P
ProVobis
Guest
Actually they operate worldwide. And they run schools, nursing homes, and the like, as well.
SSPX’s Bishop Fellay: Little By Little Rome Is Giving Us All We Need for Reconciliation
- Status
B
bobballen_18
Guest
Again, I am not going to make the claim that SSPX members live out a perfectly Catholic life - we all have our flaws and fall short. It might be accurate to say that the SSPX “rejects ecumenism like Pope John Paul II lived by” - I don’t know - but I do know for sure that the SSPX does not reject ecumenism as has always been understood by the Church. Now don’t get me wrong, I’m not necessarily saying JPII lived an unorthodox version of ecumenism - all I’m saying is that the SSPX rejects any notion of ecumenism which involves any sort of compromise in the faith, whether it is doctrine or practice (lived-out life). Whether the Council espouses a change in the Church’s official definition/understanding of ecumenism is another question - again, I’m only saying the SSPX largely sticks to what worked in previous times, which we ought not so readily dismiss.
Lol! I think you misunderstand me there - I did not define “tolerance” as “a lack of charity”. What I did say was that charity does not involve compromising the truth, and that it is in fact uncharitable to allow someone to embrace something that is not fully true or that does not represent the fullness of truth. Basically, what I’m getting at is that “intolerance” and “charity” are not necessarily two separate things, as you implied they are in the quote to which I responded above. They are intolerant towards actions/practices/principles/beliefs/whatever else of people; this ought to be viewed as good and proper, insofar as such things are or are not in the service of Truth. Fulton Sheen defined tolerance as “indifference to truth and error” - seen in this light, why would anyone want to be “tolerant”? At the same time, they (the SSPX) are (or at least strive to be) charitable towards the people which espouse views of which they are intolerant.
Sorry, I’m being a little wordy - we ought to be intolerant in matters of truth/error, and it is important not to equate “intolerance” with a lack of charity, even if sometimes they occur hand in hand.
P
phil19034
Guest
Jim - to provide some further context here (not implying that this is or is not what you meant)
St. Augustine’s basic message is that Catholics have to be BOTH catechized AND evangelized.
There are many Christians (Catholic, Orthodox, protestant, etc) who are catechized but not evangelized or evangelized but not catechized.
A big problem the Church has is that we often evangelize without catechizing or catechize without evangelizing.
We need to do both and we need to do both at the same time. That’s why I believe that FORMED.org is a wonderful program for parishes, families, etc.
I believe this is what St. Augustine really meant. “Then there are **those **whom Christ has come into their lives. They become the backbone of the Church.” Those who let Christ come into their lives AND who are catechized become the backbone of the Church.
You can’t have one without the other.
This is the same thing with Mercy vs Justice… gotta have both. Too many times, Christians have a hard time balancing everything of our Faith, and we focus on one part, ignoring the other.
God Bless
O
otjm
Guest
Mercy requires repentance.
O
otjm
Guest
You may not think that is what it means - but I will repeat what I have said already - 40 years, and how many times have we heard similar statements?
I think part of the problem is that you are focusing on one or two discussions Fellay and Francis have had.
But let’s get to how the Church works; reconciliation is not going to be a work between Fellay and Francis. It is going to be a work between the CDF and the SSPX, and last I checked, Cardinal Muller was still the head of the CDF. It might be that Fellay may think he can manipulate Francis to move contrary to the CDF; but I would hope that Fellay is smarter than that. He has been a bishop for enough decades to know how Rome works.
There is questioning about documents (e.g. V2); then there is the issue that if Rome has given an answer - and if John Paul was not clear enough, Benedict certainly was - that settles questions.
And last I checked, the SSPX have not accepted Benedict’s answer to their questions.
If one looks at history where groups have taken off and challenged the truth which the Church teaches, and looks at the resolutions of those challenges, then one can be fairly comfortable saying that some of the SSPX will never reconcile.
And looking at the history, one could surmise that the group (as opposed to a few individuals here and there) will end up as other groups have ended up: in schism.
The SSPX are not in juridical schism - that is, they have not been declared in schism. And I doubt they will be declared so during this papacy; like Benedict, Francis wants to see reconciliation. But wanting it and obtaining it are two completely different things.
And as to the issue of schism, Cardinal Muller (remember him? - head of the CDF) stated publicly several years ago that they are in practical schism. That means in plain language, that they are separated from the Church just as other schismatic groups are, but that for the grace of the Church (and in large part, the last four major papacies, including Paul 6th, they have not been declared so.
His statements have never been retracted, nor has he been corrected by either Benedict or Francis.
So I don’t pay much attention to what Bishop Fellay has to say. I pay attention to what the CDF says, because that is where things are going to get worked out. And the CDF hasn’t had a whole lot to say about this last go around.
C
commenter
Guest
SSPX individuals: persons are being reconciled, coming in as they feel ready. Attached laity join a parish, get involved in diocesan activities, usually find a diocesan approved EF Mass. SSPX priests meet with their local ordinary, and, if they feel ready, are reconciled and join FSSP or some other situation where they can minister. They connect with the clergy of their area. The benefit of individual reconciliation is that the person themselves knows when they are ready, better than Rome or Econe.
SSPX organization: The leaders of the SSPX organization put a huge priority on maintaining the organization as is. In the 1970s the TLM was the biggest priority, or Vatican II documents, but now it’s the SSPX organization, a goal in itself. The SSPX itself has its own Tradition, its own momentum now. The leaders are pushing for a one-size-fits-all arrangement - “we all march in together, locked in arms” - as opposed to the individual option mentioned above; which the organization does in fact oppose. They want the organizational structure to remain intact - essentially no change, no connection between chapel and diocese, or between SSPX priest and diocesan priest down the street. Everything would be the same, except it would be easier to hold onto laity, since they can now say “Church endorsed”.
SSPX organization: The leaders of the SSPX organization put a huge priority on maintaining the organization as is. In the 1970s the TLM was the biggest priority, or Vatican II documents, but now it’s the SSPX organization, a goal in itself. The SSPX itself has its own Tradition, its own momentum now. The leaders are pushing for a one-size-fits-all arrangement - “we all march in together, locked in arms” - as opposed to the individual option mentioned above; which the organization does in fact oppose. They want the organizational structure to remain intact - essentially no change, no connection between chapel and diocese, or between SSPX priest and diocesan priest down the street. Everything would be the same, except it would be easier to hold onto laity, since they can now say “Church endorsed”.
O
otjm
Guest
So the interesting question is, should some significant part of the SSPX decide to accept Rome’s bottom line, what will be the result? While the Eastern Rite Catholic Churches have their separate jurisdiction from the Roman dioceses, will the SSPX be given something similar? Thus allowing them to operate withing a diocese without necessarily any integration into what that diocese does or does not do? And what limits may be imposed?
And then, obviously (or perhaps not, to some), what happens if it appears that the acceptance of the bottom line was merely pro forma, and no real change has occurred - presumably not in all who moved, but some?
C
commenter
Guest
Suppose a woman comes to you for marriage preparation. She says after the wedding she plans to live only in her own apartment, her own bank account, all her own decisions for life apart from the man. In fact, she wants little contact with the man after the wedding. She even will keep her marriage rights lawyer on retainer, because she distrusts the man she wants to marry, and suspects him of treachery.
In fact the only reason she (SSPX leadership) wants to get married is to use his (the RCC) last name. That is the “reconciliation” the SSPX leaders are talking about. It is the “rights” of the organization, not the person’s right to the TLM.
I think many individuals in SSPX can be encouraged to genuine reconciliation specific to them, personally, and their spiritual and family needs. That means rejoining their diocese, joining a parish.
P
ProVobis
Guest
For all we know, a “deal” has already been struck and it is up to the leadership to slowly disseminate this information without stirring up a storm, if you will. I doubt we’ll ever see a day where a formal announcement is made to the world, for many reasons. Should I say obvious reasons?
I can easily see where confessions will be extended permanently, marriages will become valid, and Masses will be recognized everywhere. To an average churchgoer, that’s all he really needs to attend Mass at an SSPX chapel and not feel guilty about it.
B
Buddyroe
Guest
Dear Cloisters,
You are praying for a most worthy reconciliation. Patience please, I am a Calvinist, but I watch, wonder and pray for the faithful in Christ within the Roman Catholic community. This is not an effort to proselytize, but simply to identify with similar experiences.
In many ways RC faithful are closer to reconciling divisions peacefully than are believers in the protestant world.
My only advice is to be very careful with acts of reconciliation. Make sure the process of thinking is not compromise (dialectic) that is to surrender fundamental positions, always keep those true. Observe if there are any outstanding controversies, if so one (or both) of you are outside of orthodoxy.
Both of you must proceed with the eye on orthodoxy while self challenging your own necessary presuppositions.
I have my own secretarial conflicts analogous to what you are praying about. There is much more to be accomplished in reconciliation than conflict. But everyone absolutely must understand that presuppositions must be understood and not be compromised.
B
Buddyroe
Guest
It appears to me as a bystander that you are presuming division to the extent of preventing any reconciliation. Am I not correct?
J
Justin_Swanton
Guest
The two big obstacles to normalisation - and they haven’t been resolved yet - are Vat II and the New Mass.
Traditionalists have always regarded Vat II as a ‘pastoral council’ by virtue of the fact it declared its intention of not defining any new dogmas. Being pastoral, it does not form part of the Ecumenical Councils of the Church and may be rejected in toto.
But nothing says that an Ecumenical Council that does not produce new dogmas must be relegated to the level of a synod, take it or leave it as you please. Vat II is ecumenical and hence part of the ordinary magisterium of the Church. Where it reaffirms Church doctrine it must be accepted.
But not all and every part of the Vat II documents reaffirm doctrine. There is plenty of non-doctrinal ‘pastoral’ stuff which is open to debate. At the very least, there are passages that require clarification, just as the "Outside the Church no salvation’ required clarification.
I think most SSPX members accept these nuances and are willing not to throw out the baby with the bathwater. From the beginning the Society has officially accepted Vat II interpreted ‘in the light of Tradition’ - i.e. with its controversial texts interpreted in accordance with the constant teaching of the Church. So no insuperable obstacle there.
The New Mass is a bigger problem. No distinctions have been made in its regard. It is simply called ‘bad’ by Bishop Fellay. But a distinction is necessary here. The New Mass as printed in the Missal contains nothing that would oblige a Catholic in conscience to stay away from it. No heresy, no sacrilege, no disrespect. It can be celebrated in a manner that is reverent and supernatural, doing its job of uniting Catholics to the reality of Our Lord’s Sacrifice on Calvary. One can argue that it doesn’t to 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, and that is all that is required.
The Mass however as celebrated in parishes is another story. From the day of its inception it has been subjected to every imaginable liturgical abuse, and these abuses have come to be identified with the New Mass itself. Rejecting the abuses has become synonymous with rejecting the New Mass. The SSPX continues to reject the New Mass, baby and bathwater. If they could make this one vital distinction then there would be no further impediment to reconciliation with Rome.
Traditionalists have always regarded Vat II as a ‘pastoral council’ by virtue of the fact it declared its intention of not defining any new dogmas. Being pastoral, it does not form part of the Ecumenical Councils of the Church and may be rejected in toto.
But nothing says that an Ecumenical Council that does not produce new dogmas must be relegated to the level of a synod, take it or leave it as you please. Vat II is ecumenical and hence part of the ordinary magisterium of the Church. Where it reaffirms Church doctrine it must be accepted.
But not all and every part of the Vat II documents reaffirm doctrine. There is plenty of non-doctrinal ‘pastoral’ stuff which is open to debate. At the very least, there are passages that require clarification, just as the "Outside the Church no salvation’ required clarification.
I think most SSPX members accept these nuances and are willing not to throw out the baby with the bathwater. From the beginning the Society has officially accepted Vat II interpreted ‘in the light of Tradition’ - i.e. with its controversial texts interpreted in accordance with the constant teaching of the Church. So no insuperable obstacle there.
The New Mass is a bigger problem. No distinctions have been made in its regard. It is simply called ‘bad’ by Bishop Fellay. But a distinction is necessary here. The New Mass as printed in the Missal contains nothing that would oblige a Catholic in conscience to stay away from it. No heresy, no sacrilege, no disrespect. It can be celebrated in a manner that is reverent and supernatural, doing its job of uniting Catholics to the reality of Our Lord’s Sacrifice on Calvary. One can argue that it doesn’t to 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, and that is all that is required.
The Mass however as celebrated in parishes is another story. From the day of its inception it has been subjected to every imaginable liturgical abuse, and these abuses have come to be identified with the New Mass itself. Rejecting the abuses has become synonymous with rejecting the New Mass. The SSPX continues to reject the New Mass, baby and bathwater. If they could make this one vital distinction then there would be no further impediment to reconciliation with Rome.
C
commenter
Guest
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.
D
dans0622
Guest
A couple of posts have mentioned “mercy.” … I don’t think mercy is applicable here. It’s a plain and simple matter of an exercise of executive power. This kind of administrative decision/action is based on what the administrator identifies as a “good” and how to best go about attaining that “good.”
If one were to ask Pope Francis if “mercy” has any role to play in this issue, however, I suppose he would say “yes.”
Dan
If one were to ask Pope Francis if “mercy” has any role to play in this issue, however, I suppose he would say “yes.”
Dan
C
commenter
Guest
“Mercy” is primarily intended for persons - individuals and families, living right now. There is a lot of confusion about this.
Suppose families have a problem that they like the EF, but no diocesan EF is nearby. “Mercy” might include a recommendation to bishops to expand availability of diocesan sponsored EF Masses, where practical.
Suppose families have a problem, in that they attend chapels that are not connected in any way with their local bishop, or any ordinary, and families are mostly isolated from Catholic activity going on in their local diocese.
“Mercy” would encourage measures to reduce isolation.
“Mercy” would discourage measures that would normalize, “vindicate” or make permanent the condition of isolation.
Cloisters
Well-known member
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
B
bobballen_18
Guest
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?
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. 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!
P
pnewton
Guest
There are very few comparisons between the SSPX and Call to Action or Catholics for Choice. The really aren’t even both groups, except in the loosest sense of the word. But no, you are mistaken in the Call to Action is not part of the Catholic Church. They never were and never will be. One might as well compare the Lutheran or Anglican Churches.
P
pnewton
Guest
The resolution might depend on whether Pope Francis is willing to allow the SSPX some freedom of conscience in this matter, but more importantly, whether the SSPX will be satisfied with such freedom of personal conscience without insisting that the universal Church conform to *their *conscience. The Catholic Church will not abandon Vatican II and all the wonderful value it brought, or the current Mass, for the sake of reconciliation. That would be tantamount to spiritual blackmail. In other words, does the SSPX want a berth in the Barque of Peter, or do they want the helm. I see this a solvable, based on my very limited reading here over the years. Most just want to be integrated fully into the Catholic Church, not to control her.
On their part, the SSPX might be asked to soften its rhetoric, at least publicly and restrict any harsh criticism to the episcopacy.
C
commenter
Guest
The SSPX leadership knows they can’t influence the Church as a whole. But they (the leaders) also don’t want anything like “integration”. They directly or indirectly discourage any contact between their loyal families, and the Church. I believe they want the third option: to come to some agreement where the Vatican accepts some responsibility for the break, where the Vatican announces they are “normalized”. The organizational structure would be intact, more “solid”, in the sense of independent; not integrated, just vindicated.
And nothing else changes. No connection with any non-SSPX bishop, or non-SSPX clergy. Most chapels would be hermetically sealed off from the Catholic Church in their region. The SSPX chain of command would have total control, with their own seminaries staffed by priests who never worked or studied anywhere but the SSPX. Laity would continue to be constantly warned against contact with the “concilliar” Church. SSPX priests would rarely meet any non-SSPX priest or bishop. But they would now open up their own parishes and it would be easier for them to retain affiliated families, because they are now “part of the Church”, at least in theory. The biggest losers in this arrangement would be young families, who might otherwise have been leaning towards connecting with the Catholic community and ministries around them.
- Status