Bishop Schneider backs the SSPX

[Denise1957]

True.

The leaders of SSPX have been conversing with Rome for decades. I expect that to continue. Maybe for decades, maybe not. But really it is the individual priests who reconcile, or don’t reconcile, with the Church. They are not all the same. Some have already come over to Rome, leaving the SSPX behind. Others may be willing to come over to Rome as individuals, based on the many new bishops who may be perceived as more orthodox. Still others may be willing to come over, but very cautiously, only as part of an intact SSPX. Others may be unwilling to come over to Rome unless enormous changes are made, like repeal of Vatican II. Still others may be leaning towards SSPV, or Bishop Williamson’s new group, etc, and they will bolt from SSPX if they perceive the leaders as insufficiently vigilant. Some may switch over to “Rome” if the SSPX says so, but won’t have anything to do with their local bishop. Or they may bolt from Rome if they don’t like the next bishop. Just because there’s an MOU from Rome that says every priest is reconciled, doesn’t necessarily mean he’s really reconciled.

We can’t lump together the seminarian with the battle-scarred veteran who endured the ultra-liberal bishops of the 1970s, who ridiculed the TLM.

Nothing in the Schneider interview encourages priests who feel they are ready now, to delay coming over.

Well, my personal belief is that they shouldn’t reconcile, because of what happened to the FFI. Though Bp, Schneider is sympathetic, I don’t think he understands what will happen to the SSPX if they reconcile. He may believe they they’ll be treated fairly, and that we need more who are tradition-minded who are working within the visible confines of the Church. But the hostility toward the TLM and traditional way of doing things is very great and should not be underestimated. We see right here on CAF that this is the case. The SSPX will eventually be crushed and eliminated if they reconcile, IMO, if they try to remain true to the ideals of their founder. And maybe even if they never say anything objectionable (especially toward the progressives) or too traditional (if they reconcile), it might still be bad for them, since they do care about the TLM and tradition.

 

[ProVobis]

That being said, if I were a bishop, I would be meeting and socializing with SSPX priests in my area in an attempt to bring back individually all I could, kind of like a Catholic version of business headhunting.

That’s commendable, pn. The drawback is that their leadership could have them reassigned to other states or areas, I think. I don’t know if the FSSP and ICRSS work the same way. Generally, the local bishop is the one who invites the order, not the priest, into his diocese.

 

[Denise1957]

rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2015/08/bishop-athanasius-schneider-there-are.html?m=1

Bishop Schneider said it himself:

I thought it might be useful to provide a link to the entire interview (which is mentioned at the bottom of the article in the link above) and is rather lengthy. It might be necessary to scroll down about a third of the way down the page to find the English translation:

adelantelafe.com/adelante-la-fe-entrevista-en-exclusiva-a-mons-schneider-vaticano-ii-comunion-en-la-mano-crisis-fsspx-english-version/#ingles

 

[commenter]

Well, my personal belief is that they shouldn’t reconcile, because of what happened to the FFI. Though Bp, Schneider is sympathetic, I don’t think he understands what will happen to the SSPX if they reconcile. He may believe they they’ll be treated fairly, and that we need more who are tradition-minded who are working within the visible confines of the Church. But the hostility toward the TLM and traditional way of doing things is very great and should not be underestimated. We see right here on CAF that this is the case. ***The SSPX will eventually be crushed and eliminated if ***they reconcile, IMO, if they try to remain true to the ideals of their founder. And maybe even if they never say anything objectionable (especially toward the progressives) or too traditional (if they reconcile), it might still be bad for them, since they do care about the TLM and tradition.

A few decades ago the SSPX organization was a means to an end, protecting the TLM and Tradition. Now, the organization is more of an end in itself, equal or more important than the TLM, with its own rights.

Suppose your friend wants to marry John. But she says because John is so dangerous and deceitful, violent and treacherous, she won’t agree to marry without a detailed protection plan in place - prenup, weekly meeting with marriage rights lawyer, cameras to monitor her safety so she won’t get “crushed and eliminated” - by John!

You would tell her to skip the marriage, not good for her or John. That’s how it is with the SSPX organization. I find more fear and paranoia of the leaders of the Catholic Church expressed by pro-SSPX people on the Internet than by atheists, liberals, secularists, fundamentalists, or any other group. Even if you argue successfully that the fear is justified - the Vicar of Christ is a liar and deceiver, along with other successors of the apostles - well, that doesn’t prove the marriage is prudent. (Even if you prove your fiance John really is an axe murderer, would you still demand a wedding?)

The best reconciliation plan is for individuals to come in to Rome, as individuals, when they are ready. Nothing in the Schneider interview suggests individuals should postpone coming in to Rome until such time - a year, 30 years - when some larger agreement may take place. Or not. If ready, they should come in now.

 

[TimothyH]

You’re setting the bar awfully low here!

If I were my bishop, dealing with many different kinds or sources of disunity, I would be very, verrry hesitant about bringing into the fold one priest who was aligned with leaders, and perhaps himself personally, both trying not to speak out “too much” against the Pope - at least for the time being. I heard the local SSPX priest publicly denounce the pope and bishops at an ecumenical prolife rally. I realize he likely is not typical, but I suspect he isn’t rare, either.

I think reconciliation will happen on an individual basis. As some point in time a priest or seminarian realizes that he needs the guidance of an ordinary, and unity with the larger Church (especially as the secular society is increasingly anti-Catholic). He now is willing to leave the protection of the SSPX behind. If a priest is not ready to leave behind the protection of the SSPX, he probably isn’t ready to come in from the cold. If a priest has to restrain himself from speaking out too much against the Pope, he isn’t ready.

Re bold/red, this is what I have said all along.

***He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” *(Matthew 16:15-16)

Jesus asked the Apostles to make a decision - was he the Christ or not? Peter answered and the Chair of Peter will ask this same question of every SSPX priest. “Who do you say that I am?”

Each individual priest will think about this as they lie awake at night. They will have to make an intensely personal decision as to who they say the Bishop of Rome is. If the answer is, “You are the Pope, the Vicar of Christ on Earth” than they must submit.

He is either the Pope or he isn’t.

-Tim-

 

[ProVobis]

I thought it might be useful to provide a link to the entire interview (which is mentioned at the bottom of the article in the link above) and is rather lengthy. It might be necessary to scroll down about a third of the way down the page to find the English translation:

adelantelafe.com/adelante-la-fe-entrevista-en-exclusiva-a-mons-schneider-vaticano-ii-comunion-en-la-mano-crisis-fsspx-english-version/#ingles

Thanks for the link.

Another bishop who talks about the rupture that was/has been created by the reforms.

.

 

[pnewton]

That’s commendable, pn. The drawback is that their leadership could have them reassigned to other states or areas, I think.

I guess that is when they would have to make a decision on their understanding of authority, whether it comes from the Catholic Church, the Key of St. Peter, the promise of Jesus, or this faux authority of the SSPX bishops.

Comparing this to an Episcopal priest who would convert, I would hope he would understand the basic realignment that was needed.

Remember, the SSPX has zero ministry within the Barque of Peter. The ministerial functions they illicitly exercise are 100% outside of the Catholic Church, that is, the Body of Christ, though they personally themselves are not excommunicated. In simpler terms, eventually all reconciliation, whether personal or en masse, will come down to a decision, as I was taught, whether to fish or cut bait.

 

[pnewton]

The SSPX will eventually be crushed and eliminated if they reconcile, IMO, if they try to remain true to the ideals of their founder…

If this is true, and I do not know if it is, then what would this say about the SSPX? If full integration into the Body of Christ, that is, Jesus’ body as expressed in the Holy Catholic Church would crush them, are they really much different than the rest of the Christian world that is no in communion with the Catholic Church? Again, I do not accept they would be crushed. Only that if the authority that Jesus (the Divine Creator of all) established crushes them, is that bad?

That is why, if this is true, I would rather see as many as possible save out of the SSPX, if the organization continues as it has since its establishment.

 

[Tomdstone]

The problem between the SSPX and Rome is not obedience or discipline, it is doctrinal.

What Catholic doctrines so they deny?

 

[commenter]

Originally Posted by smead2942 View Post
“The problem between the SSPX and Rome is not obedience or discipline, it is doctrinal.”
(end)

I would say it’s more of a pastoral issue. “Living Catholic” for me includes:

• some kind of parish community
• access to religious education and regional youth ministry and family supports, mostly going beyond my parish
• participation in prolife, not only in my congregation but as part of the **regional **prolife effort, along with regional Defense of Marriage and Religious Liberty efforts
• participation in K of C, St. Vincent de Paul, Holy Name, etc, and other programs such as Magnificat, Women of Grace, etc for women, as well as a whole network of events and programs from our local Catholic radio station, some reliable religious orders, nearby parishes, missions, etc
• leadership from a bishop-ordinary who lives in my city, and diocesan programs, some of which I find useful

In my city, laity attached to the 2 diocesan TLM communities are active in all of these. Laity attached to the SSPX are active in none, apart from their own chapel. There are lots of missed opportunities, especially for families raising children. I realize laity technically don’t “belong” to SSPX, but I am looking at the overall effect of involvement.

 

[ProVobis]

Comparing this to an Episcopal priest who would convert, I would hope he would understand the basic realignment that was needed.

But the way I read the OP and subsequent references, Bishop Schneider apparently thinks the Church should take them AS THEY ARE. We’re not talking about the Anglican Ordinariate here.

 

[commenter]

But the way I read the OP and subsequent references, Bishop Schneider apparently thinks the Church should take them AS THEY ARE. We’re not talking about the Anglican Ordinariate here.

Nothing in the interview advises **individuals **in the SSPX to remain outside, or to delay coming in. He is not telling SSPX clergy “Remain where you are; things will be clearer in 6 months.” (That’s the message they have heard for decades, but it isn’t Bishop Schneider’s message).

I think he is trying to help people understand, historically, how devout people got into that situation. That doesn’t mean he thinks individuals in that situation should postpone joining a diocese.

He supports the need for ongoing reform of abuses within the Church, which will take decades. That does not mean he thinks it is prudent for laity now to keep attending SSPX Masses, for decades, rather than diocesan Masses. Keep in mind he is an ordinary, none of his comments suggests SSPX clergy and laity would not benefit from an ordinary now, rather than at some future year.

 

[ProVobis]

I think he is trying to help people understand, historically, how devout people got into that situation. That doesn’t mean he thinks individuals in that situation should postpone joining a diocese.

My understanding is that a personal prelature, as has been reportedly proposed, does not require joining a diocese per se. It’s just that one hasn’t been proposed which allows the chapels, schools, nursing homes, etc. to operate without the local ordinary getting involved. How do the Eastern rites handle this?

 

[commenter]

My understanding is that a personal prelature, as has been reportedly proposed, does not require joining a diocese per se. It’s just that one hasn’t been proposed which allows the chapels, schools, nursing homes, etc. to operate without the local ordinary getting involved. How do the Eastern rites handle this?

Opus Dei, the only Personal Prelature, has some autonomy but coordinates to some extent with the local diocese. They respect the overall diocesan parameters but conduct their own activities. The Eastern Catholics have their own dioceses within a Western country, under their own bishop ordinary, and ultimately patriarch. In my diocese the Eastern parishes, and Opus Dei, are heavily involved with regional Catholic activities. The SSPX chapel is like an island, nothing to do with the regional Catholic ministries, like prolife.

Keep in mind the prelature idea has been suggested by the SSPX for 40 years. Also keep in mind SSPX people have been warning against many opponents in the Vatican itself, as well as powerful religious orders, diocesan departments and institutions who they feel may be prejudiced - all of whom SSPX people want to be protected from involvement with, in addition to the local ordinary, pastors, organizations, and maybe others.

In other words, if there were to be a merger, nothing would really merge. SSPX would be “protected” from involvement with almost everything Catholic. It would be like getting “married” but the bride maintains her own apartment, and wears a suit of armor for your monthly date. That’s why the Individual Option is the only viable one. Clergy or laity come in all the way when/if they personally are ready, no suit of armor; don’t wait 4 months or 40 years for organizational “rights” and “independence”. Don’t keep laity dangling for years, being told “just 6 months longer, things will be a lot clearer” , etc, etc.

 

[ProVobis]

Don’t keep laity dangling for years, being told “just 6 months longer, things will be a lot clearer” , etc, etc.

Yes but the laity aren’t all victims here. There are supposedly some wealthy benefactors who are behind Bishop Fellay et al, as well as opposed to him. Seeing how the FSSPX are willing to buy up some of the property the Catholic bishops are selling, in Pittsburgh for example, I can’t help but feel there’s more to this stalemate than just doctrine and liturgy.

 

[pnewton]

Yes but the laity aren’t all victims here. There are supposedly some wealthy benefactors who are behind Bishop Fellay et al, as well as opposed to him. Seeing how the FSSPX are willing to buy up some of the property the Catholic bishops are selling, in Pittsburgh for example, I can’t help but feel there’s more to this stalemate than just doctrine and liturgy.

This is interesting, and something I never thought of. I am reminded of the adage that God made Man in His image and ever since Man has returned the favor. There are all sorts of less noble reasons one may want to form the Church in one’s own ideal image.

 

[otjm]

Pope Benedict 16 wanted reconciliation, and he removed the most often talked about - but one of the most minimal issues - when he provided Summorum Pontificum. It had several effects; one being that it took one of the easiest “objections” the four bishops had, and simply eliminated it.

Another effect was to provide a route for people who did not agree with the theological positions of the SSPX, but were far more focused on the availability of the EF. While they had a good bit of work to do to make it available in a parish, it obviously broke the stalemate over availability. In doing so, it likely prevented a further exodus to SSPX chapels.

And at the bottom of it all, it exposed the real reasons that the SSPX remains separated. And that is a combination of the SSPX, either from the bishops or the clergy under them, to continue to say that various documents of Vatican Two are heretical, that they are a complete break from the past, and that the Church has committed theological error to the point of heresy.

Coupled with that is the SSPX refusal to say that Rome is the official interpreter of the documents, and theology, and continuity. That is the other part of the issue - the refusal to acknowledge the authority of Rome. It shows in their calling the OF invalid (which seems to be a more toned down comment, considering what some SSPX priests have said).

Either we accept the promises of Christ - both of Petrine authority, and the promise that the Holy Spirit would keep the Church from error in Faith as well as Morals, or we don’t. And the commentary, whether “official” - as from the four bishops - or “unofficial” - as from priests in various places and circumstances - refuses not only to acknowledge the authority of the Pope, but also refuses to acknowledge that the Church has not committed error.

Gerhard Ludwig Cardinal Mueller has said at least once publicly that the SSPX is “schismatic” - which is different from saying that they are in schism; the latter is a juridical statement; the former is a practical definition of the status quo.

They are juridically “irregular” because Rome seeks reconciliation, and it is far easier to approach reconciliation from an “irregular” status than from a status of official schism.

They - each one of them - need our serious prayers, that both their hearts and minds will come to the truth. 40 years may not be much in the time of the Church, but it is a whole lot in terms of an individual.

The defining point is probably not that far off; at some point, simply because of aging, the current four bishops are going to face the reality of either retirement or death; and if they have not at that point reconciled with Rome, then realistically, we will be looking at the ordination of one or more bishops, assuming that has not already occurred “sub rosa”. And the likelihood of Rome granting permission for that is, shall we say, less than the likelihood of going to your local casino and winning every time you step in.

Much less.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Pope Benedict 16 wanted reconciliation, and he removed the most often talked about - but one of the most minimal issues - when he provided Summorum Pontificum. It had several effects; one being that it took one of the easiest “objections” the four bishops had, and simply eliminated it.I dont know if the good Pope was that “calculating” in the SP but it has had the opposite effect in some areas. SP has been largely forgotten, ignored, or plain old rejected in some places. And the SSPX has seen this.

Another effect was to provide a route for people who did not agree with the theological positions of the SSPX, but were far more focused on the availability of the EF. While they had a good bit of work to do to make it available in a parish, it obviously broke the stalemate over availability. In doing so, it likely prevented a further exodus to SSPX chapels. Except where it didn’t. SP is not a magic decree. In my diocese the Bishop has effectively eradicated the EF. And SP does nothing for a parish priest because the Bishop is still in control over which Mass is said at which parish or even how many for that matter. Or even what parish a priest is at.

And at the bottom of it all, it exposed the real reasons that the SSPX remains separated. And that is a combination of the SSPX, either from the bishops or the clergy under them, to continue to say that various documents of Vatican Two are heretical, that they are a complete break from the past, and that the Church has committed theological error to the point of heresy. I think that is simplifying the position too much.

Coupled with that is the SSPX refusal to say that Rome is the official interpreter of the documents, and theology, and continuity. That is the other part of the issue - the refusal to acknowledge the authority of Rome. It shows in their calling the OF invalid (which seems to be a more toned down comment, considering what some SSPX priests have said).

Either we accept the promises of Christ - both of Petrine authority, and the promise that the Holy Spirit would keep the Church from error in Faith as well as Morals, or we don’t. And the commentary, whether “official” - as from the four bishops - or “unofficial” - as from priests in various places and circumstances - refuses not only to acknowledge the authority of the Pope, but also refuses to acknowledge that the Church has not committed error.Yes. I always have to remind myself of this these days but I must say things like the idea of communion for the divorced and remarried has me questioning my faith. I trust this Barque of Peter, but I am confused as to the public debate of such a black and white issue I Trust that the Church will not deviate from the Words of Jesus. But if it does… well, She would be proven false. The SSPX is watching all of this and wondering if it even wants to consider in communion with Rome at all!

Gerhard Ludwig Cardinal Mueller has said at least once publicly that the SSPX is “schismatic” - which is different from saying that they are in schism; the latter is a juridical statement; the former is a practical definition of the status quo.

They are juridically “irregular” because Rome seeks reconciliation, and it is far easier to approach reconciliation from an “irregular” status than from a status of official schism.True

They - each one of them - need our serious prayers, that both their hearts and minds will come to the truth. 40 years may not be much in the time of the Church, but it is a whole lot in terms of an individual. Yes

The defining point is probably not that far off; at some point, simply because of aging, the current four bishops are going to face the reality of either retirement or death; and if they have not at that point reconciled with Rome, then realistically, we will be looking at the ordination of one or more bishops, assuming that has not already occurred “sub rosa”. I have heard a rumor that it has occurred under Williamson, but I am not sure if that is true And the likelihood of Rome granting permission for that is, shall we say, less than the likelihood of going to your local casino and winning every time you step in. You just described my last three trips to Vegas…

Much less.

 

[otjm]

Hoosier_Daddy:
I can’t speak to your diocese as to the presence of the EF. There is a method of applying for relief from Rome, and if it is not used when there appears to be a valid claim, then either someone is blowing smoke, or the claim lacks validity.

I don’t attempt to follow what has been going on with the SSPX since they seemed to come up to the line, and then withdrew, during Benedict’s reign. It appears to me that they determined that Rome was not going to budge concerning issues of theological interpretation of Vatican 2, the validity of the OF, and whatever other factors they deem, or deemed, important. The last I heard, the dicastery was still open to talks, but the issues that have been non-negotiable for Popes Paul 6th, John Paul 2 (JP 1 not having enough time to get involved), and Benedict 16 are just that.

As to everyone’ horror concerning marriage, divorce, remarriage and Comunion, I find that not reading the civil press and not reading the ends of the spectrum fish wrappers pretty well answers the whole issue.

That, and I trust that the Holy Spirit, having kept the Church from error for 2000 years is still doing so. Most of the critics seem to not so believe.

 

[ProVobis]

That, and I trust that the Holy Spirit, having kept the Church from error for 2000 years is still doing so.

Including the reminders from recent Popes that a rupture of continuity has been created?

Or have we been so caught up in all our “legalisms” and “options” to notice?