Pope Francis and the SSPX: An Opportunity

[giuseppeTO]

Cool observation!

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.

Please keep on topic and refrain from accusations. Bishop Fellay is a Prince of the Church and a Successor of the Apostles. He is beyond “making things up” in public to achieve some effect.

And please don’t scandalize our Chinese brethren by insinuating that they gossip as part of their heritage.

 

[ezeekl]

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.

Yes and I think those “forces” are also called the Holy Spirit or the Soirit of Truth.

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.

Aaaah if were all that simple. But alas, it isn’t. The SPPX have painted themselves into a corner with their accusations about the papacy and its teachings along with a recognized general council and its teachings. By doing so they crossed the line from merely defending their teaching as being "traditional’ Catholic and incorporating heresy [that the pope and the council were in error on a matter of faith and morals that fit the requirements for infallibility] into their agenda. Were it not for the latter I think the SPPX could be admitted back into full communion. That, of course would require that they admit that their accusations about the pope and the council were wrong and they profess obedient submission to the pope on matters of faith and morals.

I do not think the SPPX is man enough to do that.

 

[Withburga]

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.

Please keep on topic and refrain from accusations. Bishop Fellay is a Prince of the Church and a Successor of the Apostles. He is beyond “making things up” in public to achieve some effect.

There are around 4000 priests in England and Wales. Bishop Fellay’s figure indicates that one out of every sixteen of those priests celebrates clown masses.

I have lived in the UK all my life and have attended many thousands of masses. None of them featured a clown as celebrant. In fact, I’m pretty sure that the faithful over here would have heard if even a single clown mass had occurred in the UK.

That being so, from where do you think Bishop Fellay received the inspiration to make this claim?

And with all due respect to the bishop and his office, do you think such a claim reflects positively on the SSPX and it’s leader, or lends them credibility in relation to their views on the contemporary Church? And so as to bring the discussion back on topic, do you think that the Holy Father is more or less likely to expend effort on reconciling the SSPX to the Church when such obviously absurd statistics are, for whatever reasons, proclaimed by it’s leader?

Please note that there is no sarcasm intended in my questions. I’m genuinely interested in your answers. I agree that it’s unseemly to assume that a bishop is deliberately lying, so how do you explain the blatant innacuracy of Bishop Fellay’s claim?

 

[agnes_therese]

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.

And there are obviously forces within the SSPX that do not desire to see them regularized, either.

 

[AllSeasons]

I came across this blog post from the NC Register on the possibility of Pope Francis normalizing the standing of the SSPX. What do you think, is there any chance of this happening?

As much as I would like to think so, I highly doubt that’s a possibility. When Pope Benedict retired, that essentially stopped the process of normalizing relations with the Society. Pope Francis is viewed very unfavorably within the SSPX, because he’s seen as a Modernist raised on the novus ordo Mass. The sticking point was that the SSPX asked to be able to criticize the OF, which neither Benedict, and much less Francis, would be willing to grant.

 

[ProVobis]

As much as I would like to think so, I highly doubt that’s a possibility. When Pope Benedict retired, that essentially stopped the process of normalizing relations with the Society. Pope Francis is viewed very unfavorably within the SSPX, because he’s seen as a Modernist raised on the novus ordo Mass. The sticking point was that the SSPX asked to be able to criticize the OF, which neither Benedict, and much less Francis, would be willing to grant.

IIRC, one of the sticking points in the lifting of the excommunications by Pope Benedict was that they didn’t criticize the Pope. I believe it was when they agreed to that inter alia (among other things), the excommunications were lifted.

 

[Aramis]

Please keep on topic and refrain from accusations. Bishop Fellay is a Prince of the Church and a Successor of the Apostles. He is beyond “making things up” in public to achieve some effect.

And please don’t scandalize our Chinese brethren by insinuating that they gossip as part of their heritage.

No. He a bishop without a see who has no ministerial place inside the church.

And one who is explicitly NOT in good standing. One who publicly espouses a position that has been condemned, and committed a mortal sin publicly by accepting his illicit ordination.

He’s a schismatic bishop, a vagante… tho’ one who’s not formally condemned for schism yet.

 

[giuseppeTO]

As much as I would like to think so, I highly doubt that’s a possibility. When Pope Benedict retired, that essentially stopped the process of normalizing relations with the Society. Pope Francis is viewed very unfavorably within the SSPX, because he’s seen as a Modernist raised on the novus ordo Mass. The sticking point was that the SSPX asked to be able to criticize the OF, which neither Benedict, and much less Francis, would be willing to grant.

I think that it was the ability to question the implementation of the Council they asked for, not to criticize the New Mass. The new Mass was to be accepted as a validly promulgated rite.

 

[ezeekl]

I think that it was the ability to question the implementation of the Council they asked for, not to criticize the New Mass. The new Mass was to be accepted as a validly promulgated rite.

I think the SPPX has moved far beyond that now. The June 2013 declaration of the three SPPX bishops which stated that Pope Benedict XVI’s teaching that the Second Vatican Council should be interpreted in a “hermeneutic of continuity” with previous Church teaching, and declared that the Mass as celebrated by the Pope and the generality of the Catholic Church’s bishops and priests is “penetrated with an ecumenical and Protestant spirit, democratic and humanist, which empties out the sacrifice of the Cross” shows that the Society is indeed in open schism.

 

[RPRPsych]

No. He a bishop without a see who has no ministerial place inside the church.

And one who is explicitly NOT in good standing. One who publicly espouses a position that has been condemned, and committed a mortal sin publicly by accepting his illicit ordination.

He’s a schismatic bishop, a vagante… tho’ one who’s not formally condemned for schism yet.

The Church is giving him a long rope, but it remains to be seen whether he will climb it or use it as a noose. Pope Benedict XVI lifted the excommunications out of generosity and a desire for reconciliation, but as I’ve said earlier in this thread, that didn’t mean much to him.

 

[Boy_Wonder]

Perhaps instead of the Church coming to the SSPX, the SSPX should come to the Church HAT IN HAND.

 

[RPRPsych]

Perhaps instead of the Church coming to the SSPX, the SSPX should come to the Church HAT IN HAND.

I wouldn’t go so far - even a stopped clock can be right twice a day, and underneath all the acrimony, there’s certainly a good message about tradition, liturgy and orthodoxy to be found - even among the SSPX, the Resistance crowd or the Sedevacantists. Some negotiation (which is what Benedict XVI, bless his soul, tried to do) is not ruled out.

But as long as the SSPX keeps posting stuff like this, I don’t think they’ll want to come to the same table:

sspx.org/en/santo-subito-problems-canonization

sspx.org/en/evangelii-gaudium

 

[otjm]

I wouldn’t go so far - even a stopped clock can be right twice a day, and underneath all the acrimony, there’s certainly a good message about tradition, liturgy and orthodoxy to be found - even among the SSPX, the Resistance crowd or the Sedevacantists. Some negotiation (which is what Benedict XVI, bless his soul, tried to do) is not ruled out.

But as long as the SSPX keeps posting stuff like this, I don’t think they’ll want to come to the same table:

sspx.org/en/santo-subito-problems-canonization

sspx.org/en/evangelii-gaudium

They sound oh, so very erudite. The only problem is, an eighth grade student raised with the Baltimore Catechism before Vatican 2 could refute them with no problem at all.

They seem to have a big shovel; they can’t seem, between the lot of them, to understand that one dose not get out of a hole by digging deeper. But then, it should not be surprising that such a piece of logic should escape them;.

So, to answer th OP again, I ahve no idea why the Register allowed the article to be posted in the first place, but I can certainly see why they might withdraw it. The article is not much more than a flight of fancy by someone who obviously has ot studied the matter in anything but the most superficial terms. We should not suppose that most Catholics are aware of much of anything of the history of this dispute between the SSPX and the Church; in fact, most Catholics have no clue who the SSPX are. It is not particularly surprising that someone on staff of the 'register, or free lancing for them, would be unacquainted with the history either; it is one issue among thousands facing the Church and no one is going to be an expert in all, nor are most necessarily aware of the depth, and twists and turns of this issue.

They should have figured out that the odds that the next pope after Benedict would likely be someone whose life was primarily focused by what has occured since Vatican 2 were exceedingly high.

God certainly can work miracles, but it is rare that he does so contrary to the mindset of the ones upon whom the miracles are worked. This is looking more and more like a play that simply keeps repeating the same lines and themes. If so, it is only a matter of time before they are formally declared in schism.

 

[RPRPsych]

They sound oh, so very erudite. The only problem is, an eighth grade student raised with the Baltimore Catechism before Vatican 2 could refute them with no problem at all.

True. I sometimes wonder if some of their theological experts come from the theological equivalent of a diploma mill; they drop the facade of learning and turn to ad hominems far too early.

They seem to have a big shovel; they can’t seem, between the lot of them, to understand that one dose not get out of a hole by digging deeper. But then, it should not be surprising that such a piece of logic should escape them;.

So, to answer th OP again, I ahve no idea why the Register allowed the article to be posted in the first place, but I can certainly see why they might withdraw it. The article is not much more than a flight of fancy by someone who obviously has ot studied the matter in anything but the most superficial terms. We should not suppose that most Catholics are aware of much of anything of the history of this dispute between the SSPX and the Church; in fact, most Catholics have no clue who the SSPX are. It is not particularly surprising that someone on staff of the 'register, or free lancing for them, would be unacquainted with the history either; it is one issue among thousands facing the Church and no one is going to be an expert in all, nor are most necessarily aware of the depth, and twists and turns of this issue.

They should have figured out that the odds that the next pope after Benedict would likely be someone whose life was primarily focused by what has occured since Vatican 2 were exceedingly high.

God certainly can work miracles, but it is rare that he does so contrary to the mindset of the ones upon whom the miracles are worked. This is looking more and more like a play that simply keeps repeating the same lines and themes. If so, it is only a matter of time before they are formally declared in schism.

Very well said. And they should have also figured that, despite having a shiny website and a good number of adherents, they’re hardly the most important problem confronting Pope Francis and the Church now.

 

[Boulder257]

No. He a bishop without a see who has no ministerial place inside the church.

And one who is explicitly NOT in good standing. One who publicly espouses a position that has been condemned, and committed a mortal sin publicly by accepting his illicit ordination.

He’s a schismatic bishop, a vagante… tho’ one who’s not formally condemned for schism yet.

 

[giuseppeTO]

I think Pope Francis should do as he did in his conference with Protestant Evangelical “bishops” in his Feb 21st Conference and admit that Bishop Fellay is his “Brother Bishop” and then ask for his blessing. Once Bishop Fellay has given his blessing, they can both proceed to iron out their differences and find a way to work together.

 

[Boulder257]

I think Pope Francis should do as he did in his conference with Protestant Evangelical “bishops” in his Feb 21st Conference and admit that Bishop Fellay is his “Brother Bishop” and then ask for his blessing. Once Bishop Fellay has given his blessing, they can both proceed to iron out their differences and find a way to work together.

It’s the prodigal son who comes home, not the other way around. They need to find their way back to obedience. They have had ample opportunities, offers, discussions, etc etc. Truth is, you can’t serve two masters. And, pointing out the mistakes of others doesn’t lessen the mistakes made by an offending party on the other side of the same coin. Both groups need to be dealt with and both groups need to be led back to the Holy Mother Church. Someone already said it either on this thread or on another, but the pot calling the kettle black still means the pot is black.

And, BTW, comparing the protestant dealings the Holy Father has with other ecumenical groups really isn’t comparing similar situations. Fact of the matter is that the SSPX should know better. To whom much is given, much is expected (and that includes obedience); however, they continue to make disparaging remarks towards the Holy Father, His office, and The Church while defying Him at the same time.

If it were me I would want to get on the boat before it leaves the shore. I don’t know how long it will take this to play out and I hope it comes to a resolution soon. I just hope that it has a happy ending.

May God bless all of those involved and enveloped with this defiance be granted the wisdom, strength, and courage they need to return to the Church. We should all be praying for God’s will to be done in this situation.

Just my two pennies. :twocents:

 

[Aramis]

I think Pope Francis should do as he did in his conference with Protestant Evangelical “bishops” in his Feb 21st Conference and admit that Bishop Fellay is his “Brother Bishop” and then ask for his blessing. Once Bishop Fellay has given his blessing, they can both proceed to iron out their differences and find a way to work together.

That would violate canon law - blessing is a faculty, one which a bishop has by right of office, not by right of ordination. One which is suspended, in fact, along with all his other faculties. That would be the pope asking him to sin.

And, as Boulder notes, “It’s the prodigal son who comes home, not the other way around. They need to find their way back to obedience.”

The church, even if they go into formal schism (versus the practical schism they are in), the door is always open for them to swallow their pride, admit their errors, and return to Rome. Just as it is for the Anglicans.

 

[ProVobis]

That would violate canon law - blessing is a faculty

I might be wrong but I don’t think the poster meant it in that sense. Blessing in the English can mean a lot of things; the word has become too overused IMO. From the historical point of view, the word is a translation of benedicere which is Latin for “speak well of.” I do hope that’s what was intended.

 

[giuseppeTO]

I might be wrong but I don’t think the poster meant it in that sense. Blessing in the English can mean a lot of things; the word has become too overused IMO. From the historical point of view, the word is a translation of benedicere which is Latin for “speak well of.” I do hope that’s what was intended.

Precisely.