Formal theological discussions about Vatican II will begin later this month

[JReducation]

So the next question, assuming such happens, is what becomes of the parishes set up in the various dioceses in which a bishop might choose to not invite them in?

This is an excellent question. Canonically, every parish belongs to the bishop. The bishop is his own corporation. Therefore, no one can assume a parish unless he is installed by the bishop, be he a secular priest, a religious or a member of a society.

In this case, a parish that was formally an SSPX parish, becomes the property of the local diocese and comes under the jurisdiction of the bishop. The bishop can appoint any pastor or parish administrator of his choice. Prelatures normally do not have parishes. They have chapels. But those chapels may not have marriages, baptisms or funerals without the consent of the bishop. If the chapel falls within the territory of an established parish, those sacraments must be received at the parish. The local pastor can grant permission for a priest of the prelature to celebrate those sacraments in his parish on a case by case basis. In the case of marriage, the local pastor can grant faculties for a wedding in his parish. No pastor can grant faculties for confession. Those are granted either by the bishop or by a competent major religious superior of men. Religious superiors can only grant faculties for confessions in their own houses, oratories or chapels, not the diocesan parish, even if his order runs the parish.

The bottom line is that if they become a prelature, they have to surrender the parishes to the bishop. This includes the faithful, records, the assets, the liabilities and all tangible and intangible property. It’s the same rule that applies to religious leaving a parish. Even if they built it and paid for everything in it. It all belongs to the bishop and they cannot ask the bishop to be reimbursed for anyting.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[otjm]

This is an excellent question. Canonically, every parish belongs to the bishop. The bishop is his own corporation. Therefore, no one can assume a parish unless he is installed by the bishop, be he a secular priest, a religious or a member of a society.

In this case, a parish that was formally an SSPX parish, becomes the property of the local diocese and comes under the jurisdiction of the bishop. The bishop can appoint any pastor or parish administrator of his choice. Prelatures normally do not have parishes. They have chapels. But those chapels may not have marriages, baptisms or funerals without the consent of the bishop. If the chapel falls within the territory of an established parish, those sacraments must be received at the parish. The local pastor can grant permission for a priest of the prelature to celebrate those sacraments in his parish on a case by case basis. In the case of marriage, the local pastor can grant faculties for a wedding in his parish. No pastor can grant faculties for confession. Those are granted either by the bishop or by a competent major religious superior of men. Religious superiors can only grant faculties for confessions in their own houses, oratories or chapels, not the diocesan parish, even if his orer runs the parish.

The bottom line is that if they become a prelature, they have to surrender the parishes to the bishop. This includes the faithful, records, the assets, the liabilities and all tangible and intangible property. It’s the same rule that applies to religious leaving a parish. Even if they built it and paid for everything in it. It all belongs to the bishop and they cannot ask the bishop to be reimbursed for anyting.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Well, that will certainly make things lively on a case by case basis. And the other side of it - if the bishop does not choose to have them as part of the diocese by invitation, will also make it lively. And not necessarily pretty.

 

[JReducation]

I wouldn’t say that. In pre-conciliar times, national “conferences of bishops” were far less potent than they are now.
.

Actually, because communication and travel was not as easy as it is now, the national conferences operated by provinces. That’s why many of us were not aware of their existence. We were more aware of the province. A good example is the famous Baltimore Catechism and the famous Council of Baltimore in the Eastern USA. Everyone in the East knew about the Baltimore Catechism. But many did not know that it was produced by the Baltimore Province of the USCCB, which had another name back then. I can’t remember exactly what it was, but the word Episcopal was part of it.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

Well, that will certainly make things lively on a case by case basis. And the other side of it - if the bishop does not choose to have them as part of the diocese by invitation, will also make it lively. And not necessarily pretty.

The hope is that if they become a prelature, they will also act like a prelature. This means that they will not make demands on a bishop, nor will they detract faithful from the local diocese. One of the things that makes the Opus Dei very successful and very user friendly is that they do not compete with the local dioceeses in which they are guests. The bishop welcomes them. Does not grant them a parish. He grants them permission to run their ministry in his diocese. The Opus Dei has to provide its own funds, buildings and staff. They don’t run their chapels like parishes. They celebrate the Eucharist and hear confessions. That’s it. Any other sacraments, they refer to the local parish. If the faithful wants a priest from the Opus Dei to baptize their children or witness their marriage, they get the pastor’s permission. It’s never denied, since the Opus Dei priests are in good standing with the Church and they have the proper letters of introduction from their superiors.

While they are not under the authority of the local bishop, they concede that the laity is. Therefore, they do guide the laity to comply with the local bishop. The laity is always under the jurisdiction of the bishop where they live, regardless of where they attend mass or go for confession.

In this case, lay people who are associated with the SSPX would have to once again accept the authority of the local bishop regarding their marriage, confirmation, anullments, ordination, and disciplines. But they can continue to be faithful supporters of the SSPX and attend mass at their chapels and oratories exclusively.

Some people already do that with religious orders. There are people who attend mass and go to confession at the local religious house or monastery all the time. When it comes time to get married or be burried, then they go to the local parish.

My guess is that the laity may make a bigger stink than the clergy of the SSPX. As someone said to me recently, “we have a bad attitude.” LOL As I told our novices once, “The difference between a Catholic and an Episcopalean is that Catholics want the Church run their way and Episcopaleans don’t want anyone to run it.”

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Cider]

Yes I’m sure my local diocesan Bishop that grants us a whopping 1 EF mass in the entire diocese per month will be thrilled to have the power to revoke permission of the 20+ year old SSPX chapel in town.

 

[ProVobis]

The hope is that if they become a prelature, they will also act like a prelature. This means that they will not make demands on a bishop, nor will they detract faithful from the local diocese.

I would ask then, how the local bishops deal with the Eastern Rites and their patriarchs.

I had not heard that the SSPX bishops have volunteered to be demoted as the Anglican bishops have. I hope it doesn’t have to come to that.

 

[otjm]

Yes I’m sure my local diocesan Bishop that grants us a whopping 1 EF mass in the entire diocese per month will be thrilled to have the power to revoke permission of the 20+ year old SSPX chapel in town.

It has often been said that before we criticize another, we should walk a mile in their shoes.

I do not mean to excuse any bishop that does not act with the “mind of the Church”. On the other hand, bishops have been subjected to things from those on the fringes - both left and right - that make one answer the question “Can someone be Catholic and not Christian” with the answer “yes”. It is one thing to disagree with the bishop’s choices; it is another to attack them as if they were some simple minded functionary and mid-level manager, and not one in line with apostolic succession. One wonders if some of those idenitfying themselves as present day Catholics would treat Andrew, James, John or Peter, or for that matter Paul, as they treat their bishops. Or for that matter, would they treat Christ as they do the bishop, since he stands in persona Christi…

I do not know why your bishop has decided what he has decided, and without actually asking him it is simply a guessing game. There are bishops who choose to do the very least they can in following Rome; there are others who generally follow Rome, but rain on their parade enough and one gets results - not those requested, but other results. That may be unfair to those who have not abused the bishop; but bishops, just like the rest of us, are human.

That may not seem like much that you may want to hear; but the old saw that more flies are drawn to honey than to vinegar still is true. Have you done anything to thank the bishop for what he has given you? Has anyone else? Or is every pesron’s attitude one of vinegar?

 

[numealinesimpet]

It has often been said that before we criticize another, we should walk a mile in their shoes.

I do not mean to excuse any bishop that does not act with the “mind of the Church”. On the other hand, bishops have been subjected to things from those on the fringes - both left and right - that make one answer the question “Can someone be Catholic and not Christian” with the answer “yes”. It is one thing to disagree with the bishop’s choices; it is another to attack them as if they were some simple minded functionary and mid-level manager, and not one in line with apostolic succession. One wonders if some of those idenitfying themselves as present day Catholics would treat Andrew, James, John or Peter, or for that matter Paul, as they treat their bishops. Or for that matter, would they treat Christ as they do the bishop, since he stands in persona Christi…

Altogether too heavy-handed, old chap. If I gather correctly from Cider’s public profile that she is a homeschooling mom, I doff my cap to her … and mention that I know many a mom that has walked many a mile in her shoes.

I do not know why your bishop has decided what he has decided, and without actually asking him it is simply a guessing game.

Oh really, otjm. Don’t you think that now, in this fourth decade of one of the worst crises in the history of the Faith, that this is a little lame?

There are bishops who choose to do the very least they can in following Rome; there are others who generally follow Rome, but rain on their parade enough and one gets results - not those requested, but other results. That may be unfair to those who have not abused the bishop; but bishops, just like the rest of us, are human.

I don’t think that’s nearly good enough. They are professionals with a job to do for which they must expect a strict accounting. One bishop was authorising cookies for Communion Hosts for a full decade. The Masses were certainly invalid. Were the parishoners who objected “raining on his parade?”

That may not seem like much that you may want to hear;

Well, speaking for myself, I don’t know about wanting, but having heard this kind of thing for so many years, it seemed clear to me that the SSPX have a highly credible case.

I would prefer to hear but the old saw that more flies are drawn to honey than to vinegar still is true. Have you done anything to thank the bishop for what he has given you? Has anyone else? Or is every person’s attitude one of vinegar?

A little more honey from otjm would be welcome. I hope this thread will keep on track.

I personally doubt that the SSPX will consider it opportune to place themselves under the authority of bishops who, in 2009, get away with one TLM per month in a diocese. I wouldn’t be surprised if they assert that the State of Emergency is still in existence. Bp Fellay said in 2007:

"The duration and the details of this crisis are not our concern. Our concern is that the Church get back on its tracks.

The Vatican insists that it is we who are the problem.

I said recently to Cdl Castrillon Hoyos: “Please forget about the SSPX and deal with your own problems! When you have done that, you will discover that the SSPX is no longer a problem!”**
(Notes Taken During a Conference given by Bp Fellay, SSPX, on Saturday 18 November 2007 in Corpus Christi Church, Athlone, Co. Roscommon, Ireland.)

 

[diggerdomer]

I personally doubt that the SSPX will consider it opportune to place themselves under the authority of bishops who, in 2009, get away with one TLM per month in a diocese.

I don’t understand what you mean by “get away with”? Does Summorum Pontificum require some a priori frequency of EF Masses in each diocese? Thanks for clarification.

 

[JReducation]

I would ask then, how the local bishops deal with the Eastern Rites and their patriarchs.

The Eastern Rites have canonical dioceses. Any Catholic can belong to them. A pelature does not have a diocese. Therefore, prelatures do not have canonical jurisdiction over the laity, only over their priests. For example, the Opus Dei, which is the only existing prelature today, has authority over its priests, but not over its laity. The laity who subscribe to the Opus Dei remain members of their diocese and must submit to the bishop of their diocese on all matters regarding authority. If the local bishop says that you must baptize all of your children at the local parish, the prelature cannot baptize in their chapels. However, a priest of the prelature may perform a baptism at the local parish as long as the pastor gives permission. In the case of the Eastern Rites, if a person is going to baptize their child, he can have the child baptized anywhere the Eastern bishop allows. In either case, Eastern or Western, the bishop is the final authority, not the Vicar General of the Prelature.

In addition, it’s important to understand that a Prelature does not have a superior general. Bishop Fellay would no longer be the superior general. He would be the Vicar General. The Pope is the Superior General of the prelature.

I had not heard that the SSPX bishops have volunteered to be demoted as the Anglican bishops have. I hope it doesn’t have to come to that.

You cannot demote a validly ordained bishop. The bishops of the SSPX would remain bishops. If they become a prelature, they are still bishops. However, as I explained above, a prelature is like a diocese without boundaries and is subject to the final authority of the Pope and its bishops do not have authority over the local bishops.

Currently, the bishops of the Opus Dei have responsibility for what happens inside the Opus Dei. If there is a conflict between the wishes of the Opus Dei bishop and the local bishop, the local bishop takes presedence. However, to the best of my knowledge, this has never happened. The Opus Dei bishops are very careful not to get involved in legal issues. Their ministry to the laity in the Opus Dei is pastoral. They don’t make rules for the reception of the sacraments. They do not make rules for financial matters outside of the Opus Dei and they do not make rules for liturgy. In the case of the Opus Dei, their only rule for liturgy is that the liturgy must be in Latin. But they use both the EF and the OF.

In the case of the Anglicans, they are not being demoted. They are not validly ordained bishops. Therefore, if they come into the Catholic Church they have to be ordained deacon and then priests. If they are celibate, the Holy Father may choose to ordain them bishop. If they are married, they may not be ordained bishop. However, they may be given an ordinariate. This means that the once former bishop, is now a priest, not a bishop, but he would be in charge of a specific group of people as if he were a bishop. He will not be able to confirm or to ordain.

We have to wait for the Apostolic Constitution to see the specifics for the Anglicans. As far as the SSPX, we have to wait for the conclusion of the meetings. From what I have read, the meetings will take place every two weeks until they finish. This can take months or years. The Vatican has said that it will not discuss the discussions with the media or the faithful until it makes up its mind. We just have to wait, something that I and many others don’t like to do too well. LOL

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

I don’t understand what you mean by “get away with”? Does Summorum Pontificum require some a priori frequency of EF Masses in each diocese? Thanks for clarification.

SP does not require a specific number of EF masses. However, it does say that the bishops must support the celebration of the EF in their dioceses if there is a significant number of people who want it. If there is a problem that the bishop cannot overcome, he must apply to Rome for assistance. He can’t simply sweep it away until he has genuinely tried to meet the needs of the faithful.

What he cannot do is to force the priests of his diocese or any religious order to celebrate the EF. If there is a problem finding priests who want to celebrate the EF, that’s considered a legitimate problem.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

I personally doubt that the SSPX will consider it opportune to place themselves under the authority of bishops who, in 2009, get away with one TLM per month in a diocese. I wouldn’t be surprised if they assert that the State of Emergency is still in existence. Bp Fellay said in 2007

I highly doubt that the Holy Father would allow them to invoke the State of Emergency. On the other hand, the SSPX bishops, if they come out of this a prelature, would not be subject to the local bishop. Bishops in prelature are subject to the Holy Father, directly. As I posted above, the change would be that Bishop Fellay would no longer be the Superior General, but would be the Vicar General and the Holy Father would be the Superior General, just as he is the Superior General of Opus Dei.

The bishops of the new prelature would only have authority to ordain deacons and priests for the SSPX. They would not have the authority to confirm. Confirmations would have to take place at the local parish under the authority of the local bishop, since the new prelature would not have parishes.

Prelatures do not have their own parishes to avoid the problem of having two bishops. The local bishop is always the pastor of every parish in his diocese. Therefore, prelatures have chapels. Because chapels are not parishes, baptisms, marriages and confirmations are only celebrated in their chapels with the permission of the local bishop.

The Opus Dei has never had problems getting this permission, as long as the recordings are kept at the local parish. This has to be done so that if the chapel closes or moves, the records are stored in a fixed place that is not going away. But local bishops do not have jurisdiction within the prelature either.

The lines between a diocese and a prelature are very clearly explained in canon law. Bishop Fellay seems comfortable with the idea of a prelature, from what he said in Chile.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[diggerdomer]

SP does not require a specific number of EF masses. However, it does say that the bishops must support the celebration of the EF in their dioceses if there is a significant number of people who want it. If there is a problem that the bishop cannot overcome, he must apply to Rome for assistance. He can’t simply sweep it away until he has genuinely tried to meet the needs of the faithful.

What he cannot do is to force the priests of his diocese or any religious order to celebrate the EF. If there is a problem finding priests who want to celebrate the EF, that’s considered a legitimate problem.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

That’s what I thought. Thanks.

 

[JReducation]

That’s what I thought. Thanks.

You’re very welcome. I do not label myself traditionalist, conservative, liberal or other. I simply call myself what I am, a Catholic Franciscan. I believe that what is fair and honest must always be stated as it is. Whatever I feel about the EF or OF does not change the truth. If the bishop has a duty to perform, then I expect him to do so. If he has a legitimate reason for not doing so, then I also understand that. This was the mind that our holy Father Francis called “the Catholic heart.”

In my mind, the same applies to the final "re-incorporation of the SSPX. I do not have to like them or dislike them. They do not exist for my pleasure or approval. The Church wants to reunite them. They are sons and daughters of the Church. They have a right to come home. Who of us has not betrayed Christ? Who of us has not reacted to what we do not like? Who of us has not held that we were right and everyone else was wrong at one time or another in our lives? Who of us has not been right, when everyone else was wrong? All of these apply to our brothers and sisters in the SSPX as they apply to all of us. Therefore, should we not continue to dialogue so that when the outcome of these meetings is over and done with, we can support the laity on both sides of the aisle?

This is not about us. It is not about the bishops. It is about Christ and the fullness and unity of his bride the Church.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[numealinesimpet]

… the SSPX bishops, if they come out of this a prelature, would not be subject to the local bishop. Bishops in prelature are subject to the Holy Father, directly. As I posted above, the change would be that Bishop Fellay would no longer be the Superior General, but would be the Vicar General and the Holy Father would be the Superior General, just as he is the Superior General of Opus Dei.
…
Prelatures do not have their own parishes to avoid the problem of having two bishops. The local bishop is always the pastor of every parish in his diocese. Therefore, prelatures have chapels. Because chapels are not parishes, baptisms, marriages and confirmations are only celebrated in their chapels with the permission of the local bishop.
…
The lines between a diocese and a prelature are very clearly explained in canon law. Bishop Fellay seems comfortable with the idea of a prelature, from what he said in Chile.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

And I think this solution might be implicit in the setup of the SSPX from the beginning. At the SSPX Mass Centres, not only the Pope but the local Diocesan Bishop are prayed for at every single Mass, at the Memento. Remember, the SSPX are not a Religious Community like the Dominicans, etc, but merely “a Priestly Fraternity without Vows”. In the Irish SSPX Mass centres (I don’t know about elsewhere), when the priest mounts the pulpit, his very first words are always “Let us say a Hail Mary for our Holy Father Pope Benedict, and for all the bishops and priests of Ireland, and for the bishops and priests of the Society”. In 1988, I believe Mgr Lefebvre expected the Vatican to have repudiated Modernist error in about five years. The SSPX bishops have always declared that, when the Pope returns to a firm statement of the perennial teachings of the Church, they will “run” to his feet and deposit their mitres there. When order is restored, I think it was the original intention that the SSPX priests would simply report to the diocesan bishop and continue their ministry under his direction.

Unfortunately, the Modernist tendencies in the Church (which, let us recall, had always been vigorously condemned) simply became more firmly entrenched and institutionalised. That being the case, the SSPX settled in for the Long Haul.

As has been discussed here before, there is a problem of trust. In the public record there is a decades-long record of broken promises, of abuses unchecked, of outrageously bad example from our religious leaders, and selective pressurising of priests adhering to the traditional life of the Church. I hope, at this point, that we need not give specific examples. Whole books have been written documenting these things. Ferrara & Woods comment on “actions the mere sight of which would have reduced the preconciliar popes to a state of apoplexy” ( The Great Facade, ©2002, the Remnant Press, ISBN 1-890740-10-1).

There are those who criticise the popes of the Early Middle Ages for maintaining their own worldly kingdom, the Papal States. The reality was, that whenever the Pope was unable to defend his position physically, the nearest baron would simply move in and try to coerce him.

Those who deny the Crisis in the Church, or who deny that the Vatican administration are part of the problem, will disagree with their tactics. I for one accept that it was a legitimate response to an unprecedented crisis. The machinery of the Church was being turned against those who were trying to defend the Faith by refusing the illegal imposition of novelties that were unjustifiable, and in many cases clearly to be condemned. As such it was an abuse of power, which one may legitimately resist (without judging the interior disposition of one’s opponent).

 

[numealinesimpet]

You’re very welcome. I do not label myself traditionalist, conservative, liberal or other. I simply call myself what I am, a Catholic Franciscan. I believe that what is fair and honest must always be stated as it is. Whatever I feel about the EF or OF does not change the truth. If the bishop has a duty to perform, then I expect him to do so. If he has a legitimate reason for not doing so, then I also understand that. This was the mind that our holy Father Francis called “the Catholic heart.”

In my mind, the same applies to the final "re-incorporation of the SSPX. I do not have to like them or dislike them. They do not exist for my pleasure or approval. The Church wants to reunite them. They are sons and daughters of the Church. They have a right to come home. Who of us has not betrayed Christ? Who of us has not reacted to what we do not like? Who of us has not held that we were right and everyone else was wrong at one time or another in our lives? Who of us has not been right, when everyone else was wrong? All of these apply to our brothers and sisters in the SSPX as they apply to all of us. Therefore, should we not continue to dialogue so that when the outcome of these meetings is over and done with, we can support the laity on both sides of the aisle?

This is not about us. It is not about the bishops. It is about Christ and the fullness and unity of his bride the Church.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Well said, JR.

 

[otjm]

Altogether too heavy-handed, old chap. If I gather correctly from Cider’s public profile that she is a homeschooling mom, I doff my cap to her … and mention that I know many a mom that has walked many a mile in her shoes.

Considering that whether or not she home schools is totally and completely irrelevant to what I was saying, I would have to rate this a non-response. The shoes I spoke of were the bishop’s shoes.

Oh really, otjm. Don’t you think that now, in this fourth decade of one of the worst crises in the history of the Faith, that this is a little lame?
I don’t think that’s nearly good enough. They are professionals with a job to do for which they must expect a strict accounting. One bishop was authorising cookies for Communion Hosts for a full decade. The Masses were certainly invalid. Were the parishoners who objected “raining on his parade?”

We were not talking about cookies, or what occured 10, 20 30 or more years ago. We were talking about what is occuring currently. she is obviously upset that there is a very limited access to the EF. Shall we keep it to the topic and not drag red herrings into the discussion? As to being lame, bishops come and bishops go and are replaced, and the Church in the US has been moving from the chaos in the 70’s for some time. Not all dioceses are moving at the same rate; but there are others who also are stuck in the 70’s and fail to acknowledge that things have changed for the better.

Well, speaking for myself, I don’t know about wanting, but having heard this kind of thing for so many years, it seemed clear to me that the SSPX have a highly credible case. A little more honey from otjm would be welcome. I hope this thread will keep on track. Frankly it gets a bit old listening to people who see the world in simplistic black and white terms, most particularly when they see issues that have a wide range of legitimate responses as absolutes - “my way or you are wrong”. It may be that she is in a diocese with what we can all agree is a very liberal bishop by just about anyone’s measure. On the other hand, bishops who are true to the Magisterium, and who do follow the Pope have been taking a beating by both ends of the spectrum for a long time. If they react negatively to legitimate requests, it may well be because those who have made the requests in the past have had no respect whatsoever for the bishop; and that has been well catalogured elsewhere. The old phrase “don’t bite the hand that feeds you” comes to mind; both because some have bit the hand, and have given the rest of us the results. Cardinal Levada, when he was archbishop of Oregon, experienced such attitudes and attacks. He was, shall we say, slightly less than welcoming with open arms those who were strict Traditionalists because of the way they reacted to him. That does not make him into a liberal, and anyone who paints him a liberal can do so only if they are to the right of Attila the Hun and find him to their left.

**

They would be most welcome to assert anything they wish; canonically that has been stated and rejected by Rome and I seriously doubt that is going to gain any traction anywhere legitimately. And I agree with you that the SSPX may well not go seeking a position to supply the EF in a diocese that doesn’t want them (which lead to my previous question, as to what will occur with those parishes/chapels that may currently exist in such dioceses).

As I noted, I have no clue who her bishop is and whether he simply is attempting to do the extremely least response to requests for the EF, or if there are other issues at play. I choose to give the benefit of the doubt to situations unless and until it is clear that the issue is a bishop who does all he can to distance himself from Rome and any communion with the bishops of the Church. There is a tendency to prejudge issues; maybe there is no prejudging here. Given there is a process whereby groups can appeal to Rome if they are being denied, and we are well into SP, I haveto wonder if anything is being done along that line, and if not, why not. There are times that people choose to be self-made martyrs rather than choosing to resolve issues.

It is really simple: the EF should be made reasonably available to those who desire it. If it is not, there is a process whereby it can be requested, and Rome can intervene. One does not have to demand anything; one does not have to go nuclear to obtain results. Rome has noted publicly that some who want the EF have been far out of line in their approach. Act like something beyond a jerk, and you will be treated as such.

And the same applies to the SSPX; they can come in like they are going to tell Rome how to be Catholic, or they can come in seeking resolution of their issues with charity and openness. The former attitude with make resolution much more difficult to acheive.

 

[Cider]

We were not talking about cookies, or what occured 10, 20 30 or more years ago. We were talking about what is occuring currently. she is obviously upset that there is a very limited access to the EF.

Let me clarify.

Do I wish that there were more than 1 EF mass within my diocese per month? Yes. If the diocesan Bishop would invite the FSSP or ICK here and we had EF masses daily I’d be thrilled.

At the same time I am grateful for, and love the SSPX chapel I go to. Without going into details I have legitimate concerns about what would happen if it came under the direction of our diocesan Bishop.

This isn’t specifically an issue of me being upset that there is very limited access to the EF within the diocese. I fear for the welfare of the SSPX chapel I attend that has been serving the needs of my town for 20 years.

 

[Cider]

And I agree with you that the SSPX may well not go seeking a position to supply the EF in a diocese that doesn’t want them (which lead to my previous question, as to what will occur with those parishes/chapels that may currently exist in such dioceses).

If SSPX chapels are already in a community, clearly they are serving a need. That is the point. The community wants them, as they have members, even if the local Bishop doesn’t.

 

[otjm]

Let me clarify.

Do I wish that there were more than 1 EF mass within my diocese per month? Yes. If the diocesan Bishop would invite the FSSP or ICK here and we had EF masses daily I’d be thrilled.

At the same time I am grateful for, and love the SSPX chapel I go to. Without going into details I have legitimate concerns about what would happen if it came under the direction of our diocesan Bishop.

This isn’t specifically an issue of me being upset that there is very limited access to the EF within the diocese. I fear for the welfare of the SSPX chapel I attend that has been serving the needs of my town for 20 years.

Thank you for your response.

And I think your fear may be legitimate. That is the essence of what I was asking earlier; if a bishop does not want the SSPX chapel in the diocese, and if the SSPX do reunite with Rome, then there is going to be some interesting responses. It may be that not all priests in the SSPX will accept reunification with Rome, at which point there will be, for lack of a better term, “rogue” priests, whom I would suspect the SSPX bishops would part company with. This will either leave the people attending to follow a priest who ahs no bishop, or lost somewhere in terms of anyone meeting their religious needs. adn I would expect that the SSPX bishops wold not try to walk both sides of the issue - supporting priests and chapels in direct violation of the bishop’s authority while being in union with Rome.

It may be that the bishops who do not desire the SSPX presence will limit them to what may be currently present in order to not come to a crossroads such as this. And I would presume that if the SSPX have reunited, they would honor this.

But what will actually happen “on the ground” remains to be seen; first, the SSPX in its dialogue with Rome must sort out what it hears and how it will respond.