO" when there is a legitimate, Catholic-Church-sanctioned alternative available isn't problematic
Is there an established process for SSPX clerics to seek regularization (I guess by requesting incardination in the local diocese?), or is it more case-by-case?
I think schism is a sin that is reserved to the Holy See, meaning that only the pope can forgive them. So I think the process would be reaching out to the Vatican for reconciliation and possible regularization.
Oh yeah, I guess I was thinking more of a priest who *has not yet* committed any schism, but wants out either now or if/when his bishop schisms (ie if they go ahead with the ordinations)
Maybe we could refer to the SSPX's relationship to the Magisterium as "intrinsically disordered."
Or perhaps the SSPX is “inadmissible”
I think that excommunication makes sense for those who refuse to attend the NO, accepting the SSPX teaching that it is an objective sin to do so. It is consistent with the anathema declared at the 7th session of the Council of Trent on those who despise "received and accepted rites of the Church."
There’s a difference between not wanting to attend the N.O. and teaching that it’s a sin so to do. I agree that the SSPX’s apparent teaching that one shouldn’t attend the N.O. even if it’s the only option is deeply problematic. But I think there’s an important distinction here.
Its defenders typically talk about the SSPX providing the TLM and downplay what they teach about the NO. They claim it is doubtfully valid, certainly illicit, spiritually dangerous, a sin to attend, and does not fulfill the Sunday obligation. They claim all this even when it's celebrated with no abuses because the problem allegedly lies in the NO itself. They also teach not to attend the TLM when it is celebrated by Ecclesia Dei groups, in effect because it is contaminated by their union with Rome. Here is a link that documents most of these teachings: https://laportelatine.org/formation/crise-eglise/nouvelle-messe/petit-catechisme-de-la-nouvelle-messe
I don't dispute that, and I agree that it’s wrong. My point was merely that in my view, "refusing to attend the NO" when there is a legitimate, Catholic-Church-sanctioned alternative available isn't problematic
Is there an established process for SSPX clerics to seek regularization (I guess by requesting incardination in the local diocese?), or is it more case-by-case?
Case by case.
I think schism is a sin that is reserved to the Holy See, meaning that only the pope can forgive them. So I think the process would be reaching out to the Vatican for reconciliation and possible regularization.
Oh yeah, I guess I was thinking more of a priest who *has not yet* committed any schism, but wants out either now or if/when his bishop schisms (ie if they go ahead with the ordinations)
I missed an analysis of the case of the SSPX faithful in Hawaii.