Pope Francis and the SSPX: An Opportunity

[Cojuanco]

“No dogmas, so it’s not binding” is the battle-cry of the rebellious.

The fact is that the documents of a Council - even if they do not define any new dogma, but merely clarify it - are among the highest forms of the Church’s teaching authority, and deserve obedience and intellectual assent.

Besides, didn’t +Lefebvre actually sign most, if not all, of those documents?

Flip, flop. Barack Obama would be proud.

Also, I will point out that there is no dogma highlighting on how we are to proceed in living out what is expressed in Humanae Vitae. Should we all start getting the Pill for birth control now? Somehow, with the SSPX, I doubt it. But that’s the same sort of thinking the present leadership seem to have.

 

[RPRPsych]

Also, I will point out that there is no dogma highlighting on how we are to proceed in living out what is expressed in Humanae Vitae. Should we all start getting the Pill for birth control now? Somehow, with the SSPX, I doubt it. But that’s the same sort of thinking the present leadership seem to have.

That’s an interesting way of looking at it. There’s no infallible Papal declaration saying “All Catholics must use NFP and not ABC” - and yet, that is what the Magisterium and Tradition have said consistently.

And I agree that they also have leadership issues; they are very much a house divided.

 

[digitalpapist]

So Dignitatis Humanae and Nostra Aetate were drafted by Jefferson and not the Council Fathers? That’s a new one.

Agreed.

Well, try calling the Pope a “Modernist” in 1960 and you’d probably find yourself deprived of your teaching / publishing faculties.

My contention isn’t against Dignitatis Humanae itself, but against the notion that it puts in place an American style of religious freedom, where all religions are equal before the state. That’s not a Catholic notion.

 

[otjm]

According to their own blog, petitioning Rome is, in fact, all they had to do.

I mentioned “hope”, but perhaps I should have said “pray”. The S.S.P.X. is such low-hanging fruit. I pray for reconciliation.

Don’t misunderstand me - I am not anti-reconciliation. Just a firm believer in the adage “You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make them drink”. They don’t want to concede the point that John Paul and Benedict both made - that the documents of Vatican 2 are not a departure from previous statements of the Church and can be reconciled with them. Alluding to the Holy Father as a Modernist is more than just a strong tell-tale.

 

[Cojuanco]

Don’t misunderstand me - I am not anti-reconciliation. Just a firm believer in the adage “You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make them drink”. They don’t want to concede the point that John Paul and Benedict both made - that the documents of Vatican 2 are not a departure from previous statements of the Church and can be reconciled with them. Alluding to the Holy Father as a Modernist is more than just a strong tell-tale.

And that’s where the SSPX and the Transalpine Redemptorists differ today.

 

[otjm]

And that’s where the SSPX and the Transalpine Redemptorists differ today.

It is enough to deal with one Magisterium - two make it altogether too confusing.

 

[giuseppeTO]

Don’t misunderstand me - I am not anti-reconciliation. Just a firm believer in the adage “You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make them drink”. They don’t want to concede the point that John Paul and Benedict both made - that the documents of Vatican 2 are not a departure from previous statements of the Church and can be reconciled with them. Alluding to the Holy Father as a Modernist is more than just a strong tell-tale.

What would be very interesting to me, and I hope someone does it soon, is to document the discussions that took place over two years between the papal commission and the Society. I have heard only anecdotal accounts (from the SSPX perspective) to various discussions and topics they examined but I would like to have an understanding of the point-counterpoint details of the issues where the SSPX felt this or that issue was inconsistent with previous church teachings and the Vatican commission response. I do not believe that either side was bound by secrecy after the sessions concluded.

But they did conclude with the framework of an agreement that most felt could move forward with some points that could be modified/clarified/etc.

 

[Pulvis]

This entire question could be settled with the stroke of the Holy Father’s pen. It almost was. But everyone posting here, if honest, knows that it is not that simple. There are forces at work within the Church that do not desire to see the SSPX regularized.
If it was truly a question about orthodoxy and adherence to the teachings of the Church, heck, the regular SSPX chapel is at least as orthodox as a neo-cathecuminal or charismatic Catholic group. And I will not go into some of the excesses seen in some full communion diocesan parishes every Sunday.
This episode will have to play out in its own time. I personally pray for a reconciliation. I like Pat Archbold’s approach. But I do not think that the time is ripe for this solution now.

Have a fruitful and blessed Lenten Season.

 

[otjm]

This entire question could be settled with the stroke of the Holy Father’s pen. It almost was. But everyone posting here, if honest, knows that it is not that simple. There are forces at work within the Church that do not desire to see the SSPX regularized.
If it was truly a question about orthodoxy and adherence to the teachings of the Church, heck, the regular SSPX chapel is at least as orthodox as a neo-cathecuminal or charismatic Catholic group. And I will not go into some of the excesses seen in some full communion diocesan parishes every Sunday.
This episode will have to play out in its own time. I personally pray for a reconciliation. I like Pat Archbold’s approach. But I do not think that the time is ripe for this solution now.

Have a fruitful and blessed Lenten Season.

As to “forces at work within the Church”, that is not much more than a red herring in the discussion. Cardinal Ratzinger “carried the water” when the SSPX and John Paul got into it. When he became Pope, it was clear that he still wanted reconciliation.

It was also crystal clear that he hand picked those who would do the work under him that he had done under John Paul. And as to the final document indicating what he required of the SSPX, it was widely noted that he personally approved of it; and Fellay responded “no way”.

As to your comments about “excesses in Charismatic groups”, that is irrelevant as to the issue; they may or may not be pushing rubrics in some circumstances, but they are not stating that Vatican 2 committed error doctrinally, which is the position of the SSPX.

It is pure idle speculation as to what would have happened with the EF had Archbishop Lefebvre not decided to ordain four bishops. But making that kind of disobedience into a heroic act does get a bit old, and the comments about “Well They do That” and pointing fingers at the liberals (whom I do not excuse either) does get a bit old - the pot calling the kettle black does not diminish the blackness of the pot.

I don’t make it a point to regularly involve myself with the laity who attend SSPX chapels, but what contact I have had indicates that it is a fairy tale at best to think that the Pope, signing anything, could bring them back into the fold.

They need out prayers, absolutely no question. And unless and until they have a change of heart, the status quo will remain, subject to the next round of ordinations of bishops - which is just about guaranteed to create a melt down.

Don’t kid yourself - this is not about “forces at work within the Church”. It is far, far deeper than that.

 

[Brooklyn]

Belief in American style religious freedom is not a doctrine of the Catholic Church. Neither is attachment and fidelity to the ancient Mass a heresy.

The SSPX does not deny any dogma of the Church; they are disobedient, certainly, but to call them dissenters from the Faith of the Church… that’s a bit much. Go back to 1960 and none of the positions the SSPX hold to would be problematic.

It is not a matter of belief in Americanism. It is a matter of facing the reality that Christendom no longer exists, the Church no longer plays a part in government anywhere in the world. We are outsiders, as are all religions, except in some Muslim countries such as Iran. And those countries are doing everything they can to literally destroy all Christianity. The best way to combat this reality is to demand religious freedom where each person is free to make a choice.

Where did I say the SSPX denies the dogma of the Church? However, since you bring it up, calling the OF an “evil” Mass as they do and denying the validity of Vatican II does amount to denying Church teaching, and that is why the Church has declared them to be in de facto schism and why SSPX priests do not have faculties to offer the sacraments. Things have changed drastically in the world since 1960.

 

[Veridical16]

Given that Pope Francis and SSPX topic has fomented some rumblings amongst ,the Church faithful – and those tempted to become baptized malcontents – I came across some relevant quotations for those in this thread can help use in the future, one is by an FFI priest’s blog, which can help clear up the proper way to react to Popes who will all vary in style, and have their every day mishaps (as Cardinal Burke has said the media has created a caricature.

To submit to the Church means this**, first you will receive as de fide whatever she proposes de fide . . . You are not called on to believe de fide any thing but what has been promulgated as such — You are not called on to exercise an internal belief of any doctrine which Sacred Congregations, Local Synods, or particular Bishops, or the Pope as a private Doctor, may enunciate. You are not called upon ever to believe or act against the moral law, at the command of any superior.**

(The Letters and Diaries of John Henry Newman [LD], XX, 545 [in 1863], edited by Charles Stephen Dessain (London: 1961-1972), in Ian Ker, John Henry Newman: A Biography, Oxford University Press, 1988 [764 pages], 530-531)

I say with Cardinal Bellarmine whether the Pope be infallible or not in any pronouncement, anyhow he is to be obeyed. No good can come from disobedience. His facts and his warnings may be all wrong; his deliberations may have been biassed. He may have been misled. Imperiousness and craft, tyranny and cruelty, may be patent in the conduct of his advisers and instruments. But when he speaks formally and authoritatively he speaks as our Lord would have him speak, and all those imperfections and sins of individuals are overruled for that result which our Lord intends (just as the action of the wicked and of enemies to the Church are overruled) and therefore the Pope’s word stands, and a blessing goes with obedience to it, and no blessing with disobedience. (Letter to Lady Simeon, 10 November 1867;

This helps clear up air, when one has to knock down the mentality that plagues those sympathetic with rationalized separation and distrust of where they ought to be, IN THE CHURCH. It also helps a Catholic to refute, any of those so eager to criticize and shake the faith of others who may needlessly be suspicious about the Pope in his humanity.

 

[Veridical16]

This second useful excerpt is from John Beaumont. He cites Cardinal Newman’s advice in the 1800’s who foresaw some of the problems we have encountered in our time. In “Culture Wars” Feb 1998 article, * Cardinal Newman on the Church: A Guide for the Perplexed.*

I think many lay Catholics while able to recoginize progressives in the Church, have been unable to place their counterparts properly, hence confusion is rampant 16 years later amongst Catholics navigating the Faith.

The persistent threat from progressivism or liberalism is, however, something which the Church has yet to deal with effectively in practice. What is certainly true is that the liberals would receive no support from Newman, who both predicted the havoc that they would cause and analyzed their errors.28There is, however, another form of error, one to which good Catholics are more likely to succumb.

The point is that many good Catholics have been, not unnaturally, scandalized by all the problems in the Church. Some have reacted by taking steps which, for all practical purposes, have resulted in them cutting themselves off from the Church in their day-to-day activities. Some have attached themselves to one or other of various groupings, most of which have as a common theme the celebration of the old rite of Mass. The most notable of these is, of course, the Society of St. Pius X, which, at least according to its formal statements, states that it recognises the papacy of John Paul II.Other people have gone formally down the sedevacantist road in that they have ended up by denying that Pope John Paul II is a true pope. Amongst these are the Thuc-ites, the Kelley-ites and the not inconsiderable number of other such independent groupings. Some of these have even sought out their own new “pope”.29 All of these groupings lay claim to the term “traditionalist Catholic” in describing themselves, a term which can be misleading.

Beaumont then goes on to quote Newman, and earlier Church fathers,
**

[T]he infallible Church, while she always appeals to tradition, is the true judge and interpreter of it, not you or I.

**

As to the question "Which is the Church of Christ?" Of course it would puzzle anyone-but there is a question which would puzzle no one. In the Creed we profess belief in "the Catholic Church. "Now then go into any town, and ask for "the Catholic Church", and you know whither you would be directed33

What Newman is doing here is to apply the classic test insisted upon by the Fathers of the Church. He himself refers to the well-known words of St. Cyril of Jerusalem in the fourth century:

If you go into any city do not ask merely, "Where is the Church, or House of God?" because the heretics pretend to have this: but ask, "Which is the Catholic Church?" because this title belongs alone to our Holy Mother.34

Suppose then that a supporter of one of the independent groupings referred to earlier is on holiday in an unfamiliar town and looking for the Mass Centre served by priests of that group. He or she asks a policeman, or some passer-by, “Where is the Catholic Church in this town?”. . . One only has to imagine the possible conversation with the aforesaid policeman,** "No, we don’t want that church, we want the real Catholic church, the one that has kept the traditions and not sold out to Vatican II, the one linked [say] to Archbishop Lefebvre.**

" This just won’t work. The implication which this sort of statement gives is that not only are there bad things in the Church, but that the Church has defected from the faith. . .However, if in reality the Church has not defected, and we know as Catholics that she cannot, then one needs to be in communion with her-and groups such as the Society of St. Pius X are not. Of course, the Society will almost certainly deny this, but then so do such as the Anglo-Catholics, to whom in this respect they bear a singular resemblance. The problem which both have is that communion is a two-way process under which a person or organisation is in communion with the Pope and is recognised as such by him.

The sooner a Catholic who stays with Peter is able to combat the precarious position some rightists hold, the better we’ll be able to wake some up from going into a schismatic mentality of individualism.
The power of influence is not because what they say is valid but because improper studying of the Faith affected by Americanism – leaves one vulnerable to a natural impatience, with ostensible crises. When they are left with a lack of context, and point of reference toward how a layman, priest, and bishop is to exercise his subordinate nature to the Supreme Pontiff.
Unfortunately for the Catholic tempted to side with the rightest ideology, a random Catholic looking to talk them out of this suffers from the same affected situation, to be ill-equipped to make an impact.

 

[RPRPsych]

My contention isn’t against Dignitatis Humanae itself, but against the notion that it puts in place an American style of religious freedom, where all religions are equal before the state. That’s not a Catholic notion.

But that’s not what the Church teaches, either (Hermeneutic of continuity!) If the SSPX are opposed to a particular interpretation of Dignitatis Humanae - even one made by a priest or a bishop - then they are sadly attacking a straw man. The Church has never made the leap of logic that you describe. For example, the Canadian bishops once came up with a terrible interpretation of Humanae Vitae; that does not mean we should reject Humanae Vitae itself.

 

[RPRPsych]

This entire question could be settled with the stroke of the Holy Father’s pen. It almost was. But everyone posting here, if honest, knows that it is not that simple. There are forces at work within the Church that do not desire to see the SSPX regularized.
If it was truly a question about orthodoxy and adherence to the teachings of the Church, heck, the regular SSPX chapel is at least as orthodox as a neo-cathecuminal or charismatic Catholic group. And I will not go into some of the excesses seen in some full communion diocesan parishes every Sunday.
This episode will have to play out in its own time. I personally pray for a reconciliation. I like Pat Archbold’s approach. But I do not think that the time is ripe for this solution now.

Have a fruitful and blessed Lenten Season.

Hints, allegations, things left unsaid… Hmmm, sounds like a good title for an album.

But whatever it is, I’m quite sure it’s against forum rules.

And the issue isn’t about whether the SSPX is orthodox (they are, at least in doctrine, for the most part) - it’s whether they’re willing to submit in good faith to the Catholic Church, as represented by Popes John XXIII - Francis.

 

[Aramis]

Lets stay on topic guys

Redcaves gave his/her answer, RPRPsych, Cartesian, severus68, do any of you think there’s a chance of Francis normalizing the status of the SSPX?

A chance, but I doubt that the SSPX will take the needed steps to do so - His Holiness has not changed publicly the requirements for their normalization.

In other words, the odds are about the same as they were with HH Benedict - slim to none as a body-corporate, but not due to Rome, per se. It is due to their unwillingness to admit their own already established errors (as established by Popes JP II and B XVI).

Reconciliation begins with admitting one’s errors.

 

[otjm]

I have seen no evidence that Francis is intent on changing or undoing anything which Benedict did. To simply “sign them in” would be to undue not only what Benedict did, but also what John Paul did.

The likelihood of them being “signed in” is not even slim and none - just none. That is not an issue with his authority to do so; but it presupposes tht Francis comes in with a mindset different from his two predecessors. His style may be different, his concerns and focus may be different; but none of that has anything to do with any likelihood that the SSPX is going to be given a carte blanch “Y’all are forgiven; it was all our error” response.

 

[petercelano]

Your post is written in a good spirit, and has several insights I agree with.

The passage quoted seems to me to highlight the problem though. SSPX will never be “firmly implanted in the Church” while they insist that other Catholics are in error. Even if they (SSPX) were to be implanted in the Church structurally and legally, they would be outside it in spirit, by distancing themselves from the majority of laity and clergy - ie. those who fully accept Vatican II and the Novus Ordo. Their resistance will have simply shifted from outside the Church to inside it.

Still, thanks for posting, and best wishes with your intentions.

Very well-put, in my opinion and observations. To “forgive and forget” often seems the easiest solution to problems such as these, even on a large scale such as this one, but the schism created by the Society would require a tremendous amount of acquiescence on the part of the Magisterium were the sort of “unconditional pardon” implied above be offered, to the point that the true Church and her teachings would be compromised on many levels in the process.

Approaching members of the Society with charity is certainly the Christ-like way to go, but we must remember it was He Himself Who said we are to “bring forth fruits worthy of repentance” (Luke 3:8) as well, and I can think of none brought forth by members of the Society. To date it would seem the Society has done far more to solidify the chasm between us than the legitimate Authority of the Church has, not the other way around. When Christ established His Church on the papacy and on Peter and gave him and his successors the power to bind and to loose here on earth in His absence, I am certain he was preparing for situations just such as this one. Retaining the Society’s schismatic status utilizing that authority may seem “uncharitable” to the lay or outside observer, but ultimately it is being done to protect the faithful from error.

 

[Fransea]

It is certainly a sad situation for the laity who fully believe they are not in schism and are Catholics in good standing. Just as they are being told by the SSPX leaders.

The laity doesn’t seem to want to hear anything less. I know it’s very hard to admit that you’ve been foolish enough to believe anything and everything the leaders of the SSPX say, but that seems to be the behavior of the laity. And until the “scales are thrown from their eyes”, it will continue the same.

One of their most loved “scandal” is the “clown masses” as they call them, and no one seems to remember that Jesus, himself, sat down with sinners and tax collectors. No one has ever been converted that could not sit and talk together.

I am proud that our Pope is NOT allowing any deviation from the true faith. There have been always been those who oppose the Catholic Church’s standing and have fought to “change it” and our Holy Fathers have allowed (by the Holy Spirit’s guidance) some changes. This does not mean she is NOT the church Jesus intended her to be.

I am proud to be a Catholic, a Roman Catholic, in full communion with Rome. And let the one with no sin cast the first stone. We are to be fishers of men, God does the cleaning.

I wish and pray that God will put the words in our mouths when talking with the SSPX and laity to say just the right things they need to hear to “come home”.

Until they do, we’ll keep praying…

 

[giuseppeTO]

It is certainly a sad situation for the laity who fully believe they are not in schism and are Catholics in good standing. Just as they are being told by the SSPX leaders.

The laity doesn’t seem to want to hear anything less. I know it’s very hard to admit that you’ve been foolish enough to believe anything and everything the leaders of the SSPX say, but that seems to be the behavior of the laity. And until the “scales are thrown from their eyes”, it will continue the same.

One of their most loved “scandal” is the “clown masses” as they call them, and no one seems to remember that Jesus, himself, sat down with sinners and tax collectors. No one has ever been converted that could not sit and talk together.

I am proud that our Pope is NOT allowing any deviation from the true faith. There have been always been those who oppose the Catholic Church’s standing and have fought to “change it” and our Holy Fathers have allowed (by the Holy Spirit’s guidance) some changes. This does not mean she is NOT the church Jesus intended her to be.

I am proud to be a Catholic, a Roman Catholic, in full communion with Rome. And let the one with no sin cast the first stone. We are to be fishers of men, God does the cleaning.

I wish and pray that God will put the words in our mouths when talking with the SSPX and laity to say just the right things they need to hear to “come home”.

Until they do, we’ll keep praying…

Fran,

Thank you for the prayers … Our Lord knows that we all need them. A couple of points on your post.

1)I think a lay person who attends an SSPX Mass would be surprised to learn that they are not Catholics in good standing and in schism. I daresay that Pope Francis himself would be surprised at that comment.

1. I’ve never been to or seen a clown Mass but any Mass designed to make lite of Christ’s Sacrifice on the Cross is no comparison to Christ eating dinner with sinners.

 

[Edmundus1581]

…
One of their most loved “scandal” is the “clown masses” as they call them, …

Cool observation!

I did a google for “SSPX clown mass” and got numerous results from SSPX and sympathetic sites. You’re right - they do like to play this up as a genuine scandal.

Bishop Fellay himself writes:

For instance, in England, 250 priests celebrate the Mass dressed as clowns - “clown Masses.” …

I can only assume he made that up himself, or that his number of “250” is the end of a long line of Chinese whispers.