Potential Obstacles in the Regularization of the SSPX

[Lujack]

Hopefully, I can manage to get this one right, and have a discussion without offending anyone. Probably not, but here’s to optimism. This thread isn’t to attempt to fan the flames or anything, just to have an honest discussion about what might be taking place on the road to regularization.

Anyway, as I tried to explain previously, I think that there are still some serious roadblocks remaining between the SSPX and full, normalized status within the Church.

1. The position that the SSPX takes on the Ordinary Form of the Mass is still problematic. I could see them being regularized while still officially believing that the Tridentine Mass is objectively better than the Ordinary Form, but I have a hard time believing that the SSPX will still be able to hold their position that it is possible for a valid OF, celebrated perfectly according to the rubrics and attended in full, may still not fulfill the Sunday obligation.
2. Another SSPX position in the FAQs that I think may present an obstacle is the statement that the validity of every Novus Ordo Mass is suspect, due to intent. It doesn’t seem likely to me that one order, in good standing with the Church, will be allowed to publicly question the faith of other priests who are also in good standing with the Church.
3. The SSPX position on attending Novus Ordo Masses seems like it may still present an obstacle. The FAQ states that they should be attended by [insert appropriate shorthand term, which I have not been able to find, for Catholics who follow the guidelines laid out in the SSPX FAQs] only in grave circumstances, such as a wedding or a funeral, and says that no active participation (presumably the reception of communion) should take place.
4. The last troublesome position is one that I’m absolutely certain will be taken care of before full regularization. That’s the position that the Society holds on Tridentine Masses celebrated by the FSSP, and presumably other non-SSPX priests; specifically, that these Masses should not be attended either. From where I’m sitting, it doesn’t make much sense to shoot for regularization if all that means is that the FAQs will continue to encourage the lay supporters of the Society to segregate themselves from the Church at large.

Hopefully, I expressed my thoughts better this time round, and the resulting discussion will be more fruitful.

 

[Kearney]

The biggest problem with SSPX regularization is that the Society does not accept Vatican II. Now I’m not exactly thrilled to death with some of the things the Council did but I still accept it is valid. The SSPX, on the other hand, completely rejects Vatican II and considers it as a modernist robber council which should be revoked officially. This obviously has no chance of ever happening (at least any time soon). Even if the Pope and Vatican came to the conclusion that Vatican II was a bad idea, the would never revoke it because that would create a great deal of confusion about the Churches infallibility and indefectibility for centuries to come.

If the SSPX cannot come to terms with this then there is no hope for reunion. It would be better anyway to concentrate on promoting the Moto Proprio and trying to get as many Latin masses as we can available to people in ordinary parishes instead of tainting the TLM cause by trying to haplessly plea for the return of those who have gone their own way.

 

[Cluny]

Let Rome take care of it.

They’ve got a good man in charge there, I hear.

 

[Extempore]

Even if the Pope and Vatican came to the conclusion that Vatican II was a bad idea, the would never revoke it because that would create a great deal of confusion about the Churches infallibility and indefectibility for centuries to come.

Why would it send this message when it was not a dogmatic council in the first place?

If the SSPX cannot come to terms with this then there is no hope for reunion.

Why should agreement with of all aspects of a pastoral council be the ultimate test of unity with the Church? Vatican II is not a dogma of faith. I doubt that Pope Benedict XVI and Bishop Fellay would find much disagreement on the Deposit of Faith.

Yet you are saying that because the SSPX express some reservations about Vatican II, there is no hope for reunion?

It would be better anyway to concentrate on promoting the Moto Proprio and trying to get as many Latin masses as we can available to people in ordinary parishes instead of tainting the TLM cause by trying to haplessly plea for the return of those who have gone their own way.

Au contraire, the SSPX have not “gone their own way.” When one holds fast to tradition, there is nowhere to go.

 

[malphono]

Seems to me the OP’s first 3 items are intertwined and while I could be dead wrong, I have a feeling that the issue of the OF will be sorted out. Summorum Pontificum laid the groundwork for that.

Item 4 in the OP is a different matter. I said this a month or so ago in another thread, (and of course got slammed for it), but I’ve seen the SSPX website, and the remarks there (for all the world to see) about the FSSP are certainly less than accurate, not to mention uncharitable. This is the first time I’ve ever seen one religious institute bash another in public, (there have been some rather unfriendly rivalries over the years, but to my knowledge this is the only one where such things were made public. As I see it, publicly “airing dirty laundry” is a cause of scandal to the faithful). Taken all together, it sounds suspiciously like the SSPX has a bad case of sour grapes particularly directed at the FSSP, since the latter “defected” from the former. I imagine that this matter can be sorted out as well, hopefully with a public retraction for what amounts to calumny.

What seems to me to be the bigger issue has already been expressed:

The biggest problem with SSPX regularization is that the Society does not accept Vatican II. …

and here I’m not jumping into the fray, except to say I see no reason why this too could not be negotiated. The SSPX is certainly not alone in having problems with the interpretation of some Conciliar documents.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

The first three issues could be overcome just by rewording the FAQ. There is nothing wrong with advising catholics to get to know the priest before attending mass at his parish, and to make sure the mass is done well by a priest who really believes in the faith. It’s good advice for anyone. They can just reword it in a positive way and it will be fine.

Hopefully, I can manage to get this one right, and have a discussion without offending anyone. Probably not, but here’s to optimism. This thread isn’t to attempt to fan the flames or anything, just to have an honest discussion about what might be taking place on the road to regularization.

Anyway, as I tried to explain previously, I think that there are still some serious roadblocks remaining between the SSPX and full, normalized status within the Church.

1. The position that the SSPX takes on the Ordinary Form of the Mass is still problematic. I could see them being regularized while still officially believing that the Tridentine Mass is objectively better than the Ordinary Form, but I have a hard time believing that the SSPX will still be able to hold their position that it is possible for a valid OF, celebrated perfectly according to the rubrics and attended in full, may still not fulfill the Sunday obligation.
2. Another SSPX position in the FAQs that I think may present an obstacle is the statement that the validity of every Novus Ordo Mass is suspect, due to intent. It doesn’t seem likely to me that one order, in good standing with the Church, will be allowed to publicly question the faith of other priests who are also in good standing with the Church.
3. The SSPX position on attending Novus Ordo Masses seems like it may still present an obstacle. The FAQ states that they should be attended by [insert appropriate shorthand term, which I have not been able to find, for Catholics who follow the guidelines laid out in the SSPX FAQs] only in grave circumstances, such as a wedding or a funeral, and says that no active participation (presumably the reception of communion) should take place.
4. The last troublesome position is one that I’m absolutely certain will be taken care of before full regularization. That’s the position that the Society holds on Tridentine Masses celebrated by the FSSP, and presumably other non-SSPX priests; specifically, that these Masses should not be attended either. From where I’m sitting, it doesn’t make much sense to shoot for regularization if all that means is that the FAQs will continue to encourage the lay supporters of the Society to segregate themselves from the Church at large.

Hopefully, I expressed my thoughts better this time round, and the resulting discussion will be more fruitful.

 

[TMC]

I would say:

1. Accepting the validity of Vatican II and all of its documents.

They can quibble over what they mean, but I can’t see regularization if they persist in saying that the Council is invalid, the documents are invalid, or even that the Council was a meaningless nullity.

1. Accepting that the Catechism of the Catholic Church, i.e. the Catechism promulgated by Pope John Paul II, is “a statement of the Church’s faith and of catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition and the Church’s Magisterium” and that it is “a sure norm for teaching the faith.”

This may be more difficult than #1 becuase it means accepting Baptism of Desire and other doctrines that (as I understand it) are at the root of the schism.

1. Accepting that the Ordinary Form of Mass is both valid and licit.

I don’t think they will be made to celebrate it, but they won’t be able to deny it.

There are other problems that can probably be worked out, and there will be ongoing PR problems that should not stand in the way of regularization. But these are the issues I think will be the biggest roadblocks.

 

[DavidPalm]

The biggest problem with SSPX regularization is that the Society does not accept Vatican II. Now I’m not exactly thrilled to death with some of the things the Council did but I still accept it is valid. The SSPX, on the other hand, completely rejects Vatican II and considers it as a modernist robber council which should be revoked officially.

I am not a big SSPX supporter, but I believe it would be best if you didn’t speak out on this forum unless you know what you’re talking about. You keep making generalizations about traditional matters that are oversimplified to the point of being false.

Officially the SSPX does believe that Vatican II was a valid council and officially they are asking for clarification on some number of individual issues addressed by the council, not for its complete revocation.

I would say:

1. Accepting the validity of Vatican II and all of its documents.

They can quibble over what they mean, but I can’t see regularization if they persist in saying that the Council is invalid, the documents are invalid, or even that the Council was a meaningless nullity.

As I mentioned above, they do not hold this position.

1. Accepting that the Catechism of the Catholic Church, i.e. the Catechism promulgated by Pope John Paul II, is “a statement of the Church’s faith and of catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition and the Church’s Magisterium” and that it is “a sure norm for teaching the faith.”

This may be more difficult than #1 becuase it means accepting Baptism of Desire and other doctrines that (as I understand it) are at the root of the schism.

The SSPX has never had any problem with Baptism of Desire and in fact have published some of the best refutations available of the Feeneyite position. Again, this kind of erroneous information just muddies the water.

Also, several highly placed Vatican officials have publicly said that there is no schism, so IMO it is not appropriate to judge the SSPX more harshly than they do.

1. Accepting that the Ordinary Form of Mass is both valid and licit.

Which, officially, they do.

Again, I have my own set of gripes about the SSPX, but I do think that charity and justice dictate that it’s really important to get the facts straight before weighing in on these matters.

 

[Kearney]

So saying that the SSPX is against Vatican II is an “oversimplification” and I have no knowledge of what I’m talking about? Have you ever read any materials on the SSPX main web sites or listened to the sermons of their priest? They obviously do not accept the Council and many of them have made statements in the past the the Council must be done away with or completely re evaluated for reunion between the SSPX and Rome to take place.

Since Rome does not intend to do away with the Council and the SSPX seems to have no intention of giving in, then what is the point of reunion talks in the first place?

Also, just because a Council is pastoral (in general) and not dogmatic does not mean that laity is not obliged to accept those non dogmatic decrees with good faith.

 

[TMC]

I am not a big SSPX supporter, but I believe it would be best if you didn’t speak out on this forum unless you know what you’re talking about. You keep making generalizations about traditional matters that are oversimplified to the point of being false.

Officially the SSPX does believe that Vatican II was a valid council and officially they are asking for clarification on some number of individual issues addressed by the council, not for its complete revocation.

As I mentioned above, they do not hold this position.

The SSPX has never had any problem with Baptism of Desire and in fact have published some of the best refutations available of the Feeneyite position. Again, this kind of erroneous information just muddies the water.

Also, several highly placed Vatican officials have publicly said that there is no schism, so IMO it is not appropriate to judge the SSPX more harshly than they do.

Which, officially, they do.

Again, I have my own set of gripes about the SSPX, but I do think that charity and justice dictate that it’s really important to get the facts straight before weighing in on these matters.

I read the declarations of Archbishop Lefebvre and the other public statements made by SSPX differently. I read them as rejecting Vatican II, rejecting the Catechism, and (at least) questioning the validity of the OF Mass. It may be that you are right, in which case regularization should be easy. But it seems to me these are entrenched issues.

 

[DavidPalm]

So saying that the SSPX is against Vatican II is an “oversimplification” and I have no knowledge of what I’m talking about?

What you said was, “The SSPX, on the other hand, completely rejects Vatican II and considers it as a modernist robber council which should be revoked officially.” That is not the SSPX’s official position and it is uncharitable and unjust for you to make that unfounded assertion. The official position of the SSPX would be better found from the mouth of the Superior General and an example of that may be found at another thread recently started: SSPX: New Interview with Bishop Fellay.

If you have difficulty with what he said there, interact with that. But you aren’t helping matters by putting forth false representations of what the Society actually officially holds.

 

[DavidPalm]

I read the declarations of Archbishop Lefebvre and the other public statements made by SSPX differently. I read them as rejecting Vatican II, rejecting the Catechism, and (at least) questioning the validity of the OF Mass. It may be that you are right, in which case regularization should be easy. But it seems to me these are entrenched issues.

Abp. Lefebvre signed all of the documents of Vatican II, so it can hardly be said that he rejected it. And the Society officially recognizes it as a valid ecumenical council, albeit one that has raised some significant difficulties in the Church.

Individuals in the Society, including the bishops, have indeed said some very unfortunate things (to put it mildly.) But, as in the case of the most recent issues with Bp. Williamson, these do not represent the official position of the SSPX.

Regularization will not be easy; there are genuine and difficult issues involved. But I do think that now of all times it is important not to make the differences greater than they really are.

 

[Ottaviani]

Much has been said about what the SSPX “rejects” or “doesn’t recognize”

How about Vatican II being raised to the level of a dogmatic council and recognition of it (as a dogmatic council) being the watermark of having the Faith?

Or, how about the 1983 Code of Cannon law “preempting” the 1917 code?

Neither is true.