J
Joe_5859
Guest
My advice to the OP is to listen to JR. He knows what he’s talking about.
- Status
O
Onegin
Guest
I have to agree with stevusmagnus’s points about the difficult position the FSSP find themselves in. And also the great disparity in the “sentiment” that exists within the Fraternity. Some Priests appear to simply prefer the TLM while others seem to advocate attendance at the TLM alone (I’ve only seen this at one parish where the Priest did not “share” the parish with the OF congregation).
Likewise, there is disparity of opinion within the SSPX. Some Priests I have met seem very wary of any actions that Rome takes, while others were very enthusiastic and hopeful for an upcoming reconciliation with Rome following SP. I attended Mass for a while at a chapel that fell into the latter category, so it was good that there was a sort of positive orientation towards reconciliation with Rome rather than a cynical approach. Also, the FSSP and the SSPX in the city cooperated to a great extent and there was never a sense of animosity or the idea that one TLM was somehow “better” or “more Catholic” than another. People simply went to the church they preferred, and some of us who had a longer commute went to both.
From this experience, I don’t have anything negative to say about the FSSP. The Priests I have personally met appeared to be very devoted to preserving the Faith at the parish. However, there was some friction with the local (liberal) Bishop and the parish was required to celebrate the OF as well as the TLM. This was some time ago, so it would be interesting to see how the parish is faring now. It was almost like two churches under one roof as I understand that the OF and the TLM congregations didn’t interact with each other very much.
Likewise, there is disparity of opinion within the SSPX. Some Priests I have met seem very wary of any actions that Rome takes, while others were very enthusiastic and hopeful for an upcoming reconciliation with Rome following SP. I attended Mass for a while at a chapel that fell into the latter category, so it was good that there was a sort of positive orientation towards reconciliation with Rome rather than a cynical approach. Also, the FSSP and the SSPX in the city cooperated to a great extent and there was never a sense of animosity or the idea that one TLM was somehow “better” or “more Catholic” than another. People simply went to the church they preferred, and some of us who had a longer commute went to both.
From this experience, I don’t have anything negative to say about the FSSP. The Priests I have personally met appeared to be very devoted to preserving the Faith at the parish. However, there was some friction with the local (liberal) Bishop and the parish was required to celebrate the OF as well as the TLM. This was some time ago, so it would be interesting to see how the parish is faring now. It was almost like two churches under one roof as I understand that the OF and the TLM congregations didn’t interact with each other very much.
S
stevusmagnus
Guest
Yes, not too long ago a Bishop in the Northwest US or Canada forbade communion on the tongue. The Fraternity had to cancel their Masses rather than distribute Holy Communion in the hand. That move was calculated and had little or nothing to do with “health concerns”. It was ridiculous. The Fraternity has to put up with petty things like this all the time. They are at the mercy of the NO establishment.
D
Dempsey1919
Guest
The FSSP should not be forced to celebrate the OF Mass in the same way that Eastern Catholic priests are not forced to celebrate the Roman Forms of Mass. The FSSP are a traditional order and should only celebrate the Extraordinary Form of the Sacraments. The fact that FSSP priests must be able to celebrate the OF is one reason why the SSPX feel they were premature in re-uniting with Rome. I am not going to comment on that, but I will say that the FSSP and the SSPX should try to have good relations because both are committed to the same goal, which is the survival and propagation of the Extraordinary Form of the Mass.
P
ProVobis
Guest
So technically, these priests were disobedient to their own bishop. Not to mention disloyal and perceived traitors to their annointed orders.
JR, I know you can justify this, but I’m just saying.
J
JReducation
Guest
It really does not need justification. A bishop may not disobey the Pope when given a direct command. There is a difference between a direct command and a universal statement. If the Pope speaks to the whole world and says, “This should be this way.” That is not a direct command. It’s not a command at all. He is expressing his wishes.
In the case of the Archbishop, may he rest in peace, the law says that a bishop cannot ordain other bishops without the pope’s permission. When the Archbishop disobeyed the law, he disobeyed a direct command, meaning a command that is directed at him and every other bishop.
What happens to the priests under his jurisdiction? If they follow, they become complicit in the disobedience. Therefore, they can either be suspended or excommunicated. In this case the priests of the SSPX were suspended.
No one may become complicit in disobedience to the Pontiff. Therefore, these priests were not disobeying their bishop. They were refusing to be complicit in an illegal act. Whether the Archbishop felt justified in doing so or not, the act remains illegal. We can debate whether one can commit an illegal act for all the right reasons; but that’s not the topic here. The question is whether the founders of the FSSP were disobedient. Morally and canonically speaking, no they were not.
The question about loyalty . . . the first loyalty of every priest and every religious it to God and the Church, then to his superiors. When the superior acts contrary to the Will of the Church, the priest and religious may not obey him. The Church always overrules, because the power of binding and unbinding rests with Peter, not with a single bishop or a single religius superior, unless they speak according to the mind of Peter.
There is another detail here. The priests of the Society are not consecrated religious. They are secular men: secular deacons, secular priests, secular bishops. Therefore, they do not make a vow of obedience as do consecrated religious. Before they are ordained to the diaconate they make a PROMISE of obedience to the bishop. A promise is not a vow and does not have the same binding effect. They are not allowed to make a vow, because their call is to be clerics, not consecrated men. That would be a brother, friar or monk who make vows.
The promise to obey the bishop binds the person to everything that is pastoral, not to his personal life. Unlike the consecrated religius vow of obedience, which binds the person to obey even in matters regarding his personal life.
For example, the Archbishop had made a promise of obedience to the pope. The Archbishop was a secular priest. The promise bound him to obey the pope in all pastoral matters. The ordination of bishops is a pastoral matter. The priests of the Society were bound to obey the superior of the society on pastoral matters, not on personal matters. However, when a pastoral decision is made that is overruled by a pope, the pope’s position trumps that of the bishop. Therefore, the men involved are not being disloyal. Actually, they are choosing their loyalty very carefully. They chose to be loyal to the Chair of Peter.
All of us who are either consecrated religious or ordained clerics or both are bound to obey Peter over our superiors. In the rule of my Franciscan family, St. Francis spelled it out very well. “The friars are to obey the Gospel, the Lord Pope, me (Brother Francis) and all of my canonically elected successors until death.” That hierarchy applies to everyone. St. Francis simply put it in writing for his friars.
There is a technicality here. Even though all Christians must obey the Gospel first, the rule and tradition has always been that the Pope is the one who tells you whether or not your understanding and application of the Gospel is correct. He is the ultimate authority in interpreting the Gospel.
What these men did was go to the ultimate authority in the Church. They knew that if they followed Peter, even if Peter made a mistake, they would not be held morally accountable for it. Peter’s mistakes are his not the whole Church’s. His office is not reduced because of his mistakes, nor is his authority. The first FSSP priests understood this. They preferred to remain under the safety of the Chair of Peter than take their chances outside of the Catholic Church.
It was a horrible position for them. Their bishops were outside the Church, because of the excommunication. But they were inside, because they were suspended, not excommunicated. This raised a dilemma for them. Do you take your lead from a bishop who is excommunicated? It was very painful for them. When you speak to them you can hear the pain their narrative, especially the older priests.
You see, their choice is canonically correct. It does not need justification, because it is the lawful choice.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
S
stevusmagnus
Guest
Great and clever point Pro Vobis!
Those who preach “obedience” at all costs, suddenly change their tune when it comes to obeying ABL.
They resort to legalities.
Then you confront them with the Arian crisis, and they ignore legalities and say go with Athanasius! Haha.
True Monday morning Quarterbacks.
Again, good exposure of their contradictions.
Those who preach “obedience” at all costs, suddenly change their tune when it comes to obeying ABL.
They resort to legalities.
Then you confront them with the Arian crisis, and they ignore legalities and say go with Athanasius! Haha.
True Monday morning Quarterbacks.
Again, good exposure of their contradictions.
J
JReducation
Guest
I was asked a question and I responded according to Church law. There is nothing wrong with that.Great and clever point Pro Vobis!
Those who preach “obedience” at all costs, suddenly change their tune when it comes to obeying ABL.
They resort to legalities.
Then you confront them with the Arian crisis, and they ignore legalities and say go with Athanasius! Haha.
True Monday morning Quarterbacks.
Again, good exposure of their contradictions.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
T
Timothysis
Guest
I take it that you didn’t read Brother JREducation’s most excellent post. It could only benefit you if you did.Great and clever point Pro Vobis!
Those who preach “obedience” at all costs, suddenly change their tune when it comes to obeying ABL.
They resort to legalities.
Then you confront them with the Arian crisis, and they ignore legalities and say go with Athanasius! Haha.
True Monday morning Quarterbacks.
Again, good exposure of their contradictions.
P
ProVobis
Guest
JR, if they were baseball players, they’d be booed in their former ballparks in which they played.
The point is this: you admire those who converted to your side, bid godspeed to those who rejected you. Don’t forget these priests have congregations and followers too. It seems sort of heavy-handed to look at everything from the standpoint of the Pope and the bishops. The peon churchgoer needs to feel that he or she belongs to the Church too. If not, this is a clear abuse of power and authority Christ never intended to impose on His faithful. That necessity canon, which Lefebrve cited, was written for a reason. And it wasn’t only for him. Five hundred people aren’t going to walk out of a Mass and follow their priest to another church just like that. Simply unrealistic.
Happy belated Easter, by the way.
J
JReducation
Guest
Maybe so, but that is not what determines law.
That is an unfair statement. I have never said anything attacking the SSPX or the Archbishop. I have only quoted the law. The only side that I take is the side of the Church. You can’t convict me for that. I made a solemn vow to obey the Church and my founder until death.
All of us who are religious or priests have congregations, followers and friends in the community. I’ll use my own example. When my community decided to pull out of many of the parishes that we ran, because it was too difficult to live community life as the rule mandates and do parish ministry to the extent that we were doing, people were upset to see us leave. But we had to leave. Our first obligation is to obey Francis. He made it very clear in the rule that we could not stay in any place where we could not observe community life.
This is not trying to beat up the man in the pew. This is trying to be faithful. There are times when you cannot serve the man in the pew, because you have a conflict of interests.
An abuse of power would be to impose something that you don’t have the right to impose.
But the Holy Father ruled that the law did not apply in this case. Canon law is subject to the interpretation of the pope, no one can go over his head in interpreting canon law or scripture.
I understand that point. But that does not mean that a priest has to remain in a place where he believes would be wrong to stay, especially if he has the support of his major superior or the Pontiff. Priests and religious do not promise obedience to the laity. We promise obedience to the Church in union with the bishops and the pope, then to our founders.
As I said above, we have left several parishes and schools around the globe. We don’t expect people to follow us around. They are welcome to come with us. But we don’t stay, against the wishes of our founder and the Church, because people want us to stay. In the long run, it would not be good for the people to have priests or religious who are in a state of moral conflict.
Happy Easter to you too, my friend!
Br. JR, OSF
P
ProVobis
Guest
Priests and religious do owe the laity respect, though. As well as common-sense remedies to problems arising from their own mishaps. A priest doesn’t get away with sexually molesting 200 deaf boys without someone knowing about it during that time. The first time is an abuse of authority on the part of the priest and is further compounded by the seal of confession and other Church laws protecting the priest. It is also an abuse of authority on the part of the bishop because he didn’t act to punish that priest after the first time or at least after he first he heard about it. And so on all the way up to the Vatican.
If this were an isolated case, it’d be one thing, but these abuses and coverups happened during a very crucial time in Church history. Rules are set to accomplish a purpose. The Church and all the “smoke of Satan” forces behind it decided to break and change Church’s own rules and the public became confused. Is it any wonder there were those who saw through all this and decided they didn’t want to be part of that part of the Church which confuses and sets up rules not for their benefit? And then on top of everything else using Christ and the Holy Spirit and Vatican II as their source for their questionable actions?
Well, the public has finally caught on to this game of coverups and scandals and rule changing to suit the “new order.” Not everyone saw that the Archbishop had a point to make, however. He wasn’t perfect and he never claimed to be. But he did have a following and it wasn’t insignificant. The Church knew that and had to quiet him and used every arsenal at its disposal to counter the movement.
As I told this board before, I’m not a traditionalist. Heck, I may never step into a SSPX church again. But I don’t enjoy hearing the attacks made on those who wish to preserve their ancient culture and made to feel inferior unless they conform to new rules. Such was the fate of the American Indian and it’s really sad that there are so many in the Church who have fallen into that same mindset.
I’ll let you have the last word here if you wish. I’ll move onto another thread.
M
Malleus_01
Guest
I enjoyed most of your contribution with the obvious exception of
" Schism is schism.
The SSPX seems a bit Pharisaic, and like little Jack Horner. "
The SSPX are not in Formal Schism. Now you may hold that as an opinion - but that isnt the Opinion of ROME.
Pax
" Schism is schism.
The SSPX seems a bit Pharisaic, and like little Jack Horner. "
The SSPX are not in Formal Schism. Now you may hold that as an opinion - but that isnt the Opinion of ROME.
Pax
J
JReducation
Guest
None of the above has anything to do with the thread. The topic is the SSPX and the FSSP. I answered the question as to how the FSSP came to be. You did not like the answer. I can’t help that.
I also made a vow of obedience to the Church under peril of losing my immortal soul. Would you have me violate that vow by expecting me to contradict Church law? I think that you would be happy that there are religious who take this vow very seriously.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
- Status