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

[JimR-OCDS]

They already have common ground with those groups. It’s that they all oppose current church teaching and authority. Gotta start somewhere.

I’m all about bringing people together.

You mean not agreeing with Church teaching is their common ground ?

Their disagreements are on the opposites of the extremes, one liberal and one conservative.

Jim

 

[Pulvis]

As we see in this thread, there are those who do not wish to see the FSSPX regularized. For some it seems to be a threat to have a vibrant and growing segment of the Church which happens to be attached to the fullness of the Church, both pre and post Council. Others seem to have personal reasons to doubt that the Society will work towards unity. All i really know is this; the Society upholds and teaches the totality of the Faith as handed down over the centuries. It teaches the fullness of the Faith with no apologies. And that has been missing in most parishes for several decades. For my part, i pray for a quick recognition and regularization of the Society.

 

[Louie1983]

As we see in this thread, there are those who do not wish to see the FSSPX regularized. For some it seems to be a threat to have a vibrant and growing segment of the Church which happens to be attached to the fullness of the Church, both pre and post Council. Others seem to have personal reasons to doubt that the Society will work towards unity. All i really know is this; the Society upholds and teaches the totality of the Faith as handed down over the centuries. It teaches the fullness of the Faith with no apologies. And that has been missing in most parishes for several decades. For my part, i pray for a quick recognition and regularization of the Society.

x 1.

 

[larsont7]

As we see in this thread, there are those who do not wish to see the FSSPX regularized. For some it seems to be a threat to have a vibrant and growing segment of the Church which happens to be attached to the fullness of the Church, both pre and post Council. Others seem to have personal reasons to doubt that the Society will work towards unity. All i really know is this; the Society upholds and teaches the totality of the Faith as handed down over the centuries. It teaches the fullness of the Faith with no apologies. And that has been missing in most parishes for several decades. For my part, i pray for a quick recognition and regularization of the Society.

Well said. I’m not sure why anyone would wish otherwise, or what fears they have of the SSPX regularizing. It’s not like this <1% of the faithful are going to have that much of an impact on the rest of the Church. I’m guessing 85-90% of nominal Catholics even know what the SSPX is.

Those Catholics who wish to change the Church’s teaching on abortion, contraception, women clergy, etc., are still going to try and do so. Those faithful Catholics who love the OF will continue on their way, and those who love the EF will continue on their way as well. The handful of SSPX chapels in the USA will have little to no impact on the rest of the Church, though I do believe bringing them into the fold can only be a positive thing for everyone involved.

Bottom line is that those who consider themselves Catholics are already divided. There are those who hate what the Church teaches and want to change it and those who love it and wish to preserve it. The SSPX falls into the latter category, IMHO.

 

[otjm]

I have no fear or concern, for a number of reasons.

1. we have heard the same thing how many times over the last 40 years?
2. The SSPX are more active in Europe, particularly France, than they are here.
3. Internally, they stretch across such a great range of opinions, attitudes and issues that the likelihood of all of the SSPX, or even a majority returning is zero or less. There have been statements allegedly made by members stating they will never reconcile; Fellay may put on a good face, but he already had an exercise of back peddling when Benedict sent him back with the letter detailing the requirements.
4. Out of 2,000+ bishops around the world, a significant number of them already have to deal with the SSPX operating within diocesan boundaries, and I seriously doubt they will stand for any group, this one included, having a carte blanche invitation to their diocese without some control, even if that control is “thank you and there is the door, don’t let it hit you as you go through”; and the 3 remaining bishops seem to have no interest in sharing any authority whatsoever with any bishop in his diocese.

Meaning, it is unlikely that Francis on his own is going to change anything,

 

[Ridgerunner]

I have no fear or concern, for a number of reasons.

1. we have heard the same thing how many times over the last 40 years?
2. The SSPX are more active in Europe, particularly France, than they are here.
3. Internally, they stretch across such a great range of opinions, attitudes and issues that the likelihood of all of the SSPX, or even a majority returning is zero or less. There have been statements allegedly made by members stating they will never reconcile; Fellay may put on a good face, but he already had an exercise of back peddling when Benedict sent him back with the letter detailing the requirements.
4. Out of 2,000+ bishops around the world, a significant number of them already have to deal with the SSPX operating within diocesan boundaries, and I seriously doubt they will stand for any group, this one included, having a carte blanche invitation to their diocese without some control, even if that control is “thank you and there is the door, don’t let it hit you as you go through”; and the 3 remaining bishops seem to have no interest in sharing any authority whatsoever with any bishop in his diocese.

Meaning, it is unlikely that Francis on his own is going to change anything,

I’m not sure of this.

The SSPX people I know are very faithful Catholics in all but two things, both being less dissident that a lot of Catholics and churchmen are:

1. They don’t accept the Vatican II documents dealing with ecumenism. Among other things, they have a problem that some of it was written by protestants, and some of it was.
2. They don’t want to be subject to the U.S. bishops. In my diocese that shouldn’t be a problem, but who would want to be under some of the bishops we have had in other diocese over the years. We had one bishop for 25 years who said he would never allow the Latin Mass in the diocese, and he didn’t. His successors do, though.

Now, as to the first, there are Eastern Catholics who don’t accept entire councils, and yet they’re considered fully Catholic.

As to the second, Eastern Catholics have bishops in overlapping diocese with the Latin ones. I don’t know which ones they all are, but in, say, Pittsburg Pa, there is a Ruthenian Catholic bishop and a Latin Catholic bishop.

 

[Randolph]

As we see in this thread, there are those who do not wish to see the FSSPX regularized. For some it seems to be a threat to have a vibrant and growing segment of the Church which happens to be attached to the fullness of the Church, both pre and post Council. Others seem to have personal reasons to doubt that the Society will work towards unity.*** All i really know is this; the Society upholds and teaches the totality of the Faith as handed down over the centuries. It teaches the fullness of the Faith with no apologies.*** And that has been missing in most parishes for several decades. For my part, i pray for a quick recognition and regularization of the Society.

Pope Benedict XVI (Cardinal Ratzinger) would disagree with you. In his book “The Ratzinger Report”, he said:

“… it must be stated that Vatican II is upheld by the same authority as Vatican I and the Council of Trent, namely the Pope and the College of Bishops in communion with him, and that also with regard to its contents, Vatican II is in the strictest continuity with both previous councils and incorporates their texts word for word in decisive points.”

He went on to say:

“It is likewise impossible to decide in favor of Trent and Vatican I, but ***against ***Vatican II. Whoever denies Vatican II denies the authority that upholds the other two councils and thereby detaches them from their foundation…Every partisan (liberal/conservative extremist) choice destroys the whole (the very history of the Church) which can exist only as an indivisible unity.”

I am not here to debate the legitimacy of SSPX as I understand it is a banned topic. I pray for obedience to the Catholic Church with the successor of Peter as its head.

 

[bobballen_18]

Well said. I’m not sure why anyone would wish otherwise, or what fears they have of the SSPX regularizing. It’s not like this <1% of the faithful are going to have that much of an impact on the rest of the Church. I’m guessing 85-90% of nominal Catholics even know what the SSPX is.

Those Catholics who wish to change the Church’s teaching on abortion, contraception, women clergy, etc., are still going to try and do so. Those faithful Catholics who love the OF will continue on their way, and those who love the EF will continue on their way as well. The handful of SSPX chapels in the USA will have little to no impact on the rest of the Church, though I do believe bringing them into the fold can only be a positive thing for everyone involved.

Bottom line is that those who consider themselves Catholics are already divided. There are those who hate what the Church teaches and want to change it and those who love it and wish to preserve it. The SSPX falls into the latter category, IMHO.

Agree with both you and Pulvis!

I have no fear or concern, for a number of reasons.

1. we have heard the same thing how many times over the last 40 years?
2. The SSPX are more active in Europe, particularly France, than they are here.
3. Internally, they stretch across such a great range of opinions, attitudes and issues that the likelihood of all of the SSPX, or even a majority returning is zero or less. There have been statements allegedly made by members stating they will never reconcile; Fellay may put on a good face, but he already had an exercise of back peddling when Benedict sent him back with the letter detailing the requirements.
4. Out of 2,000+ bishops around the world, a significant number of them already have to deal with the SSPX operating within diocesan boundaries, and I seriously doubt they will stand for any group, this one included, having a carte blanche invitation to their diocese without some control, even if that control is “thank you and there is the door, don’t let it hit you as you go through”; and the 3 remaining bishops seem to have no interest in sharing any authority whatsoever with any bishop in his diocese.

Meaning, it is unlikely that Francis on his own is going to change anything,

Lol, good point on #1. You’re right re #2, though it would still be good for the Church in America as well, for various reasons.

Interesting considerations re #3 and #4. I don’t know what to say about the bishops deal - I’m not convinced that would be a problem. The SSPX bishops would probably retain their same duties that they have now, and adding SSPX parishes where they don’t already exist would probably end up taking the same process of initiation as with the FSSP.

Regarding #3, I think that’s probably the most interesting consideration - though I still think it would be a great thing if it happens, I would not be surprised at all to see regularization cause much division within and even a break-off from the SSPX.

I’m not actually very familiar with the SSPX myself, and until very recently I had a rather negative outlook on them. But I do strongly believe now that it could only be a good thing for the Church as a whole to have the SSPX regularized, and so personally, I will pray that this process continues and that it happens sooner rather than later!

 

[otjm]

Agree with both you and Pulvis!

Lol, good point on #1. You’re right re #2, though it would still be good for the Church in America as well, for various reasons.

Interesting considerations re #3 and #4. I don’t know what to say about the bishops deal - I’m not convinced that would be a problem. The SSPX bishops would probably retain their same duties that they have now, and adding SSPX parishes where they don’t already exist would probably end up taking the same process of initiation as with the FSSP.

Regarding #3, I think that’s probably the most interesting consideration - though I still think it would be a great thing if it happens, I would not be surprised at all to see regularization cause much division within and even a break-off from the SSPX.

I’m not actually very familiar with the SSPX myself, and until very recently I had a rather negative outlook on them. But I do strongly believe now that it could only be a good thing for the Church as a whole to have the SSPX regularized, and so personally, I will pray that this process continues and that it happens sooner rather than later!

Well, Benedict, who had more direct experience with them than just about anyone on the planet, made it crystal clear what they needed to do to be regularized - and he tried everything he could think of to help them to that point.

The flat out walked away from it; I cannot judge Fellay - either he was serious and thought he could get the rest to go along, or he has simply been playing cat-and-mouse all along.

Either way, the whole process came to a screeching halt.

And anyone who thinks that Francis is a waffler, or not so bright, simply is not paying attention. As has been said, he sees a whole lot of people who should come home, and he wants them to do so. But that means coming home; it does not mean changing the house to suit their wants.

There is more than just one issue between them and the Church; more than just one document of Vatican 2, and depending on what part of the SSPX you consider, more than that afoot.

It is my understanding that there are more than just a handful who have left the SSPX - and not because they were returning to the Church. It is not like they are all of one mind.

 

[bobballen_18]

Well, Benedict, who had more direct experience with them than just about anyone on the planet, made it crystal clear what they needed to do to be regularized - and he tried everything he could think of to help them to that point

. But did you read this article or read the interview? Bishop Fellay seems to be saying that Rome, under Francis, is at least in part changing the criteria for what would involve regularization. I.e. less focused on acceptance of certain issues they have with the council and more focus on the person/being personable and saving souls. Which sounds pretty…interesting…but then again that is appearing to be the situation.

And anyone who thinks that Francis is a waffler, or not so bright, simply is not paying attention. As has been said, he sees a whole lot of people who should come home, and he wants them to do so. But that means coming home; it does not mean changing the house to suit their wants.

There is more than just one issue between them and the Church; more than just one document of Vatican 2, and depending on what part of the SSPX you consider, more than that afoot.

Yes, and it is discussed in the interview how there seems to be room being made (by Rome!) for the SSPX (and other, for that matter) to question certain things regarding the council and still be a faithful Catholic. At least that is what I am understanding from this interview/video.

It is my understanding that there are more than just a handful who have left the SSPX - and not because they were returning to the Church. It is not like they are all of one mind.

Yes, and those ones who leave/have left are the ones we should be really worried about, not the SSPX themselves, i.e. the ones who have stuck with them and the ones who woukd stick with them should they be regularized.

 

[commenter]

You mean not agreeing with Church teaching is their common ground ?

Their disagreements are on the opposites of the extremes, one liberal and one conservative.
Jim

Not opposite groups like Call to Action, the American Catholic Church in the US, etc. Those extreme movements are not “opposite” SSPX, SSPV, etc. Rather, there are 2 kinds of Catholics:

• Those who are always obedient to the current pope, whoever he is, to the college of bishops as a whole, and to their own ordinary; as opposed to…
• Those who say they are obedient only to their own chosen bishop, who is independent of the pope, and to Catholic tradition, only to certain popes who are now dead, and not to the current college of bishops as a whole.

The SSPX, and the American Catholic Church in the US (ACC), and similar groups on the Right and Left, are in that second category. The ACC claims to be the authentic successor of Catholic tradition. When Benedict was pope, they kept opposing his views to others, especially St John XXIII. They did not say we reject the pope, they said we are in obedience to a different (and dead) pope. They don’t say they reject Catholic tradition, they pick and choose to obey this or that item out of tradition context to justify their disobedience.

The ACC, and similar groups on the Left, never said Benedict was not pope, they said they “respect” him as pope but would not follow him, or the Catechism, etc, when it departed from Catholic tradition. They never said they were disobeying St. JP II, they instead said he was guilty of papalotry, they reject that innovation, and supposedly “obey” Catholic tradition. Does this sound familiar?

The “Catholic” churches on the far Left would welcome the admission of SSPX, because it would facilitate their own official or unofficial acceptance. It would strengthen their premise that each Catholic, or each worshiping community, can be “Catholic in their own way”.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Not opposite groups like Call to Action, the American Catholic Church in the US, etc. Those extreme movements are not “opposite” SSPX, SSPV, etc. Rather, there are 2 kinds of Catholics:

• Those who are always obedient to the current pope, whoever he is, to the college of bishops as a whole, and to their own ordinary; as opposed to…
• Those who say they are obedient only to their own chosen bishop, who is independent of the pope, and to Catholic tradition, only to certain popes who are now dead, and not to the current college of bishops as a whole.

The SSPX, and the American Catholic Church in the US (ACC), and similar groups on the Right and Left, are in that second category. The ACC claims to be the authentic successor of Catholic tradition. When Benedict was pope, they kept opposing his views to others, especially St John XXIII. They did not say we reject the pope, they said we are in obedience to a different (and dead) pope. They don’t say they reject Catholic tradition, they pick and choose to obey this or that item out of tradition context to justify their disobedience.

The ACC, and similar groups on the Left, never said Benedict was not pope, they said they “respect” him as pope but would not follow him, or the Catechism, etc, when it departed from Catholic tradition. They never said they were disobeying St. JP II, they instead said he was guilty of papalotry, they reject that innovation, and supposedly “obey” Catholic tradition. Does this sound familiar?

The “Catholic” churches on the far Left would welcome the admission of SSPX, because it would facilitate their own official or unofficial acceptance. It would strengthen their premise that each Catholic, or each worshiping community, can be “Catholic in their own way”.

Sorry, both groups, SSPX and Call To Action are extremists groups which share virtually ideologically or theologically.

Saying they’re obedient to the Pope while rejecting his teaching isn’t being obedient, especially when they speak out against him.

SSPX attacked St Pope John Paul II with false accusations when he hosted the ecumenical prayer service at Assisi. They went so far as accusing him of saying Mass with the statue of the Buddha on the altar. Of course the photo they used was too blurred to identify what the statue was, and it was only their words which claimed it was the Buddha. Those in attendance saw the statue and it was actually the Baby Jesus.

Call to Action, desires autonomy with regard to parish finances and calls for the ordination of women to the priesthood and supports gay marriage.

The two groups are so far apart in ideology they can not be compared. The only thing that makes them the same is their disobedience to Pope and magesterium.

If SSPX comes to full union with the Church, they will not bring peace, but discord.

Jim

 

[bobballen_18]

If SSPX comes to full union with the Church, they will not bring peace, but discord.

This seems to be one of your main points. But no one is suggesting that the SSPX being regularized would “bring peace” or would solve the Church’s problems. Bishop Fellay acknowledged this in the interview.

The thing is, if they are regularized, and seen as being in “full union” with the Church, this would force many people to view the SSPX’s points of dissent in a new view. I guess my question to you Jim, then, would be this: if the SSPX is regularized, would you disagree with Pope Francis and/or the relevant authorities for letting it happen?

 

[JimR-OCDS]

This seems to be one of your main points. But no one is suggesting that the SSPX being regularized would “bring peace” or would solve the Church’s problems. Bishop Fellay acknowledged this in the interview.

The thing is, if they are regularized, and seen as being in “full union” with the Church, this would force many people to view the SSPX’s points of dissent in a new view. I guess my question to you Jim, then, would be this: if the SSPX is regularized, would you disagree with Pope Francis and/or the relevant authorities for letting it happen?

If Pope Francis can regularize members of SSPX, praise God. But this would mean that they are accepting him and Vatican II as well as the Novus Ordo and the vernacular.

In other words, accept other Catholics who don’t hold their ideological points.

My experience in the past with members of SSPX, they will not be accepting to other Catholics and will constantly badger them.

Jim

 

[ARSpade]

Sorry, both groups, SSPX and Call To Action are extremists groups which share virtually ideologically or theologically.

Saying they’re obedient to the Pope while rejecting his teaching isn’t being obedient, especially when they speak out against him.

SSPX attacked St Pope John Paul II with false accusations when he hosted the ecumenical prayer service at Assisi. They went so far as accusing him of saying Mass with the statue of the Buddha on the altar. Of course the photo they used was too blurred to identify what the statue was, and it was only their words which claimed it was the Buddha. Those in attendance saw the statue and it was actually the Baby Jesus.

Call to Action, desires autonomy with regard to parish finances and calls for the ordination of women to the priesthood and supports gay marriage.

The two groups are so far apart in ideology they can not be compared. The only thing that makes them the same is their disobedience to Pope and magesterium.

If SSPX comes to full union with the Church, they will not bring peace, but discord.

Jim

But we already have groups like Call to Action in parishes supported by priests. So the discord is already here. What’s a little more?

And not bringing SSPX in just isn’t very merciful.

 

[bobballen_18]

If Pope Francis can regularize members of SSPX, praise God. But this would mean that they are accepting him and Vatican II as well as the Novus Ordo and the vernacular.

I don’t think that is what it means, if we are to understand this interview as correctly displaying what the current “negotiations” are looking like. Take this quote from the interview (or rather, from the article which is summarizing it):

According to Bishop Fellay, the Vatican is telling the society, through nuanced words, that it is now possible to question the Council’s teachings on religious liberty, ecumenism and liturgical reform “and remain Catholic.”
“That means, also, the criteria they would impose on us, to have us prove to them that we are Catholic, will no longer be these points,” he said. “That, to us, would be very important.”

What do you make of that?

 

[JimR-OCDS]

But we already have groups like Call to Action in parishes supported by priests. So the discord is already here. What’s a little more?

And not bringing SSPX in just isn’t very merciful.

Being tolerant and supporting groups like Call To Action are two different things.

SSPX, would see tolerance as equal to supporting. They’d rather see the priests react with intolerance toward such people, rather than charity. And Call to Action folks are not much different, except they want people who believe in Church teachings, to be silenced.

As St Augustine said, there are those who finding themselves Catholic, remain so, being they like the rites and doctrines, but have yet to become Christians.

Then there are those whom Christ has come into their lives. They become the backbone of the Church.

Unless Catholics become Christ centered, they’ll never grow spiritually, despite how well they observe Catholic teaching.

Jim

 

[bobballen_18]

SSPX, would see tolerance as equal to supporting. They’d rather see the priests react with intolerance toward such people, rather than charity.

Hmmmmmm. “Tolerance” and “intolerance” are completely overrated and misused terms today. The SSPX (and many others, not just them) rightly view that it is precisely uncharitable to be “tolerant” of falsehoods.

Unless Catholics become Christ centered, they’ll never grow spiritually, despite how well they observe Catholic teaching.

And becoming “Christ-centered” is precisely one of emphases of the SSPX - they rightly acknowledge that too many in the Church have become man-centered, including, but not limited to, within the Liturgy.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Hmmmmmm. “Tolerance” and “intolerance” are completely overrated and misused terms today. The SSPX (and many others, not just them) rightly view that it is precisely uncharitable to be “tolerant” of falsehoods.
And becoming “Christ-centered” is precisely one of emphases of the SSPX - they rightly acknowledge that too many in the Church have become man-centered, including, but not limited to, within the Liturgy.

My experience with SSPX members is that they are not Christ centered, but “Catholic Identity” centered, which is why the reject ecumenism like Pope John Paul II lived by. Such people have an ego-identity attachment to the religion, and will respond offensively toward those who question the religion. Its not the religion they’re actually defending, but their own ego.

As far as your idea of tolerance being a lack of charity, contradicts the definition of the word.

Jim

 

[Cloisters]

We use MEF in our diocese. Apologies, I thought it was standard usage.

Blessings,
Cloisters