P
PaulinVA
Guest
Brother, I had a snotty reply ready, but yours was instructive and understandable. Thank you.
- Status
J
JReducation
Guest
I’m from the land of Jefferson, Mason, Washington, Madison, and Monroe . . . the land of thinkers.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
P
PaulinVA
Guest
And I’m in Fairfax, the land of “I’m so important get the heck out of my way, you (&&%”!I’m from the land of Jefferson, Mason, Washington, Madison, and Monroe . . . the land of thinkers.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
I am working on patience and compassion. Traffic here is very useful to that end.
A
Aramis
Guest
But the organization of a tribunal and granting standing to that tribunal is the duty of an Ordinary, and only a territorial ordinary can organize a valid one.
In establishing one, the society has acted as if it has ordinary authority. The same with installing pastors.
A
Alfonsus
Guest
I believe it is like trying to get a driver license.I know my mother have a far more strict criteria than the instructor. She will not hesitate to lecture me till I drop.
But no one will acknowledge a driver license issued by my mother…
Simply, because she do not have authority to issue one.
But no one will acknowledge a driver license issued by my mother…
Simply, because she do not have authority to issue one.
W
Will_S
Guest
Well that’s kind of true, but not completely true. The SSPX does not claim to be able to issue declarations of nullity that anyone outside the SSPX is bound to respect. The SSPX tribunal is solely for the purpose of deciding whether the SSPX itself will allow someone to marry in their chapels. That is, they are saying they don’t trust the regular diocesan tribunal to make the right decision, so they won’t allow someone to marry in their chapels who has only a diocesan declaration of nullity. They want to look at the situation themselves and be convinced that the previous purported marriage never existed.
Also, regarding their chapels and the priests in residence. Yes, as a matter of common language people speak of “parishes” and “pastors”, but the SSPX makes no claim to have real pastoral authority over the faithful who attend their chapels. I’ve even seen a video on an SSPX “pastor” giving a sermon where he reminds the faithful present that he isn’t actually their pastor at all – that their lawful pastor is the parish priest of the territorial parish in which they reside.
To address something you said in another thread, you said something like “The SSPX doesn’t recognize the authority of the Pope or of the bishop”. Once again, that is almost correct, but not quite. Practically speaking, the SSPX doesn’t respect the authority of their hierarchical superiors, that is true. But their position is actually willful (and they say, necessary) disobedience to recognized authority, and not the rejection of that authority.
Although you may think that distinction is so small as to be unimportant, it is the difference between a rebellious teenager who completely rejects his parents authority and the teenager who disobeys his parents commands and runs into the burning house to try to save his little sister who is trapped inside.
P
PaulinVA
Guest
Only the house is not on fire at all.
W
Will_S
Guest
Sure you can say that, but the SSPX disagrees. That is the motivation for their actions.
V
VivaCristoRey27
Guest
That is quite true. The SSPX never says “parish”, they say “chapel” or “Mass center” because a “parish” has a specific canonical definition. The same goes for “pastor”, people often call any parish priest a “pastor” or even an SSPX priest but “pastor” has a specific canonical definition. Laity often blur the distinctions but the priests know what they are talking about, they fully do accept that they are in a “canonical irregularity” and do not have ordinary jurisdiction.
If the SSPX were a “schism”, as they are often accused of being (despite the clear words of the Holy See), they would not accept this. In order to be a schism they would have to reject the authority of the papacy (like the Old Catholics that were mentioned, Anglicans or “Orthodox”) and they would die first before doing that, or would have to assert that Benedict is not Pope (sedevacantism/conclavism), which is forbidden in the SSPX (hence the SSPV and others who have broken off of the SSPX to assert the SV thesis). They neither deny the authority of the papacy itself nor the fact that Benedict is Pope, they simply assert that because of the crisis, they have no other moral option than to do what they are doing. They believe that it would be gravely sinful for them to simply shut up, keep quiet and be regularized without change on the part of Rome. Until a saner time in the Church in which Rome will critically address the New Rite and Vatican II, there may be individuals who leave the SSPX in order to be more recognized by Rome (FSSP, Transalpine Redemptorists, etc.) but the SSPX itself will not budge. If there was a “regularization”, I believe it would simply be a split, very much like the creation of the FSSP. Bp. Fellay may cross over but I don’t see Bps. Williamson and Tissier de Mallerais and those who align themselves with them being “regularized” any time soon, certainly not without significant signs of change from Rome, which will not (without a miracle) happen under this papacy.
I would agree with this comparison. The SSPX knows they are being “disobedient” but that this “disobedience” is actually obedience because it is necessary given the current state of the Church. One thing I would add to your comparison, not only the little sister but the parents as well are also inside the burning house. It is out of charity that St. Paul rebuked St. Peter.
V
VivaCristoRey27
Guest
LALALALALA There is no crisis. Everything is flowers and sunshine. Don’t you know it’s the New Springtime? The Second Pentecost? LALALALALA
http://weddingmarketing.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/rose-colored-glasses.jpg
J
JReducation
Guest
Are you saying that because the SSPX says so, Rome must make changes?
Who decides how Rome should address the Ordinary Form of the Mass?
Who decides how Rome should address the documents of Vatican II?
That’s the Holy Father who decides that and the rest of us must assent to what he decides. That’s part of the Ordinary Magisterium, which is not up for grabs.
**892 Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a “definitive manner,” they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful “are to adhere to it with religious assent” which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it.
2034 The Roman Pontiff and the bishops are “authentic teachers, that is, teachers endowed with the authority of Christ, who preach the faith to the people entrusted to them, the faith to be believed and put into practice.” The ordinary and universal Magisterium of the Pope and the bishops in communion with him teach the faithful the truth to believe, the charity to practice, the beatitude to hope for.**
As warmly as we may feel toward the priests of the SSPX and to their cause, we cannot look to them as a Magisterium. They have an opinion. That’s it.
The decisions on what the liturgy should look like and how the Church should say things lays with the Ordinary Magisterium.
By what authority does anyone else presume to tell the Magisterium how to address the liturgy and the Council documents?
Where should the obedience of the faithful rest?
I have no problems discussing the concerns of the SSPX with my SSPX friends and the laity who follow them. I have a problem when they come off sounding as if they had the authority to tell the Holy See what needs to be done or undone.
As I pointed out before, we have over 1500 years of many large and powerful religious families in the Church. They have gone though many crises and discussions with the Holy See. Some were unjustly punished too. However, every single one of them has submitted to the voice of the Holy See, even when they disagreed or felt they were victims. The superiors told their subjects, “Rome has spoken. End of story.”
Now we have this new society of apostolic life that believes that it is the exception to this rule and that it’s mission is to set Rome straight. There is a problem with that kind of thinking.
You yourself gave me a reference to an emerging Franciscan community. Observe three things about them.
- They are traditionalists.
- They have not broken communion with Francis or with the Church.
- They are acting under the authority of the Church and the Franciscan leadership.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
P
PaulinVA
Guest
Originally Posted by PaulinVA forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
Only the house is not on fire at all.
I fail to see how the SSPX can claim to be obedient to the Pope when he denies the basic underpinning the of SSPX argument, that there is a crisis in the Church.
Only the house is not on fire at all.
Well, that’s it then. Their motivations are based on something that is false. The homeowner and the fire department say there is no fire. SSPX believes that there is and is setting up a new house down the road.
I fail to see how the SSPX can claim to be obedient to the Pope when he denies the basic underpinning the of SSPX argument, that there is a crisis in the Church.
W
Will_S
Guest
For my part, Brother JR, I don’t disagree with this. My goal in responding as I have is to show that the SSPX is not interested in setting up a “parallel Church”.
It is truly a problem that SSPX adherents so often talk of “converting Rome”
W
Will_S
Guest
Please provide a citation of the Pope denying that there is a crisis in the Church.
(I understand that the Pope does not agree that there is a crisis of the sort that justifies the actions of the SSPX, I am curious to see if the Pope has explicitly denied that there is any crisis at all.)
J
JReducation
Guest
I agree that they do speak this way and they need to drop this jargon, because they’re not doing the SSPX any favors. The average lay person who supports the SSPX in this fashion does not realize that most bishops do not sit around reading everything that the SSPX has to say about themselves. They get most of their information about the SSPX through their pastors and religious who come to meetings and quote what people are saying. This only puts bishops on guard. It sounds too much like the rhetoric used by the Protestant Reformers.
I believe that the Papacy, bishops, clergy and religious all agree that there are many crises going on right now. That’s not in dispute. The SSPX is a crisis. We can begin there.
However, having said that, most of us do not agree that the actions of the SSPX are justified or justifiable. For me, I can say that I understand what my one SSPX friend says and I feel his concerns. As I tell him, we have all had concerns and the Church has never collapsed. To assume that it’s going to collapse unless I step outside of the rules to fix it is short on faith and long on arrogance.
Bernard could have said the same thing in the 1100s, Francis during the 1200s, Teresa of Avila, John of the Cross and Ignatius of Loyola during the 1500s, John Caroll in the 1800s, Mother Teresa in 1940s and the list goes on. They all responded to legitimate concerns and they all submitted to the authority in power at the time.
If you know anything about Medieval History, the Franciscans and Dominicans had a great deal to be concerned about. However, Francis and Dominic commanded their friars never to disobey, even when authority was in error. They reformed the Church through example, then words and deeds. Dominic and Francis did not deal with easy popes: Innocent III, Honorius III, and Gregory IX, give me a break. I’ll take our last five over those three any day.
Fraternally,
Br.JR, OSF
V
VivaCristoRey27
Guest
I did not say that. I said that unless Rome makes changes, the SSPX will not “reconcile”. There’s a difference.
They claim nothing else.
Don’t forget that the Magisterium doesn’t only include those who are presently in power.
GK Chesterton:
If and until Vatican II and the institution of the New Mass can be reconciled with Tradition, Traditional Catholics will remain critical of these two things which we view as innovations.
To quote a non-SSPX Traditionalist:
Fr. Chad Ripperger:
So if the new teachings are indeed compatible with the prior teachings, it remains for the Magisterium to show how this is true or why the old teachings were false.
P
ProVobis
Guest
I’m not sure this is true. Perhaps the real crisis is that of having so many ex-Catholics and CINOs who choose not to obey the law of God which obligates one to attend Mass on Sundays.
P
PaulinVA
Guest
Perhaps I should have said emergency, I think that is the term SSPX uses. I think that this idea of emergency has been refuted by the Vatican - I will try to find a source.
A
Aramis
Guest
Will:
even to establish a chapel is an act reserved to a territorial ordinary. As is appointing a rector for same.
Denial of the validity of a diocesan tribunal is uncanonical, unless one also denies the ordinary authority of the bishop who constituted it. It’s a direct denial of his “bishop-ness”.
The actions speak far louder than the words… the SSPX has ignored the local church. They may not claim it invalid, but act as if it were. Their own seminary’s website implies that faculties to hear confession are inherent in presbyteral ordination.
They are, like the Old Catholics, diverging from the church, developing into a unique theology. And for the EXACT same reason: disagreement with the decisions and results of a given council of the church.
And ignoring that every council has had 30-100 years of turmoil following as the meaning of the council becomes discerned by the magisterium.
even to establish a chapel is an act reserved to a territorial ordinary. As is appointing a rector for same.
Denial of the validity of a diocesan tribunal is uncanonical, unless one also denies the ordinary authority of the bishop who constituted it. It’s a direct denial of his “bishop-ness”.
The actions speak far louder than the words… the SSPX has ignored the local church. They may not claim it invalid, but act as if it were. Their own seminary’s website implies that faculties to hear confession are inherent in presbyteral ordination.
They are, like the Old Catholics, diverging from the church, developing into a unique theology. And for the EXACT same reason: disagreement with the decisions and results of a given council of the church.
And ignoring that every council has had 30-100 years of turmoil following as the meaning of the council becomes discerned by the magisterium.
W
Will_S
Guest
But they do not do a a result of a claim to have jurisdiction to do so. They do so out of a claim that it is necessary for the salvation of souls.
They don’t deny the validity of the tribunal. They deny the prudence and correctness of the tribunal’s decisions. It is certainly not the case that a diocesan tribunal, by virtue of it’s constitution by the diocesan bishop, is necessarily always correct in its determinations.
On the other hand, they don’t claim normal jurisdiction for hearing confessions, but rather extraordinary jurisdiction based on extenuating circumstances.
An unlike Old Catholics, they take great pains to always stress that they have no intention of separating themselves from the Catholic Church, and their actions are not arbitrary, but carefully thought out in accordance with their belief in the extraordinary situation in the Church.
My point is not that the SSPX are correct, but that they are doing their best, according to their own assessment of the post-Vatican-II situation to maintain the Catholic faith as it has historically been believed and practiced.
- Status