SSPX’s Bishop Fellay: Little By Little Rome Is Giving Us All We Need for Reconciliation

[deaconjohnO]

I’m guessing 85-90% of nominal Catholics even know what the SSPX is.

.

I’m gonna guess that percentage is closer to 99.9% and I’m including all Catholics. I’m thinking I could walk into a room full of priests and 99.9% wouldn’t have a clue who SSPX is. But the SSPX is not present in my region.

 

[Buddyroe]

Thank you for your comment. Let us pray for each other.

Have you read St. Francis de Sales, or read the Introduction to the Devout Life?

Blessings,
Cloisters

I had never heard of St Francis de Sales, so at your suggestion I looked into his work. His writings are like a walk in a peaceful garden.

Thank you Cloisters, you have brightened my day.

 

[Randolph]

I am friends with many good people who are members, or are strong supporters, of SSPX. These friends are undoubtedly kindhearted, loving and absolutely devoted to the Tridentine Mass. I am not a member of SSPX, nor do I support them. I myself go to both the new Mass and the Tridentine Mass. Frankly, I prefer the Tridentine Mass for many reasons. I must admit that, despite the very difficult situation going on between the SSPX and the Magisterium, I admire the respect and the love my friends show for the Tridentne Mass and other Catholic devotional practices. Putting aside their objections to Vatican II which I believe to be a big mistake for them, to be fair to my friends, they live good, faithful Catholic lives. They set good examples for Catholics to follow.

My fear is the longer the SSPX stays “irregular”; the more difficult it is for them to come back into the Church as hearts become hardened and therefore becomes harder to be moved. SSPX would then basically become another “protestant church”. I pray for the SSPX, or many of its current members, to return fully to the Church as soon as possible. There are many, many good souls in SSPX. Many Catholic parishes could learn from them how to show respect and reverence to our Lord present at the Altar, and how to live devotional Catholic lives.

 

[otjm]

I am friends with many good people who are members, or are strong supporters, of SSPX. These friends are undoubtedly kindhearted, loving and absolutely devoted to the Tridentine Mass. I am not a member of SSPX, nor do I support them. I myself go to both the new Mass and the Tridentine Mass. Frankly, I prefer the Tridentine Mass for many reasons. I must admit that, despite the very difficult situation going on between the SSPX and the Magisterium, I admire the respect and the love my friends show for the Tridentne Mass and other Catholic devotional practices. Putting aside their objections to Vatican II which I believe to be a big mistake for them, to be fair to my friends, they live good, faithful Catholic lives. They set good examples for Catholics to follow.

My fear is the longer the SSPX stays “irregular”; the more difficult it is for them to come back into the Church as hearts become hardened and therefore becomes harder to be moved. SSPX would then basically become another “protestant church”. I pray for the SSPX, or many of its current members, to return fully to the Church as soon as possible. There are many, many good souls in SSPX. Many Catholic parishes could learn from them how to show respect and reverence to our Lord present at the Altar, and how to live devotional Catholic lives.

How long is a generation? If we accept an older definition, 20 year; and with this separation between the SSPX and the Church going on for 40 year or so (it was founded in 1970) we now have 2 generations and ready to start on the third.

If you take a generation to mean 25 years, we are well into the second generation and nearing the start of the third.

Put in that perspective, for those who may have started following the SSPX in the 70’s, it is entirely possible that their grandchildren are starting grade school, or more. And that is based on a bit of an underlying assumption that those who joined early on were in their 20’s.

 

[commenter]

How long is a generation? If we accept an older definition, 20 year; and with this separation between the SSPX and the Church going on for 40 year or so (it was founded in 1970) we now have 2 generations and ready to start on the third.

If you take a generation to mean 25 years, we are well into the second generation and nearing the start of the third.

Put in that perspective, for those who may have started following the SSPX in the 70’s, it is entirely possible that their grandchildren are starting grade school, or more. And that is based on a bit of an underlying assumption that those who joined early on were in their 20’s.

In 1988, for instance, the great majority of their clergy had previous experience working under a bishop in a diocese, in various kinds of parishes and Catholic institutions and diocesan ministries, alongside various religious orders. Even the young priests would at least have been trained (1988) by seminary professors with Church training and different kinds of Catholic Church experiences, and mentored by superiors with diverse backgrounds** working in the Church. **

2016? A separate denomination.

 

[Justin_Swanton]

Yes.

This is my understanding as well.

Interesting observations. I really am only saying some things based on hearsay (aside from a small handful of visits to their website) as I have little to no connection to or familiarity with the SSPX. So I obviously could be incorrect. But, although I am aware that they don’t think VII is inherently and/or completely erroneous, I have been under the impression that they do believe some of the Vatican II documents inherently - i.e., actually say - some things that are either outright erroneous or at best, are so ambiguous that they lend themselves to an erroneous interpretation and need to be corrected and/or clarified. So it’s interesting you say this. Are you extremely familiar with the society - i.e., do you regularly attend Masses at their chapels or regularly associate with them, or do you just consider yourself very familiar with their workings/teachings/beliefs?

Yes, I could say I am familiar with the Society, though I do not now, for specific reasons, attend their chapels. I knew Archbishop Lefebvre personally.

I agree with you that there should be a distinction made - i.e. that the New Mass is not inherently bad, and that it can and should be celebrated reverently and with respect to Catholic Liturgical traditions. But actually (again, obviously I could be wrong on this but) as far as I’m aware, they SSPX does not think that the New Mass is inherently bad, heretical, or invalid, though admittedly they are skeptical and critical of it. I think they reject the New Mass on other principles, one (among others) being related to the way it is commonly celebrated today.

That’s the point. The SSPX has always maintained that the new Mass is not invalid or heretical. Their mistrust of it stems, as you say, from the way it is generally celebrated. It is a much more flexible liturgy than the EF, where every word and gesture is precisely laid down in the rubrics, and so is open to liturgical creativity. But since it has been subjected to liturgical abuse from its inception, there is a general understanding amongst Catholics that it is ***meant ***to be played with, not just said as it is.

And another one being related to your comment of “One can argue that it doesn’t do this as well as the EF, that its terminology is less clear, but the point is it can do it well enough to sanctify those who attend it”. I doubt I can say anything more than that without breaking forum rules of “pitting forms,” but anyway, my guess is that as long as reconciliation “terms” or “conditions” involves accepting the New Mass in any way, regularization won’t happen. And I don’t know whether or not “accepting” the New Mass (even if they aren’t forced to say it, which obviously the would refuse to do) would be part of Pope Francis’ - or perhaps more importantly, the CDF’s - “terms” of agreement. And it would seem that there would need to be a widespread look into/different perspective on the New Mass, the 1962 Missal, and the Liturgical Reform called for by the Council, in order for there to be any chance that the SSPX would “accept” in any sense the New Mass. So who knows. Personally, as I’ve already stated earlier in the thread, I’m hopeful of and praying for their regularization but who knows. May both sides strive ever more so to be docile to the will of God, whatever it may be!

I think the distinction between the New Mass in the missal and the New Mass as commonly celebrated might be a way for the SSPX to come to terms with it. Rejecting the New Mass as ‘intrinsically evil’ - a phrase commonly used - poses a problem: the New Mass was promulgated in the most official way possible by the highest authority in the Church, and has been the common liturgy of the West for 45 years. To say it is perverse in itself means saying Christ has permitted His Church to foist something perverse on the faithful, and this attacks the indefectibility of the Church. To say however that the Mass the Church promulgated is different from the Mass celebrated in parishes leaves indefectibility intact.

Altars facing the people, pop or protestant music (choirs are the biggest single curse of a parish), lay ministers of the Eucharist in civvies, handholding during the Our Father, etc. were never implemented by Rome and don’t belong in the Mass. The kind of Mass the SSPX can and should find acceptable is the one celebrated in the Oratories in England. At one time I attended a New Mass in Latin, with Gregorian Chant et al. It worked fine.

 

[RPRPsych]

Yes, I could say I am familiar with the Society, though I do not now, for specific reasons, attend their chapels. I knew Archbishop Lefebvre personally.

That’s the point. The SSPX has always maintained that the new Mass is not invalid or heretical. Their mistrust of it stems, as you say, from the way it is generally celebrated. It is a much more flexible liturgy than the EF, where every word and gesture is precisely laid down in the rubrics, and so is open to liturgical creativity. But since it has been subjected to liturgical abuse from its inception, there is a general understanding amongst Catholics that it is ***meant ***to be played with, not just said as it is.

I think the distinction between the New Mass in the missal and the New Mass as commonly celebrated might be a way for the SSPX to come to terms with it. Rejecting the New Mass as ‘intrinsically evil’ - a phrase commonly used - poses a problem: the New Mass was promulgated in the most official way possible by the highest authority in the Church, and has been the common liturgy of the West for 45 years. To say it is perverse in itself means saying Christ has permitted His Church to foist something perverse on the faithful, and this attacks the indefectibility of the Church. To say however that the Mass the Church promulgated is different from the Mass celebrated in parishes leaves indefectibility intact.

Altars facing the people, pop or protestant music (choirs are the biggest single curse of a parish), lay ministers of the Eucharist in civvies, handholding during the Our Father, etc. were never implemented by Rome and don’t belong in the Mass. The kind of Mass the SSPX can and should find acceptable is the one celebrated in the Oratories in England. At one time I attended a New Mass in Latin, with Gregorian Chant et al. It worked fine.

Very good points on the Mass. I agree.

 

[commenter]

Yes, I could say I am familiar with the Society, though I do not now, for specific reasons, attend their chapels. I knew Archbishop Lefebvre personally.

That’s the point. The SSPX has always maintained that the new Mass is not invalid or heretical. Their mistrust of it stems, as you say, from the way it is generally celebrated. It is a much more flexible liturgy than the EF, where every word and gesture is precisely laid down in the rubrics, and so is open to liturgical creativity. But since it has been subjected to liturgical abuse from its inception, there is a general understanding amongst Catholics that it is ***meant ***to be played with, not just said as it is.

I think the distinction between the New Mass in the missal and the New Mass as commonly celebrated might be a way for the SSPX to come to terms with it. Rejecting the New Mass as ‘intrinsically evil’ - a phrase commonly used - poses a problem: the New Mass was promulgated in the most official way possible by the highest authority in the Church, and has been the common liturgy of the West for 45 years. To say it is perverse in itself means saying Christ has permitted His Church to foist something perverse on the faithful, and this attacks the indefectibility of the Church. To say however that the Mass the Church promulgated is different from the Mass celebrated in parishes leaves indefectibility intact.

Altars facing the people, pop or protestant music (choirs are the biggest single curse of a parish), lay ministers of the Eucharist in civvies, handholding during the Our Father, etc. were never implemented by Rome and don’t belong in the Mass. The kind of Mass the SSPX can and should find acceptable is the one celebrated in the Oratories in England. At one time I attended a New Mass in Latin, with Gregorian Chant et al. It worked fine.

I think a few decades ago, the SSPX was much more focused on the Old Mass vs. New Mass than it is today. When SSPX started the TLM in my city 40 years ago, I don’t think people would have attended if there had been a diocesan sponsored TLM nearby. By the time the diocese did have a weekly Mass very close by, the SSPX was up and running, had a momentum of its own. So their people still go there, while diocesan TLM types worship nearby. I think today the issue for the SSPX is not the liturgy, not Vatican II, but mainly about the independence and separate identity of the SSPX organization as such.

 

[Tarpeian]

I think a few decades ago, the SSPX was much more focused on the Old Mass vs. New Mass than it is today. When SSPX started the TLM in my city 40 years ago, I don’t think people would have attended if there had been a diocesan sponsored TLM nearby. By the time the diocese did have a weekly Mass very close by, the SSPX was up and running, had a momentum of its own. So their people still go there, while diocesan TLM types worship nearby. I think today the issue for the SSPX is not the liturgy, not Vatican II, but mainly about the independence and separate identity of the SSPX organization as such.

“I think today the issue for the SSPX is not the liturgy, not Vatican II, but mainly about the independence and separate identity of the SSPX organization as such.”

Why do you think this is the issue?

 

[otjm]

I think a few decades ago, the SSPX was much more focused on the Old Mass vs. New Mass than it is today. When SSPX started the TLM in my city 40 years ago, I don’t think people would have attended if there had been a diocesan sponsored TLM nearby. By the time the diocese did have a weekly Mass very close by, the SSPX was up and running, had a momentum of its own. So their people still go there, while diocesan TLM types worship nearby. I think today the issue for the SSPX is not the liturgy, not Vatican II, but mainly about the independence and separate identity of the SSPX organization as such.

I would like to think that the issues with Vatican 2 had been resolved, but I have seen nothing at all that they have backed down on their objections, nor have I seen anything to indicate they are communicating any of such changes to the people in their pews.

As to their comments that Rome is loosening up on the Vatican 2 “bottom line” which Benedict gave them, I will believe it when I hear it from the CDF, not from them.

 

[commenter]

“I think today the issue for the SSPX is not the liturgy, not Vatican II, but mainly about the independence and separate identity of the SSPX organization as such.”

Why do you think this is the issue?

The SSPX, and allied websites, don’t talk much about Vatican II or the TLM, but constantly refer to disagreements with Pope Francis and current Vatican actions.
Furthermore,

1. Vatican II is not a variable. It will not be modified in the foreseeable future.
2. The TLM is not a variable anymore. It’s here. There is no chance the Vatican will make it the universal Mass. But there is 100% chance the Vatican will endorse its use by the SSPX, and others, if they choose to “come in”. So, it’s not a variable. Done deal.
3. There is enormous variation in how autonomous, or identifiable, the SSPX organization(s) or movement(s) could be if they come in, depending… So** this **is a huge variable.

Fr. Schmidberger’s letter April 2016 emphasized this “distinctive character” and “identity” and the need to be steadfast to defend it. Bishop Fellay’s comments defend the crucial need for *them *to maintain a unified voice to be able to criticize the Vatican before, during and after any merger. (unified by whom, or what)

I admit I have not read extensively the Archbishop’s writings, but what I have read seem to refer to Vatican II, the new Mass, and the Church as a whole, more so than about the SSPX organization as such. Would it be fair to say today the SSPX itself has a “heritage” of its own (a “tradition”) now that it did not have in the 1970s?

 

[Tarpeian]

The SSPX, and allied websites, don’t talk much about Vatican II or the TLM, but constantly refer to disagreements with Pope Francis and current Vatican actions.
Furthermore,

1. Vatican II is not a variable. It will not be modified in the foreseeable future.
2. The TLM is not a variable anymore. It’s here. There is no chance the Vatican will make it the universal Mass. But there is 100% chance the Vatican will endorse its use by the SSPX, and others, if they choose to “come in”. So, it’s not a variable. Done deal.
3. There is enormous variation in how autonomous, or identifiable, the SSPX organization(s) or movement(s) could be if they come in, depending… So** this **is a huge variable.

Fr. Schmidberger’s letter April 2016 emphasized this “distinctive character” and “identity” and the need to be steadfast to defend it. Bishop Fellay’s comments defend the crucial need for *them *to maintain a unified voice to be able to criticize the Vatican before, during and after any merger. (unified by whom, or what)

I admit I have not read extensively the Archbishop’s writings, but what I have read seem to refer to Vatican II, the new Mass, and the Church as a whole, more so than about the SSPX organization as such. Would it be fair to say today the SSPX itself has a “heritage” of its own (a “tradition”) now that it did not have in the 1970s?

I would need to know how you are using “heritage” and “tradition.” If you mean, “tradition” as opposed to Tradition. Then it would be fair to say, the SSPX has a heritage that is unique to them. If you mean Tradition in the sense, of what Holy Mother Church has always taught then yes as well.

Your points are valid. It will be interesting to see how a regular union will crafted, in order to be accepted.

 

[ProVobis]

I have been involved for many years in diocesan efforts towards evangelism, prolife, and now religious liberty. I often meet people who attend the 2 diocesan EF Masses, as well as OF parishes. I have never met anyone, or heard of anyone, working on the united regional efforts in these areas who has anything to do with the local SSPX chapel.

That might make some people feel guilty.

Don’t understand this. A group of nuns on the west side of Chicago runs a soup kitchen for the homeless and manages to draw funds for their cause successfully. They are not called schismatic for running the soup kitchen outside the diocese. They are for other reasons.

 

[Buddyroe]

Don’t understand this. A group of nuns on the west side of Chicago runs a soup kitchen for the homeless and manages to draw funds for their cause successfully. They are not called schismatic for running the soup kitchen outside the diocese. They are for other reasons.

Just a protestant bystander but it seems to me that the preaching of mercy is directed towards the down and out impoverished while the preaching of success is directed towards the secure affluent.

Not to criticize the present company of faithful RC because the same syndrome permeates the protestants.

Everyone needs to be acknowledged as real people while everyone needs God’s instruction towards their real needs and real iniquities.

There is a real path to doing functional mercy and to receiving mercy towards everlasting glory of our savior Jesus Christ. Loading obligations on one another will never accomplish that goal. The poor must be satisfied (but never be recruitment for merchandise), the providers must be respected (but never remanded for presumptuous and expected awards), Christ Jesus, God the Father and the Holy Ghost must be glorified in all matters.

Peripheral guilt trips are at least unwelcome and at worst blasphemous.

 

[RPRPsych]

Just a protestant bystander but it seems to me that the preaching of mercy is directed towards the down and out impoverished while the preaching of success is directed towards the secure affluent.

Not to criticize the present company of faithful RC because the same syndrome permeates the protestants.

Everyone needs to be acknowledged as real people while everyone needs God’s instruction towards their real needs and real iniquities.

There is a real path to doing functional mercy and to receiving mercy towards everlasting glory of our savior Jesus Christ. Loading obligations on one another will never accomplish that goal. The poor must be satisfied (but never be recruitment for merchandise), the providers must be respected (but never remanded for presumptuous and expected awards), Christ Jesus, God the Father and the Holy Ghost must be glorified in all matters.

Peripheral guilt trips are at least unwelcome and at worst blasphemous.

Which Protestant pastor was it who said that a pastor’s role was “to comfort the afflicted, and afflict the comfortable”? He was right.

 

[otjm]

Which Protestant pastor was it who said that a pastor’s role was “to comfort the afflicted, and afflict the comfortable”? He was right.

It was first written by Finley Peter Dunne, writing for one of the Chicago newspapers (he had been employed by a numbr of them). He was perhaps best known for his “Dooley” essays, which were syndicated.

From what appears to be one of them: “Th newspaper does ivrything f’r us. It runs th’ polis foorce an’ th’ banks, commands th’ milishy, controls th’ ligislachure, baptizes th’ young, marries th’ foolish, comforts th’ afflicted, afflicts th’ comfortable, buries th’ dead an’ roasts thim aftherward”. Written in a broad Irish brogue, it moved him from graduating last in his high school class, to eventually moving to New York and writing for *The American Magazine, Metropolitan Magazine, and Collier’s Weekly. *

A Protestant minister he was not. However, his comment has shown up in numerous places, by numerous individuals.

 

[RPRPsych]

It was first written by Finley Peter Dunne, writing for one of the Chicago newspapers (he had been employed by a numbr of them). He was perhaps best known for his “Dooley” essays, which were syndicated.

From what appears to be one of them: “Th newspaper does ivrything f’r us. It runs th’ polis foorce an’ th’ banks, commands th’ milishy, controls th’ ligislachure, baptizes th’ young, marries th’ foolish, comforts th’ afflicted, afflicts th’ comfortable, buries th’ dead an’ roasts thim aftherward”. Written in a broad Irish brogue, it moved him from graduating last in his high school class, to eventually moving to New York and writing for *The American Magazine, Metropolitan Magazine, and Collier’s Weekly. *

A Protestant minister he was not. However, his comment has shown up in numerous places, by numerous individuals.

Hmm, so it was about newspapers? I read the quote in a novel, where it was stated by a character to refer to Protestant pastors, though no source was given. Thanks for the information!

 

[commenter]

It was first written by Finley Peter Dunne, writing for one of the Chicago newspapers (he had been employed by a numbr of them). He was perhaps best known for his “Dooley” essays, which were syndicated.

From what appears to be one of them: “Th newspaper does ivrything f’r us. It runs th’ polis foorce an’ th’ banks, commands th’ milishy, controls th’ ligislachure, baptizes th’ young, marries th’ foolish, comforts th’ afflicted, afflicts th’ comfortable, buries th’ dead an’ roasts thim aftherward”. Written in a broad Irish brogue, it moved him from graduating last in his high school class, to eventually moving to New York and writing for *The American Magazine, Metropolitan Magazine, and Collier’s Weekly. *

A Protestant minister he was not. However, his comment has shown up in numerous places, by numerous individuals.

Following CAF can be educational.