SSPX and Cluny

[EphelDuath]

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.

I was not referring specifically to bishops. There are a few examples, however. The one that immediately comes to mind is the Archbishop emeritus of Detroit, who openly told his former flock to disobey Canon 915, and the currently-reigning Archbishop Vigneron who tried to enforce it.

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,

Perhaps you should read the National Catholic Reporter sometime.

 

[JReducation]

I have a few questions. I don’t even know if they have answers.

1. How did Cluny end up in the same sentence with the SSPX? They’re very different situations. For one thing, Cluny never refused to obey the Holy See. That’s just for starters.
2. Why is it that everytime Traditionalism comes up, so does the Tridentine Mass and Gregorian Chant? I understand that they are both both of our history; therefore part of tradition. What stuns someone like me is that my tradition, which is 800 years old, much older the the Tridentine mass, which in fact gave birth to the Tridentine mass, if ignored. There seems to be a dichotomy here, as if some traditions are for the laity and some for religious. Does this mean that we have parallel churches? Does it mean that the consecrated life is no longer considered the school of Christian Spirituality to which the laity look? Does it mean that the consecrated life no longer has value for the laity? If this is so, no matter how many Tridentine masses one celebrates and how much Gregorian chant one sings, one is missing a huge chunk of Catholic tradition. Consecrated life is only one more part of Catholic tradition. There is much more besides Tridentine mass, Gregorian chant and consecrated life.
3. My last question is very matter of fact. Have people on these Traditional forums no respect, no appreciation, nor sensitivity toward the many priests, bishops, religious and laymen who have remained faithful to the Church during this time of difficulty? These men and women did not leave the Church. They did not violate canon law. They did not tell the pope that they would not obey. They did not say that the OF of the mass was bad. They tried everything they could to remain faithful at their posts and do what God call them to do. Am I the only who thinks that holding the SSPX up as the model of Catholic fidelity is offensive to the rest of us, including to this poster? What are we who have been here all along, applesauce?

 

[Oneofthewomen]

I have a few questions. I don’t even know if they have answers.

1. My last question is very matter of fact. Have people on these Traditional forums no respect, no appreciation, nor sensitivity toward the many priests, bishops, religious and laymen who have remained faithful to the Church during this time of difficulty? These men and women did not leave the Church. They did not violate canon law. They did not tell the pope that they would not obey. They did not say that the OF of the mass was bad. They tried everything they could to remain faithful at their posts and do what God call them to do. Am I the only who thinks that holding the SSPX up as the model of Catholic fidelity is offensive to the rest of us, including to this poster? What are we who have been here all along, applesauce?

Br. Jay,
This last question of yours is one that I also ask myself often. It often seems, to me at least, that those who ‘cling’ to the externals of ‘tradition’, i.e the EF, Gregorian chant, Latin, etc, seem to want to throw out the tradition of obedience when it suits their cause, yet many of those same people are screaming for punishment for disobedience from “the other side” (i.e. “progressives”, modernists", etc).
I don’t have an answer, I wish I did, but I do understand your point. There is a dichotomy here that is quite disturbing.

 

[TimothyH]

I have a few questions. I don’t even know if they have answers.

1. How did Cluny end up in the same sentence with the SSPX? They’re very different situations. For one thing, Cluny never refused to obey the Holy See. That’s just for starters.

This was my question, asked twice with no answer.

The only thing I can find are a few vague references to the SSPX as a “self-proclaimed Cluny.” I’ve not been able to find where they themselves have said that.

It is an odd title for a thread. Whomever said that has no idea what Cluny was about.

-Tim-

 

[JReducation]

Br. Jay,
This last question of yours is one that I also ask myself often. It often seems, to me at least, that those who ‘cling’ to the externals of ‘tradition’, i.e the EF, Gregorian chant, Latin, etc, seem to want to throw out the tradition of obedience when it suits their cause, yet many of those same people are screaming for punishment for disobedience from “the other side” (i.e. “progressives”, modernists", etc).
I don’t have an answer, I wish I did, but I do understand your point. There is a dichotomy here that is quite disturbing.

I’m not just talking about priests and religious here. Yesterday, I had lunch with a couple in their 70s. I think. It was a Christmas lunch for our ministry. In any case, this couple has been Catholic since the cradle. Mr. and Mrs. Catholic have hung in there and they have worked hard to make a contribution to the spiritual life of the Church and to support the Church’s social ministry. They attend the OF. They are Charismatics. They are also the most prayerful and faith filled couple that I know. They are kind, compassionate, obedient to the Church and they do everything they can to stay in a state of grace, such as frequent confession and daily mass. Should they be told that the SSPX and its friends are better examples of Catholicism?

This was my question, asked twice with no answer.

The only thing I can find are a few vague references to the SSPX as a “self-proclaimed Cluny.” I’ve not been able to find where they themselves have said that.

It is an odd title for a thread. Whomever said that has no idea what Cluny was about.

-Tim-

I don’t see the relationship at all.

 

[Oneofthewomen]

I’m not just talking about priests and religious here. Yesterday, I had lunch with a couple in their 70s. I think. It was a Christmas lunch for our ministry. In any case, this couple has been Catholic since the cradle. Mr. and Mrs. Catholic have hung in there and they have worked hard to make a contribution to the spiritual life of the Church and to support the Church’s social ministry. They attend the OF. They are Charismatics. They are also the most prayerful and faith filled couple that I know. They are kind, compassionate, obedient to the Church and they do everything they can to stay in a state of grace, such as frequent confession and daily mass. Should they be told that the SSPX and its friends are better examples of Catholicism?

I agree 100%. In fact, I see it as more of a problem with the laity, especially in my neck of the woods. It is also my experience that many converts to Catholicism, many of whom who never experienced or had family who experienced, first hand, that mythical “Golden Age”, seem to be the most vocal about what is “wrong” with the “modern Church”

Again, there is a dichotomy here that is disturbing.

 

[RPRPsych]

I agree 100%. In fact, I see it as more of a problem with the laity, especially in my neck of the woods. It is also my experience that many converts to Catholicism, many of whom who never experienced or had family who experienced, first hand, that mythical “Golden Age”, seem to be the most vocal about what is “wrong” with the “modern Church”

Again, there is a dichotomy here that is disturbing.

Exactly.

Those of my family who’ve experienced it first hand - which include both my parents - are aware that some things have changed, but aren’t unduly disturbed by them, and go along quite contentedly. Neither of them feel that the Church has “fallen into error” or is “living in a state of crisis”, and both of them are quite fine with Pope Francis.

The search for a mystical Golden Age or Millennium, as Oliver Sacks pointed out in “Awakenings”, is a universal human yearning; however, when it causes conflicts within the Church, it can be problematic.

 

[JReducation]

Exactly.

Those of my family who’ve experienced it first hand - which include both my parents - are aware that some things have changed, but aren’t unduly disturbed by them, and go along quite contentedly. Neither of them feel that the Church has “fallen into error” or is “living in a state of crisis”, and both of them are quite fine with Pope Francis.

The search for a mystical Golden Age or Millennium, as Oliver Sacks pointed out in “Awakenings”, is a universal human yearning; however, when it causes conflicts within the Church, it can be problematic.

Personally, I wish that those who choose to condemn the Church would give those of us who love her the time to speak. They may see the Church from a different perspective.

 

[Luz_Maria]

I have a few questions. I don’t even know if they have answers.

. . . . ]

1. My last question is very matter of fact. Have people on these Traditional forums no respect, no appreciation, nor sensitivity toward the many priests, bishops, religious and laymen who have remained faithful to the Church during this time of difficulty? These men and women did not leave the Church. They did not violate canon law. They did not tell the pope that they would not obey. They did not say that the OF of the mass was bad. They tried everything they could to remain faithful at their posts and do what God call them to do. Am I the only who thinks that holding the SSPX up as the model of Catholic fidelity is offensive to the rest of us, including to this poster? What are we who have been here all along, applesauce?

I do like the “applesauce”. We say “painted on the wall”, and my Jewish friends: “chopped liver”.

You are very correct, Br. JR. If the SSPX wants to be part of the Catholic Church, then every thing that we have to be faithful to and do would be theirs to be faithful to and do also. Coming into the Church “cafeteria style” would extremely offensive. Unfortunately, I am not one to keep quiet. I would respectfully write to the Holy Father.

I am a “cradle Catholic” from a long line of Catholics and my family is from the persecuted Church. Now, there are customs where we came from that are not known where we live now. These we see as the “decorations”, but the core of the Church and its teachings are the very same. We may believe some things “more strongly” because of the persecution, but it is the same Church.

As to obedience, we each have to be obedient to someone: at work to the supervisor; when we are sick to the doctor – if we want to get well! At the parish, if doing any volunteer work, to the Pastor.

Do not get me wrong, for I love this discussion, but . . . freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-signs002.gif the OP has not posted at all to answer the question posed.

Could a troll this person be? freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-signs043.gif

Blessings,

Luz Maria

 

[RPRPsych]

Personally, I wish that those who choose to condemn the Church would give those of us who love her the time to speak. They may see the Church from a different perspective.

I agree. Would that all those who condemn it, for whatever reason, listen to this.

 

[commenter]

…
Could a troll this person be?

I don’t know this particular person. There’s a lot of threads that follow a template, like:

"No, I am NOT a member of SSPX! I just happened, in passing, to notice that:

1. The SSPX is unfairly treated by many in the Church, and on CAF;
2. Sure it isn’t perfect, but countless liberal/heretical groups are condoned, even though they have far greater faults, and no redeeming spiritual qualities.
3. If the SSPX over-reacts at times (like in Argentina), it’s a few individuals are so impatient with the hostile persecution, they are understandably upset. It is the Church’s fault for marginalizing them in the first place.
4. The SSPX is really obedient to the larger 2000 year tradition; if we look closely it might be comparable to Cluny, or other renewals controversial at one time, but now are known to be prophetic.
5. Again, I am just an impartial observer, NO CONNECTION to SSPX, never planned to write about SSPX, just happened by and noticed this injustice, from the viewpoint of a neutral third party."
   (end template)

People think this is a sincere questioner interested in Cluny. I expect to see another thread spring up about the connection between SSPX and this saint, or that Old Testament prophet, or this other group that was once criticized, now honored. People spend time trying to answer a question or connection that really isn’t there. (I don’t in any way intend to criticize SSPX members in general on CAF)

 

[gus]

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.

I was under the impression religious orders and the monasteries and universities they run are not subject to a local bishop. Even opus Dei . Why couldn’t theSsPX

 

[JReducation]

I was under the impression religious orders and the monasteries and universities they run are not subject to a local bishop. Even opus Dei . Why couldn’t theSsPX

We must get the permission of the local bishop to enter his territory and to setup an apostolate. For example, when I came to this diocese, I wanted to set up a pro-life Franciscan community to work with dads, the dying, and the immigrant poor. I had to get a letter from the bishop granting permission to:

a. open houses.
b. exercise the apostolate in his territory
c. accept new brothers to vows
d. keep the Blessed Sacrament in our house
c. allow our priests to hear confessions outside of the house
d. purchase property within diocesan territory

Once that letter is granted, you’re on your own. The bishop has nothing to do with you, nor can the bishop ask you to leave his diocese. Only the pope can do this. A bishop can only suppress what is his to suppress.

There are things from the list above that the bishop retains. He retains the right to pull the Eucharist from your house. He retains the right to suspend the faculties to hear confessions in his diocese. This means that the superior can grant you faculties to hear confessions on community property if the person going to confession lives in the community. The bishop also retains the right to take away the name “Catholic” from your apostolate.

The sacraments and the name Catholic belong to the Church, not to any institute. Therefore, the bishop has control over those as he is the local pontiff.

 

[commenter]

I was under the impression religious orders and the monasteries and universities they run are not subject to a local bishop. Even opus Dei . Why couldn’t theSsPX

Who would benefit from that kind of arrangement? Not the people in the SSPX. They would not benefit from the ministry of the local bishop, whose authority was strongly affirmed as useful and necessary by St. Pius X. For that matter, the founding Archbishop also affirmed the authority of local bishops for decades, specifically as someone the clergy and faithful needed.

People keep referring to the SSPX as a unit, but it consists of individuals. Those priests, religious and laity would gain nothing from this arrangement that they don’t already have now; but they would continue to be isolated from the local Catholic Church. They aren’t united to the multiple good Catholic things going on in liberal or conservative dioceses; they don’t fully contribute their talents to the larger struggle against secularism in their local city.

If you regard episcopal ministry as a hazard people need to be protected from, you may as well go all the way and free the SSPX chapel from SSPX bishops or district superintendents. There’s no reason why some bishop in another continent will be more understanding of local families than the one who lives in your city.

 

[KyrieEleison17]

Why is it that everytime Traditionalism comes up, so does the Tridentine Mass and Gregorian Chant? I understand that they are both both of our history; therefore part of tradition.

The Universal Tradition is separable from particulars even if it must ultimately be, as often as our nature requires it to be, expressed in particulars. That is exactly how traditions can be lasting or perennial.

I don’t doubt that Christians have from the first honoured the nativity (or birth) of our Saviour: I can see how my family’s very English quasi-Germanic Christian tradition, predominant and widespread in North America, for example, is an expression of that Tradition; however, it would be a grievous mistake to think that the first Christians i) sang the carols we do on ii) December 25th, iii) set-up Christmas trees and decorations and iv) went shopping to exchange gifts. Not one of those particulars should be confused with the Tradition itself but are rather an expression of it. Indeed, as the name suggests, its earliest and most definite expression or emphasis probably had a deep connection with the Mass or the Eucharist at first. Even that connection proved highly dissociable though obviously natural and logical and I’m sure in many places actually obligatory (i.e. you have to attend Mass for/on Christmas or Christmas Day). But even that obligation, possibly, was itself a development from a more primitive tradition. Moreover it is in fact the Church that promotes the celebration of Christmas: it is not a divine ordinance as far as I know though, to be sure, it is an event recorded for our knowledge and memory in the Gospels. We are obliged by God, however, to obey and listen to the Church.

I can sympathize however with someone who associates any one or all of those particular expressions of Christmas I mentioned above as being “the Tradition” (as being basic or part and parcel to Christianity, say); however, I know -largely from history - that it is simply not.

 

[Thomas_Casey]

The Universal Tradition is separable from particulars even if it must ultimately be, as often as our nature requires it to be, expressed in particulars. That is exactly how traditions can be lasting or perennial.

I don’t doubt that Christians have from the first honoured the nativity (or birth) of our Saviour: I can see how my family’s very English quasi-Germanic Christian tradition, predominant and widespread in North America, for example, is an expression of that Tradition; however, it would be a grievous mistake to think that the first Christians i) sang the carols we do on ii) December 25th, iii) set-up Christmas trees and decorations and iv) went shopping to exchange gifts. Not one of those particulars should be confused with the Tradition itself but are rather an expression of it. Indeed, as the name suggests, its earliest and most definite expression or emphasis probably had a deep connection with the Mass or the Eucharist at first. Even that connection proved highly dissociable though obviously natural and logical and I’m sure in many places actually obligatory (i.e. you have to attend Mass for/on Christmas or Christmas Day). But even that obligation, possibly, was itself a development from a more primitive tradition. Moreover it is in fact the Church that promotes the celebration of Christmas: it is not a divine ordinance as far as I know though, to be sure, it is an event recorded for our knowledge and memory in the Gospels. We are obliged by God, however, to obey and listen to the Church.

I can sympathize however with someone who associates any one or all of those particular expressions of Christmas I mentioned above as being “the Tradition” (as being basic or part and parcel to Christianity, say); however, I know -largely from history - that it is simply not.

My point is that in the mind of some people, if you don’t have the Tridentine mass and Gregorian chant, you’re not traditional even when you have hundreds of years of tradition all around you.

 

[Latinitas]

Hi CAF community,

I haven’t had the time to write back, but I see I ought to now.

First off, let me say this: these ideas are not my own; I just didn’t want to mention that I was told this. I’m deeply opposed to the SSPX’s schismatic tendencies; I believe they’d do well to submit unconditionally to the Holy See - but it’s not likely to happen. Whoever said that the Church needs to focus on other things is absolutely correct, in my humble opinion.

Second, I’m no SSPXer. I know what Cluny was about. I see some vague similarities in the opinions presented, I think it’s a substantially different situation.

I just wanted to hear what your opinions were on this matter; but I’m thinking it might have been better had I not, since the SSPX is a hot issue for many Catholics.

I must comment, however, that the Pope certainly can free a society from all diocesan authority if he wished. It’s the Pope who created the diocese, who ordered the consecration of the bishop, who invested the bishop etc., so he could certainly do this if he wished. The Pope is not bound by the council either.

I think your comments are very interesting. I just wanted to assure you all that I’m most certainly not in agreement with the SSPX, and I tried to present the topic as it was presented to me.

Benedicat Deus,
Latinitas

 

[Cojuanco]

Hi CAF community,

I haven’t had the time to write back, but I see I ought to now.

First off, let me say this: these ideas are not my own; I just didn’t want to mention that I was told this. I’m deeply opposed to the SSPX’s schismatic tendencies; I believe they’d do well to submit unconditionally to the Holy See - but it’s not likely to happen. Whoever said that the Church needs to focus on other things is absolutely correct, in my humble opinion.

Second, I’m no SSPXer. I know what Cluny was about. I see some vague similarities in the opinions presented, I think it’s a substantially different situation.

I just wanted to hear what your opinions were on this matter; but I’m thinking it might have been better had I not, since the SSPX is a hot issue for many Catholics.

I must comment, however, that the Pope certainly can free a society from all diocesan authority if he wished. It’s the Pope who created the diocese, who ordered the consecration of the bishop, who invested the bishop etc., so he could certainly do this if he wished. The Pope is not bound by the council either.

I think your comments are very interesting. I just wanted to assure you all that I’m most certainly not in agreement with the SSPX, and I tried to present the topic as it was presented to me.

Benedicat Deus,
Latinitas

Oh, don’t worry, I’ve read enough of you to know that you are far from agreement with these persons in irregular canonical situations.

And as to the second to last paragraphs, yes, that is true. But the Pope generally is not one to revolutionize Canon Law.

 

[JReducation]

I must comment, however, that the Pope certainly can free a society from all diocesan authority if he wished. It’s the Pope who created the diocese, who ordered the consecration of the bishop, who invested the bishop etc., so he could certainly do this if he wished. The Pope is not bound by the council either.

I think your comments are very interesting. I just wanted to assure you all that I’m most certainly not in agreement with the SSPX, and I tried to present the topic as it was presented to me.

Benedicat Deus,
Latinitas

That’s one thing that a pope cannot do. Popes are bound by divine revelation. From the time of the Apostles, particular churches are under the jurisdiction of a bishop. The pope does not have the authority to undermine apostolic succession.

He has universal jurisdiction. This means that he can enter any diocese and command any bishop. He can grant faculties and take away faculties anywhere in the world. But he cannot violate the theology of apostolic succession. He cannot overrule a bishop on that which is the bishop’s divine right. A bishop is a pontiff.

If a pope were to say to a group that they can set up their tent in a jurisdiction against the will of the bishop, the pope would be violating the bishop’s rights. These are not rights given to the bishop by law. They are given to him by apostolic succession.

This comes through very clearly in Roman history. While Peter was the supreme pontiff, his authority over the churches was limited and still it to this day. It’s not so limited that it is crippling. But there are certain things that have come down not by canon law, but from the early Church itself. One of those is the right of a bishop to govern his territory.

In the case of exempt religious, prelatures and ordinariates, the fact that a bishop cannot intervene once they are inside his diocese is not contrary to revealed ecclesiology. But what he can do is deny entrance to his diocese. There is no pope on earth who can impose it on him.

The best the pope can do is to transfer that bishop and assign one who is of like mind to his own and allow the group in.

You don’t want to mess with apostolic succession. That’s very sticky. That’s how the Anglicans got into trouble and how the Orthodox have managed to remain a true Church.

 

[EphelDuath]

1. Why is it that everytime Traditionalism comes up, so does the Tridentine Mass and Gregorian Chant?

Because people within the Church that oppose the EF and Gregorian chant, use the SSPX as a red herring.