I do not read anyone's mind.
I know only that the pope has not recognized SSPX as anything but a schismatic group. He has admonished Catholics not to support it financially, to attend its services, or to lend it public support.
Now, if one believes one's teaching authority is superior to the pope's, then you can contradict the pope. But that means you are not Catholic, since Catholics must obey canon law and the pope, right? But the pope could be wrong on these matters of faith and morals, right? But wouldn't that mean that the Catholic teaching about papal infallibility is erroneous, right?
No thank you, I will stick with papal teaching authority unencumbered by personal prejudices. Until the excommincant bishops and illicit priests return to communion with the pope, they do not deserve serious consideration.
you wrote: I know only that the pope has not recognized SSPX as anything but a schismatic group. He has admonished Catholics not to support it financially, to attend its services, or to lend it public support.
actually there has been posted numerous times on FR letters from various priests/Roman authorities that concede one can attend SSPX service provided schism is not intended on the part of the person and that one can even make a contribution to support them (Probably not real large though :))
Undoubtedly the Pope does not secretly agree 100% with SSPX. But the reality is the Pope has far worse problem: it's called the Western church which is has far too many frank heretics and perverts. JP II said Europe was undergoing apostasy (and that huge problem dwarfs the SSPX and occurred in the last 40 years of our New Pentecost-and I think we can agree it wasnt the SSPX's fault).
Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger on the So-called SSPX "Hawaii Five"
His Excellency, the Most Reverend Joseph Anthony Ferrario, with aforesaid Decree, declared Mrs. Morley excommunicated on the grounds that she had committed the crime of schism and thus had incurred the "latae sententiae" penalty as provided for in Canon 1364 §1 of the Code of Canon Law.
This Congregation has examined carefully all the available documentation and has ascertained that the activities engaged in by the Petitioner, though blameworthy on various accounts, are not sufficient to constitute the crime of schism.
Since Mrs. Morley did not, in fact, commit the crime of schism and thus did not incur the "latae sententiae" penalty, it is clear that the Decree of the Bishop lacks the precondition on which is founded.
This Congregation, noting all of the above, is obliged to declare null and void the aforesaid Decree of the Ordinary of Honolulu.
His third question was: "Is it a sin for me to contribute to the Sunday collection a Pius X Mass" to which we responded:
"3. It would seem that a modest contribution to the collection at Mass could be justified."
"But that means you are not Catholic, since Catholics must obey canon law and the pope, right? "
Canon Law REQUIRES that seminarians be taught Latin before ordination.
Many dioceses in the U.S. and elsewhere do not require their seminarians to be taught Latin.
Are these dioceses, therefore, not Catholic?
BTW does your parish priest know Latin?
I submit that disobedience to the Pope and to Canon Law does not make one non- Catholic. It does make one disobedient and culpability exists to the degree that is determined by the persons inner reasons for his course of action.
What does make one "not Catholic" is falure to believe what Catholics have always believed. It might also include disdain for and failure to practice those traditions which the Church has always practiced.