Pope Francis received Bp. Fellay, SSPX Superior General

[Hoosier_Daddy]

For the record, I started to answer the question, then deleted, I don’t think Hoosier Daddy can answer without getting an infraction.

I like Catholic Answers Forums. I find it a valuable tool for my faith. And I respect it enough to follow the rules as best I can. It would be dumb of me to make an intellectual point that risks my account. I hope that was not the intent of the other posters to “lay a trap” I think the person just wanted me to clarify and did not understand that we need to be respectful of CAF. In another setting perhaps we could elaborate on the issue, but the topic of the SSPX is not worth the risk for me. It does get old all the bashing of them. Words like heretics, and sedes and such.
All of that rhetoric is just as damaging as some of the SSPXs rhetoric. .

I just wish that all involved thought charitably about the other.

 

[otjm]

I like Catholic Answers Forums. I find it a valuable tool for my faith. And I respect it enough to follow the rules as best I can. It would be dumb of me to make an intellectual point that risks my account. I hope that was not the intent of the other posters to “lay a trap” I think the person just wanted me to clarify and did not understand that we need to be respectful of CAF. In another setting perhaps we could elaborate on the issue, but the topic of the SSPX is not worth the risk for me. It does get old all the bashing of them. Words like heretics, and sedes and such.
All of that rhetoric is just as damaging as some of the SSPXs rhetoric. .

I just wish that all involved thought charitably about the other.

You were the one who said :

Pope Francis seems to have the opinon that it is a big tent and he seems to welcome dissenting views. He at least tollerates views that are more heretical than the SSPX’s

No one is trying to lay a trap. You made the comment about the Pope “tolerating” “views that are more heretical than the SSPX”.

The short of it is that if you are willing to make statements about the Pope, then back them up, or don’t go there.

As you made the statement, I asked you to state what these “heretical views” are that he “tolerates”. For all I know, you are assuming that what was stated in the secular press about homosexuals is a toleration. Given that his full comment, not edited to suit the agenda of the secular press, indicated nothing more than what his predecessor has said, it is clear that the secular press was skewing his comment to serve their agenda.

However, simply saying that he “tolerates” “heresies” is a comment that should be addressed fully, since you made the statement. Without expanding on your comment, it comes across as a slur against the Pope. I am sure you did not mean it as one, but unless you choose to expand it, that is how it comes across.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

You were the one who said :

No one is trying to lay a trap. You made the comment about the Pope “tolerating” “views that are more heretical than the SSPX”.

The short of it is that if you are willing to make statements about the Pope, then back them up, or don’t go there.

As you made the statement, I asked you to state what these “heretical views” are that he “tolerates”. For all I know, you are assuming that what was stated in the secular press about homosexuals is a toleration. Given that his full comment, not edited to suit the agenda of the secular press, indicated nothing more than what his predecessor has said, it is clear that the secular press was skewing his comment to serve their agenda.

However, simply saying that he “tolerates” “heresies” is a comment that should be addressed fully, since you made the statement. Without expanding on your comment, it comes across as a slur against the Pope. I am sure you did not mean it as one, but unless you choose to expand it, that is how it comes across.

nope. I just don’t care enough about this topic to tread there.

There is no slur against the pope here. What I said could be true throughout history. If you want to make the leap to the Pope then I guess you are reading my intent wrong. I am sorry I was not more clear for you. Have a nice day.

 

[Kyrie_eleison_9]

Why not read the CCC for what the Church teaches about Protestantism, to get your answer? It seems we could do much worse than that which the Church officially promulgates.

819 “Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth” are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: “the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements.” Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him, and are in themselves calls to “Catholic unity.”

Thank you for your reply.

So has the Church changed Her doctrine on this point? I thought Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus was a dogma of the Church, or has this been changed? When I read quotes like this:

• “It is impossible for the most true God, who is Truth itself, the best, the wisest Provider, and the Rewarder of good men, to approve all sects who profess false teachings which are often inconsistent with one another and contradictory, and to confer eternal rewards on their members… by divine faith we hold one Lord, one faith, one baptism… This is why we profess that there is no salvation outside the Church.”-*Pope Leo XII, Ubi Primum

it seems to contradict the passage that you quoted from the new catechism. Can Divine Law change? It seems that the question of salvation outside the Church Christ established is pertaining to the 1st Commandment is it not? Is the quote from the catechism something that is taken from Vatican II? Is there a pre-Vatican II document that says that non-Catholic Churches are “means of salvation”?

 

[corsair]

Dogma cannot change.

 

[OraLabora]

Thank you for your reply.

So has the Church changed Her doctrine on this point? I thought Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus was a dogma of the Church, or has this been changed? When I read quotes like this:

• “It is impossible for the most true God, who is Truth itself, the best, the wisest Provider, and the Rewarder of good men, to approve all sects who profess false teachings which are often inconsistent with one another and contradictory, and to confer eternal rewards on their members… by divine faith we hold one Lord, one faith, one baptism… This is why we profess that there is no salvation outside the Church.”-*Pope Leo XII, Ubi Primum

it seems to contradict the passage that you quoted from the new catechism. Can Divine Law change? It seems that the question of salvation outside the Church Christ established is pertaining to the 1st Commandment is it not? Is the quote from the catechism something that is taken from Vatican II? Is there a pre-Vatican II document that says that non-Catholic Churches are “means of salvation”?

Dogma hasn’t changed. How we express it can. The Baltimore Catechism (1940) said:

1. How can persons who are not members of the Catholic Church be saved?

Persons who are not members of the Catholic Church can be saved if, through no fault of their own, they do not know that the Catholic Church is the true Church, but they love God and try to do His will, for in this way they are connected with the Church by desire.

Some would try to suggest that simply telling someone “the Catholic Church is the True Church” is enough to remove this condition.

I suspect there’s more to it than that.

 

[giuseppeTO]

Here are some of my observations after reading through this thread:

• I believe that the meeting with the Pope was unplanned, as the SSPX official account states. He was introduced to the Pope at lunch, they exchanged pleasantries, and perhaps the Pope gave him a blessing.
• What is perhaps of more consequence was the meeting between Ecclesia Dei and Bishop Fellay and his first and second assistants that preceded the lunch encounter with the Pope.
• The SSPX does not consider any of the Popes who have reigned since the Council to be illegitimate or anti-popes nor does it consider the Mass of Paul VI to be invalid.
• In 2012, Bishop Fellay stated that he was led to believe that Pope Benedict desired to regularize the SSPX with no strings attached. By that, I mean that at the highest levels, the SSPX accepts the validity of all of the sacraments in the Ordinary Form when performed according to the proper matter and form, the Canon Code of 1983, and could continue to take issue with the implementation of the Council. These were pretty much the same conditions of the Protocol of 1988 between Cdl Ratzinger and Abp Lefebvre. In the background, it also appeared that there was agreement on a canonical structure that was acceptable to both the Society and the Vatican. I expect that a new no-strings-attached agreement would be similar.
• Most of the SSPX priests and those laity that regularly assist at an SSPX chapel would be favorable to a lifting of the suppression of the Society and a canonical regularity with the Holy See. Most who do not have already gone elsewhere including Bishops, priests, and laity.
• The remaining two Bishops will support Bishop Fellay’s position as I am certain that he will build a consensus for any new initiative.
• Before this week, I personally did not think Pope Francis was interested in such an arrangement with the SSPX. His rhetoric leads me to believe that he considers an attachment to the ancient form to be “outdated”, for lack of a better term. However, I doubt that Ecclesia Dei would be meeting with Bishop Fellay without at least the tacit approval of the Pope, nor would I expect the SSPX to be meeting with the commission if there were not a new “possibility”. Added to that, I heard a (fairly reliable) rumor that the Pope will soon reverse or remedy the suppression of the EF for the F.I.
• Most interesting is this concept floated by Bishop Williamson of an acceptance by tolerance. Of course, that does not remedy the questions of jurisdiction and the validity of sacraments. If the Pope tells his commissions, simply “Let them be” and issues no other demands, well, this could persist for his entire Pontificate. SSPX priests are still allowed to offer Masses in St. Peter’s and all of the churches in Italy with an SSPX celebret. There are even some Bishops in the U.S. who allow SSPX Masses in diocesan churches. The SSPX still submits to Rome for its approval as required, the admonishments of certain sins heard in Confession that require “elevation”. Rome always responds in the affirmative. It could all be part of the “toleration”.

 

[commenter]

• The SSPX does not consider any of the Popes who have reigned since the Council to be illegitimate or anti-popes nor does it consider the Mass of Paul VI to be invalid.
• In 2012, Bishop Fellay stated that he was led to believe that Pope Benedict desired to regularize the SSPX with no strings attached. By that, I mean that at the highest levels, the SSPX accepts the validity of all of the sacraments in the Ordinary Form when performed according to the proper matter and form, the Canon Code of 1983, and could continue to take issue with the implementation of the Council. These were pretty much the same conditions of the Protocol of 1988 between Cdl Ratzinger and Abp Lefebvre. In the background, it also appeared that there was agreement on a canonical structure that was acceptable to both the Society and the Vatican. I expect that a new no-strings-attached agreement would be similar.
• Most of the SSPX priests and those laity that regularly assist at an SSPX chapel would be favorable to a lifting of the suppression of the Society and a canonical regularity with the Holy See. Most who do not have already gone elsewhere including Bishops, priests, and laity…

If the bishops and clergy of the SSPX were that cooperative towards an agreement with the Vatican, there would not be the extreme attacks by their website on the Vatican, and most individuals would probably have joined the FSSP by now. They are holding out not for theological reasons or rights for the EF, but rather for rights and privileges for the SSPX. The SSPX is no longer a means to an end (theological, liturgical renewal) but rather an end in itself.

In my diocese the SSPX does not reach out to the unchurched, to Protestants, or to liberal or fallen away Catholics. The only group they really are pulling people away from is the diocesan approved EF Mass community.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

In my diocese the SSPX does not reach out to the unchurched, to Protestants, or to liberal or fallen away Catholics. The only group they really are pulling people away from is the diocesan approved EF Mass community.

To be fair the whole Church is probably guilty of this. “interested in Catholicism? Go to RCIA and we will talk in a year or two.”

Personally I think it is a historical phenomenon especially in Eastern America. Catholic were the outsiders or the poor immigrants.

The west had missions not unlike all of Mexico, the East had “Irish need not apply” And in the south fugettaboutit!

I don’t fault the SSPX for not reaching out to the unchurched and protestants, it is all they can do to stay afloat in the lifeboat next to the barque. Before we criticize them for that we perhaps should look in our own eyes.

I do see a little of what you are saying. I have a protestant cousin who always attacks me at family gatherings for being Catholic. Finally I said," out of our entire family you pick me? The one who prays to Jesus every day, the one who is Christian? Not the homosexual cousin over there with his boyfriend? Not the alcoholic one who left his wife and kids for beer and weed? Not the entire other side of the family that is mormon? Not all the others who don’t go to Church?" But me, he is adamant that I am wrong and need to be saved.

I do feel like that a little about the SSPX. You are criticizing the Church? Not the World?

Odd.

 

[commenter]

To be fair the whole Church is probably guilty of this. “interested in Catholicism? Go to RCIA and we will talk in a year or two.”

I don’t fault the SSPX for not reaching out to the unchurched and protestants, it is all they can do to stay afloat in the lifeboat next to the barque. Before we criticize them for that we perhaps should look in our own eyes.
.

I hear you, you are right, but there’s more here. Years ago, the SSPX seemed to focus on the rights of individual priests and laity - in any area of the Catholic Faith - attached to the TLM. In recent years they seem to focus more on the rights of the SSPX, itself. In the 1970s, if there had been EF Masses permitted by the local diocese, they would have supported them, not done anything to draw away from them. Today the SSPX does actively draw away from them.

Years ago they had less interest in maintaining the permanent organization structure of the SSPX, which was just a (temporary) means to an end. Their interest was in Catholics in general. Today their list of demands is longer, including the maintenance of their own organizational independence - even their own independence from others who love the TLM. It sounds heroic to say “It’s all they can do to stay afloat” but what that really means is that they spend a lot of extra time, money and energy to stay SEPARATELY afloat.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

I hear you, you are right, but there’s more here. Years ago, the SSPX seemed to focus on the rights of individual priests and laity - in any area of the Catholic Faith - attached to the TLM. In recent years they seem to focus more on the rights of the SSPX, itself. In the 1970s, if there had been EF Masses permitted by the local diocese, they would have supported them, not done anything to draw away from them. Today the SSPX does actively draw away from them.

Years ago they had less interest in maintaining the permanent organization structure of the SSPX, which was just a (temporary) means to an end. Their interest was in Catholics in general. Today their list of demands is longer, including the maintenance of their own organizational independence - even their own independence from others who love the TLM. It sounds heroic to say “It’s all they can do to stay afloat” but what that really means is that they spend a lot of extra time, money and energy to stay SEPARATELY afloat.

Yes, I agree. And they should come on the boat. The seas are stormy and there is no protection there.

 

[giuseppeTO]

I hear you, you are right, but there’s more here. Years ago, the SSPX seemed to focus on the rights of individual priests and laity - in any area of the Catholic Faith - attached to the TLM. In recent years they seem to focus more on the rights of the SSPX, itself. In the 1970s, if there had been EF Masses permitted by the local diocese, they would have supported them, not done anything to draw away from them. Today the SSPX does actively draw away from them.

Years ago they had less interest in maintaining the permanent organization structure of the SSPX, which was just a (temporary) means to an end. Their interest was in Catholics in general. Today their list of demands is longer, including the maintenance of their own organizational independence - even their own independence from others who love the TLM. It sounds heroic to say “It’s all they can do to stay afloat” but what that really means is that they spend a lot of extra time, money and energy to stay SEPARATELY afloat.

Sounds like your comments on the Society are based on what you learn from the internet. You have certainly never spent any time with a Society priest or Bishop to understand it - feel free to correct me if I am wrong. The only “rights” the Society ever advocated was the ability to universally offer the Mass of Pius V. That was a “right” that was suppressed until it was liberated by Pope Benedict XVI. I think that most at least begrudgingly attribute SP to the work of the SSPX.

I am not sure where your “growing list” of SSPX demands come from either. If you compare the terms of the 1988 Protocol worked out between Cdl Ratzinger and Abp Lefebvre, with the 2012 Doctrinal Preamble, the conditions are nearly identical. The “independence” you speak of was sought in both cases, not to separate the Society from the diocese, but to protect its charism in a diocese where the ordinary was opposed to the traditional form of the sacraments. Believe it or not, they do exist. The Prelature envisioned both in 1988 and 2012 would have preserved that in a way that is consistent with other existing Catholic structures.

However, I fail to see how any of this relates to the OP and the possibility that the SSPX and ED may be in the midst of some sort of fruitful dialogue that may include the Pope.

Is it impossible to have such a discussion on CAF without someone turning it into an SSPX bash-fest?

 

[giuseppeTO]

In my diocese the SSPX does not reach out to the unchurched, to Protestants, or to liberal or fallen away Catholics. The only group they really are pulling people away from is the diocesan approved EF Mass community.

Each SSPX chapel is self-funded - that is, no financial support from a District headquarters. In our case it is a church, primary school, and high school funded entirely from the Sunday collection and a very modest tuition to keep it affordable. Many faithful who attend SSPX Chapels, myself included, contribute to the yearly diocesan appeal.

The SSPX has sizable missions in the Philippines, Africa, India, Brazil, Argentina, Korea, Mexico, Japan, and China. The outreach is to mostly non-Catholics and they are funded exclusively by us folks in the pews.

 

[pnewton]

All of that rhetoric is just as damaging as some of the SSPXs rhetoric. .

I just wish that all involved thought charitably about the other.

To expound on this:

The error of being more Catholic than the Catholic Church happens both by those who set themselves up as a greater authority and by those that condemn them to a greater extent than the Catholic Church does. If one’s rhetoric is beyond what the Catholic Church says about the SSPX, then such statements follow the same error they condemn.

 

[Thomas_Casey]

REMINDER

Please remember, when speaking about the bishops and other clergy of the SSPX that they deserve the same respect as any other member of the clergy. There is no reason why people can’t disagree without offending, name calling, labeling, or judging. Also, please follow the guidance set by the example of the Holy See regarding this situation.

For further guidance feel free to refer to this sticky.

Thank You

 

[thewanderer]

Sounds like your comments on the Society are based on what you learn from the internet. You have certainly never spent any time with a Society priest or Bishop to understand it - feel free to correct me if I am wrong. The only “rights” the Society ever advocated was the ability to universally offer the Mass of Pius V. That was a “right” that was suppressed until it was liberated by Pope Benedict XVI. I think that most at least begrudgingly attribute SP to the work of the SSPX.

The question is though, if the only “right” the SSPX really cares about is the right to the EF, and that has been secured long ago as you point out, why have they still not come fully into communion with the Church?

I am not sure where your “growing list” of SSPX demands come from either. If you compare the terms of the 1988 Protocol worked out between Cdl Ratzinger and Abp Lefebvre, with the 2012 Doctrinal Preamble, the conditions are nearly identical. The “independence” you speak of was sought in both cases, not to separate the Society from the diocese, but to protect its charism in a diocese where the ordinary was opposed to the traditional form of the sacraments. Believe it or not, they do exist. The Prelature envisioned both in 1988 and 2012 would have preserved that in a way that is consistent with other existing Catholic structures.

And herein lies the answer. This is what I believe commenter was trying to get at. At this point in time what keeps the SSPX from full communion with the Church is not a concern that the EF will disappear, but rather a concern for the organization of the SSPX itself.

However, I fail to see how any of this relates to the OP and the possibility that the SSPX and ED may be in the midst of some sort of fruitful dialogue that may include the Pope.

Is it impossible to have such a discussion on CAF without someone turning it into an SSPX bash-fest?

Politely noting that what currently keeps the SSPX from full union with the Church is a concern for their own organization can hardly be considered an “SSPX bash-fest”.

 

[commenter]

Sounds like your comments on the Society are based on what you learn from the internet. You have certainly never spent any time with a Society priest or Bishop to understand it - feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

Is it impossible to have such a discussion on CAF without someone turning it into an SSPX bash-fest?

Yes, some of my information about the SSPX does come from the Internet - but only from reading SSPX websites. That seems fair. I don’t read any “anti” websites. I have spent only limited time with a Society priest. I don’t judge the Society by that one interaction.

I don’t in any way intend to bash any person. I am aware that many members of this Society (or some very liberal groups I have written about) may be closer to God than I am.
I think I recall your post some time ago about a son who is studying for the priesthood. I would be interested in hearing of his progress, or the progress and ministries of any priest or layperson in SSPX, without mentioning names. Keep posting now and then to show us the human face of the SSPX.

 

[giuseppeTO]

Yes, some of my information about the SSPX does come from the Internet - but only from reading SSPX websites. That seems fair. I don’t read any “anti” websites. I have spent only limited time with a Society priest. I don’t judge the Society by that one interaction.

I don’t in any way intend to bash any person. I am aware that many members of this Society (or some very liberal groups I have written about) may be closer to God than I am.
I think I recall your post some time ago about a son who is studying for the priesthood. I would be interested in hearing of his progress, or the progress and ministries of any priest or layperson in SSPX, without mentioning names. Keep posting now and then to show us the human face of the SSPX.

Thank you for clarifying your comments. My intent was not to particularly pick on your post - I just get frustrated when we have a topic concerning an event that may signify some progress on the regularization of the Society and it inevitably seems to turn into a discussion of how arrogant or unbending or demanding or self-serving SSPX priests and Bishops are. Yours did not rise to that level.

Thank you for asking about my son. He will be ordained in a few weeks. It is a whirlwind of activity around the house as my wife has taken on making his ordination vestments and I finish building an altar at home for private Mass when he visits. Since he will be here the rest of the summer after ordinations, I look forward to daily Mass in our family room. Please pray for him and our family.