Bishop Fellay's (SSPX) response to reunification

  • Thread starter Thread starter TrueLight
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

TrueLight

Guest
I don’t know if I am allowed to link to the SSPX website, so I am linking to Father Z’s blog which has the Sermon by Bishop Fellay, saying no to Rome.
From Father Z’s site:
On the site the SSPX seminary, St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary in Winona, Minnesota, there is a sermon of SSPX Bp. Bernard Fellay for Candlemas. It is a real dissapointment, to say the least. Fellay said that the Priestly Society of St. Pius X is “obliged to say ‘no’” to the proposal of reconciliation which came from the Vatican.
Click to expand...
May God intervene in this situation.
 
I wish the Vatican would just give SSPX a personal prelature like Opus Dei and have done with this squabble. What does the SSPX really want?
 
chypmonk said:
I wish the Vatican would just give SSPX a personal prelature like Opus Dei and have done with this squabble. What does the SSPX really want?
Click to expand...
I believe that it is more than just a little “squabble.” I believe there are some deep underlying divisions as to the validity of Vatican II and some docternal statments that came from there. Please, someone, correct me if I am wrong.
I do know it is not just about the way to celebrate mass and a couple of illicit ordinations.
 
Two issues with this (and if you have listened to the entire sermon, bear with me, I’m making a point in your favor, despite disagreement with the SSPX positions in certain regards as I understand them):
  1. A sermon for Candlemas which contains no reference to the purification of the Blessed Virgin, the Gospel account of Simeon in interaction with the Holy Family, or historical background of the spiritual significance and application to the lives of the listeners. I did “ctrl+F” for the following terms in the extract:
    Virgin, Mary, Candle, Simeon, Jesus. Guess what, none were found in the extract.
So, in this, Fellay is reducing a momentous occasion in the tradition of the Church to mere rantings about things like some gang leader grand-standing about how he’s still fighting the man for the right of the gang to exist. Well, if the end-state goal is to encourage the same fight in his underlings, I’d say he has succeeded.

HOWEVER. This must be realized for what it is: an extract. The entire sermon is 48 minutes long…

So, what has happened here, is two-fold in its fault:
  1. Fellay, for bringing in a situation to a sermon which is better suited for another occasion, reduces the occasion. On this, I do think Fellay is at fault, for it is the inclusion of dissent in a sermon which is ultimately about assent in its true nature of what it addresses. The entirety of the sermon is overall very, very good. So, this leads me to number 2:
  2. The reduction of Fellay and the SSPX’s spiritual goals by obfuscating for the reader what was actually said, in the context in which it was said:
This is a cherry-picked attempt and makes me wonder how much other things have happened in the past which negatively impacts the ultimate renewal of full communion with Rome- which doesn’t involve, as Fellay puts it, “fighting against Rome”. I have to wonder if he is alluding to a “pagan” Rome which competes in the same space as spiritual “Christian” Rome. He doesn’t specify this, and in light of other statements, I guess not, but, the only other option I see is a fight against the Pope in the ultimate means to an end. That calls all sorts of things into question. What is not called into question for the one-sided reader, however, is how injurious this is in reality to the actual issue being resolved by SSPX and Rome.

As such, the issue is further buried under a mountain of dirt and misunderstanding unless one is willing to step back, look at both sides, and realize that poking a stick at a mere section of a sermon is not the sermon, as insinuated. In doing this, they take what is akin to a single sentence in a paragraph and run with it, despite the rest of the paragraph in context. What’s worse, is that SSPX is the entity to provide such ammo against themselves.

I have to wonder, in light of that, do they really want to resolve the issue? Do they just want to yell “Wolverines!” while embracing the fight and not the solution to the fight- of which the fight is only the reaction to the lack of a seeming solution?

If the goal is to resolve the issue, at some point they must quit slinging bullets and go talk with the Vatican in a true attempt to resolve this.

If anything, SSPX highlights the truth of the lack of staunch clarification of Vatican II and the possible need for a Vatican III. If they must be the one to declare the emperor has no clothes, so be it.
 
The big question is, does this officially put them outside of the Catholic Church? At least in terms of communion. Are they officially in schism?
 
ConstantineTG said:
The big question is, does this officially put them outside of the Catholic Church? At least in terms of communion. Are they officially in schism?
Click to expand...
Not until Rome says so.

There seems to be a question of what exactly they are saying no to. Is it to unity or it is to the preamble?
 
chypmonk said:
I wish the Vatican would just give SSPX a personal prelature like Opus Dei and have done with this squabble. What does the SSPX really want?
Click to expand...
I’ve heard this solution, and I don’t think it would work. The structure of a personal prelature is itself a rather new canonical structure. It gives broad authority to a group that at times has over stepped its authority. Additionally, a priestly society has its own specific charism, that maybe incompatible with that of a prelature.

The easiest solution I could accept would be to allow the SSPX to return to their previous canonical status before their irregularity began. Its focus then could remain focused on the spiritual life of its priestly members.

Now, what I could maybe accept would be an overarching traditional Catholic prelature/ordinate, which would have jurisdiction over voluntary lay members, and could support its own clergy, and/or “subcontract” with a regularized SSPX or other Tridentine oriented group on a parish by parish basis.

Vatican II (yes Vatican II) had within it a call for religious societies to return to their original charism (spiritual focus). No reason this shouldn’t be applied to the SSPX!
 
chypmonk said:
What does the SSPX really want?
Click to expand...
The impression they often give – whether they mean to or not, I cannot say – is that they want the Vatican to say “you were right, we were wrong, we will change everything to be as you want it.”

I don’t see that happening.
 
chypmonk said:
I wish the Vatican would just give SSPX a personal prelature like Opus Dei and have done with this squabble. What does the SSPX really want?
Click to expand...
This would be a slap in the face of all of those Societies and Religious who play by the rules. Further, even as a personal prelature they need to learn to play well with others and follow the rules. We’ve seen them directly go against the wishes of Bishops already, why should we expect anything different if they get a new status?

Come back as a Society of Apostolic Life, and play by the rules those Societies do.
 
agnes_therese said:
The impression they often give – whether they mean to or not, I cannot say – is that they want the Vatican to say “you were right, we were wrong, we will change everything to be as you want it.”

I don’t see that happening.
Click to expand...
I agree. 😦 Reminds me of children.
 
The question now is how many here will continue to support a group who refuses to be reconciled with the Holy See?

As Constantine said, is this the action that could cause them to be officially declared out of communion (i.e. schism) with the Church? Will any here continue to defend their actions and/or their position if such happens?
 
Timothysis said:
The question now is how many here will continue to support a group who refuses to be reconciled with the Holy See?

As Constantine said, is this the action that could cause them to be officially declared out of communion (i.e. schism) with the Church? Will any here continue to defend their actions and/or their position if such happens?
Click to expand...
I think so long as the Church allows the SSPX to be within a gray area, then the defense will come. I don’t think someone can still claim to be a faithful Catholic and support a group in schism if they are so formally excommunicated.

I think the Church should be decisive on this matter. Not to keep the SSPX away, continue to work with them but formally declare that they are out of communion. I think it will help resolve the issues much quicker. There is no sense of urgency from the SSPX right now because they enjoy the benefits of being in that gray area, in that they can argue themselves into legitimacy. If the Church officially says, “let us continue to talk and hopefully resolve this but until then you are out of communion,” then we may get somewhere.
 
I don’t understand SSPX, why is it so difficult for them to see the hermeneutics of continuity with Vat II and the past? Scholastics ranging from orders such as FSSP to Norbertines and Bishops such as Fulton Sheen, when he was alive, to our Holy Father all see the continuity.
 
I just read the homily of the Bishop. It sounds more of a rant than of a passionate plea to unity with the Church. One comment read *"After reading Bishop Fellay’s homily, I think I understand the real reason that there will be no unity. That is pride. Bishop Fellay wants it his way or nothing. “Yes, we believe in the authority of the church, so long as it confirms our convictions” * and I really think that sums up the problem.

I agree (once again) with Constantine; the Church needs to be decisive in this matter. The FSSP was formed as a reaction to the consecrations by the SSPX. I wonder if any of the SSPX priests are brave enough to humble themselves to the Holy Father if he has to go so far as to declare them to be in schism or even excommunicate them?
 
Trevor_Stamm said:
I don’t understand SSPX, why is it so difficult for them to see the hermeneutics of continuity with Vat II and the past? Scholastics ranging from orders such as FSSP to Norbertines and Bishops such as Fulton Sheen, when he was alive, to our Holy Father all see the continuity.
Click to expand...
That’s not exactly right. Some people just know better than to say stuff in front of the media.

Honestly when I speak to parishioners who consider themselves traditional, they don’t sound much different than SSPX parishioners.

I think we underestimate the difference in ideology. It us real.
 
The SSPX believes they are holding fast to the Sacred Traditions of the Church.They desire to preserve the Traditions and Mass of the pre-Conciliar Church. I understand the premise and in some ways admire their willingness to preserve these Traditions.
What i find curious, and sometimes disturbing, is that such angst is spent considering how to regularize the SSPX, yet disobedient Priests and Bishops in other areas of the world are either ignored or very mildly urged to come into full communion with Rome. Look at the open rebellion of the Priests in Ireland and Austria, Australia and even in the U.S. Look at the Religious who continually take positions in direct disobedience to Catholic Dogma in regards to abortion, homosexuality, divorce with little or no redress from either their respective Bishops or the USCCB.
Perhaps, just perhaps the Chrism of the SSPX could help all of the Church in regaining a love for the Sacred and realize what true obedience to the Magesterium, Tradition and the Holy Father really is.
 
Timothysis said:
I just read the homily of the Bishop. It sounds more of a rant than of a passionate plea to unity with the Church. One comment read *"After reading Bishop Fellay’s homily, I think I understand the real reason that there will be no unity. That is pride. Bishop Fellay wants it his way or nothing. “Yes, we believe in the authority of the church, so long as it confirms our convictions” * and I really think that sums up the problem.

I agree (once again) with Constantine; the Church needs to be decisive in this matter. The FSSP was formed as a reaction to the consecrations by the SSPX. I wonder if any of the SSPX priests are brave enough to humble themselves to the Holy Father if he has to go so far as to declare them to be in schism or even excommunicate them?
Click to expand...
You didn’t read the homily, you read an excerpt. The entire homily was 48 minutes long.

Please see my post for recognizing the effect of this detail.

The only decisive action on the part of the Church which will offset the arguments of the SSPX and allow them to come back in to true union with Rome would be for the Church to bring about a staunch and decisive explanation of V-II, thus clearing up the issues, as well as the legitimacy of the Novus Ordo Mass.

That the SSPX tends to disengage from discussion and then pokes at Rome’s eye, is their fault. I can see how the Holy See has reacted in the manner it has thus far. That does not negate the fact that for many Catholics who were around prior to Vatican 2, and who have studied the issue since, the Church has not answered the charges levied against V-II and the Novus Ordo Mass. There have been moments of attempts, but obviously it has not worked. For people such as myself, I have faith in the legitimacy of Rome’s position, though I cannot for the life of me discredit the SSPX view and charges.

As such, were it not for entities like FSSP, I and many others would almost be forced to subject themselves to SSPX for the issue of the Tridentine Mass, as prior to FSSP and others who celebrate the EF, SSPX was practically the only outlet for assistance and worship at the Tridentine Mass. In this regard, the Holy See took away that munition from the SSPX weapon catalog. Now they need to sit down and discuss terms. This will not happen until both sides are willing to do this. If SSPX wishes to prove that it has no schismatic intent, it needs to do this at the expense of its pride and submit themselves humbly for instruction. That a Bishop calls the Pope legitimate, and then fights him at practically every stage, and promises continued indifference and hostility to his position, is absolutely absurd.

If the chair of St. Peter is validly occupied by Benedict XVI, then ArchBishop Fellay needs to get his head out of his butt and act like it. That being said, I think the Holy Father is humble enough to realize what an opportunity such a “Pop!” would mean, and would act accordingly. Once this happens, all that is needed on both parties is patience in the process. To walk away from the process is to snub their nose. In the process, they seem to be spraying boogers in the Pope’s direction. It’s nearing the level of being childish.
 
Trevor_Stamm said:
I don’t understand SSPX, why is it so difficult for them to see the hermeneutics of continuity with Vat II and the past? Scholastics ranging from orders such as FSSP to Norbertines and Bishops such as Fulton Sheen, when he was alive, to our Holy Father all see the continuity.
Click to expand...
Trevor, you might wish to listen to this address from Arch Bishop Sheen before you lump him in with those who did not realize problems resulting from the “Spirit of Vatican II” crowd.
keepthefaith.org/detail.aspx?ID=23

And watch all four parts of this lecture on youtube of Arch Bishop Sheen for free:
youtube.com/watch?v=7z3-F71abro&feature=results_main&playnext=1&list=PLD34384DF4733B329
 
I think it’s pretty useless to talk about this stuff until a formal statement from either the Holy See or the SSPX comes out.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top