Date set for final meeting in SSPX-Rome Dialogue talks

[JReducation]

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.

I know that they know how to celebrate the OF. My guess is that since the OF is normative, part of the requirement is that they learn it and learn its theology as well. What I said is that they have not been commanded to celebrate it.

The only traditional community that has been literally commanded are the Franciscans of the Immaculate. That command does not come from the Vatican or even a bishop. That’s an internal order from the Minister General, who is the canonical successor of St. Francis. If you want to be penalized faster than you can say your name, try saying “No” to a Franciscan superior. You had better be able to prove that the superior is putting your soul in danger. Other than that, the superior may be 100% wrong, a fool, and not know left from right, all at once and you still have to obey. The other time when you can disobey is if the superior is insane. That has happened. Every religious family has had their share of nut jobs. :hypno:

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[paul11b]

I truly hope this works out. I will be praying about it.

 

[JReducation]

I truly hope this works out. I will be praying about it.

At this point, I believe that there are two approrpiate things that we can do.

1. We stop the volleyball game that has existed in our ranks since this problem began. It does not help the Church when Catholics go at it back and forth, especially on issues where

a. We have no say

b. We don’t have enough knowledge

c. We can’t fix.

I have observed that part of what makes the bishops, on both sides, very defensive and at times offensive is the mouthiness of clergy, religious and laity. If most of us think about it, there is irony here. Most of us probably spent a great deal of time teaching our children not to be mouthy, to be quiet, to mind their business, be polite, play nice and all of the rules necessary to live in civilized families and societies. And our parents invested a lot of time teaching us. However, when it comes to this issue between the SSPX and the Vatican, we fail to apply any of those rules that we learned and that we teach out children. Often, we make things worse. We create an image that is very distasteful to the Vatican or the SSPX bishops. Human beings, being what they are, are going to dig their heals in the face of something distasteful. These men are human. Maybe, if we just wait this out without the volleying back and forth, it may just work for the good of all.

1. We have to pray. But we can’t pray in a way that attempts to hand-cuff God, asking him to make things go our way. That’s not prayer. That’s wishful thinking. We have to pray as Mary and Jesus prayed. “God’s Will be done.”

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[jmj1984]

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.

In the interests of honesty, no that isn’t the problem or the correct interpretation. A Group of FSSP priests back in 1999 wanted to celebrate the Novus Ordo, their superiors said no, they appealed to Rome and Rome told them no one superior or otherwise could forbid priests from saying the NO, removed their superior and imposed a new superior on them. So the interpretation is a little bit more complicated than that.

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 suppose the issue there is that Liberal movements seem to get away with a lot, the Call to Action and Call to disobedience being two prime examples, both involving priests and Bishops.

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’m from Aberdeen so I know something about their situation. 2 years after writing to Eclessia Dei, they’re still waiting for regularisation and are forbidden to do anything off the Island, why? Because the old bishop of Aberdeen was very liberal and spoke out on many occassions against the Tridentine Mass essentially banning priests operating in his diocese from saying it

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.

I’m afraid this isn’t true, its up to individual priests to do so, either that or after Bishops say yes once Priests don’t bother again because I know two priests from two seperate dioceses who interpret it this way. And its come up in my experience quite a few times, twice in the last few months at my parish.

 

[jmj1984]

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?

Yes, thats a fair enough assement of yourself. Neo- Ultamontanists such as yourself essentially believe the Pope can abrogate laws, impose new ones or change penalties at will, the SSPX and other traditionalists on the other hand don’t agree with that view and can cite a fair few theologians and Popes to support their view.

 

[jmj1984]

We have to pray. But we can’t pray in a way that attempts to hand-cuff God, asking him to make things go our way. That’s not prayer. That’s wishful thinking. We have to pray as Mary and Jesus prayed. “God’s Will be done.”

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

True we must always submit ourselves to God’s will but that doesn’t mean we can’t ask for what we want first, after all Christ did that and then finished ‘But not my will be done but thy will be done’

 

[daCatholicGuard]

Greetings all,

I am praying they can reach an accord; while I do not condone everything SSPX espouses; I have always preferred the more traditional ways of observing the Faith compared to the more modernistic approach since Vatican II. So, if they could work out an accord it would be a great comfort to me because I feel like I’m caught in the middle.

Oremus pro invicem,

Sean C. :knight2:

 

[Melchior_1]

Yes, thats a fair enough assement of yourself. Neo- Ultamontanists such as yourself essentially believe the Pope can abrogate laws, impose new ones or change penalties at will, the SSPX and other traditionalists on the other hand don’t agree with that view and can cite a fair few theologians and Popes to support their view.

It’s not “Neo- Ultamontanists” who think that the Pope can change or impose new Canon Laws, it’s actually all Catholics who should. The Pope is where the buck stops when it comes to Canon Law, it comes with the territory of sitting on the Chair of Peter.

From the notes I have in some books I have, monatism is fairly anti-clerical. That doesn’t exactly sound Franciscan, nor does it sound like someone who accepts that the Pope has the authority to bind and loose Canon Law.

 

[jmj1984]

It’s not “Neo- Ultamontanists” who think that the Pope can change or impose new Canon Laws, it’s actually all Catholics who should. The Pope is where the buck stops when it comes to Canon Law, it comes with the territory of sitting on the Chair of Peter.

From the notes I have in some books I have, monatism is fairly anti-clerical. That doesn’t exactly sound Franciscan, nor does it sound like someone who accepts that the Pope has the authority to bind and loose Canon Law.

Montanism not monatism, theres a difference:

Montanism is defined as ‘Ultramontanism is a religious philosophy within the Roman Catholic community that places strong emphasis on the prerogatives and powers of the Pope. In particular, ultramontanism may consist in asserting the superiority of Papal authority over the authority of local temporal or spiritual hierarchies (including the local bishop).’ I use the term Neo to indicate going even further.

And I’m not getting into a debate about the Popes powers on this thread

 

[Melchior_1]

Montanism not monatism, theres a difference:

Montanism is defined as ‘Ultramontanism is a religious philosophy within the Roman Catholic community that places strong emphasis on the prerogatives and powers of the Pope. In particular, ultramontanism may consist in asserting the superiority of Papal authority over the authority of local temporal or spiritual hierarchies (including the local bishop).’ I use the term Neo to indicate going even further.

And I’m not getting into a debate about the Popes powers on this thread

Ah, my bad!

And you can’t escape talking about the Pope’s authority in this thread, it’s one of the main stickling points when it comes to the talks between the two groups (and why the SSPX broke off in the first place).

The Archbishop thought that the emergency Canons applied, JP2 said no they didn’t, so don’t bother doing it. Guy went ahead and did it anyway, knowing full well what would happen. From the start a bunch of this was about papal authority, and rejection of such. People who support the Archbishop’s stance would like to diminish the authority of the Pope because it helps validate their claims the Canons were still applicable.

I want them to come back into the fold. They can bring a lot into the Church, add to the unity of the Church yet help keep things diverse. But I’m not holding my breath. Best case, some of them do and the rest form a splinter group.

 

[jmj1984]

Ah, my bad!

And you can’t escape talking about the Pope’s authority in this thread, it’s one of the main stickling points when it comes to the talks between the two groups (and why the SSPX broke off in the first place).

The Archbishop thought that the emergency Canons applied, JP2 said no they didn’t, so don’t bother doing it. Guy went ahead and did it anyway, knowing full well what would happen. From the start a bunch of this was about papal authority, and rejection of such. People who support the Archbishop’s stance would like to diminish the authority of the Pope because it helps validate their claims the Canons were still applicable.

I want them to come back into the fold. They can bring a lot into the Church, add to the unity of the Church yet help keep things diverse. But I’m not holding my breath. Best case, some of them do and the rest form a splinter group.

No worries

Oh I’m aware of that but frankly if people want to discuss that they can do it elsewhere, the point of this thread is just to break the news and gather prayers. Theres enough debate threads on the SSPX around CAF besides I’d prefer for this one not to get closed

 

[Melchior_1]

No worries

Oh I’m aware of that but frankly if people want to discuss that they can do it elsewhere, the point of this thread is just to break the news and gather prayers. Theres enough debate threads on the SSPX around CAF besides I’d prefer for this one not to get closed

Touche! But surely you know you can’t expect to make claims such as calling someone an ultramontanist without things devolving, especially when the fellow is right with what he’s saying.

But I’ll digress.

For now!

 

[jmj1984]

Touche! But surely you know you can’t expect to make claims such as calling someone an ultramontanist without things devolving, especially when the fellow is right with what he’s saying.

But I’ll digress.

For now!

True enough I simply meant to point out there is a variety of positions on this subject within the Catholic church amongst both the clergy, theologians and the laity.

 

[Tomster]

Being optimistic regarding this matter, I am making financial contributions to the seminary building funds to both the SSPX and FSSP.

 

[Denise1957]

In the interests of honesty, no that isn’t the problem or the correct interpretation. A Group of FSSP priests back in 1999 wanted to celebrate the Novus Ordo, their superiors said no, they appealed to Rome and Rome told them no one superior or otherwise could forbid priests from saying the NO, removed their superior and imposed a new superior on them. So the interpretation is a little bit more complicated than that.

I suppose the issue there is that Liberal movements seem to get away with a lot, the Call to Action and Call to disobedience being two prime examples, both involving priests and Bishops.

I’m from Aberdeen so I know something about their situation. 2 years after writing to Eclessia Dei, they’re still waiting for regularisation and are forbidden to do anything off the Island, why? Because the old bishop of Aberdeen was very liberal and spoke out on many occassions against the Tridentine Mass essentially banning priests operating in his diocese from saying it

I’m afraid this isn’t true, its up to individual priests to do so, either that or after Bishops say yes once Priests don’t bother again because I know two priests from two seperate dioceses who interpret it this way. And its come up in my experience quite a few times, twice in the last few months at my parish.

Regarding the above statement that liberal groups get away with a lot, such as Call to Action, which urges disobedience, it should be mentioned that this in itself does not justify the SSPX stance that the OF Mass is intrinsically sacriligious. I can’t imagine that a reconciliation between Rome and the SSPX would allow the SSPX to continue this stance.

Regarding the Sons of the Holy Redeemer, I’m not sure that the situation that they are in is completely to do with the bishop being liberal. In any case. I admire the FSSR greatly.
They have shown such great patience and fortitude since they reconciled with Rome. It’s admirable that they do not engage in bashing bishops or the OF. The articles on their website are of an edifying nature. With the patience and humility they’ve exhibited, I think it’s likely that they will gain the canonical status they’ve been waiting for with the new bishop of Aberdeen.

I don’t know anything for sure, but it seems unlikely that if given canonical status the SSPX would be forced to celebrate the OF. I’m aware of the situation with the FSSP in 1999, but still it’s a rare thing for an FSSP priest to celebrate the OF. I’m sure the SSPX and thier supporters have fears about what could happen after a regularization, but I hope that they would seek to trust the Church and the Holy Father, in that the Holy Father does have their best interests in mind, according to the Church.

 

[SouthpawLink]

Rorate Caeli has an article here regarding the fact that a date has been set for a final meeting between the SSPX and Rome at which the canonical situation of the society will be discussed. I’m sure everyone will join me in prayer that the meeting will lead to the normalisation of relations between Rome and the Society

No polemic’s please, regardless of our opinions on the society I am sure we can all agree that the normalisation of relations would be good for all involved

Actually, I don’t agree. I do not wish to see the SSPX “reconciled” with Rome. As for why, well, you said “no polemics,” so I won’t offer any (needless to say, my support is for the SSPX).

for Rome.

 

[Derek_Ellery]

 

[At_Trent]

Touche! But surely you know you can’t expect to make claims such as calling someone an ultramontanist without things devolving, especially when the fellow is right with what he’s saying.

But I’ll digress.

For now!

There is nothing derogatory about the term ultramonatist. This priest even named his blog that.
theultramontanist.blogspot.com/

 

[At_Trent]

I know that they know how to celebrate the OF. My guess is that since** the OF is normative, part of the requirement is that they learn it and learn its theology as well.** What I said is that they have not been commanded to celebrate it.

Hmm, one thing I’ve heard from some SSPX clergy is that the theology of the OF is not the same as the EF.

What is your take on this ? (if we can discuss it without pitting one form against the other )

 

[jmj1984]

Hmm, one thing I’ve heard from some SSPX clergy is that the theology of the OF is not the same as the EF.

What is your take on this ? (if we can discuss it without pitting one form against the other )

Thats their official view, in fact its their de facto and de jure view.