Society of Saint Pius X

[JKirkLVNV]

Although not much more can be said as to whether your interpretation of Ecclesia Dei is more proper than that of Cardinal Hoyos, it is not intellectully honest to state or imply that the SSPX clergy or faithful is schismatic, involved in a cult, outside of Holy Mother Church or in any way not Catholic.

If those who make these claims do so out of ignorance or lack of knowledge, it is error. If they do so with full knowledge it is a lie, and therefore sin. It is anything but “intellectually honest” and shouldn’t be engaged in.

If you want to discuss issues such as jurisdiction for marriages and confession, honest Catholics can make honest arguments on both sides of the issue. But some of the statements you and other are making here are simply not factual.

I merely say “schism” (which by definition is “outside of Holy Mother Church”). And while I have many things to tell my confessor, my conscience is clear on this score at least. The bishops of the SSPX are excommunicate, their priests are without faculties and thus any liturgical action that they perform is illicit, and the faithful are cautioned by the Vicar of Christ on earth not to attend upon their services because of the possibility of the grave sin of attachment to schism. Those are quite simply the facts. One can tut-tut and bemoan the fact that there are people who honestly believe that 2+2=4, who can call that “intellectually dishonest,” but the fact is that when you take 2 pennies and put them with 2 other pennies, you have 4 pennies.

 

[mosher]

What does it mean that a sacrament is valid but illicit?

It basically means that while the sacrament happened it was done outside of the canonical jurisdiction given due to some irregularity.

A simple example is this:

A priest celebrates mass and changes around the words in the canon of mass but uses the proper formula for the consecration. The mass was valid because the basic ingredients where there to make the sacrament happen (confect the Eucharist) however his changing of the liturgical formula of the Eucharistic prayer was unlawful and hence illicit.

A sacrament should always be licit and valid but it can be invalid (no sacrament happened) which is always illicit but it can also be valid and illicit which is a sin of sacrilege on the head of the minister of the sacrament.

 

[thistle]

Although not much more can be said as to whether your interpretation of Ecclesia Dei is more proper than that of Cardinal Hoyos, it is not intellectully honest to state or imply that the SSPX clergy or faithful is schismatic, involved in a cult, outside of Holy Mother Church or in any way not Catholic.

If those who make these claims do so out of ignorance or lack of knowledge, it is error. If they do so with full knowledge it is a lie, and therefore sin. It is anything but “intellectually honest” and shouldn’t be engaged in.

If you want to discuss issues such as jurisdiction for marriages and confession, honest Catholics can make honest arguments on both sides of the issue. But some of the statements you and other are making here are simply not factual.

Are you blind to the truth?
SSPX is a schismatic group and this cannot be denied and the faithful are clearly told not support this group. There is nothing ambiguous about Eccelsia Dei. It is perfectly clear that Lefebvre and his cronies were automatically excommunicated by their disobedience to the Pope and that those who would continue to support them could also be subject to excommunication.
We want to welcome them back home to the Church and pray that they will see the light, confess their sin, repent and ask for forgiveness and submit to Rome.

 

[mosher]

Although not much more can be said as to whether your interpretation of Ecclesia Dei is more proper than that of Cardinal Hoyos, it is not intellectully honest to state or imply that the SSPX clergy or faithful is schismatic, involved in a cult, outside of Holy Mother Church or in any way not Catholic.

If those who make these claims do so out of ignorance or lack of knowledge, it is error. If they do so with full knowledge it is a lie, and therefore sin. It is anything but “intellectually honest” and shouldn’t be engaged in.

If you want to discuss issues such as jurisdiction for marriages and confession, honest Catholics can make honest arguments on both sides of the issue. But some of the statements you and other are making here are simply not factual.

Remember the quotation that you made much earlier is only a snip-it of a statement made to the press and not a formal statement of the Commission so the opinion of Cardinal Hoyos remains as such. However, the opinion of the commission and the Holy See itself is consistent and it is reflected in the words of Cardinal Hoyos. Schism is a hard thing to pin down as it is an internal disposition. However, as stated earlier actions of a schismatic nature are evidence of schism (per St. Charles Borromeo). Thus one can only conclude that a schism of some sort does exist. Further evidence can be made by a read of Bishop Williamson’s letters which emphatically state the Rome no longer has possession of the Deposit of Faith but that it is held by the Society. This in and of itself is a schismatic disposition albeit by one individual of the Society but a Bishop of that same Society.

Such dispositions if not schismatic in themselves do lead to an eventual schismatic disposition. However, the ban of excommunication is sufficient in and of itself to demonstrate to faithful catholics that the actions of the leaders of the Society are not in accord with the Holy See and are to be avoided. So, even apart from the issue of Schism the juridical action itself carries the weight of hell (to put it frankly). Remember those excommunicated do not have rights nor do they possess the possibility of entering heaven without ordinary or extraordinary means of repentance. I only mention this not as an insult to the Society but rather because it expresses the gravity of the issue and the way in which the Holy See views the Society in its current state.

 

[mosher]

Are you blind to the truth?
SSPX is a schismatic group and this cannot be denied and the faithful are clearly told not support this group. There is nothing ambiguous about Eccelsia Dei. It is perfectly clear that Lefebvre and his cronies were automatically excommunicated by their disobedience to the Pope and that those who would continue to support them could also be subject to excommunication.
We want to welcome them back home to the Church and pray that they will see the light, confess their sin, repent and ask for forgiveness and submit to Rome.

Please don’t add fuel to the fire. I would hope to keep this civil as I think if there were any signs of a lack of charity this thread will be closed. It is too important of a topic to allow that to happen. So, please, with respect to your vigor please maintain an air of charity and level headedness.

 

[catholicbudgie]

They are trying to work out a reconciliation so that they will return to the unity of the Church.

What is the status of the reconcilliation?

 

[branch]

Further evidence can be made by a read of Bishop Williamson’s letters which emphatically state the Rome no longer has possession of the Deposit of Faith but that it is held by the Society.

I had intended to leave this thread be, as I don’t have the time to make a full time job out of correcting the misinformation that is being mass produced here. At some point one must leave people to themselves.

You however are making a very serious charge in public against a Catholic bishop, claiming that he contends that Rome no longer holds the Deposit of Faith but the Society does.

I know Bishop Williamson personally and have never heard such nonsense, but I’m willing to be proven wrong. You need to substantiate this or withdraw and apologize if you can’t.

In other words I’m asking you to take a break from waving your finger around at others and do what’s Catholic.

 

[TimOliv]

What is the status of the reconcilliation?

The Vatican is involved in continuous talks with the SSPX. The Vatican wants them to return, but some in the Society are holding out. However, over time, SSPX Priests and Seminarians have returned to Rome. Some are mentioned in the article someone posted earlier, before any of that some priests who returned from SSPX formed the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter which is in communion with Rome.

 

[chrisb]

The Vatican is involved in continuous talks with the SSPX. The Vatican wants them to return, but some in the Society are holding out. However, over time, SSPX Priests and Seminarians have returned to Rome. Some are mentioned in the article someone posted earlier, before any of that some priests who returned from SSPX formed the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter which is in communion with Rome.

does this illustrate a rising level of ‘traditionalism’ within the Church and a dissatisfaction toward the changes after Vatican II?

I mean let’s not talk about Vatican II as much as what such council documents ‘couched in such loose language’ has brought.

Ultimately isn’t that the core of the SSPX decent?

 

[TimOliv]

does this illustrate a rising level of ‘traditionalism’ within the Church and a dissatisfaction toward the changes after Vatican II?

I mean let’s not talk about Vatican II as much as what such council documents ‘couched in such loose language’ has brought.

Ultimately isn’t that the core of the SSPX decent?

Well no, SSPX didn’t break away because it opposes the changes occurring as a result of Vatican Council II, it broke away because they violated an order from the Vatican.

The Vatican permits the Latin Mass. There are orders who offer it publicly. Among them, the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter and the Alliance of the Two Hearts.

The Latin Mass is offered, and still, there has not become so much demand for it that there are Latin Churches springing up all around. The reason is, and I’m sure you’ve heard people say this, people stopped going to church after the changes were made to the liturgy. Because outward signs of the faith were changed, to them, the church was not even worth attending. Hardly sounds like observing the spirit of the law to me.

As for dissatisfaction. Of course there is some, and when they release the re-translation of the Novus Ordo mass within the next few years, there will be dissatisfaction still, mainly because people who were used to the Novus Ordo will now have to “learn the words” all over again.

Is there a general shift towards traditionalism? You be there is.

However, many people making that shift are perfectly content taking on more traditional observances while sticking with the Novus Ordo.

SSPX is not some novel idea. There are orders within the church now that do exactly what they do. The difference is, SSPX disobeyed an order, and until that issue gets resolved with EVERY SINGLE SSPX Bishop, Priest and Seminarian, there will always be an element of it not under the control of Rome. Its the nature of splinter groups, you rarely pick up every fragment.

 

[branch]

SSPX is not some novel idea. There are orders within the church now that do exactly what they do.

Not true, in many very significant ways.

If you’re referring to the FSSP or ICK, they are completely subject to the Bishop’s and even the local head pastors in absence of explicit permission. IOW, if Taj Mahony or Rainbow-sash Harry Flynn wants your tridentine Mass to go away, it’s gone. It happens all the time. If the bishop doesn’t want an FSSP or ICK Mass anywhere in his diocese, it doesn’t exist. Which is the case in many diocese now which are completely devoid of our historic Mass. If the head pastor of a church allowing the Tridentine rite decides it’s time for Father FSSP or Father ICK to pack his traditional vestments and hit the road, unless the bishop overrules him, it’s goodbye Mass.

Even if the Mass is allowed to be given by these groups, other traditional sacraments are often prohibited or forbidden altogether. Catholics have asked in their wills to be buried in the traditional rite and are outrageously denied their last wishes. Marriages are also routinely denied.

Another interesting tactic by some less than honorable bishops is to simply sell the churches and chapels where the traditional communities exists. This has the dual effect of making up for lost revenue from lawsuits and getting rid of the community.

The SSPX owns all of its seminaries, chapels and property. Millions and millions of dollars worth in fact, including a 500 acre school and academy in Kansas. Nobody can shut them down or run them off, and the traditional sacraments are always available to any Catholic in a state of grace who desires access to them. The chapels, schools and seminaries are financially stable and in many or most cases quite properous.

There are many other aspects that make the SSPX vastly different than any other traditional elements. One is that all of our historic literature, teachings and classic catechisms are freely available, where as in most of the Novus Ordo establishments they not avialable and even often forbidden.

All of the traditional holy days and ember days are observed by fasting/abstinence. So are Fridays. Iin many of the Novus Ordo communities other trad societies are part of, kids go through 12 years of Catholic school and have never fasted in their lives, nor have been taught anything about it.

I could go on, but the point is that nobody is doing what the SSPX does.

 

[trth_skr]

While it is true that the traditional mass is allowed by Rome, it is also true that many Bishops do not permit it in their dioceses, and in others, they only permit it infrequently- often changing tiems from month to month. This is part of the complaint of SSPX.

The new traditional institute in Bourdeaux France is interesting, in that it appears that they were permitted to say the Tridentine Mass pretty freely. Still, from what I understand this is classed as an “experimental” institute with a term of 5 years (exactly the same way the SSPX started; though other parts of the agreement may be different). So though many SSPX in France will be interested in it, it likely will not take over until they see a more permanent status.

As was mentioned, the FSSP is also obedient to Rome, but it is currently only available in limited areas. I do not attend the The Tridentine, but if I chose to I have an option of one licit (indult) mass at an inconvenient time (and a pretty long, but possible drive). At least in my area it seems to stay at a constant time and place. There is no FSSP in my area.

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
JMJ+

 

[TimOliv]

Not true, in many very significant ways.

If you’re referring to the FSSP or ICK, they are completely subject to the Bishop’s and even the local head pastors in absence of explicit permission. IOW, if Taj Mahony or Rainbow-sash Harry Flynn wants your tridentine Mass to go away, it’s gone. It happens all the time. If the bishop doesn’t want an FSSP or ICK Mass anywhere in his diocese, it doesn’t exist. Which is the case in many diocese now which are completely devoid of our historic Mass. If the head pastor of a church allowing the Tridentine rite decides it’s time for Father FSSP or Father ICK to pack his traditional vestments and hit the road, unless the bishop overrules him, it’s goodbye Mass.

Even if the Mass is allowed to be given by these groups, other traditional sacraments are often prohibited or forbidden altogether. Catholics have asked in their wills to be buried in the traditional rite and are outrageously denied their last wishes. Marriages are also routinely denied.

Another interesting tactic by some less than honorable bishops is to simply sell the churches and chapels where the traditional communities exists. This has the dual effect of making up for lost revenue from lawsuits and getting rid of the community.

The SSPX owns all of its seminaries, chapels and property. Millions and millions of dollars worth in fact, including a 500 acre school and academy in Kansas. Nobody can shut them down or run them off, and the traditional sacraments are always available to any Catholic in a state of grace who desires access to them. The chapels, schools and seminaries are financially stable and in many or most cases quite properous.

There are many other aspects that make the SSPX vastly different than any other traditional elements. One is that all of our historic literature, teachings and classic catechisms are freely available, where as in most of the Novus Ordo establishments they not avialable and even often forbidden.

All of the traditional holy days and ember days are observed by fasting/abstinence. So are Fridays. Iin many of the Novus Ordo communities other trad societies are part of, kids go through 12 years of Catholic school and have never fasted in their lives, nor have been taught anything about it.

I could go on, but the point is that nobody is doing what the SSPX does.

I meant their apostolate of providing the Latin Mass. A Bishop CANNOT prevent the Fraternity of St. Peter from doing ANYTHING. They are a religious order answerable to their Superior BEFORE the local ordinary. The most the Bishop can do is withdraw his permission for them to operate within his Diocese. All religious orders own their seminaries (unless they share facilities). The local ordinary cannot shut down an order’s seminary. Since the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter was founded by former members of SSPX and their apostolate consists of offering the Traditional Latin Mass (which they provide at their many churches), as well as administering schools (one in Elmhurst, PA used to be their Seminary), they own the property to their school and their seminary. So I’m not sure if you are simply misinformed as to how religious orders operate or if you are just trying to make SSPX sound like they truly do provide a unique service that no similar order offers. The only difference of course, is that the Fraternity of St. Peter operated with the consent of their local ordinary AND Rome…

 

[mosher]

I had intended to leave this thread be, as I don’t have the time to make a full time job out of correcting the misinformation that is being mass produced here. At some point one must leave people to themselves.

You however are making a very serious charge in public against a Catholic bishop, claiming that he contends that Rome no longer holds the Deposit of Faith but the Society does.

I know Bishop Williamson personally and have never heard such nonsense, but I’m willing to be proven wrong. You need to substantiate this or withdraw and apologize if you can’t.

In other words I’m asking you to take a break from waving your finger around at others and do what’s Catholic.

An archived letter to friends and benefactors from 2002. This letter was at one time on the home page of the SSPX.com site.

sspx.ca/Documents/Bishop-Williamson/February1-2001.htm

 

[trth_skr]

I meant their apostolate of providing the Latin Mass. A Bishop CANNOT prevent the Fraternity of St. Peter from doing ANYTHING. They are a religious order answerable to their Superior BEFORE the local ordinary. The most the Bishop can do is withdraw his permission for them to operate within his Diocese. … The only difference of course, is that the Fraternity of St. Peter operated with the consent of their local ordinary AND Rome…

If the local ordinary withdraws permission, this does tend to cause a practical problem if you happen to live in that diocese. I believe that the new institute founded in Bordeaux, France does not require permission from the local ordinary (I could be wrong).

Other than that caveat (which is not insignificant), I see the FSSP as very similar (but licit) to the SSPX.

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholci.blogspot.com
JMJ+

 

[mosher]

does this illustrate a rising level of ‘traditionalism’ within the Church and a dissatisfaction toward the changes after Vatican II?

I mean let’s not talk about Vatican II as much as what such council documents ‘couched in such loose language’ has brought.

Ultimately isn’t that the core of the SSPX decent?

Adding to what TimOliv said I will note that evidence that at the on-set of the problem and while Archbishop Lefebvre was still living the issue was not about the Second Vatican Council as he personally voted in favor of all save two of the documents of the Council (This is easily found in the Minutes of the Meetings of the Council or the Encyclopedic volume called "The Vorgrimler Commentaries). Thus, that was not the issue. The issue was that he and a couple other bishops felt that modernism was infecting the Church in the same way that Arianism had infected the Church in the Early Church. In many ways I think that the Archbishop felt that he was in the shoes of Athanasius. History, I believe will see that in this aspect he was correct. However, I believe that history will not be so kind to his solution.

 

[trth_skr]

…The issue was that he and a couple other bishops felt that modernism was infecting the Church in the same way that Arianism had infected the Church in the Early Church. In many ways I think that the Archbishop felt that he was in the shoes of Athanasius. History, I believe will see that in this aspect he was correct. However, I believe that history will not be so kind to his solution.

I am not sure about your last line. This new institute in France is interesting. Some in the SSPX seem to think it is a trap or slap in the facce to the SSPX, but it could also be a long term solution. As I said earlier, I do not think current SSPX members will go over in droves, since it has experimental status for 5 years. Things could go one of two ways:

1. After 5 yrs. it gets permanent staus, but no agreement has been made with the SSPX. In this case, French SSPX might start coming over.
2. Within the next 5 years, an agreement could be made with the SSPX. This might mean internationalizing this new institute, or just bringing the SSPX in as is.

If 2 occurs (even later than 5 years), I am sure that part of the agreement will be to lift or reverse the excommunications. If this is so, then technically, the SSPX were not wrong, rather a period of misunderstanding occured (or something to that effect).

Of course, neither 1 or 2 may occur.

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
JMJ+

 

[branch]

A Bishop CANNOT prevent the Fraternity of St. Peter from doing ANYTHING. They are a religious order answerable to their Superior BEFORE the local ordinary. The most the Bishop can do is withdraw his permission for them to operate within his Diocese.

Okay so lemme get this straight. A bishop cannot prevent the FSSP from doing ANYTHING (your caps) except offering Mass, performing marriages, hearing confessions, confirming children, teaching the catecism, handling funerals, opening chapels, founding schools and just about anything else.

Perhaps it would be easier if we just list what they can do in a diocese if the bishop doesn’t want them around. I dunno, offer Mass privately? Make cheese and beer like Monks of old?

I’m not sure if you are simply misinformed as to how religious orders operate or if you are just trying to make SSPX sound like they truly do provide a unique service that no similar order offers.

Actually, you’re somewhat misinformed regarding this issue and my motives.

First, neither the SSPX nor the FSSP are “orders”. They’re both priestly fraternities/societies whose members take no vows. Secondly I’m not trying to prove how service oriented the Society is, as if these are competing laundermats. I was correcting your statement which was thus:

SSPX is not some novel idea. There are orders within the church now that do exactly what they do

.

Putting aside the fact that the FSSP would not even exist if it weren’t for the SSPX, that’s simply a factually incorrect statement. Anyone who is objective and apprised of the matter - even Italian seminarians - would not agree with it regardless of where their individual sympathies might fall.

 

[TimOliv]

Okay so lemme get this straight. A bishop cannot prevent the FSSP from doing ANYTHING (your caps) except offering Mass, performing marriages, hearing confessions, confirming children, teaching the catecism, handling funerals, opening chapels, founding schools and just about anything else.

Perhaps it would be easier if we just list what they can do in a diocese if the bishop doesn’t want them around. I dunno, offer Mass privately? Make cheese and beer like Monks of old?

Actually, you’re somewhat misinformed regarding this issue and my motives.

First, neither the SSPX nor the FSSP are “orders”. They’re both priestly fraternities/societies whose members take no vows. Secondly I’m not trying to prove how service oriented the Society is, as if these are competing laundermats. I was correcting your statement which was thus:

.

Putting aside the fact that the FSSP would not even exist if it weren’t for the SSPX, that’s simply a factually incorrect statement. Anyone who is objective and apprised of the matter - even Italian seminarians - would not agree with it regardless of where their individual sympathies might fall.

FSSP is answerable to its Superior General before its local Ordinary. Since the FSSP owns all of its property (to include its schools and seminaries) a local ordinary cannot close its seminaries. In addition, on their own property, they are free to offer any of their sacraments. The only thing the local ordinary can do is tell them to leave, they are not his priests.

 

[TimOliv]

I cite:

ß3 In directing the apostolic works of religious, diocesan Bishops and religious Superiors must proceed by way of mutual consultation.

Can. 616 ß1 After consultation with the diocesan Bishop, a supreme Moderator can suppress a lawfully established religious house, in accordance with the constitutions. The institute’s own law is to make provision for the disposal of the goods of the suppressed house, with due regard for the wishes of founders or benefactors and for lawfully acquired rights.

ß2 The Holy See alone can suppress the sole house of an institute, in which case it is also reserved to the Holy See to prescribe concerning the property of the house.

ß3 Unless the constitutions enact otherwise, the suppression of the autonomous houses mentioned in can. 613 belongs to the general chapter.

And as pertaining to the requirements to all societies of apostolic life and consecrated life…

Can. 662 Religious are to find their supreme rule of life in the following of Christ as proposed in the Gospel and as expressed in the constitutions of their own institute.

Can. 663 ß1 The first and principal duty of all religious is to be the contemplation of things divine and constant union with God in prayer.

ß2 Each day the members are to make every effort to participate in the Eucharistic sacrifice, receive the most holy Body of Christ and adore the Lord himself present in the Sacrament.

There they are granted permission within their own property to celebrate mass. The local Ordinary cannot take away their right to say mass on their own property.