Date set for final meeting in SSPX-Rome Dialogue talks

[At_Trent]

Okay, but couldn’t we be just thankful if one bishop and a few priests would accept the terms? Would that be a failure?

According to many of the SSPX flock it would be a slam dunk for Rome. Ripping the Society in half. Many think that is Rome’s intention. I don’t hold that view, but at this point, that is exactly what appears will happen if some (SSPX clergy) accept a proposal.

Religious freedom, ecumenism, and collegiality seem to be the only issues left. The Mass has been freed and the excommunications have been lifted.

If I was the SG of the SSPX, I’d rather reconcile than not, because I’ve seen enough positive things since H.H. has become pope.

 

[jmj1984]

According to many of the SSPX flock it would be a slam dunk for Rome. Ripping the Society in half. Many think that is Rome’s intention. I don’t hold that view, but at this point, that is exactly what appears will happen if some (SSPX clergy) accept a proposal.

Religious freedom, ecumenism, and collegiality seem to be the only issues left. The Mass has been freed and the excommunications have been lifted.

If I was the SG of the SSPX, I’d rather reconcile than not, because I’ve seen enough positive things since H.H. has become pope.

One of the big issues is going to be Canon 844, NO SSPX Priest OR bishop is going to accept they have to give communion to non-catholics Full stop. So thats going to be a major issue.

 

[TrueLight]

One of the big issues is going to be Canon 844, NO SSPX Priest OR bishop is going to accept they have to give communion to non-catholics Full stop. So thats going to be a major issue.

Does that happen often enough that it is a defining issue?

An SSPX laity told me that one of the conditions is that SSPX priests must be open to saying the Novus Ordo mass and that is one of the biggest issues. Not sure how much truth there is to that.

 

[jmj1984]

Does that happen often enough that it is a defining issue?

An SSPX laity told me that one of the conditions is that SSPX priests must be open to saying the Novus Ordo mass and that is one of the biggest issues. Not sure how much truth there is to that.

The mere idea of it would be a problem. And I doubt it, the institute of the good shepered which was a group of SSPX priests who left the society in 2006 have a papal exemption from having to say the NO mass ever.

 

[pnewton]

One of the big issues is going to be Canon 844, NO SSPX Priest OR bishop is going to accept they have to give communion to non-catholics Full stop. So thats going to be a major issue.

Perhaps this is one area where compromise can come into play. The possibilities in 844 are slim and likely never to face a priest. Also, the canon clearly says that the sacrament *may *be administered, not that it must be or the priest has to give it. It would not be a violation of canon 844 to exempt members of the SSPX from any obligation should this rare event occur.

intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/_P2S.HTM

I see one thing in the SSPX, that while I do not agree with them on a few things, I know of nothing that they believe that is outside the boundries of Catholic doctrine, even as understood today. If we can allow liberal theologians to speculate near the boundry of Catholic thought, then we need the traditional theologians to be the brakes and the balance of the Church. That is how we develop doctrine and safeguard the deposit of faith at the same time.

 

[jmj1984]

Perhaps this is one area where compromise can come into play. The possibilities in 844 are slim and likely never to face a priest. Also, the canon clearly says that the sacrament *may *be administered, not that it must be or the priest has to give it. It would not be a violation of canon 844 to exempt members of the SSPX from any obligation should this rare event occur.

intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/_P2S.HTM

I see one thing in the SSPX, that while I do not agree with them on a few things, I know of nothing that they believe that is outside the boundries of Catholic doctrine, even as understood today. If we can allow liberal theologians to speculate near the boundry of Catholic thought, then we need the traditional theologians to be the brakes and the balance of the Church. That is how we develop doctrine and safeguard the deposit of faith at the same time.

I guess the issue is they are going to need a guarantee that they would never have to do it and the freedom to condemn it, at least in their seminaries, I know of at least one priest who believes this applies to protestants as well as another who reads this more strongly as just applying to Eastern Orthodox. Either way its a compormise or a meeting half way that even Bishop Fellay would not accept.

I will just have to pray that Gods will is done in this as in all things

 

[justme]

Perhaps this is one area where compromise can come into play. The possibilities in 844 are slim and likely never to face a priest. Also, the canon clearly says that the sacrament *may *be administered, not that it must be or the priest has to give it. It would not be a violation of canon 844 to exempt members of the SSPX from any obligation should this rare event occur.

intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/_P2S.HTM

I see one thing in the SSPX, that while I do not agree with them on a few things, I know of nothing that they believe that is outside the boundries of Catholic doctrine, even as understood today. If we can allow liberal theologians to speculate near the boundry of Catholic thought, then we need the traditional theologians to be the brakes and the balance of the Church. That is how we develop doctrine and safeguard the deposit of faith at the same time.

I am sorry but I think you are wrong.

The SSPX website contians much that is outside of the boundries of Catholic doctrine. Just one exmaple is the quote of Archbishop Lefebvre, “The Novus Ordo Missae, even when said with piety and respect for the liturgical rules, …is impregnated with the spirit of Protestantism. It bears within it a poison harmful to the faith”.

 

[ProVobis]

The mere idea of it would be a problem. And I doubt it, the institute of the good shepered which was a group of SSPX priests who left the society in 2006 have a papal exemption from having to say the NO mass ever.

Then perhaps the bigger issue is trust (on both sides). After all didn’t BF once say “Rome, we can’t/don’t trust you.”?

 

[Celticnovice]

The SSPX if returned to full communion could be a great help the Church. Let us pray for reconciliation!

This.

 

[At_Trent]

Can. 844 §1 Catholic ministers may lawfully administer the sacraments only to catholic members of Christ’s faithful, who equally may lawfully receive them only from catholic ministers, except as provided in §§2, 3 and 4 of this canon and in can. 861 §2.

Why would they have an issue with that ?

 

[jmj1984]

Can. 844 §1 Catholic ministers may lawfully administer the sacraments only to catholic members of Christ’s faithful, who equally may lawfully receive them only from catholic ministers, except as provided in §§2, 3 and 4 of this canon and in can. 861 §2.

Why would they have an issue with that ?

'**§3. Catholic ministers administer the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick licitly to members of Eastern Churches which do not have full communion with the Catholic Church if they seek such on their own accord and are properly disposed. This is also valid for members of other Churches which in the judgment of the Apostolic See are in the same condition in regard to the sacraments as these Eastern Churches.

§4. If the danger of death is present or if, in the judgment of the diocesan bishop or conference of bishops, some other grave necessity urges it, Catholic ministers administer these same sacraments licitly also to other Christians not having full communion with the Catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community and who seek such on their own accord, provided that they manifest Catholic faith in respect to these sacraments and are properly disposed.**’ Thats where the issue is.

 

[TrueLight]

'§3. Catholic ministers administer the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick licitly to members of Eastern Churches which do not have full communion with the Catholic Church if they seek such on their own accord and are properly disposed. This is also valid for members of other Churches which in the judgment of the Apostolic See are in the same condition in regard to the sacraments as these Eastern Churches..

I don’t understand that Canon. I think I will start a new thread.

 

[jmj1984]

I don’t understand that Canon. I think I will start a new thread.

Feel free

 

[barb_finnegan]

I listen to the Catholic Church and do not appreciate insulting rhetoric like was in that post, so I would never read stuff like that. This is a Catholic website, after all, not SSPX. The only Church we follow is the Catholic Church. There is no such church as newchurch. That is why I am praying for the SSPX, so they can be a ministering part to that Church, not an enemy.

I hope that is not the case. It will bode ill for part of the SSPX, as JR suggests.

I’m with you, pnewton-I wish that we Catholics would stop the insults and name-calling.

I hope and pray for a reconciliation between Rome and the SSPX. The Society could bring a lot of strength and influence in the Church if it was reconciled.

I’m also a little tired of the self-righteous attitude of some traditional Catholics such as Cornelia Ferrara and her cheap shots at WYD. She should ‘get a life’ and stop being so narrow-minded. Does she think that the young priests and religious who received their vocations due to their going to WYD have ‘the Peter Pan syndrome’, as she calls it?

Today’s Gospel in the traditional calendar is the parable of the Pharisee and the publican. Let us who consider ourselves as ‘traditional Catholics’ not fall into the trap of thinking we are better than other Catholics who might like things such as WYD.

I think of myself as a ‘traditional Catholic who also happens to be a papist’. I support and pray for our Holy Father Benedict XVI! VIVA IL PAPA! The kids at WYD loved him and he loved them!

 

[At_Trent]

'§3. Catholic ministers administer the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick licitly to members of Eastern Churches which do not have full communion with the Catholic Church if they seek such on their own accord and are properly disposed. This is also valid for members of other Churches which in the judgment of the Apostolic See are in the same condition in regard to the sacraments as these Eastern Churches.

§4. If the danger of death is present or if, in the judgment of the diocesan bishop or conference of bishops, some other grave necessity urges it, Catholic ministers administer these same sacraments licitly also to other Christians not having full communion with the Catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community and who seek such on their own accord, provided that they manifest Catholic faith in respect to these sacraments and are properly disposed.’ Thats where the issue is.

Well, I’m far from being able to interpret that, but I have a hard time thinking anything there is wrong. Why ? Because I can’t see someone present at a Mass that would reject the Church, but is simply there for the sacraments.

Perhaps I’m just not seeing it, but that’s my thought on it.

 

[jmj1984]

Well, I’m far from being able to interpret that, but I have a hard time thinking anything there is wrong. Why ? Because I can’t see someone present at a Mass that would reject the Church, but is simply there for the sacraments.

Perhaps I’m just not seeing it, but that’s my thought on it.

I’m not going to derail the thread but I’ll comment on another thread which I believe someobe said they were going to start or you can just Google it to see what problems the society has with said Canon.

 

[TrueLight]

I’m not going to derail the thread but I’ll comment on another thread which I believe someobe said they were going to start or you can just Google it to see what problems the society has with said Canon.

Can Catholic Priests Give Communion to Non-Catholics?

 

[JReducation]

I guess you missed the SSPX announcement about the upcoming talks, then:
Now by all accounts the Discussions made clear that no doctrinal agreement is possible between the SSPX as cleaving to the age-old Church doctrine, and today’s Rome as set upon the Conciliar teaching of the Newchurch, and moreover persevering in this disorientation, as is clear from the Newbeatification of John-Paul II in May and from Assisi III due to happen this coming October. So the situation coming out of the Discussions remains exactly where it was two years ago, going into the Discussions: on the one hand, for the glory of God and for the salvation of souls, the SSPX strives to help Rome back to the true Catholic Faith, whilst for the glory of modern man and for the satisfaction of his ignoble media (as in January and February of 2009), Conciliar Rome is doing all within its power to induce the SSPX to blend into the mind- and soul-rotting ecumenism of the Newfaith.

You have to take such comments with a grain of salt. Just because they appear on the SSPX site does not mean that they are the last word of SSPX authorities. There is a lot on that site the SSPX authorities and many of the SSPX clergy and religious do not subscribe to.

The unwillingness to compromise seems to be a world-wide phenomenon lately.

I have to admit that I personally have a difficult time with the modern idea of “compromise.” It seems that in modern times, “compromise” means, “Do things entirely the way the reigning power wants you do to do them” rather than, “Both sides will make some sacrifices but retain some essentials.”

OTOH, the Vatican is not the mere leader of a country. We’re talking about the Church of Christ. Christ gave up so much to die on the cross for sinful man. To disobey His Church–well, a lot of Catholics do, don’t they?

I like the way that the word compromise is written in Spanish, Portuguese and Italian. In English it would translate as “with promise”. Promise does not mean oath. To compromise, the Latin mind (Spanish, Italians, Portuguese, etc) means to come to an agreement with the promise that with time and effort we will be on the same page.

I agree except that I believe there will be a formal declaration of schism on that group that chooses not to reunite.

I believe it’s going to happen. It is sad. I pray that I’m wrong. I believe that the SSPX will be fully intergrated and a new group will be born from it. This happened to the Sons of the Most Holy Redeemer. There were Transalpine Redemptorists who did not come back. It was a handful.

In those conjectures, I wonder if one can also include the possible Anglican Ordinariate route for the said bishop.

If you mean Bishop Williamson, I doubt it. Even an ordinariate requires full assent to Vatican II and the CCC. You’re allowed to correct and clarify the mistakes that people have made in interpretation and application, but you may not dissent from the message. That is not acceptable to Cardinal Levada.

One of the big issues is going to be Canon 844, NO SSPX Priest OR bishop is going to accept they have to give communion to non-catholics Full stop. So thats going to be a major issue.

The issue is not the canon. The issue is on of authority. The Vatican looks at it from a different perspective. The Vatican says, “The pope is the Living Law of the Church. If the pope decreese that something is permissible [for X reasons] the law is the law and no Catholic can say that it is not permissible.” To contradict this, is a doctrinal issue. The issue is no longer about who gets Communion, but who is the Living Law the individual priest or the pope?

 

[JReducation]

Does that happen often enough that it is a defining issue?

An SSPX laity told me that one of the conditions is that SSPX priests must be open to saying the Novus Ordo mass and that is one of the biggest issues. Not sure how much truth there is to that.

That’s more of an issue for the SSPX laity than for the priests. I think it’s time that the laity stop speaking for the Traditionalist clergy. They are doing more harm than good. First of all, the Church has not commanded the FSSP, the Sons of the Most Holy Redeemer, the Institute of Christ the King, or the Canons of St. John Cantius to celebrate the Ordinary Form. The point is that the Franciscans of the Immaculate asked the Holy See for a clarification on this point. The answer was that any priest, be he religious or secular can be commanded to celebrate the Ordinary Form, but may never be commanded to celebrate the Extraordinary Form, because Ordinary means normative. In calling the NO the Ordinary Form, the Holy Father deliberately created a legal status for that form of the mass. No priest can refuse to celebrate it if commanded by his bishop or his religious superiors. We go back to the doctrine on authority. A legitimate superior can make any legitimate demand and you have to comply, even if you don’t like it. Since there is nothing sinful about the OF, it can be commanded. That does not mean that people have been commanded to celebrate it, except the Franciscans of the Immaculate, but they’re religious. The superior is Francis and Francis can command whatver he wants and Franciscans have to shut up and like it.

I guess the issue is they are going to need a guarantee that they would never have to do it and the freedom to condemn it, at least in their seminaries, I know of at least one priest who believes this applies to protestants as well as another who reads this more strongly as just applying to Eastern Orthodox. Either way its a compormise or a meeting half way that even Bishop Fellay would not accept.

I will just have to pray that Gods will is done in this as in all things

I doubt there would be such a guarantee. You cannot allow them to teach that something that the Church says can be done is wrong. That takes us back to doctrine again. The doctrine on the table is the authority of the Church to bind and unbind. If you come, you must accept what the Church binds and what she unbinds.

I am sorry but I think you are wrong.

The SSPX website contians much that is outside of the boundries of Catholic doctrine. Just one exmaple is the quote of Archbishop Lefebvre, “The Novus Ordo Missae, even when said with piety and respect for the liturgical rules, …is impregnated with the spirit of Protestantism. It bears within it a poison harmful to the faith”.

They’ll have to clear such comments away, but that comes later. Look at the site for the Sons of the Holy Redeemer. It no longer has any of Archbishop Lefebvre’s statements.

I don’t understand that Canon. I think I will start a new thread.

The canon allows bishops or those who are equal to bishops to decide whether or not to give Holy Communion to a non Catholic Christian who asks based on a series of criteria, the most important one being that the person beleives in the Eucharist. It applies to very few non-Catholics, since most do not believe in transubstantiation. The pope himself has given Holy Communion at non-Catholics: Br. Roger (Luteran) then Superior General of Taize and Tony Blair (Anglican at the time, but in RCIA), the Orthodox who were present for John Paul’s funeral.

There is not much to it and the situation rarely comes up.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[ProVobis]

First of all, the Church has not commanded the FSSP, the Sons of the Most Holy Redeemer, the Institute of Christ the King, or the Canons of St. John Cantius to celebrate the Ordinary Form.

Br JR, I believe the CJC are trained to say Mass in both forms, including the OF in Latin and in a language other than English as well. Perhaps it doesn’t take as long to learn the OF, nevertheless there is the GIRM, whose rules (facing the people, speaking aloud, etc) run a little counter to the EF, and other things to learn about it, so I wouldn’t expect an ICRSS or FSSP to say the OF on the spot, even if he had the desire to say it. But then some of the EF-only priests, I’m sure, probably know more than I do about the OF.