Do you think the SSPX will come into communion with Rome?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ukrforever
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
U

Ukrforever

Guest
I.have.read.about.the.meeting.thats.taking,place.in.Rome.Sept.This.means.that.if.
everything.is.agreed.apon.they.will.be.in.communion.with.one.another?I.hope.so.because,
I.wrote.to.the.bishop.of.our.local.diocese.about.having.a.parish.in.his.diocese.celebrate.strictly.the.latin.Mass.in.one.of.his.parishes.He.responded.by.saying.he.will.think.about
it.Which.if.I.would.be.a.gambling.person.means.no!..Even.though.im.eastern.catholic.
their.are.times.when.I.cant.get.to.my.church.My.priest.even.told.me.he.didnt.want
me.limiting.myself.by.just.attending.the.Eastern.rite.Which.I.think.is.very.good.attitude.to
have.Considering.my.former.RC.priest.told.me.this.is.most.likely.just.a.phaze.im.going.
through.when.I.told.him.I.was.switching.rites.
 
All.Catholics.please.answer.im.interested.in.hearing.the.answer.to.this.question.
 
What’s with all the full-stops?

Well anyway, the SSPX is in communion with Rome. It’s the very reason why the excommunications were lifted. However they are still suspended. So the question is whether or not the SSPX is regularised… and to be honest I don’t know. They very likely will be and I am not entirely happy about that. But the salvation of souls is at stake here, so I bow to Rome.
 
Que sera sera. It is not yet known what will happen with the SSPX. The role of the faithful now is simply to pray and let the Holy See and the SSPX bishops dialogue.
 
As was pointed out, they are in communion with Rome right now.

Their exact status is a bit confusing, and can especially be so to those who are not Catholic or haven’t followed the situation.

They aren’t “out of communion” and they aren’t “in schism”. Certain members have commited “schismatic acts” which is different than being in schism.

The best word I can come up with to describe their status is “irregular”. I fervently pray that they become regular soon.

God’s will be done.

Pax.
 
Will the SSPX and Rome eventually reach a solution and will the SSPX be regularized? Yes, I have no doubt about it. But as to when this will happen is in God’s good time.
 
Ukrforever said:
I.have.read.about.the.meeting.thats.taking,place.in.Rome.Sept.This.means.that.if.
everything.is.agreed.apon.they.will.be.in.communion.with.one.another?I.hope.so.because,
I.wrote.to.the.bishop.of.our.local.diocese.about.having.a.parish.in.his.diocese.celebrate.strictly.the.latin.Mass.in.one.of.his.parishes.He.responded.by.saying.he.will.think.about
it.Which.if.I.would.be.a.gambling.person.means.no!..Even.though.im.eastern.catholic.
their.are.times.when.I.cant.get.to.my.church.My.priest.even.told.me.he.didnt.want
me.limiting.myself.by.just.attending.the.Eastern.rite.Which.I.think.is.very.good.attitude.to
have.Considering.my.former.RC.priest.told.me.this.is.most.likely.just.a.phaze.im.going.
through.when.I.told.him.I.was.switching.rites.
Click to expand...
To answer your first question, we don’t know what will happen at this closing meeting. If I were a betting man, which I’m not, I would say that there is going to be a schism. Part of the SSPX is going to accept the Vatican’s terms. Certain bishops and their followers will not. They will automatically excommunicate themselves at some point, probably when that bishop ordains a successor.

I don’t believe that the SSPX is going to come as one body. As I keep telling every layman who asks me this question, we have many SSPX supporters in my neck of the woods, I always tell them that the laity has done more harm to this situation than Archbishop Lefebvre did.

At the end of the day, the Archbishop broke communion with the papacy by ordaining bishops without a papal mandate. However, if there had been no following, the SSPX would have fizzled out. There was the first stage of harm.

The second stage of harm was that many laymen authorized themselves to blog, write, post, lecture and more against the Church. However, those people are not well trained in ecclesial matters. They presented themselves as equals in knowledge and authority to such men as Bl. John Paul and Pope Benedict. This was imprudent and arrogant. It’s like the milkman arguing with his heart surgeon while on the operating table. If one feels that one knows so much about what the pope can and cannot do, that he knows more than the pope, he’s on a slippery slope. Most lay people are not the popes’ equals. These are very knowledgeable men. They know the rules. They know what their predecessors said and what binds them and what does not bind them. Suddenly, we had these self-appointed jurists and theologians telling popes what previous popes wanted and what binds them.

If one truly believes that a pope has broken with the Church, then one is in fact saying that the man in the white cassock is not a pope. You can’t say that he is a pope and then say, “He does not know Church History or he does not know theology.” Or worse, you can’t say, “He knows, but he has chosen to violate the teachings of the Church.”

When lay people get into these discussions and make such allegations, without the proper credentials, they tend to speak in a manner that is simple and easy to follow. The common man is going to buy into it, because it makes sense to him. Not everything that is simple to follow and appears to be logical is correct. Some things are very complicated and do require a lot of knowledge, which our popes have. The better thing to do is not to insert oneself into the debate between the SSPX leadership and the Vatican and to help other Catholics understand that at the end of the day, the Vatian must always have the last word, unless the Vatican is in heresy.

As far as your bishop’s response, it is very appropriate. No bishop can surrender a parish completely to the Extraordinary Form. Pope John Paul deliberately used the term “extraordinary” because in law, this word means that it is not normative, therefore, it is not obligatory.

He told bishops to help make the form available to those who ask for it. He did not say that the bishops or religious superiors could force any priest to celebrate it. They do not have that authority. Bishops do not have the authority to make the extraordinary normative. It is one thing to allow a new chapel or parish that may be run by an association such as the FSSP and quite another to take an existing parish and convert it over to EF only masses. You cannot do that. That would change that parish from the norm to the extraordinary.

I believe that those of us who have an appreciation for the EF must be realistic and also humble. The EF is not the norm and the Holy Father does not want it to be the norm. We should be happy that it is allowed and not push to make something that norm, when it’s not the intention or desire of the hierarchy to do so. At the end of the day, the hierarchy does not need us. We need it.

The old saying goes, “Where there is the bishop, there is the Church.”

Not,“Wwhere there is the laity, clergy or religious, there is the Church.”

Hypothetically, if you have a few lay people and thousands of bishops, you have a Catholic Church. Those millions of other Catholics who have servered their ties with the bishops are no longer Church. This was the whole issue with the Protestant Reformation. Those folks were Catholic and they went to their graves believing they were Catholic. But without a valid bishop, they were not Church.

In the end, it’s not the form of the mass that makes a community a Catholic Church. It’s the bishop. Our tradition is based on Apostolic Succession, not on liturgical tradition. Liturgical tradition can change and has changed around the world many time.

We, the faithful, need to stay out of this, pray and observe. When the final verdict comes out, decide to be Catholic or leave. There is no way that the conclusion is going to please everyone. We have to pray for the grace to accept whatever the Vatican says, even if we have to bite the bullet.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
JReducation said:
." Or worse, you can’t say, “He knows, but he has chosen to violate the teachings of the Church.”
Click to expand...
I agreed with what you wrote except for this. Every person is capable of violating the teachings of the Church. Christians can identify failures by any other Christian, even a pope.

Whether, when, or how it is prudent publicly to do so, are other questions.
 
I think, the bottom line is, there’s been some positive signs (nun being allowed to join SSPX convent, etc.), but we won’t know what happens until it happens.

There’s a meeting on Sept. 14 - Option (a) - they’ll come out and announce that the difference have been resolved, and a timeline for full regularization (least likely to happen, but would be nice if it did); option (b) - Bp. Fellay will stomp out of the meeting, and announce that the talks are over, and there’s no way their differences can be resolved (hopefully this won’t happen); option (c) - they’ll say they’ve made some progress, but they have more to discuss, and they aren’t going to make the substance of the meeting public (most likely to happen).
 
Warrenton said:
I agreed with what you wrote except for this. Every person is capable of violating the teachings of the Church. Christians can identify failures by any other Christian, even a pope.

Whether, when, or how it is prudent publicly to do so, are other questions.
Click to expand...
A pope can sin, but he cannot teach contrary to truth. If we say that the pope knows the truth but chooses to teach error, then we have to say that he’s not a pope. That’s where I’m going here.

It’s either “the pope is teaching truth” or “the man in the pope’s chair is teaching error”. Popes cant’ teach error.

Some people contradict themselves because they claim that the man in the chair is a valid pope who is intentionally teaching error. It does not work that way.

You see what I’m saying?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
JReducation said:
You see what I’m saying?
Click to expand...
I do. And I agree with you as you framed it in this last thread.

To my thinking, most SSPX types, regardless of what they say, don’t mean to attack the pope, but rather the implementation of Vatican 2. To the extent that they do criticise the popes, they probably intend to do so in the the manner of the criticisms of Honorius I. Clearly, that pope made a mistake, whether it was from personal misunderstanding, weakness under duress, or as later claimed, negligence in office.

How to criticize a pope is and always has been frought with difficulty, as the case of Honorius demonstrates. Indeed, this fact adds considerable force to your point: we ought not to do it.

Criticism of the pope per se is dangerous for the Catholic, precisely because in the modern world, once this issue is joined one can only either back down or join another community.

Over time, most popes seem to have made it very easy for the faithful to retain freedom of conscience in this respect. I am not aware of any of the last four popes who have said the new mass is better than the old. Likewise, I am not aware of any of the last four popes who have said the old mass ought not be said. In fact, the entire manner that vatican 2 was conducted, and the way that the changes of that period were implemented, is noticeably devoid of papal pronouncements. It is very interesting.
 
Warrenton said:
I do. And I agree with you as you framed it in this last thread.

To my thinking, most SSPX types, regardless of what they say, don’t mean to attack the pope, but rather the implementation of Vatican 2. To the extent that they do criticise the popes, they probably intend to do so in the the manner of the criticisms of Honorius I. Clearly, that pope made a mistake, whether it was from personal misunderstanding, weakness under duress, or as later claimed, negligence in office.

How to criticize a pope is and always has been frought with difficulty, as the case of Honorius demonstrates. Indeed, this fact adds considerable force to your point: we ought not to do it.

Criticism of the pope per se is dangerous for the Catholic, precisely because in the modern world, once this issue is joined one can only either back down or join another community.

.
Click to expand...
Your post makes me think of several things. First, I’m thinking of the whole idea of declaring open season on popes, bishops, clergy, religious and Vatican II. There are some Catholics who act as if someone had declared open season. They shoot first and ask questions later. I for one often wonder what the heck I’m doing on these threads. I know other priests, brothers and sisters who have given up. These are men and women whom I know personally. They’re very good people and very dedicated. But they have given up, because human beings do not caese to be so just because they put on a habit. You can only take so much bashing and rudeness and then you just walk away. As one priest friend of mine put it, “Why should I go online into fora and try to help people understand, if they’re going to attack me, when I can work in my diocese with people who will listen and treat me like a human being, even if they disagree?” That’s the key. Disagreement does not constitute the right to be nasty. My experience with people at the extremes, right or left, can be very nasty. The pope is not an exception to their nastiness. He gets targeted and bashed. I have to give it to them; they are equal opportunity bashers.

The other point that comes to mind from you post is that people often expect a pronouncement from the pope on every issue that they believe to be important. They often fail to understand that the internal infrastructure of the Church’s government has changed.

During WW II the Church learned to run itself while the pope kept his hands off the pot. It was very necessary. Pope Pius XII could not compromise the safety of millions by getting overtly involved in the situation of the day. The war also made it impossible for bishops and dioceses to communicate with the Vatican. Then Communism followed and built more barriers. The Middle East arose and more barriers. Gradually the pope handed over much of the decision making authority to Cardinals who are either legates or prefects for congregations and departments in the Vatican and authority was delegated to them to make rules and changes. It was undestood that if the pope did not object, you were free to assume consent and you passed these decisions down to the local dioceses, parishes and people.

Most lay people do not know this. We who are religious and clergy have always been told this and have actually been made to take courses on Church Governnent. We know who’s who and who has the right and authority to make what decisions in the name of the Pontiff. When they make those decisions they are to be obeyed as if they came from the Pontiff himself. This is the whole Principle of Collegiality. To understand it, one has to understand Church Goverment. The popes have not abdicated authority, but have delegated it. This is not new.

Prior to the Middle Ages, we also had more centralization. The Church was smaller. It did not cover as much territory. There were two poles, East and West. You looked to Rome or to Constantinople for guidance. During the Middle Ages there was dicentralization. After the Protestant Reformation, government and authority was centralized again and we saw many more pronouncements coming from popes. Then came WW II and Pope Pius XII allowed decentralization and introduced collegiality. Many think that this was a Vatican II term. It was not. It was a term that Pope Pius XII used in a letter to Cardinal Roncalli (John XXIII).

I believe that one of the things that’s going to happen here is that the decree to the SSPX is not going to come from the Pope’s mouth. It’s going to come from Cardinal Levada. There are going to be those who still hang on to the old form of Church government and are not going to accept it as authoritative, because the pope didn’t say it, clearly not understanding that the Cardinal has tthe authority to speak for the pope. When he does, his words carry the same legal weight. At the end of the day it makes no difference who actually says the words. What is important is that the pope give his nod of approval to what is said.

I praying for a full reconciliation, but I’m not putting my money on it. God has a plan. I believe that with all of my heart. I also believe that man has a way of sabotaging it. In my 40+ years of ministry, I have learned that it’s not always the devil’s fault. We tend to use the devil as a scapegoat, the typical Adam, Eve and serpent story. Point the finger over there. Often, the devil does not need to help man mess things up. He does a fine job without help.

I can see people lining up on both sides, for and against the SSPX, sharpening their knives, because no matter what comes out of this, they are not going to buy into it. They’re going to carve it and throw it out like yesterday’s news. Those are the people that we have to avoid, the ultra Traditionalist who will not buge an inch and the ultra liberal who don’t want to yield an inch to tradition. And oh do I hate lables.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
JReducation said:
Holy Father does not want it [the EF] to be the norm
Click to expand...
I don’t think anyone can make that claim except the Holy Father. As you know, as the head of the Universal Church, he must must carefully consider all of his actions and proclamations. In my opinion, we can’t assume that because he hasn’t made the EF normative, he doesn’t desire that it be normative.
 
Whilst I dislike collegiality, JR makes the excellent point that it is still a perfectly valid and authoritative form of government in the Church, precisely because it is the Pope who is delegating.
 
Te_Deum said:
Whilst I dislike collegiality, JR makes the excellent point that it is still a perfectly valid and authoritative form of government in the Church, precisely because it is the Pope who is delegating.
Click to expand...
We may not like it, but the popes love it. As Msgr, Giorg, Pope Benedict’s secretary said in an interview. It allows the pope to focus on things that he wants to do. It allows him more free time for prayer, ecumenical work and most importantly, it allows him to preach and teach instead of having to manage every detail in such a widespread Church. We have to admit, the Church is huge, not only in numbers, but all in territory. Aside from Antartica, how many other countries do not have at least one Catholic diocese? Even the Muslim countries have Catholic dioceses.

:hmmm: I know a few people whom we can send to start the Diocese of Antartica. 😃

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
JReducation said:
Aside from Antartica, how many other countries do not have at least one Catholic diocese?
Click to expand...
Bhutan easily springs to mind, and the Maldives is another. If you mean countries without real dioceses even though they may have a vicariate apostolic or prefecture apostolic, there is a decent number (Brunei, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, etc.). But even if you count vicariates and prefectures apostolic, there are quite a few countries that do not have their own and are governed from elsewhere: Oman, Yemen, Qatar, and a couple of others.
 
JReducation said:
To answer your first question, we don’t know what will happen at this closing meeting. If I were a betting man, which I’m not, I would say that there is going to be a schism. Part of the SSPX is going to accept the Vatican’s terms. Certain bishops and their followers will not. They will automatically excommunicate themselves at some point, probably when that bishop ordains a successor.

I don’t believe that the SSPX is going to come as one body.
Click to expand...
I think the Eastern Catholic Churches are a testament to this. They were Orthodox and wanted to come into communion with Rome. Not everyone came and others wanted to remain Orthodox that are out of communion with Rome. I agree this may be what will happen. Even with the Traditional Anglicans, there are a number who declined and seceded from their parishes and dioceses so that they will not join the Ordinariate. Its just how it is always.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top