17-Jun-09 - Ordinations by Fraternity of St. Pius X Remain Illegitimate [EWTN]

[rkrispies]

There is a canon that applies and it is 1383, the penalty for which is suspension, not excommunication.

For the priest who is ordained, you are probably correct. The bishop, however, has clearly been told not to engage in his ministry by the Holy See. Thus, conducting an ordination in violation of that prohibition is by itself a schismatic act. The bishop would likely fall under 1364, while the priest under 1383.

Chris

Addition: Regardless of which canon applies, I have little doubt that the Vatican will (silently) refuse to publicly impose any sort of canonical penalty regardless.

 

[giuseppeTO]

For the priest who is ordained, you are probably correct. The bishop, however, has clearly been told not to engage in his ministry by the Holy See. Thus, conducting an ordination in violation of that prohibition is by itself a schismatic act. The bishop would likely fall under 1364, while the priest under 1383.

Actually 1383 is for both the bishop and the priest. It is clear that the SSPX has no canonical structure but the bishops are considered within the church.

Canon Law is very precise and disobedience to the Pope must involve an order that is disobeyed to the extent that it causes great harm to the church. I don’t believe that this year’s ordinations fall into that category, nor do I think the Pope believes so. To my knowledge, the Pope has not issued a request that Bishop Fellay desist from this year’s ordinations. Remember, he was just in Rome last week and if that were a Papal edict, we would all know about it. The Pope did issue a general statement (not to the SSPX), at the agitation of the German bishop, reiterating what everyone knows to be the canonical case - that the SSPX has no ministry and the ordination lacks licidity. He could have easily, but did not, request a stay of the ordinations (as he did just a few months ago). So I think there is more going on here we peasants know about and the Pope is in charge.

 

[rkrispies]

Actually 1383 is for both the bishop and the priest. It is clear that the SSPX has no canonical structure but the bishops are considered within the church.

Canon Law is very precise and disobedience to the Pope must involve an order that is disobeyed to the extent that it causes great harm to the church. I don’t believe that this year’s ordinations fall into that category, nor do I think the Pope believes so. To my knowledge, the Pope has not issued a request that Bishop Fellay desist from this year’s ordinations. Remember, he was just in Rome last week and if that were a Papal edict, we would all know about it. The Pope did issue a general statement (not to the SSPX), at the agitation of the German bishop, reiterating what everyone knows to be the canonical case - that the SSPX has no ministry and the ordination lacks licidity. He could have easily, but did not, request a stay of the ordinations (as he did just a few months ago). So I think there is more going on here we peasants know about and the Pope is in charge.

I whole-heartedly agree. Hopefully something resembling talks will get started and we can get on with the business of reconciliation. Enough of a “us versus them”!

Ultimately on the penalty side, I seriously doubt anything would be handed down from Rome, regardless of what canon is used. And the debate on 1383 vs. 1364 is to a certain degree how one interprets statements from Rome on this specific issue. To me, it just seems like they are trying to be overly diplomatic in their handling of SSPX. But that’s my perspective and is vastly different from others here.

Chris

 

[K_of_A_Director]

It is clear to me that comments surrounding the issue of the SSPX pivot on recognizing that there is a crisis in the Church. Those who see the marks of a crisis understand easily what the SSPX is about and those who do not think that everyone should play by the rules as if there is peace and goodwill from all. +AMDG+

 

[I_Believe]

So what are you suggesting exactly? That the language in the MP was less than clear and that the Pope needs to phone your pastor?

The language of the MP was very clear.

Well, did you read it ?

Art. 5. § 1 **In parishes, where there is a stable group of faithful who adhere to the earlier liturgical tradition, the pastor should willingly accept their requests to celebrate the Mass according to the rite of the Roman Missal published in 1962, and ensure that the welfare of these faithful harmonises with the ordinary pastoral care of the parish, under the guidance of the bishop in accordance with canon 392, avoiding discord and favouring the unity of the whole Church. **

Yes, it says that if a stable group request it, it should be considered. Saying “not right now, our parish doesn’t have a priest who can pray the TLM,” or something similar, is understandable. It’s not my pastor, it’s at another parish, but no matter. I’m not mad at him. I’m very fortunate to live in a town where I can find a TLM at 5 churches. I can find one 7 days a week here. It’s just misleading to acknowledge the SP and then say the TLM has been done away with. Puzzling, don’t you think ?

 

[I_Believe]

Where is it being suppressed? Well, I’m curious (not hostile to the SSPX, in other words)…if “taditionalists” can question the prudence of promulgation of the Novus Ordo by one pope (or any of the other decisions a pope has made that they don’t like), can’t the bishops question the prudence of lifting the excommunications? I’m glad he did, it seems merciful and I know how much I need that, but still…it seems curious that one who self-identifies as a "traditionalist"would resent the bishops questioning papal prudence, since they question it so much themselves.

You are lumping all traditionalists into one sack and assuming they all agree on everything. Everyone from a sede to a little old lady who kept her opinions to herself for 2 decades and ran as fast as she could to the indult Mass in her town when it began being prayed.

I don’t know. The Church is facing a serious priest shortage, and the SSPX is ordaining priests Yes, in the eyes of the Holy See, they technically should not be at this time. The talks have been set and probably begun. They could wait. But there are communities of Catholics who need priests. H.H. noted in his letter in reply to the Bishops howling over the Lifting of the excommunications, that though we have seen arrogance, he feels there is a saving grace in the Society clergy.

Can we be totally indifferent about a community which has 491 priests, 215 seminarians, 6 seminaries, 88 schools, 2 university-level institutes, 117 religious brothers, 164 religious sisters and thousands of lay faithful? Should we casually let them drift farther from the Church? I think for example of the 491 priests. We cannot know how mixed their motives may be. All the same, I do not think that they would have chosen the priesthood if, alongside various distorted and unhealthy elements, they did not have a love for Christ and a desire to proclaim him and, with him, the living God. Can we simply exclude them, as representatives of a radical fringe, from our pursuit of reconciliation and unity? What would then become of them?

Certainly, for some time now, and once again on this specific occasion, we have heard from some representatives of that community many unpleasant things – arrogance and presumptuousness, an obsession with one-sided positions, etc. Yet to tell the truth, I must add that I have also received a number of touching testimonials of gratitude which clearly showed an openness of heart. But should not the great Church also allow herself to be generous in the knowledge of her great breadth, in the knowledge of the promise made to her? Should not we, as good educators, also be capable of overlooking various faults and making every effort to open up broader vistas? And should we not admit that some unpleasant things have also emerged in Church circles? At times one gets the impression that our society needs to have at least one group to which no tolerance may be shown; which one can easily attack and hate. And should someone dare to approach them – in this case the Pope – he too loses any right to tolerance; he too can be treated hatefully, without misgiving or restraint.

We have a Pope pleading for healing of the division, and also, a stop to the hateful stigma thrust upon the SSPX. That is our Holy Father talking about traditionalists, not to them. He’s talking to those who want four Catholic Bishops excommunicated and their Society that is a needed source of Clergy and Religious, suppressed.

It’s really sad he had to write this letter.

 

[I_Believe]

The discussions between Rome and the SSPX could take many years. Do we expect the SSPX to stop ordaining priests during this time? What if the talks last for ten years? These young men have studied for many years and deserve to be ordained on schedule. It is wrong to ask them to wait for an indefinite period of time while the doctrinal discussions unfold. In my opinion, the Church must outline guidelines to allow the SSPX to operate until its canonical status is resolved.

Surely, the Church does not want the SSPX to turn men seeking the priesthood away while these discussions take place. If the discussions last years, the seminarians will be left in a state of limbo if the SSPX is banned from ordaining priests. If this happens, the SSPX will have to start sending seminarians home.

It is not realistic to expect the SSPX to stop ordaining priests. The SSPX was establised for this very reason. In these days of the priest shortage, the SSPX is doing a great job in providing priests for the next generation. The SSPX may aswell cease to exist if they are banned from ordaining priests.

Agreed.

 

[reggieM]

You are lumping all traditionalists into one sack and assuming they all agree on everything.

Perhaps a little off-topic, but what do they all agree on?

 

[OhMalley]

…I don’t know. The Church is facing a serious priest shortage, and the SSPX is ordaining priests Yes, in the eyes of the Holy See, they technically should not be at this time. The talks have been set and probably begun. They could wait. But there are communities of Catholics who need priests. H.H. noted in his letter in reply to the Bishops howling over the Lifting of the excommunications, that though we have seen arrogance, he feels there is a saving grace in the Society clergy.

The shortage of priests will resolve itself through God’s grace. I don’t think that’s a reason to welcome back a group that clearly has some serious impediments.

…We have a Pope pleading for healing of the division, and also, a stop to the hateful stigma thrust upon the SSPX. That is our Holy Father talking about traditionalists, not to them. He’s talking to those who want four Catholic Bishops excommunicated and their Society that is a needed source of Clergy and Religious, suppressed.

It seems to me that any “stigma” was well-earned by the SSPX.

 

[I_Believe]

The shortage of priests will resolve itself through God’s grace. I don’t think that’s a reason to welcome back a group that clearly has some serious impediments.

It seems to me that any “stigma” was well-earned by the SSPX.

Fine , ignore our Holy Father’s words. Let the SSPX be your personal

**one group to which no tolerance may be shown; which one can easily attack and hate. **

 

[JReducation]

The bottom line here is that the Holy See is saying that the SSPX bishops do not have the authority to ordain. They have the sacramental power to do so, but not the Chruch’s approval, because they do not have canonical status.

It would seem that the SSPX needs to ask the Holy See what to do in the case of these seminarians who have completed their training. It’s like not having a license. If you know how to drive, but you don’t have a license, you don’t get yourself into trouble by driving without one. You can always ask for help.

I’m not privy to the communication between the SSPX and the Holy See; therefore, I’m not going to say that they have failed to ask for such help. I’m only suggesting that they SSPX bishops ask for it.

There is another option. The SSPX is not a religious community. They are a secular institute. Their semianrians and priests are secular men. Therefore, they can request incardination into any diocese or admission into a religious congregation or a religious order, if they have the vocation to be religious.

If they are incardinated into a diocese, the Ordinary of that diocese has the authority to ordain. If they ask for admission to a religious congregation or to a religious order, the religious superior has the authority to approve the ordination if he feels that the men have a vocation tot he piresthood.

There are also other secular priestly societies, such as the FSSP, Maryknoll, Vincentians, and Opus Dei.

There are EF religious such as the Sons of the Holy Redeemer, for those who may have a calling to the religious life and several Benedictine abbeys that celebrate the EF exclusively.

There are options if we look for them. If we use them, we do not have to engage in uncharitable behavior toward each other.

But what we may never do is to ignore what the Holy Father wants and does not want. That would be disobedience to the Vicar of Christ.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[giuseppeTO]

The bottom line here is that the Holy See is saying that the SSPX bishops do not have the authority to ordain. They have the sacramental power to do so, but not the Chruch’s approval, because they do not have canonical status.

It would seem that the SSPX needs to ask the Holy See what to do in the case of these seminarians who have completed their training. It’s like not having a license. If you know how to drive, but you don’t have a license, you don’t get yourself into trouble by driving without one. You can always ask for help.

I’m not privy to the communication between the SSPX and the Holy See; therefore, I’m not going to say that they have failed to ask for such help. I’m only suggesting that they SSPX bishops ask for it.

There is another option. The SSPX is not a religious community. They are a secular institute. Their semianrians and priests are secular men. Therefore, they can request incardination into any diocese or admission into a religious congregation or a religious order, if they have the vocation to be religious.

If they are incardinated into a diocese, the Ordinary of that diocese has the authority to ordain. If they ask for admission to a religious congregation or to a religious order, the religious superior has the authority to approve the ordination if he feels that the men have a vocation tot he piresthood.

There are also other secular priestly societies, such as the FSSP, Maryknoll, Vincentians, and Opus Dei.

There are EF religious such as the Sons of the Holy Redeemer, for those who may have a calling to the religious life and several Benedictine abbeys that celebrate the EF exclusively.

There are options if we look for them. If we use them, we do not have to engage in uncharitable behavior toward each other.

But what we may never do is to ignore what the Holy Father wants and does not want. That would be disobedience to the Vicar of Christ.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Br JR is correct … the priests in the SSPX do not take solemn vows to attach themselves to a religious order. They are a Fraternity of priests that make a renewable commitment to the order.

While these seminarians do have the options, as stated above, to join other orders or become clerics in a diocese, they all know that they had the same options upon entering into a seminary of the Society and, for whatever the reason, decided that it was their best alternative to carry on Christ’s mission to save souls. I don’t pretend to know all of the reasons, but I can tell you how my own son feels about this who is a seminarian at St Thomas Aquinas Seminary in Winona,MN. He feels that error is being taught in the church, errors that are clearly in opposition to what the church has traditionally taught. It stands to reason that this error must necessarily begin during the priest’s formation in the seminary. At best, one may join a religious order or a diocese led by a traditional-minded bishop (and there are a few here in the U.S.), but the price of regularization is to be silent regarding these errors. (I would suggest that folks refrain from making this thread about “errors” but start a new one if you want to get into it.)

There are thousands of good Catholics worldwide who recognize a severe crisis in our Church (bishops and popes included) … you would have to be absolutely blind to miss it. A great number of these have chosen to assist at an SSPX chapel and pray for a solution, which I believe is in the works between the Pope and Bishop Fellay. It is not a matter of throwing out the Second Vatican Council, which was a valid council called by a valid pope. It is more a matter of taking a document like Lumen Gentium and clarifying that when it uses the word “subsists”, this is what is meant, in consonance with all previous teachings of the church and nothing else. Perhaps the Pope is looking forward to officially making these clarifications?

In the meantime, which we all pray is short, we need these young priests to continue their work in our chapels. When the Pope lifted the excommunications, he knew that the very same day, those bishops and every SSPX priest would be offering Masses that were illicit (offered outside of a canonical structure) and that there would be ordinations the very next week (many ordinations are held on the Feast of Candlemas Day) and he still went ahead and did it without prejudice or precondition to these daily/upcoming events. He did it, as he stated, as a gesture of beneficence and removal of an impediment to the talks that are now taking place to resolve and end the irregularity.

 

[Tsuwano]

Br JR is correct … the priests in the SSPX do not take solemn vows to attach themselves to a religious order. They are a Fraternity of priests that make a renewable commitment to the order.

While these seminarians do have the options, as stated above, to join other orders or become clerics in a diocese, they all know that they had the same options upon entering into a seminary of the Society and, for whatever the reason, decided that it was their best alternative to carry on Christ’s mission to save souls. I don’t pretend to know all of the reasons, but I can tell you how my own son feels about this who is a seminarian at St Thomas Aquinas Seminary in Winona,MN. He feels that error is being taught in the church, errors that are clearly in opposition to what the church has traditionally taught. It stands to reason that this error must necessarily begin during the priest’s formation in the seminary. At best, one may join a religious order or a diocese led by a traditional-minded bishop (and there are a few here in the U.S.), but the price of regularization is to be silent regarding these errors. (I would suggest that folks refrain from making this thread about “errors” but start a new one if you want to get into it.)

There are thousands of good Catholics worldwide who recognize a severe crisis in our Church (bishops and popes included) … you would have to be absolutely blind to miss it. A great number of these have chosen to assist at an SSPX chapel and pray for a solution, which I believe is in the works between the Pope and Bishop Fellay. It is not a matter of throwing out the Second Vatican Council, which was a valid council called by a valid pope. It is more a matter of taking a document like Lumen Gentium and clarifying that when it uses the word “subsists”, this is what is meant, in consonance with all previous teachings of the church and nothing else. Perhaps the Pope is looking forward to officially making these clarifications?

In the meantime, which we all pray is short, we need these young priests to continue their work in our chapels. When the Pope lifted the excommunications, he knew that the very same day, those bishops and every SSPX priest would be offering Masses that were illicit (offered outside of a canonical structure) and that there would be ordinations the very next week (many ordinations are held on the Feast of Candlemas Day) and he still went ahead and did it without prejudice or precondition to these daily/upcoming events. He did it, as he stated, as a gesture of beneficence and removal of an impediment to the talks that are now taking place to resolve and end the irregularity.

With all due respect to your son, presently discerning his vocation, I find it odd that a mere seminarian, who has not yet completed his formation and theology, feels competent enough to judge that there are errors being taught in seminaries that are in opposition to what the Church has traditionally taught, especially when such a judgement calls into question the proper authority of the bishops and the teaching authority of the Church. It may be true that formation programs in various seminaries are incomplete and in need of some reform, but I doubt that a seminarian is capable or mature enough to distinguish what errors are present in the program or how best to improve that program. As far as seminarians are concerned, yes, they should remain silent until they have the proper authority and education to make those judgements.
One other point, which I’m afraid will open me up to the charge of being absolutely blind in your opinion, I do not believe there is a crisis in the Church that is so severe it warrants the presence of any group of priests who are willfully disobedient to the proper authorities of the Church, guided by the Holy Father and the bishops, and who have entered into their teaching positions through the direct call and confirmation of the Holy Spirit. In the final analysis, the SSPX are wrong in continuing with their plans to ordain their seminarians in opposition to the Vatican, and though we can debate whether their actions are legal or licit or not, one must also raise the question of whether their actions constitute sin. My belief is that it does.

 

[JReducation]

With all due respect to your son, presently discerning his vocation, I find it odd that a mere seminarian, who has not yet completed his formation and theology, feels competent enough to judge that there are errors being taught in seminaries that are in opposition to what the Church has traditionally taught, especially when such a judgement calls into question the proper authority of the bishops and the teaching authority of the Church. It may be true that formation programs in various seminaries are incomplete and in need of some reform, but I doubt that a seminarian is capable or mature enough to distinguish what errors are present in the program or how best to improve that program. As far as seminarians are concerned, yes, they should remain silent until they have the proper authority and education to make those judgements.
One other point, which I’m afraid will open me up to the charge of being absolutely blind in your opinion, I do not believe there is a crisis in the Church that is so severe it warrants the presence of any group of priests who are willfully disobedient to the proper authorities of the Church, guided by the Holy Father and the bishops, and who have entered into their teaching positions through the direct call and confirmation of the Holy Spirit. In the final analysis, the SSPX are wrong in continuing with their plans to ordain their seminarians in opposition to the Vatican, and though we can debate whether their actions are legal or licit or not, one must also raise the question of whether their actions constitute sin. My belief is that it does.

You’re packing a lot into your post. A seminarian can certainly present his questions and concerns. The seminary is not a fascist social system. However, the seminarian must also be wise enough to understand that many seminary courses, lectures and professors are there not just to teach you catechism, but also to challenge your mind with dissenting views and have you think through them and find the right conclusions on your own. I know, because I went through seven years of theology. We had a lot thrown at us. Some was directly from the teachings of the Church and other things were from speculative theology. There is a reason that it is called speculative theology. One of the most prolific writers in speculative theology in my era was Joseph Ratazinger. He still dabbles in it. Read his book on Jesus of Nazareth. It’s purpose is not to teach dogma, but to open the mind and trigger discussion that lead to a better understanding of dogma.

I remember a piece that Ratzinger and Kung wrote on conscience. It really boggled our minds. When you read it carefully, it was a writing for seminary scholars designed to trigger you. Eventually you ended up in a dead end. You had no other choice but to admit the teaching of the Church as the proper formator of conscience.

Seminarians have to be careful. I don’t know the policies in secular seminaries, but in religious orders, if you begin to question the teachings of the founders and the practices of the congregation, you can find yourself dismissed. One of the signs of a vocation is your ability to think through situations rather than react to them.

As to the SSPX priests, my concern with them is that the movement is inconsistent with tradition. Traditionally, the most effective reforms in the Church have been led by men and women who have been the most obedient to the Church and who remained in the Church. St. Romould reformed the Benedictine Order. St. Francis of Assisi reformed the Church of the Middle Ages. St. Catherine of Sienna and Teresa of Avila reformed the Church of the Renaissance. St. Athanasius reformed the early Church. Like these there have been many other reformers. The point is that no single reformer can repair every problem. The wisdom of these reformers was that they identified one issue that they could change or that they felt Christ called them to change, not the entire Church. The SSPX reform seems to take on the entire post Vatican II Church. That is inconsistent with the reforms of old. The reforms of old were very specific. This is what guaranteed their success. And in doing so, they did not leave casualties. The SSPX reform is leaving casualties, such as young men being ordained with no diocese to take them and no faculties to exercise their ministry. Maybe this was the sign of the Holy Spirit’s presence in these reform movements: obedience, charity, change from within, no unnecessary casualties.

Fraternally,

Br JR, OSF

 

[Tsuwano]

You’re packing a lot into your post. A seminarian can certainly present his questions and concerns. The seminary is not a fascist social system. However, the seminarian must also be wise enough to understand that many seminary courses, lectures and professors are there not just to teach you catechism, but also to challenge your mind with dissenting views and have you think through them and find the right conclusions on your own. I know, because I went through seven years of theology. We had a lot thrown at us. Some was directly from the teachings of the Church and other things were from speculative theology. There is a reason that it is called speculative theology. One of the most prolific writers in speculative theology in my era was Joseph Ratazinger. He still dabbles in it. Read his book on Jesus of Nazareth. It’s purpose is not to teach dogma, but to open the mind and trigger discussion that lead to a better understanding of dogma.

I remember a piece that Ratzinger and Kung wrote on conscience. It really boggled our minds. When you read it carefully, it was a writing for seminary scholars designed to trigger you. Eventually you ended up in a dead end. You had no other choice but to admit the teaching of the Church as the proper formator of conscience.

Seminarians have to be careful. I don’t know the policies in secular seminaries, but in religious orders, if you begin to question the teachings of the founders and the practices of the congregation, you can find yourself dismissed. One of the signs of a vocation is your ability to think through situations rather than react to them.

As to the SSPX priests, my concern with them is that the movement is inconsistent with tradition. Traditionally, the most effective reforms in the Church have been led by men and women who have been the most obedient to the Church and who remained in the Church. St. Romould reformed the Benedictine Order. St. Francis of Assisi reformed the Church of the Middle Ages. St. Catherine of Sienna and Teresa of Avila reformed the Church of the Renaissance. St. Athanasius reformed the early Church. Like these there have been many other reformers. The point is that no single reformer can repair every problem. The wisdom of these reformers was that they identified one issue that they could change or that they felt Christ called them to change, not the entire Church. The SSPX reform seems to take on the entire post Vatican II Church. That is inconsistent with the reforms of old. The reforms of old were very specific. This is what guaranteed their success. And in doing so, they did not leave casualties. The SSPX reform is leaving casualties, such as young men being ordained with no diocese to take them and no faculties to exercise their ministry. Maybe this was the sign of the Holy Spirit’s presence in these reform movements: obedience, charity, change from within, no unnecessary casualties.

Fraternally,

Br JR, OSF

Exactly right, JR. My seminary experience seems to be very similar to what you experienced. I remember it as a time of great questioning and deep reflection, as well as a period of profound prayer. You’re right to say the seminary is not a “fascist social system.” Indeed, as you mentioned, we were not taught to merely parrot the theological line of the Church, but also to explore it and determine both the weaknesses and the strengths of any particular theology, and in the end to accept the Church’s positions on various issues, not because the Church says this or that, but because through our own independent thinking we arrive at the same conclusion as the Church. This method of studying theology often led me to hold views that were in opposition to the Church’s position for a short period until I was able to read more and understand positions more fully. It was a heady time of study and spiritual exploration. I would love to do it all again!
One other thing you wrote also rings very true to me. You wrote “As to the SSPX priests, my concern with them is that the movement is inconsistent with tradition.” I agree with this totally, which is why, even if I agreed fully with the positions of the SSPX, I could never support them until they acknowledged the centrality and legitimacy of the teaching authority of the Church and the understanding of the Church expressed in the documents of the Second Vatican Council.

 

[JReducation]

Exactly right, JR. My seminary experience seems to be very similar to what you experienced. I remember it as a time of great questioning and deep reflection, as well as a period of profound prayer. You’re right to say the seminary is not a “fascist social system.” Indeed, as you mentioned, we were not taught to merely parrot the theological line of the Church, but also to explore it and determine both the weaknesses and the strengths of any particular theology, and in the end to accept the Church’s positions on various issues, not because the Church says this or that, but because through our own independent thinking we arrive at the same conclusion as the Church. This method of studying theology often led me to hold views that were in opposition to the Church’s position for a short period until I was able to read more and understand positions more fully. It was a heady time of study and spiritual exploration. I would love to do it all again!
One other thing you wrote also rings very true to me. You wrote “As to the SSPX priests, my concern with them is that the movement is inconsistent with tradition.” I agree with this totally, which is why, even if I agreed fully with the positions of the SSPX, I could never support them until they acknowledged the centrality and legitimacy of the teaching authority of the Church and the understanding of the Church expressed in the documents of the Second Vatican Council.

I’ve worked in the field of education all my life. This has included the seminary, high schools, university and our own formation program. The one thing that I’m finding very common in our students today is that they don’t want to think.

I think this is a defecit of modern education. Students want to be given the information and be done with it. Many seminarians leave the semianry with poor theological formation through their own fault, not the seminary’s. When ideas are thrown on the table for them to explore, reflect, pray over them and walk the same journey as the great Doctors and Fathers of the Church walk, they don’t know what to do with these ideas.

The result is that they do nothing. They walk out of the classroom with a half-baked idea and they pass it along as they got it, when the intent was for them to solve the puzzle. A scholar who can solve the puzzle, learns the answer through conviction rather than memory or rote programming.

Some of these seminaries that everyone considers so great are not really centers of learning. They are programming centers. They chew up the theology for the seminarians and spoon feed it to them. The semianrians never make mistakes in their preaching and teaching, but they don’t have a clue about the process that the Church went through to arrive at these truths. They don’t own these truths, because they did not have to work to understand them. They are like hard drives with a lot of information stored in them.

I often wonder if they will be able to face a crisis where someone throws at them a different situation. In other words, I often wonder if they will be able to problem solve and do critical thinking.

I know that not all seminaries are good schools. But I also know that just feeding doctrine and information to any student is not education. It is programming. Education consists in information and learning how to learn. The great universities of the past were excellent, because students learned the faith, but they also learned how to analyze it and how to learn it from different perspectives.

That’s how we got the great minds like Aquinas, Bonaventure, Scotus, Echart, Ratzinge, Woytiva and others.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[CassiusLonginus]

even if I agreed fully with the positions of the SSPX, I could never support them until they acknowledged the centrality and legitimacy of the teaching authority of the Church and the understanding of the Church expressed in the documents of the Second Vatican Council.

The SSPX doesn’t debate the legitimacy of the teaching authority of the Church; they acknowledge it and uphold it to a far higher degree than the dozen or more priests that I had growing up in the OF. They acknowledge very clearly the legitimacy and authority of the teachings of the Church, which is exactly why they question the “understanding” (as you express it) of the Church in the documents of VII. They hold to the teachings of the Church to such a level that they weren’t willing to just jump into the murky waters of the spirit of VII. And here at last we see the prudence of such a course (even if you still disagree with it), for finally the Holy Father, with the SSPX is entering discussions on the subject. Why would they discuss these documents if they weren’t ambiguous and leading to dangerous ideas and practices?

The SSPX holds nothing so high as dogma, which is why they have literally gone to extremes to uphold and defend it, even in the wake of a turbulent and, quite honestly, confusing and less than fruitful council.

 

[Tsuwano]

The SSPX doesn’t debate the legitimacy of the teaching authority of the Church; they acknowledge it and uphold it to a far higher degree than the dozen or more priests that I had growing up in the OF. They acknowledge very clearly the legitimacy and authority of the teachings of the Church, which is exactly why they question the “understanding” (as you express it) of the Church in the documents of VII. They hold to the teachings of the Church to such a level that they weren’t willing to just jump into the murky waters of the spirit of VII. And here at last we see the prudence of such a course (even if you still disagree with it), for finally the Holy Father, with the SSPX is entering discussions on the subject. Why would they discuss these documents if they weren’t ambiguous and leading to dangerous ideas and practices?

The SSPX holds nothing so high as dogma, which is why they have literally gone to extremes to uphold and defend it, even in the wake of a turbulent and, quite honestly, confusing and less than fruitful council.

Reading your post makes me think you have experience writing for Pravda. Nevertheless, According to Phil Lawler in a January, 2009 analysis of the state of affairs between the Vatican and the SSPX written for EWTN News he states “The deadly mistake that Archbishop Lefebvre made . . . the mistake for which the SSPX is still paying . . . was the decision to set himself up as a teaching authority separate from the Holy See. The teaching authority of the Catholic Church resides in the Pope and the bishops who are in communion with him. By breaking from that communion, the Lefebvrists lost what teaching authority they had. Their fundamental error lay in the belief that they could be the authoritative voice of the Catholic tradition (or Tradition, as they preferred), while remaining separated from the Catholic Church. That is logically as well as theologically impossible.”
Lawler continues “Bishop Fellay has pronounced that the traditionalist group accepts the authority of the Pope. What remains to be seen is how the SSPX perceives that authority. The key, again, is to understand the Church as she understands herself: sentire cum ecclesia.” It is not possible to “understand the Church as she understand herself” by obstinately standing outside of the Church, or to fully participate in such a discussion by biting the hand held out in reconciliation. Continuing these ordinations against the will of the teaching authority of the Church makes Bishop Fellay’s assertion that the SSPX accepts the authority of the Pope a cynical exercise in Orwellian double speak.

 

[reggieM]

Why would they discuss these documents if they weren’t ambiguous and leading to dangerous ideas and practices?

I think you’ve talked yourself into a bit of circular reasoning.
You proposed that the SSPX is more concerned about doctrine than just about anyone.
Thefore, by the mere fact that the SSPX wants to talk about the documents, it proves that the documents are ambiguous and lead to dangerous ideas and practices.
Why?
Because the SSPX is more serious about doctrine than just about anyone, and therefore anything they’re concerned about must lead to dangerous ideas.

This pits the SSPX against Rome with the default position going to a victory for the SSPX’s views. Why? Because the SSPX is concerned about doctrine.

This assumes that Rome is not concerned about the documents “which lead to dangerous ideas and practices”, or else – without any proof-- that that SSPX knows for certain that these documents are bad and that they must be correct in that interpretation.

This would mean, in practice, that the SSPX could not be wrong about any of their interpretations of the conciliar documents.

As for “ambiguities”, almost every teaching about revelation, the nature of God, the function of the Church and the doctrines of Christ contain some ambiguity.

 

[JReducation]

My greatest concern with the SSPX as a whole, not with any one person, is what the Holy Father wrote in his statement when he lifted the excommunication of the four bishops. I’m going to paraphrase it, because I don’t have the letter in front of me. But most people will remember this statement.

He referred to some of their statements and actions as offensive and arrogant.

I’m sure they have some very bright minds among them and people who want to do what is right. But they must tone down what the Holy Father perceives as offensive and arrogant. Percpetion is everything, even if you don’t mean to come off that way. It can turn the table against you.

I hope that they do not shoot themselves in the foot during these dialogues.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF