Critique of Register Article on SSPX & Pope Francis

[Santo_Subito]

remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/2013-0430-c-jackson-ncr-sspx.htm

With Friends Like These…

Chris Jackson POSTED: 5/3/13

REMNANT COLUMNIST

(www.RemnantNewspaper.com) On April 19th Reuters posted a supposed news story entitled, “Catholic Rebel Group Criticizes Pope Francis’s focus on Service to the Poor.” It consisted of Reuters’ Religion Editor Tom Heneghan’s rather biased and incorrect interpretation of Bishop Fellay’s March Letter to Friends & Benefactors .

On April 22, an SSPX priest and spokesman, Fr. Alain Lorans, wrote to the National Catholic Register to respond to this allegation resulting in an April 29th Register article entitled, “SSPX: We Didn’t Criticize Pope Francis; We Agree With Him.” Thus, the Register author had a perfect opportunity to help a Catholic priest correct the record against a biased secular news agency.

Although the first part of the article did post some of Fr. Lorans’ responses to the Reuters’ accusations, readers were then unfortunately treated to the author’s own additional critiques of the SSPX. Although the story is listed under the Register’s “Daily News” section as opposed to the commentary section, the article is dripping with bias…

Read the rest here

 

[JReducation]

remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/2013-0430-c-jackson-ncr-sspx.htm

With Friends Like These…

Chris Jackson POSTED: 5/3/13

REMNANT COLUMNIST

(www.RemnantNewspaper.com) On April 19th Reuters posted a supposed news story entitled, “Catholic Rebel Group Criticizes Pope Francis’s focus on Service to the Poor.” It consisted of Reuters’ Religion Editor Tom Heneghan’s rather biased and incorrect interpretation of Bishop Fellay’s March Letter to Friends & Benefactors .

On April 22, an SSPX priest and spokesman, Fr. Alain Lorans, wrote to the National Catholic Register to respond to this allegation resulting in an April 29th Register article entitled, “SSPX: We Didn’t Criticize Pope Francis; We Agree With Him.” Thus, the Register author had a perfect opportunity to help a Catholic priest correct the record against a biased secular news agency.

Although the first part of the article did post some of Fr. Lorans’ responses to the Reuters’ accusations, readers were then unfortunately treated to the author’s own additional critiques of the SSPX. Although the story is listed under the Register’s “Daily News” section as opposed to the commentary section, the article is dripping with bias…

Read the rest here

The article ignores two unfortunate, but major problems.

1. The canonical status of the SSPX was caused by the illegal ordination of four bishops and hundreds of priests. This is evidence of an attitude that needs to be addressed and needs to change. The LCWR has not ordained anyone or else it too would be excommunicated.
2. The CDF asked Bishop Fellay not to discuss issues with the laity and he still put out this letter in which he addresses the papacy and its mission rather than focus on the mission of the laity for whom he’s writing. Writing such an article after Archbishop Mueller had said that it was important to leave the laity and the media out of the Society’s affairs does not help.

The author of this article is upset because the author of the previous article made reference to the fact that the SSPX has no canonical place in the Church. But what needs to be understood here is that 99% of the Catholics who pick up a Catholic newspaper have no idea who or what the SSPX is or its relationship to the Church.

He also stoops to using terms that the Church does not use, such as referring to an Orthodox Patriarch as schismatic. He forgets that the Orthodox are no longer excommunicated. They are not schismatics. They are in schism, which is not the same. They are not culpable for what came 1000 years ago anymore than are Latin Catholics culpable for the Inquisition. The author pulls out language that is no longer in force to make his point.

He also makes another mistake, which is not serious, but it’s unfortunate. The tone with which he quotes Archbishop Dinoia is not the most polite tone. While he speaks about Bishop Fellay and Archbishop Lefebvre in a very respectful manner, he does not use the same for the bishops of the CDF.

Finally, his paraphrase of Cardinal Ratzinger relating to Vatican II is incorrect. The Cardinal never said that Vatican II was **merely **a pastoral council. No intelligent theologian would say this, because pastoral care is the mission of the Church. To reduce a pastoral council to a “mere council” is silly. Cardinal Ratzinger said that it was a **modest **council. The context of that statement was to address the extremists, left and right. The left takes Vatican II out of its historical context and in doing so uses it to for its own agenda. The right also looks at the council as a “super council” to use the words of Bishop Fellay and feels very threatened by it. Vatican II is neither the beginning of Church history, nor the end of Church history. It was a modest council compared to all of Church history. This was Cardinal Ratzinger’s point.

To conclude my observation, I do see that Bishop Fellay said nothing contrary to what Pope Francis had said in his first sermon. The mistake was not to tell his readers that the pope had made this statement. It sounded as if the statement originates with Bishop Fellay. If that’s the origin of the thought or idea, then it’s going to be interpreted as calling the pope to task. Whereas saying that one agrees with what the pope said makes things clearer.

 

[Lamentabili]

The canonical status of the SSPX was caused by the illegal ordination of four bishops and hundreds of priests. This is evidence of an attitude that needs to be addressed and needs to change. The LCWR has not ordained anyone or else it too would be excommunicated.

Pope Benedict XVI on 10 March 2009: Papal Letter on Remitting of SSPX Excommunications:

…The remission of the excommunication was a measure taken in the field of ecclesiastical discipline: the individuals were freed from the burden of conscience constituted by the most serious of ecclesiastical penalties. This disciplinary level needs to be distinguished from the doctrinal level. The fact that the Society of Saint Pius X does not possess a canonical status in the Church is not, in the end, based on disciplinary but on doctrinal reasons. As long as the Society does not have a canonical status in the Church, its ministers do not exercise legitimate ministries in the Church. There needs to be a distinction, then, between the disciplinary level, which deals with individuals as such, and the doctrinal level, at which ministry and institution are involved. In order to make this clear once again: until the doctrinal questions are clarified, the Society has no canonical status in the Church…

Thus, Pope Benedict clearly states the reason the Society currently has no canonical status is not the past ordination of bishops or priests (disciplinary issues), but rather doctrinal issues. The LCWR also clearly has doctrinal issues with the Holy See. The author’s point is that the LCWR gets to discuss these issues with the Holy See while in a canonically regular state, while the Society has to discuss these issues without any canonical status. This seems puzzling since the Society’s issues w/ Rome involve reformable and non-infallible matters surrounding Vatican II and the Mass of Paul VI while the LCWR’s issues involve infallible and irreformable Church teaching on the all male priesthood and the intrinsic immorality of homosexual acts.

 

[JReducation]

Pope Benedict XVI on 10 March 2009: Papal Letter on Remitting of SSPX Excommunications:

Thus, Pope Benedict clearly states the reason the Society currently has no canonical status is not the past ordination of bishops or priests (disciplinary issues), but rather doctrinal issues. The LCWR also clearly has doctrinal issues with the Holy See. The author’s point is that the LCWR gets to discuss these issues with the Holy See while in a canonically regular state, while the Society has to discuss these issues without any canonical status. This seems puzzling since the Society’s issues w/ Rome involve reformable and non-infallible matters surrounding Vatican II and the Mass of Paul VI while the LCWR’s issues involve infallible and irreformable Church teaching on the all male priesthood and the intrinsic immorality of homosexual acts.

There some major differences here. Later, the Holy Father said that the excommunication was incurred because of the illicit ordination of the bishops. However, he added that the ordination were a reflection of a ideology. Here is where the doctrinal level and the disciplinary become tangled.

The other difference between the LCWR is that the LCWR is not alreay outside. The Church is trying to keep it in, not push it out. The SSPX is outside and the Holy See is trying to bring it in. The desired goal for both is full communion, no separation for either. There would be no reason to separate the LCWR, if there is a hope of full communion. If the reforms don’t happen, there could be a dismantling of LCWR. If the SSPX is brought in without settling the issues, it cannot be dismantled as easily as the LCWR. The LCWR is an organization. It does not have members. The “members” of the LCWR continue to be members of their religious communities, even if the LCWR is dismantled.

In the case of a society of apostolic life, it has members. You can’t dismantle it and do what with those hundreds of priests, brothers and sisters? It is much easier to work to bring them in without the risk of having to suppress them.

The issues of Vatican II and the Mass of Paul VI are not reformable in the way that the SSPX would like. Pope Benedict already said this. Pope Francis seems to be of like mind, at least one gets that impression from his recent statements on Vatican II. This is what all of us have to get through our heads. We have to stop wishing and hoping that there will be some reform of Vatican II and the Mass of Paul VI when Rome has spoken on this matter.

Rome has already said that there is no error in Vatican II and obviously there’s no error in the Ordinary Form other than the nonsense that is not part of it. The SSPX wants the Holy See to say that certain documents contain error and that the mass is bad. Rome has already said no to both.

As always, I fail to understand why people would continue to hope for something on which Rome has spoken so sternly. It’s like the issue of celibacy. It’s not a dogma. It’s a discipline. But the Church has spoken very firmly on it and those of us who are faithful to the Holy See accept what has been said on the matter and we move on. Most faithful Catholics accept what has been said about Vatican II and the OF and we move on.

I think that this kind of questioning does more harm than good, because it slows down the process for reintegration of the SSPX. I would say the same thing to the LCWR, failure to accept what the Holy See is adamant about is not going to result in anything positive. The organization runs the risk of losing its status and being dismantled.

I sincerely believe that people on the left and the right are pushing the limits and the Holy See seems to be digging its heels. They want to argue and discuss and bring the Holy See around to their point of view. The more they do so, the more the Holy See resists. It’s not that the Holy See is resisting truth. It’s resisting these folks. I look at the FSSP who stand for the same thing as the SSPX and they don’t get resistance from the Holy See. But the FSSP knows when to back down. The SSPX and the LCWR need to learn this.

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

Rome has already said that there is no error in Vatican II and obviously there’s no error in the Ordinary Form other than the nonsense that is not part of it. The SSPX wants the Holy See to say that certain documents contain error and that the mass is bad. Rome has already said no to both.

There are many prayers in the EF that were stripped from the OF. Were all those prayers nonsense?

 

[Domnall]

There are many prayers in the EF that were stripped from the OF. Were all those prayers nonsense?

I believe our good Brother JR was referring to “nonsense” as things that were added to the Ordinary Form by various priests and bishops. He was not calling anything of the extraordinary form nonsense. If I remember correctly, Brother JR assists at the EF when one of the priests from his order celebrates it. I believe it’s on Wednesdays

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

Yes, re-reading his post, I see that my reading was mistaken.

 

[Mrs_Sally]

So Reuters publishes an article they don’t like, but they don’t go to Reuters to get a correction, the go to the Register. Then when the Register article isn’t perfectly in line with what they want, they publish a cranky letter in their own newspaper.

It seems that they don’t understand how journalism works. No reporter is obliged to write exactly what an interviewee wants. They must quote correctly, but they can also interview other people and bring in other points of view.

Going back to what Br JR said though, the Vatican has asked them to stop discussing things directly with the laity. They can encourage people to do good works and be charitable without making an issue over what anyone else has said on the subject and certainly without the whiny references to other groups they don’t like.

 

[JReducation]

So Reuters publishes an article they don’t like, but they don’t go to Reuters to get a correction, the go to the Register. Then when the Register article isn’t perfectly in line with what they want, they publish a cranky letter in their own newspaper.

It seems that they don’t understand how journalism works. No reporter is obliged to write exactly what an interviewee wants. They must quote correctly, but they can also interview other people and bring in other points of view.

Going back to what Br JR said though, the Vatican has asked them to stop discussing things directly with the laity. They can encourage people to do good works and be charitable without making an issue over what anyone else has said on the subject and certainly without the whiny references to other groups they don’t like.

I don’t recall if it was Archbishop Mueller or Archbishop DiNoia who told them to stop taking their issues out in public. I believe the concern is that the media runs with it, the laity becomes involved. Not everyone is a theologian or a bishop; therefore, not everyone is going to understand the bigger picture. Before you know it, you have all kinds of opinions, factions and more cooks in the kitchen than a fast food restaurant.

 

[otjm]

I look at the FSSP who stand for the same thing as the SSPX and they don’t get resistance from the Holy See. But the FSSP knows when to back down. The SSPX and the LCWR need to learn this.

Brother, I believe I understand what you were trying to say here, but you may wish to make it more clear. My understanding of the FSSP is that a) they accept the documents of Vatican 2 as being in continuity with prior doctrinal statements and b) they accept the validity of the OF.

In fact, if I remember correctly, Rome specifically told the leadership of the FSSP that they could not direct an FSSP priest to not say the OF (or the flip, they could not prevent one from saying it).

 

[russet1]

I initially thought Pope Francis would bring the hammer on the SSPX. But, the more I watch the Pope the more I really think he is going to do nothing at all. He doesn’t have to. And I don’t think he is focused on the SSPX at all. I expect the CDF and the SSPX will trade some shots but ultimately I don’t see anything happening on either side.
The only problem will be if the SSPX want to “press the issue.” I think they would be sorry. Francis is humble, yes. He also carries an air about him that commands control. I would not want to cross that man.
humble or not I would not rattle his cage. If the SSPX thinks that humbleness equates to meekness they will be sorry.