Fsspx

[janeway529]

Jason Richard

You didn’t have to change your name?

 

[JReducation]

You didn’t have to change your name?

We do. We have several ways of doing it. We can add a name to one of our names.

Let’s say that you’re born John Joseph. Pretty boring name, isn’t it.

You can become Br. John James of Br. Joseph James or Br. James Joseph or Br. James John.

The other way is to change it completely. It’s really up to the superior. You get to pick three names. He can pick one of those or another.

 

[LatinRiteMass]

No that is not correct.

The Pontiff has rights as the supreme ruler of the universal Church. Whatever he commands must be obeyed. It need not be anything to do with faith or morals. If we look back in history, we saw many kings and others excommunicated not because of faith or morals, but because of unwillingness to obey the pope. In the history of my own religious family, the Franciscans, our second superior general, Brother Elias, was excommunicated for disagreeing with St. Francis. The pope excommunicated him on the grounds that Francis had to be obeyed, because the Church said so. By the way, he later recanted and was returned to the sacraments.

On issues of opinion, things get a little murky, There is a hierarchy. If the pope is giving his opinion on something that is unrelated to our life of faith, it carries less weight than something related to the faith.

Let’s say that the pope opines that a monarchy would be better for society than a democratic republic. His argument may be that it would serve justice better.

Justice is a moral issue. However, whether a monarchy or a democracy serves justice better is speculation. I can’t disagree with him that we need to do something to ensure justice. I can disagree with the idea of a monarchy as a way to do it.

Let’s take another scenario, a real one. The pope opines that we talk too much about abortion, contraception and homosexuality. That’s very close to faith and morals. In fact, he’s saying that we don’t do it right. When you look at the original sentence, what he said was that we can’t speak about these things out of context.

There is very little room for us to dissent here. He’s not make a statement about faith or morals, but he is talking about how we teach morality. He has the right and the authority to tell us how to do it. We have the obligation to pay attention.

If he says, “teach this in context of mercy and redemption”, I had better do that. If he says, don’t talk about this all the time and forget to talk about the poor, war, oppressed Christians, Christian unity, God’s love and mercy, sacrament of confession, clericalism in the Church and other things that he has put on the table, all of us need to take note and tidy up our act.

As you see, there is a kind of ladder, if you will. There are rungs. Some subjects on which the pope speaks are lower or higher on that ladder. The higher they are, the more obliged we are to comply and the less wiggle room there is. When in doubt, ask a good theologian or a good spiritual director, even a good Canon Lawyer can help. Though Canon Lawers are pretty boring people to talk to.

**“The Pontiff has rights as the supreme ruler of the universal Church. Whatever he commands must be obeyed.” **

This is not a true statement. Only when it comes to Faith and Morales are we bound to obey and then only in as long as it does not contridict the teachings of the Church. YOU CANNOT FOLLOW A HERETIC! There have been plenty of bad Popes, Popes that made bad decisions and you are under no obligation to obey any pope just because! If the Pope says that homesexuallity is nto a sin, will you obey? I think not!

Blind obedience will always lead one astray!

John

 

[LatinRiteMass]

Just for the record, I am not an SSPX member.

The SSPX is not schismatic, they are not in schism with the Church or the Pope. Most people do not understand what schism is or how to define it.

The Vatican HAS NEVER said that the SSPX is in schism, they would never consider it because they know. Archbishop Lefebvre was never Excommunicated! You need to read and research the topic better.

Any Catholic in a state a grace may receive communion at one of their chapels.

Half way through this video, Fr. Hesse touches on this.
latinritemass.org/fr-gregory-hesse/

John

 

[JReducation]

**“The Pontiff has rights as the supreme ruler of the universal Church. Whatever he commands must be obeyed.” **

This is not a true statement. Only when it comes to Faith and Morales are we bound to obey and then only in as long as it does not contridict the teachings of the Church. YOU CANNOT FOLLOW A HERETIC! There have been plenty of bad Popes, Popes that made bad decisions and you are under no obligation to obey any pope just because! If the Pope says that homesexuallity is nto a sin, will you obey? I think not!

Blind obedience will always lead one astray!

John

First of all, there have not been many cases of pope who have taught a heresy.

Second, if that does happen, you are not obliged to follow the heresy, but you are still obliged to obey in all other matters.

Third, the pope has authority over the universal Church, not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in temporal matters and in legislative matters… The best example is Canon Law. Only the pope can make Canon Law. Once he dictates a law, it must be obeyed. If you examine Canon Law very closely, very little of Canon Law has anything to do with faith or morals. For example, Canon Law does not dictate that we have to believe in the Trinity. Dogma does. However, Canon Law dictates how and and where you can get married.

Canon Law does not dictate that you believe in an ordained priesthood. That’s dogma. But Canon Law does dictate who can be ordained, at what age and under what circumstances. None of that has anything to with dogma. In fact, if one were to apply Canon Law to the Apostles, none of them would qualify for Holy Orders, because they don’t have doctorate degrees, which a bishop must have or its equivalent.

Just for the record, I am not an SSPX member.

The SSPX is not schismatic, they are not in schism with the Church or the Pope. Most people do not understand what schism is or how to define it.

This is accurate to an extent. Archbishop Mueller has said that they are in Sacramental schism. His voice is the highest authority in the Church, on this matter, only lower to the Holy Father.

The Vatican HAS NEVER said that the SSPX is in schism,

Archbishop Mueller is the Prefect for the CDF. Therefore, the Vatican does speak when he speaks. He has the authority to speak for the Holy Father. All of the Prefects do, in their respective disciplines. When they speak on a matter that does not come under their congregation, then they speak as individuals. When they speak on matters over which their congregation has jurisdiction, then they speak for the Holy Father. The SSPX’s situation comes under the CDF, since the Ecclesia Dei Commission is under the CDF.

they would never consider it because they know. Archbishop Lefebvre was never Excommunicated! You need to read and research the topic better.

You are passing out inaccurate information. Bl. John Paul said that he was excommunicated and that the rules which the good Father quotes were no applicable to the Archbishop. Because the pope dictates the law, he can also dispense some people or all the people from the law, whatever law it may be. He can also withdraw the protection of the law form whomever he feels that it is necessary to do so.

In this case, he did remove the protection of the law and the Archbishop’s excommunication stands. It was never revoked by Pope Benedict. Read Pope Benedict’s statement on the matter.

Any Catholic in a state a grace may receive communion at one of their chapels.

This is not exactly the case either. The condition is that any Catholic can fulfill his or her Sunday obligation, provided that he or she does not adopt the schismatic attitude of the SSPX. For example, saying that an excommunication that two popes have maintained stands as valid is suddenly invalid, is very close to such an attitude. The person making the allegation is saying that he knows the law better than the pope. That may be the case that one knows the law better. However, it is not the case that any of us can say that a law applies or does not apply contrary to what the pope has said. To do so is a schismatic way of thinking, because we place our personal authority over that of the Pontiff.

The best suggestion that we give to any Catholic is to go with the Holy See on matters of law, not on what someone thinks the law says.

 

[commenter]

Jason Richard

You, along with GKC, JonNC, and others, have taught me a great deal on CAF. I agree with you (or rather, I feel I am wisely guided) 90% of the time, and even the other 10% I am not sure about. Maybe we see things from different angles (maybe because I am a husband and father). Even then I get useful information, and you may very well be right. In fact, it is probable.

Your time and effort is appreciated.

 

[choliks]

You, along with GKC, JonNC, and others, have taught me a great deal on CAF. I agree with you (or rather, I feel I am wisely guided) 90% of the time, and even the other 10% I am not sure about. Maybe we see things from different angles (maybe because I am a husband and father). Even then I get useful information, and you may very well be right. In fact, it is probable.

Your time and effort is appreciated.

Oh but wait… little do people here on CAF know that Bro. JR was a husband to loving wife, and is a father to two grown-up kids.

 

[Denise1957]

For now, we have to go with what the prefect for the CDF states regarding the SSPX. Except, in my opinion only, the prefect isn’t as clear as he could be on the matter. And since the prefects for the CDF aren’t infallible, it’s possible that they are wrong. They make statements based on the info they receive, and sometimes that info is wrong, such as in the case of St. Padre Pio, whom was condemned by the Holy Office (now the CDF), and he also died while still being condemned. But of course that changed when the truth came to light. I think that there’s a similar situation going on with the FFI (my opinion only, and I could be wrong).

The situation with the SSPX is very complicated, and the Church has to be cautious. I think that it might be difficult for the CDF prefect to make a crystal clear statement on the subject, which is understandable. Bottom line is that it’s best to avoid the SSPX until such a time as they are in full communion with the Church.

 

[commenter]

For now, we have to go with what the prefect for the CDF states regarding the SSPX. Except, in my opinion only, the prefect isn’t as clear as he could be on the matter. And since the prefects for the CDF aren’t infallible, it’s possible that they are wrong. They make statements based on the info they receive, and sometimes that info is wrong, such as in the case of St. Padre Pio, whom was condemned by the Holy Office (now the CDF), and he also died while still being condemned. But of course that changed when the truth came to light. I think that there’s a similar situation going on with the FFI (my opinion only, and I could be wrong).

The situation with the SSPX is very complicated, and the Church has to be cautious. I think that it might be difficult for the CDF prefect to make a crystal clear statement on the subject, which is understandable. Bottom line is that it’s best to avoid the SSPX until such a time as they are in full communion with the Church.

If you follow the first paragraph, then we can ignore every Vatican official, every pastor, bishop, pope, for that matter, every parent’s authority, because there’s always a chance they may be wrong. (In other words I should do my own thing).

No. At some point we need to admit that the person in authority is right. It sounds nice to say “there’s always two sides to every argument…one statement may be flawed, based on incomplete information…there might be further clarification…let’s wait for the final word on this…” This has gone on for 40 years, during several papacies. 40 years from now, we will hear the same refrains. “the latest Vatican statement does not close every door…the prefect’s statement may be only conditional, not permanent… the SSPX will eventually be in full communion, but the arrangement needs to be right first…let’s wait for the final word…”

Much of the SSPX has already entered “full communion” with the Catholic Church, by leaving the SSPX. Encouraging that pastoral option may be more beneficial to people than continuing the refrains “let’s wait for the final word”. Perpetuating that idea that there is a “final word” coming and inevitable “full communion” with the organization SSPX will come, discourages some people from making a positive change now.

 

[Denise1957]

If you follow the first paragraph, then we can ignore every Vatican official, every pastor, bishop, pope, for that matter, every parent’s authority, because there’s always a chance they may be wrong. (In other words I should do my own thing).

It wasn’t my intention to say that we can ignore every Vatican official, pastor, bishop or pope, and that we can just do our own thing. I should have said that even though the CDF can be wrong, I don’t think that this happens very often - quite seldom really.

We need to follow the guidance of the Church hierarchy, but since, IMO, the CDF prefect is somewhat imprecise on the subject of the SSPX, perhaps it’s a difficult situation to assess, and I think it’s possible that the prefect is erring on the side of being overly cautious, too. No doubt it’s for the good of souls, though, so that they will not be misled by the SSPX. I’m fine with that. I like to look at the big picture, and both sides of an issue. Sometimes things are not just black-and-white.

 

[commenter]

We need to follow the guidance of the Church hierarchy, but… .

(sigh)
If I had to sum up the history of the past 50 years…

 

[Denise1957]

(sigh)
If I had to sum up the history of the past 50 years…

I have no idea what the above means in relation to the context in which I placed it. Perhaps you can explain?

 

[commenter]

I have no idea what the above means in relation to the context in which I placed it. Perhaps you can explain?

“We need to follow the guidance of the Church hierarchy, but…” - this is the sentence from Denise that made me sigh.

I think the last word, “but” says it all. I have read countless writers, educators, and a few preachers begin by saying of course they respect this statement by the hierarchy on (insert a topic: birth control; divorce/remarriage; homosexual actions; dissent by religious; liturgical abuses; or other topic);
BUT
then they use nuances to show why the Vatican statement on: - birth control, abortion, or 2 dozen other things was incomplete; meant for a different culture, not my culture; meant for a different time, not our time; meant for one situation, not this situation; reflects only an opinion by one official or one pope, not a definitive statement; or they say the pope didn’t really mean what you think he meant, he meant something different, so the pope’s statement doesn’t apply to us, here and now. Or if Pope Paul spoke out on the family, they said “see, he did NOT condemn birth control this time, that means the Church is leaving the door open, you can do it in the meantime”; JP II condemned certain aspects of Liberation Theology. The dissenters added a comma at the end; “see, the pope did not condemn certain other aspects, the conversation continues, there is not yet a final word, promote Liberation Theology while still faithfully dissenting.” All this nuancing influences current behavior: if the Church has “not yet issued its final word” on condoms, or divorce/remarriage, liturgical dancing, or whatever, than you can continue the whatever, pending some supposed “final word”.
Some people say yes, Francis is pope, BUT in his unique case his statements apply only to the diocese of Rome, or only to his own pontificate, or only some other limitation; so for now, you can ignore Francis, whenever he disagrees with you, while still recognizing him as “pope” in some sense.

I am not attributing all these abuses to the SSPX, and not to you, personally. But this is the secular climate that has influenced us all, including the SSPX. You might think the SSPX is the exact opposite of the LCWR, or CTA. It is subject to the same influences.

 

[Denise1957]

“We need to follow the guidance of the Church hierarchy, but…” - this is the sentence from Denise that made me sigh.

I think the last word, “but” says it all. I have read countless writers, educators, and a few preachers begin by saying of course they respect this statement by the hierarchy on (insert a topic: birth control; divorce/remarriage; homosexual actions; dissent by religious; liturgical abuses; or other topic);
BUT
then they use nuances to show why the Vatican statement on: - birth control, abortion, or 2 dozen other things was incomplete; meant for a different culture, not my culture; meant for a different time, not our time; meant for one situation, not this situation; reflects only an opinion by one official or one pope, not a definitive statement; or they say the pope didn’t really mean what you think he meant, he meant something different, so the pope’s statement doesn’t apply to us, here and now. Or if Pope Paul spoke out on the family, they said “see, he did NOT condemn birth control this time, that means the Church is leaving the door open, you can do it in the meantime”; JP II condemned certain aspects of Liberation Theology. The dissenters added a comma at the end; “see, the pope did not condemn certain other aspects, the conversation continues, there is not yet a final word, promote Liberation Theology while still faithfully dissenting.” All this nuancing influences current behavior: if the Church has “not yet issued its final word” on condoms, or divorce/remarriage, liturgical dancing, or whatever, than you can continue the whatever, pending some supposed “final word”.
Some people say yes, Francis is pope, BUT in his unique case his statements apply only to the diocese of Rome, or only to his own pontificate, or only some other limitation; so for now, you can ignore Francis, whenever he disagrees with you, while still recognizing him as “pope” in some sense.

I am not attributing all these abuses to the SSPX, and not to you, personally. But this is the secular climate that has influenced us all, including the SSPX. You might think the SSPX is the exact opposite of the LCWR, or CTA. It is subject to the same influences.

Thanks for the explanation. I agree with most of what you’ve written. It can be really annoying when the Pope’s words are picked apart, and some of it used to justify certain views. But then, I’m guilty of picking apart the CDF prefects’ views!

I can understand why the SSPX is thought of as being the opposite of groups like the LWCR. There is one distinction, though. While groups on the more progressive spectrum hold views which the Church has never held (and are therefore a novelty or worse), the SSPX holds views that were, in the past, held by the Church, which are now considered outdated or unnecessary. Whether they are right or wrong doesn’t really concern me anymore. It seems that groups on both sides believe that they are right. The CDF prefect has stated in the past that he has to spend much of his time and energy on extremes on both sides, which is unfortunate.

 

[commenter]

Thanks for the explanation. I agree with most of what you’ve written. It can be really annoying when the Pope’s words are picked apart, and some of it used to justify certain views. But then, I’m guilty of picking apart the CDF prefects’ views!

I can understand why the SSPX is thought of as being the opposite of groups like the LWCR. There is one distinction, though. While groups on the more progressive spectrum hold views which the Church has never held (and are therefore a novelty or worse), the SSPX holds views that were, in the past, held by the Church, which are now considered outdated or unnecessary. Whether they are right or wrong doesn’t really concern me anymore. It seems that groups on both sides believe that they are right. The CDF prefect has stated in the past that he has to spend much of his time and energy on extremes on both sides, which is unfortunate.

The other distinction is that the SSPX people are probably better dressed.

 

[Tomdstone]

FSSPX and SSPX is the same group. It’s just that most people drop the F.

FSSP was born out of several men who abandoned the SSPX when the Archbishop Lefebvre was excommunicated and the rest of them were suspended. These men did not want to be in a state of limbo. Not knowing what to do, a handful of them went to Rome to ask for help. They were helped by then Cardinal Ratzinger. Bl. John Paul set them up as the FSSP (Fraternal Society of St. Peter).

The FSSP is a traditionalist society, but it is in full communion with the Holy See. The FSSP is welcome in any diocese around the world. Some of its members work in diocesan ministries while others run parishes for the local bishops. The FSSP also has very good relationships with religious orders around them.

They accept the writings of Vatican II as they are, the CCC, and the Ordinary Form of the Mass. They agree that the Ordinary Form of the Mass is valid and licit. That it is without error.

Like many of us, they recognize that people have inserted nonsense into the OF, but that such nonsense was never in the missal itself. Therefore, it can be taken out and properly disposed of.

The SSPX, on the other hand, finds some documents of Vatican II problematic. It also believes that the Ordinary Form of the mass is valid, but “bad”. Bishop Fellay has gone down on record as saying that he will not make a distinction between licit and illicit. He just wants to say that the new mass is bad. This is a problem. You cannot call bad what the Church uses as are ordinary form of worship of the Triune God. To do so is to say that the Church is using something bad to worship God. This leads to a doctrinal discrepancy.

The SSPX admits that the pope is the legitimate successor of St. Peter, but as Bishop Fellay has said, “Don’t follow him.” This also creates another doctrinal problem. We are bound to follow the apostles. A bishop is an apostle. But no apostle has the authority to undermined the Apostle Peter. Even Paul did not tell the early Christians not to follow Peter. He made his case before Peter and it was Peter who changed his mind. Had Peter stuck to his guns, can we imagine Paul telling the early Church, “Don’t follow him”? I don’t think so.

This position creates what is called a break with the Primacy of Peter. It’s called a schismatic mentality.

It’s extremely important to understand that a schismatic idea does not make the individual a schismatic, nor does it mean that the organization is in schism. The idea is schismatic. The person may be speaking with his whole heart and mind and have no intention to apostatize. Let us not put labels on the good bishop. He is wrong, but he is NOT a schismatic.

That’s the core differences between the FSSP and SSPX. As far as the mass and other sacraments, they follow the same rituals and customs.

One more thing. The FSSP has faculties to forgive sins. The SSPX does not have faculties to forgive sins. There are situations in which their absolution is invalid and your sins are not forgiven. Nor do they have faculties to bless marriages. The FSSP can bless marriages.

Bishops grant those faculties. The SSPX does not submit to the authority of the local bishops, nor does it ask the Pontiff for faculties. It assumes faculties, by assuming that the Church supplies. But theological arguments and canon law seem to be against them on this point. The Church only supplies in very specific situations, not every Saturday to every penitent.

It’s a complex situation for which we must pray that a quick resolution will be found.

Are you saying that FSSP accepts Vatican II whole and entire without any reservations whatsoever?

 

[Tomdstone]

then they use nuances to show why the Vatican statement on: - birth control, abortion, or 2 dozen other things was incomplete; meant for a different culture, not my culture; meant for a different time, not our time; meant for one situation, not this situation; reflects only an opinion by one official or one pope, not a definitive statement; or they say the pope didn’t really mean what you think he meant, he meant something different, so the pope’s statement doesn’t apply to us, here and now. Or if Pope Paul spoke out on the family, they said “see, he did NOT condemn birth control this time, that means the Church is leaving the door open, you can do it in the meantime”; JP II condemned certain aspects of Liberation Theology. The dissenters added a comma at the end; “see, the pope did not condemn certain other aspects, the conversation continues, there is not yet a final word, promote Liberation Theology while still faithfully dissenting.” All this nuancing influences current behavior: if the Church has “not yet issued its final word” on condoms, or divorce/remarriage, liturgical dancing, or whatever, than you can continue the whatever, pending some supposed “final word”.

I am not sure that the RCC still condemns artificial birth control with the same vigor that it did before Vatican II. For example, the sociology department of a local Roman Catholic college conducts various surveys of the students, both entering and graduating. According to one survey, 35% of entering students believe that it is all right for married couples to use ABC. However, after four years of Roman Catholic indoctrination and education at the RC college, which has the approval of the local bishop, the survey finds that more than 90% of graduating seniors believe that it is all right for a married couple to use artificial birth control.

 

[sebastian1213]

Are you saying that FSSP accepts Vatican II whole and entire without any reservations whatsoever?

I believe that is the case.

 

[commenter]

I am not sure that the RCC still condemns artificial birth control with the same vigor that it did before Vatican II. For example, the sociology department of a local Roman Catholic college conducts various surveys of the students, both entering and graduating. According to one survey, 35% of entering students believe that it is all right for married couples to use ABC. However, after four years of Roman Catholic indoctrination and education at the RC college, which has the approval of the local bishop, the survey finds that more than 90% of graduating seniors believe that it is all right for a married couple to use artificial birth control.

The Church’s teaching on ABC was reaffirmed by Vatican II itself, and reaffirmed since then. It is the same, even now.

 

[commenter]

Thanks for the explanation. I agree with most of what you’ve written. It can be really annoying when the Pope’s words are picked apart, and some of it used to justify certain views. But then, I’m guilty of picking apart the CDF prefects’ views!

I can understand why the SSPX is thought of as being the opposite of groups like the LWCR. There is one distinction, though. While groups on the more progressive spectrum hold views which the Church has never held (and are therefore a novelty or worse), the SSPX holds views that were, in the past, held by the Church, which are now considered outdated or unnecessary. Whether they are right or wrong doesn’t really concern me anymore. It seems that groups on both sides believe that they are right. The CDF prefect has stated in the past that he has to spend much of his time and energy on extremes on both sides, which is unfortunate.

Here’s an example of nuancing, from another thread; it’s a response to the question is the SSPX in schism:" … a Vatican official made comments of the sort. While he acknowledges potential for that, he did not say it with certainty."
In other words, he did not refer to the Pope’s highest ranking official as speaking “for the Church”; rather, this is just “a Vatican official.” Furthermore, the poster claims the Archbishop “did not say it with certainty”. In other words the Church can be ignored. I don’t know what “certainty” would look like to them. If you go to the pro-SSPX websites, they don’t refer to the statements of THE pope but rather “THIS pope”. So they justify remain outside the Church for now, pending “final word”, from a future pope.

The Church will never stop reaching out, to unmarried couples living together, or to the SSPX, or to other groups of people, who are “outside” for a multitude of reasons, some fairly plausible. It will never issue a “final word”, but the door is open. It would be wrong to assume, because the Church never issues a “final word”, that there is uncertainty. There is nothing uncertain about whether it is harmful to remain outside the Church. There’s nothing harmless about those websites that tempt people to remain outside. It’s not spiritually helpful to say “we may be outside, but don’t lump us with those other outsiders. We’re better”.