SSPX and Cluny

[Latinitas]

Hi CAF community,

I normally avoid bringing up discussions about the SSPX, since it tends to just raise blood pressure unnecessarily. Now, being a staunch traditionalist, I obviously have many sympathies with the SSPX, despite believing their position to be wrong. Anyway, it struck me tonight, however, that the SSPX has a real opportunity to change the Church for the better, although they’d have to reunite with Rome.

The SSPX would draft a text of submission to the Holy See, pledging submission to them in regards to faith and morals, leaving it at that (intentionally a little ambiguous), on the condition that the Holy See grant them five things:

1. Freedom from all diocesan authority whatsoever - they will answer only to the Pope
2. Freedom to celebrate the Sacraments in the older form exclusively in perpetuity, and publically, for all the faithful to attend should they chose, and the right to administer the sacraments to them.
3. Freedom to criticize what they believe as errors in the modern Church
4. Freedom to maintain their own seminaries and chapels, free from diocesan authority.
5. Affirmation, or radical sanation, that their absolution and marriages were and are valid.

In this way, the SSPX could bring about a reform in the Church, in the same way that the Cluniac monasteries laid the foundation for the Papal reform of the 10th and 11th centuries.

I’d like to hear your thoughts on this. I do realize that this is probably just a pipe dream, but you never know. Pray and hope.

Please keep this charitable and civil, so that the moderators do not have to close this thread down.

Benedicat Deus,
Latinitas

 

[JReducation]

Hi CAF community,

I normally avoid bringing up discussions about the SSPX, since it tends to just raise blood pressure unnecessarily. Now, being a staunch traditionalist, I obviously have many sympathies with the SSPX, despite believing their position to be wrong. Anyway, it struck me tonight, however, that the SSPX has a real opportunity to change the Church for the better, although they’d have to reunite with Rome.

The SSPX would draft a text of submission to the Holy See, pledging submission to them in regards to faith and morals, leaving it at that (intentionally a little ambiguous), on the condition that the Holy See grant them five things:

1. Freedom from all diocesan authority whatsoever - they will answer only to the Pope
2. Freedom to celebrate the Sacraments in the older form exclusively in perpetuity, and publically, for all the faithful to attend should they chose, and the right to administer the sacraments to them.
3. Freedom to criticize what they believe as errors in the modern Church
4. Freedom to maintain their own seminaries and chapels, free from diocesan authority.
5. Affirmation, or radical sanation, that their absolution and marriages were and are valid.

In this way, the SSPX could bring about a reform in the Church, in the same way that the Cluniac monasteries laid the foundation for the Papal reform of the 10th and 11th centuries.

I’d like to hear your thoughts on this. I do realize that this is probably just a pipe dream, but you never know. Pray and hope.

Please keep this charitable and civil, so that the moderators do not have to close this thread down.

Benedicat Deus,
Latinitas

These options were already discussed. Some were even offered. Others can never be offered.

1. This not theologically possible. The Church does not have the authority to ignore the apostolic authority of a bishop. Even religious who are exempt religious must have the permission of the bishop to enter his diocese, because his diocese is a local Church. To ignore the bishop’s right to be asked, is to treat his Church as if it had no boundaries. This is fase ecclesiology. All Churches have boundaries. That why this option was not accepted. Council of Trent does not accept it.
2. No pope has the authority to offer anyone anything in perpetuity. That would bind future popes. It can be said and the next pope can change it. Look at Pius V. He said that this was the form of the mass in perpetuity. Pope Paul VI said, “He’s not talking to me.” (I just made that up). But you get the idea. Popes rule only while they live.
3. The Holy Father denied them this freedom. Only the pope and those to whom the pope entrusts jurisdiction have this power. With the power to criticise comes the right to teach and to correct. This is the role of a bishop who is an ordinary or of a male religious superior, because he too is an ordinary.
4. This they were offered. It’s how the exempt religious function, except that we don’t have a sector of the lay faithful for whom we’re responsible. They would have that. It’s called a prelature. They turned it down.
5. Radical sanation was also offered. They turned it down. Radical sanation does not mean that their sacraments were valid. Radical sanation heals wheat is sick in order to make valid that which is invalid.

 

[tawny]

These options were already discussed. Some were even offered. Others can never be offered.

1. This not theologically possible. The Church does not have the authority to ignore the apostolic authority of a bishop. Even religious who are exempt religious must have the permission of the bishop to enter his diocese, because his diocese is a local Church. To ignore the bishop’s right to be asked, is to treat his Church as if it had no boundaries. This is fase ecclesiology. All Churches have boundaries. That why this option was not accepted. Council of Trent does not accept it.
2. No pope has the authority to offer anyone anything in perpetuity. That would bind future popes. It can be said and the next pope can change it. Look at Pius V. He said that this was the form of the mass in perpetuity. Pope Paul VI said, “He’s not talking to me.” (I just made that up). But you get the idea. Popes rule only while they live.
3. The Holy Father denied them this freedom. Only the pope and those to whom the pope entrusts jurisdiction have this power. With the power to criticise comes the right to teach and to correct. This is the role of a bishop who is an ordinary or of a male religious superior, because he too is an ordinary.
4. This they were offered. It’s how the exempt religious function, except that we don’t have a sector of the lay faithful for whom we’re responsible. They would have that. It’s called a prelature. They turned it down.
5. Radical sanation was also offered. They turned it down. Radical sanation does not mean that their sacraments were valid. Radical sanation heals wheat is sick in order to make valid that which is invalid.

Very well stated Br. JR

 

[agnes_therese]

I don’t believe #3 can (or should) happen.

 

[Boy_Wonder]

Hi CAF community,

The SSPX would draft a text of submission to the Holy See, pledging submission to them in regards to faith and morals, leaving it at that (intentionally a little ambiguous), on the condition that the Holy See grant them five things:

1. Freedom from all diocesan authority whatsoever - they will answer only to the Pope
2. Freedom to celebrate the Sacraments in the older form exclusively in perpetuity, and publically, for all the faithful to attend should they chose, and the right to administer the sacraments to them.
3. Freedom to criticize what they believe as errors in the modern Church
4. Freedom to maintain their own seminaries and chapels, free from diocesan authority.
5. Affirmation, or radical sanation, that their absolution and marriages were and are valid.

What, in their behavior to date, gives any indication that SSPX would use these privileges for the greater good? The SSPX is in urgent need of internal reform before it is accorded any extraordinary (and as pointed out above “theologically impossible”) privileges.

Your proposal seems like an urgent plea for a get out of jail free card, for license to behave with unbridled pride, with no obligation to obey the Holy See, and to spread detraction and calumny without fear of reprisal. Its aim is not the unity and reform of our holy Church, but rather for the unobstructed advancement of its own agenda. Why would the Holy See permit this?

Perhaps the SSPX should take a couple years to settle its internecine squabbles, stop fighting/lambasting, forbid all expressions of antisemitism, SUBMIT to authority, regroup, pray, and grow? Then, with its house in order, it can petition the Holy See. But don’t expect such sweeping privileges for a group which has shown itself unwilling or unable to use such privileges for the greater good of the Church. Perhaps SSPX might START by asking what the Church wants of it rather than making constant demands of the Church for special canonical status.

 

[Big_Feet]

What, in their behavior to date, gives any indication that SSPX would use these privileges for the greater good? The SSPX is in urgent need of internal reform before it is accorded any extraordinary (and as pointed out above “theologically impossible”) privileges.

Your proposal seems like an urgent plea for a get out of jail free card, for license to behave with unbridled pride, with no obligation to obey the Holy See, and to spread detraction and calumny without fear of reprisal. Its aim is not the unity and reform of our holy Church, but rather for the unobstructed advancement of its own agenda. Why would the Holy See permit this?

Perhaps the SSPX should take a couple years to settle its internecine squabbles, stop fighting/lambasting, forbid all expressions of antisemitism, SUBMIT to authority, regroup, pray, and grow? Then, with its house in order, it can petition the Holy See. But don’t expect such sweeping privileges for a group which has shown itself unwilling or unable to use such privileges for the greater good of the Church. Perhaps SSPX might START by asking what the Church wants of it rather than making constant demands of the Church for special canonical status.

 

[Cojuanco]

What, in their behavior to date, gives any indication that SSPX would use these privileges for the greater good? The SSPX is in urgent need of internal reform before it is accorded any extraordinary (and as pointed out above “theologically impossible”) privileges.

Your proposal seems like an urgent plea for a get out of jail free card, for license to behave with unbridled pride, with no obligation to obey the Holy See, and to spread detraction and calumny without fear of reprisal. Its aim is not the unity and reform of our holy Church, but rather for the unobstructed advancement of its own agenda. Why would the Holy See permit this?

Perhaps the SSPX should take a couple years to settle its internecine squabbles, stop fighting/lambasting, forbid all expressions of antisemitism, SUBMIT to authority, regroup, pray, and grow? Then, with its house in order, it can petition the Holy See. But don’t expect such sweeping privileges for a group which has shown itself unwilling or unable to use such privileges for the greater good of the Church. Perhaps SSPX might START by asking what the Church wants of it rather than making constant demands of the Church for special canonical status.

Not to mention some of the demands would undermine the legitimate rights of the bishops. And Number 1 goes against the Council of Trent, and at best would be one of the most radical changes to the governance of the Church since that Council. Rather revolutionary of a group claiming to be trying to preserve Trent.

 

[TimothyH]

Cluny… The title of the thread is provocative. Is the title a reference to the monastery at Cluny or the cluniac reforms?

As I understand it, the “cluniac reforms” initiated in the monastery at Cluny in 910 reformed monasticism which had become worldly. Monasteries and Abbots had become dependent upon and beholden to local landlords. Central to the reform was that the monastery at Cluny reported directly to the Pope and the houses which they founded reported directly to Cluny. It eventually led to a stricter observance of the Rule of St. Benedict exemplified by the Cistercians or “Trappists”. The whole cluniac reform movement was started by Duke William I who founded the monastery at Cluny but unlike other political leaders and landowners, exerted no control over the monastery.

I had to google around a bit to find any link between the SSPX and Cluny, and only found a few references to the SSPX being a “self proclaimed Cluny”. I’m not sure how accurate that is or if that statement was ever actually made by the SSPX or any of its members.

That brings up a whole host of questions in my mind, possibly related to the OP, possibly not…

The Cistercians I know are obedient. Obedience is one of their vows. They obey the Abbot as if he is Christ. The cluniac reforms restored obedience to legitimate authority. How is the SSPX a new Cluny? I’m sure the members of the SSPX are better theologians and historians than I and I ask the question in all sincerity.

Latinitas, the inclusion of Cluny in the title of the thread puzzles me. I hope you can explain why you included it. I am truly curious.

-Tim-

 

[JReducation]

I don’t believe #3 can (or should) happen.

I’m not sure why you believe it should not be
This is part of tradition Popes Pau. John Paul and Benedict explained this to the SSPX. Correction comes with the right of governance and the right to teach
Only ordinaries have this right
Ordinaries are the bishop of a diocese and a male major superior. Everyone else must be delegated by the proper ordinary. We’ve always subscribed to right that come from succession.

 

[commenter]

We need the Church to call us to conversion. This is true for religious, clergy, and laity. The 5 points as written would seem to “protect” people in the SSPX from the ongoing need to die to self, in order to be remolded into what God wants us to be. Calling to conversion is the main benefit offered by the Catholic Church. These points would ensure that members of the SSPX would not really benefit from the Catholic Church. People in the FSSP have some similarities to SSPX, but they are not forfeiting the Church’s role in calling them to conversion.

Aside from that, keep in mind there’s a whole slew of other groups that may appear to be opposite - “Left”, “New Age”, “Liberation Theology”, and many others - but are really equivalent to SSPX. They, too, would then put forward their 5 points, so they too could be recognized as fully Catholic, but also “protected” from conversion.

 

[JReducation]

We need the Church to call us to conversion. This is true for religious, clergy, and laity. The 5 points as written would seem to “protect” people in the SSPX from the ongoing need to die to self, in order to be remolded into what God wants us to be. Calling to conversion is the main benefit offered by the Catholic Church. These points would ensure that members of the SSPX would not really benefit from the Catholic Church. People in the FSSP have some similarities to SSPX, but they are not forfeiting the Church’s role in calling them to conversion.

Aside from that, keep in mind there’s a whole slew of other groups that may appear to be opposite - “Left”, “New Age”, “Liberation Theology”, and many others - but are really equivalent to SSPX. They, too, would then put forward their 5 points, so they too could be recognized as fully Catholic, but also “protected” from conversion.

These are actually some very good points. I had not thought about this. You can’t have one group in the Church that is almost untouchable when others just like them don’t enjoy that privilege. The FSSP, ICRSS and others don’t have those privileges. Exempt religious orders don’t have those privileges. Opus Dei doesn’t have these privileges. I’m talking about those groups who are orthodox. Imagine if unorthodox groups wanted equal treatment under the law.

 

[Cojuanco]

These are actually some very good points. I had not thought about this. You can’t have one group in the Church that is almost untouchable when others just like them don’t enjoy that privilege. The FSSP, ICRSS and others don’t have those privileges. Exempt religious orders don’t have those privileges. Opus Dei doesn’t have these privileges. I’m talking about those groups who are orthodox. Imagine if unorthodox groups wanted equal treatment under the law.

What also gets me that the proposal in question would, in essence, be laying waste to Trent in order to save it.

 

[EphelDuath]

1. Freedom to criticize what they believe as errors in the modern Church

This is already an implicit right in the Church these days, considering there’s tens of thousands of theologians, religious, and clergy that openly instruct faithful to disobey the Church and aren’t ever reprimanded by their lawful superior – for every Hans Kung, there’s a thousand that “get away with it”, so to speak.

The only reason the SSPX gets particular flack for it, is because of the double standard to which traditionalism is held.

Don’t misinterpret me, I’m not a supporter of the SSPX by any means, nor do I think their opinions about obedience are valid or even coherent. But it’s just a fact that the SSPX are practically lepers despite doing nothing more reproachable than what ten times their number do on the other side of the fence.

 

[RPRPsych]

I have a better suggestion:

Let the SSPX draft a text of submission to the Holy See that is truly submission, and not the quid pro quo, “You scratch my back” proposal that they seem to want. Forget ambiguity (aren’t they opposed to that? Didn’t they howl the loudest at those innocent, scholarly words, “subsists in”?) and, above all:

1. stop insisting on “freedom from diocesan authority”. “Freedom” is the battle-cry of the liberal.
2. accept that the Sacraments can be celebrated in any form, whatever they may prefer
3. accept criticism from their authorities, and stop taking gratuitous swipes at the Church (if you want to know what I mean, just visit R**** C****)
4. stop making fun of those seminaries and chapels that aren’t theirs
5. acknowledge that radical sanation doesn’t mean they’re right; it means the Church has decided to be gentle with them.

In this way, the SSPX would achieve its greatest reform: victory over itself, as Aristotle once said.

 

[TimothyH]

We need the Church to call us to conversion. This is true for religious, clergy, and laity. The 5 points as written would seem to “protect” people in the SSPX from the ongoing need to die to self, in order to be remolded into what God wants us to be. Calling to conversion is the main benefit offered by the Catholic Church. These points would ensure that members of the SSPX would not really benefit from the Catholic Church. People in the FSSP have some similarities to SSPX, but they are not forfeiting the Church’s role in calling them to conversion.

Aside from that, keep in mind there’s a whole slew of other groups that may appear to be opposite - “Left”, “New Age”, “Liberation Theology”, and many others - but are really equivalent to SSPX. They, too, would then put forward their 5 points, so they too could be recognized as fully Catholic, but also “protected” from conversion.

This is a very good post and it again brings up the question of why Cluny was included in the title of the thread.

Benedictine monastics do not vow poverty and chastity but vow obedience, stability and ongoing conversion. Ongoing conversion is one of the vows of those who are children of Cluny. Conversion was the whole reason for Cluny.

It seems odd that the SSPX would refer to themselves in the context of Cluny.

I’ll stop whipping this horse.

-Tim-

 

[Boulder257]

I just tend to get confused by the whole thing myself - Is there really anything more traditional than obedience?

 

[commenter]

This is already an implicit right in the Church these days, considering there’s tens of thousands of theologians, religious, and clergy that openly instruct faithful to disobey the Church and aren’t ever reprimanded by their lawful superior – for every Hans Kung, there’s a thousand that “get away with it”, so to speak.

The only reason the SSPX gets particular flack for it, is because of the double standard to which traditionalism is held.

Don’t misinterpret me, I’m not a supporter of the SSPX by any means, nor do I think their opinions about obedience are valid or even coherent. But it’s just a fact that the SSPX are practically lepers despite doing nothing more reproachable than what ten times their number do on the other side of the fence.

Suppose someone manages to sneak through college without learning anything. You would certainly not argue “they got away with it”, you would probably argue they missed out on a benefit. You certainly wouldn’t argue that “If they got away with it, by rights my son should be allowed to go to college without learning anything either.”

The ongoing call to conversion by the living Magisterium of the Church is a benefit. Why would you want to figure ways to avoid that benefit by creating an insulated sub-category in the Church (even if some others on the “other side of the fence” sometimes appear to avoid that benefit of the call to conversion)?

Read what G.K.Chesterton wrote about the Catholic Church and conversion. Instead of thinking about the “SSPX” in a corporate sense, consider the specific individuals. How much do you want those persons to benefit from the Church? Even if 90% of other students manage to slip through a college without learning anything, why would you too want to do the same thing?

 

[EphelDuath]

Suppose someone manages to sneak through college without learning anything. You would certainly not argue “they got away with it”, you would probably argue they missed out on a benefit. You certainly wouldn’t argue that “If they got away with it, by rights my son should be allowed to go to college without learning anything either.”

The ongoing call to conversion by the living Magisterium of the Church is a benefit. Why would you want to figure ways to avoid that benefit by creating an insulated sub-category in the Church (even if some others on the “other side of the fence” sometimes appear to avoid that benefit of the call to conversion)?

Read what G.K.Chesterton wrote about the Catholic Church and conversion. Instead of thinking about the “SSPX” in a corporate sense, consider the specific individuals. How much do you want those persons to benefit from the Church? Even if 90% of other students manage to slip through a college without learning anything, why would you too want to do the same thing?

I’m a huge proponent of obedience, and I think it is just and celebratory if somebody is in theological or moral error, but is corrected by their lawful superior. This used to be the norm in the Catholic Church, now it is an extraordinary sign of fidelity. Which is extremely unfortunate. I doubt many prelates even consider it to be a serious problem, or at least something worth addressing – yet it’s currently acceptable to mock and deride those who favor Latin and Gregorian chant (like Vatican II told us to…) because they can be lumped in together with the schismatic misers, who constitute <1% of traditionalists in the Latin rite. And the same people who do the mocking, and sometimes even persecution, then turn around and clamor the Church for women’s ordinations, gay “marriage”, and abortion.

Quite frankly, far, far too much attention is spent on trying to reconcile the SSPX. They’ve made their attitudes clear, they’re a red herring at this point. A more pressing matter, by at least tenfold, is all of the other disobedients in positions of authority, that actively attack the dogma of the Church.

 

[Cojuanco]

I’m a huge proponent of obedience, and I think it is just and celebratory if somebody is in theological or moral error, but is corrected by their lawful superior. This used to be the norm in the Catholic Church, now it is an extraordinary sign of fidelity. Which is extremely unfortunate. I doubt many prelates even consider it to be a serious problem, or at least something worth addressing – yet it’s currently acceptable to mock and deride those who favor Latin and Gregorian chant (like Vatican II told us to…) because they can be lumped in together with the schismatic misers, who constitute <1% of traditionalists in the Latin rite. And the same people who do the mocking, and sometimes even persecution, then turn around and clamor the Church for women’s ordinations, gay “marriage”, and abortion.

Quite frankly, far, far too much attention is spent on trying to reconcile the SSPX. They’ve made their attitudes clear, they’re a red herring at this point. A more pressing matter, by at least tenfold, is all of the other disobedients in positions of authority, that actively attack the dogma of the Church.

Wait, if you mean bishops, which ones attack Church dogma? All I’ve seen is one South African bishop, and the vicar general of a vacant German see, promptly reprimanded by the Holy Office of course. I could be wrong.

But I will agree that in the laity and at least the diocesan priesthood, I get the sense that we have lost our sense of obedience of things which are not sin, as well as deference. This goes for all of us, at least in the First World. I think it’s partly an overreactionvto the sex abuse crisis, and also the consequences of the dominance of the Me Generation. And I’ve not really seen too many people in Catholic circles these days who really mock anyone who likes Gregorian Chant, and certainly not Latin, unless you mean non-Catholics, who are irrelevant here.

 

[Cojuanco]

I just tend to get confused by the whole thing myself - Is there really anything more traditional than obedience?

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

Some have claimed the introduction into theChurchof abuses,dogmaticandliturgicalnovelties,superstitions, with which they are permitted, even bound, not to ally themselves. Without entering into thefoundationfor these charges it should be noted that the authors cited above do not mention or admit a single exception. If we accept their statements separation from theChurchisnecessarilyanevil, an injurious and blameworthyact, and abandoning of thetrueway ofsalvation, and this independent of allcontingentcircumstances. Moreover the doctrinesof theFathersexcludea prioriany such attempt atjustification; to use their words, it is forbidden for individualsor particular or nationalChurchesto constitute themselvesjudgesof theuniversalChurch; the mere fact of having it against one carries its own condemnation.St. Augustinesummed up all his controversy with theDonatistsin the maxim: “The whole world unhesitatingly declares them wrong who separate themselves from the whole world in whatsoever portion of the whole world” (quapropter securus judicat orbis terrarum bonos non esse qui sedividuntab orbe terrarum, in quacumque parte orbis terrarum) . Here Bayle may be quoted again: “Protestantsbring forward only questionable reasons; theyoffernothing convincing, no demonstration: theyprove and object, but there are replies to theirproofsand objections; they answer and are answered endlessly; is it worth while to make a*schism?” (Dict. crit., art. Nihusius).

newadvent.org/cathen/13529a.htm

Kind of prescient of them back in the day, no?