SSPX and Rome : Latest Hint At What Will Transcend Sept 14th

[jmj1984]

I don’t know who told you this, but this is not exactly the way it happened. The Dominicans and Carmelites “handed over” their rites, because they believed that it was expected of them. The Carthusians revised their rite, because it was expected of them.

The Franciscans had the Seraphic Missal pulled and Pope Benedict is not allowing it back into circulation. A new one has to be written. The Seraphic missal was simply a form of the Tridentine mass, not a rite. However, it is an older form that predates 1962.

Constitutions were rewritten at the command of that Vatican. Their content was given apostolic approval by the Vatican. Bl. John Paul commanded that they be rewritten again, because the original approval was tentative to see if they worked. Most communities have completed the work and the final editions have been submitted and approved by Bl. John Paul.

There was not option not to rewrite the constitutions. The mandate was to write the constitutions so that they reflect the original intent of the founders. When those constitutions failed to reflect that intent, they were sent back for review by the institutes. Those constitutions that were already in compliance with the mandate, still had to be resubmitted for the Holy See’s approval. There are some constitutions out there that are still in review, but my take is that there are not many. Most of the ones that are still in review are not those of the orders, but of congregations. That stands to reason, because congregations do not have a rule of life. They don’t have a skeleton on which to build, as do the orders. It’s going to be more difficult for them to capture the original intent of the founder, as they have to go back into history and the interpretation of history is not as precise as reading a rule.

Did some constitutions miss the mark? Of course they did. These are still being sent back and forth. That’s the story.

Do we grant the SSPX more latitude than we grant to other institutes? It does not seem fair. However, I’m not the pope. He can grant as much or as little latitude as he wants.

Right now, the other institutes, religious and secular do not have the authority to take a corporate stand against the Church’s position on anything. They will get pulled back harder and farther than a rubber band. Those individuals who take it on themselves to take such stands end up on the margins. That’s my point.

However, just because we don’t take such stands, does not make our contribution to the Church any less than that of the SSPX or just because the SSPX takes a corporate stand that is so vocal, does not make its contribution more effective than that of their counterparts, for example the FSSP, Christ the King, St. John Cantius, Sons of the Most Holy Redeemer or Franciscans of the Immaculate.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Br jr

Again I am not insulting those orders, I understand you’d be sensitive to that though.

The fact remains however that these orders decided to completely reject that part of their heritage, a thing unprecedented in the history of the church, they were not ordered to do so by the council or even the pope and became embroiled as far as I can see in a particular interpretation of the council as a super council an interpretation which has been firmly rejected. As the raison d’etre is the exact opposite the sspx cannot be expected to do the same.

As for the second matter that’s a contentious issue, such a thing was generally only possible after 1988 and the sons of the most holy redeemed only subscribed to this interpretation in 2008 when they decided to regularise their situation whilst the sspx of course reject this interpretation.

 

[simple_soul]

Probably more of the former. I think a lot in bilingual parishes feel the same way. They just don’t care for Mass in a language other than their own and won’t hesitate to show their disdain.

*Speaking from my own experience, I believe the disdain is caused because of something a lot deeper than just the Mass being celebrated in a different language…and I can tell you…it is really hurtful and hard to get over…so please be patient with them…and please keep us in your prayers…

Peace and God Bless…*

 

[ttes15]

Right now, the other institutes, religious and secular do not have the authority to take a corporate stand against the Church’s position on anything. They will get pulled back harder and farther than a rubber band. Those individuals who take it on themselves to take such stands end up on the margins. That’s my point.

While my observations have lead me to believe that this is the general rule, there are two notable exceptions. (1) The Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary (both in MA in NH) are permitted to teach and promote their interpretation of EENS. (2) The Institute of the Good Shepherd is permitted to engage in criticism of Vatican II. As pointed out earlier, Fr. Z has said that men of good will can differ on theological issues. I agree that they cannot bash Vatican II in the media and from the pulpit, but certainly they can make their positions known in public, much like the Slaves do without bashing the CCC or the official documents of the Holy See. So I agree with much of what you are saying, but just would like to point out some exceptions.

As a side note, there is no reason why the SSPX, like the FSSP and other Ecclesia Dei institutes, need to use the language (sometimes ambiguous) by Vatican II (ex.: full vs. partial communion, subsitit in, etc.). They can use the unambiguous pre-conciliar terminology for teachings and doctrines.

 

[JReducation]

There are two parts to “what the SSPX wants”: The doctrinal part, and the organizational part.

Right now, the doctrinal part is at the forefront. What the SSPX wants on the doctrinal part is the freedom to work both inside their chapels and outside to restore a pre-Vatican II understanding of Catholic doctrine and practice. This is because they consider many of the postconciliar changes to be erroneous. The difference with the FSSP (as an example) in this case, is that the FSSP doesn’t go around trying to change the whole diocese they’re in. The SSPX calls this “living in a ghetto” and “being silenced” and rejects it.

The organizational part would have to come after a doctrinal agreement. What the SSPX wants on the organizational part is freedom from local bishops, they recognize that very many local bishops are hostile to traditional Catholicism. Even many of the bishops that have allowed FSSP or ICRSP chapels/parishes prefer to keep the traditional Mass and sacraments locked away in the one traditional-friendly Church. The SSPX is unwilling to be confined in this manner, and wants the freedom to open chapels anywhere at all. For the SSPX, this is a matter salvation of abandoned souls.

I don’t think this much freedom will fly. To begin with, no one may enter a diocese and setup house without the permission of the local bishop. The Opus Dei, being a prelature, has some allowances, but I believe that even they are expected to respect the authority of the local bishop. This means they don’t stand at the pulpit and contradict him. I don’t think that the Opus Dei leadership would allow it.

While my observations have lead me to believe that this is the general rule, there are two notable exceptions. (1) The Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary (both in MA in NH) are permitted to teach and promote their interpretation of EENS. (2) The Institute of the Good Shepherd is permitted to engage in criticism of Vatican II. As pointed out earlier, Fr. Z has said that men of good will can differ on theological issues. I agree that they cannot bash Vatican II in the media and from the pulpit, but certainly they can make their positions known in public, much like the Slaves do without bashing the CCC or the official documents of the Holy See. So I agree with much of what you are saying, but just would like to point out some exceptions.

As a side note, there is no reason why the SSPX, like the FSSP and other Ecclesia Dei institutes, need to use the language (sometimes ambiguous) by Vatican II (ex.: full vs. partial communion, subsitit in, etc.). They can use the unambiguous pre-conciliar terminology for teachings and doctrines.

What you’re sayiing does not contradict what I said. You can say almost anything you want as long as you follow the rules. These examples that you gave a good ones. These institutes are very free to take a corporate stand on different questions as long as they do not do so from the pulpit and they do not trash the Council or the CCC.

It is one thing to take issue with a specific point and quite another to trash an entire council or catechism or liturgical form, especially from the pulpit.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[ttes15]

What you’re sayiing does not contradict what I said. You can say almost anything you want as long as you follow the rules. These examples that you gave a good ones. These institutes are very free to take a corporate stand on different questions as long as they do not do so from the pulpit and they do not trash the Council or the CCC.

It is one thing to take issue with a specific point and quite another to trash an entire council or catechism or liturgical form, especially from the pulpit.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Thank you brother for your response. Would you consider there to be a difference between criticize and trash? Also, I do believe that the Slaves can respectfully take issue of EENS from the pulpit. They certainly are able to disseminate literature supporting there position, although it is always done with the utmost respect. Should not the SSPX be given the same freedom?

 

[JReducation]

Thank you brother for your response. Would you consider there to be a difference between criticize and trash?

There is definitely a difference. The problem is that most people don’t know it. They think that making statements such as “Vatican II was a disaster” is critical thinking or a critique. It’s not. It’s trashing, dismissing, condemning, setting yourself up as an authority over an entire body of bishops and a council.

Also, I do believe that the Slaves can respectfully take issue of EENS from the pulpit. They certainly are able to disseminate literature supporting there position, although it is always done with the utmost respect. Should not the SSPX be given the same freedom?

I have never heard the Slaves speak, so I don’t know if they speak in a manner that the Church would find confrontational.

I will say this. Whether one is a diocesan priest, a priest in a religious order, a religious sister or religious brother, or a layman, what is expected is that when you’re speaking in public you explain your point. You do not contradict the faith or morals. You do not incite the audience to question the Church, her authority and her integrity. You refrain from wording that sounds like a declaration of war, because such wording is divisive. At the end of the day, it helps no one. It only gets people angry and they don’t go out and shout at you. They go out into the community shouting at each other. Meanwhile, you have set the wheels in motion and then you go home to your hot meal and warm bed. Such behavior is irresponsible.

For me, that’s the difference between the SSPX and the FSSP. I find my dialogues with the FSSP refreshing.

They are very critical thinkers, without being critics, cynics, antagonists or arrogant. They have a way of winning you over and making you want to hear them out, because they never begin with “you guys are wrong.” They always begin with, “We believe . . .”

Well, what rational human being is going to be offended by what another person believes? You can disagree with him, but if you’re offended, it’s your problem, not his. He’s not telling you that he’s right and you’re wrong. He’s asking you to hear him out.

Context is also important. When I am in a public setting where there are people who are not going to understand what I’m talking about, then I have a duty to either tone it down or not talk about it in that situation. It’s just going to cause a problem, not help.

If I stand up and preach on salvation and the Church, I don’t want to go into the Council Documents at that point. A homily does not give enough time to explain in detail what I’m thinking. Sometimes, no information is better than not enough information.

I don’t mean to be rude. I mean to be realistic. The average person in the pew does not have the same level of education in theology and philosophy as the man at the pulpit. It is unfair to speak to them as if they could fill in the blanks. If you’re going to bring up a document and a point in a document with which you disagree, you must factor in that they don’t know what you know or what you’re thinking. If I’m talking to laymen, I try to make sure that I say the same thing in three different ways so that as many people as possible will understand. However, you can’t always do that in a 10 min sermon and you should never try to do it in an interview. This is where I think that some priests and religious, not just SSPX, are foolish to the extreme.

They make comments while being filmed or recorded as if these recordings were going to be presented in their original state. Much of what you say will end up on the cutting room floor and the most sensational part of the your statement will make it to youtube, TV or the news paper. The best policy is to avoid trying to give critical feedback on Church documents or what the bishop or pope said in that environment, because you’re going to be edited. Instead of coming off like a critical thinker, you’ll come off as a critic. The media loves the expression, “some critics within the Church.” If I had a dollar for each time they use that expression, with such glee, I could alleviate world hunger.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[NihilObstatINRI]

I don’t think this much freedom will fly. To begin with, no one may enter a diocese and setup house without the permission of the local bishop. The Opus Dei, being a prelature, has some allowances, but I believe that even they are expected to respect the authority of the local bishop. This means they don’t stand at the pulpit and contradict him. I don’t think that the Opus Dei leadership would allow it.

Br. JR, OSF

Structures can and have been set up that require no approval from, and are not under the authority of the local Latin bishop. First, most obviously, is the Eastern eparchies, next is the ordinariates, and last is the Personal Apostolic Administration set up for the SSJV. I understand that they discussed a personal prelature, but we have no confirmation that this set-up won’t have some unique attributes. Personal prelatures are, after all, a new thing and can be redefined if necessary.

 

[ttes15]

There is definitely a difference. The problem is that most people don’t know it. They think that making statements such as “Vatican II was a disaster” is critical thinking or a critique. It’s not. It’s trashing, dismissing, condemning, setting yourself up as an authority over an entire body of bishops and a council.

I have never heard the Slaves speak, so I don’t know if they speak in a manner that the Church would find confrontational.

I will say this. Whether one is a diocesan priest, a priest in a religious order, a religious sister or religious brother, or a layman, what is expected is that when you’re speaking in public you explain your point. You do not contradict the faith or morals. You do not incite the audience to question the Church, her authority and her integrity. You refrain from wording that sounds like a declaration of war, because such wording is divisive. At the end of the day, it helps no one. It only gets people angry and they don’t go out and shout at you. They go out into the community shouting at each other. Meanwhile, you have set the wheels in motion and then you go home to your hot meal and warm bed. Such behavior is irresponsible.

For me, that’s the difference between the SSPX and the FSSP. I find my dialogues with the FSSP refreshing.

That makes a lot of sense. I’m currently a theology student, and I enjoy hearing both sides of the debate regarding Vatican II. But one of the biggest turn offs for me is when people go from the acceptable “We accept the Church’s traditional teaching on (insert issue), it seems as if Vatican II contradicts that teaching and we welcome any clarifications from the Holy See in this regard” to the bashing of “Vatican II is evil and we must oppose it.” The former seems intelligent, respectable, and thought-provoking…while the latter seems to be, as you said, a declaration of war. You mentioned your talks with the FSSP…as I don’t have much experience with them, do they criticize Vatican II in an acceptable and intelligent manner?

 

[JReducation]

Structures can and have been set up that require no approval from, and are not under the authority of the local Latin bishop. First, most obviously, is the Eastern eparchies, next is the ordinariates, and last is the Personal Apostolic Administration set up for the SSJV. I understand that they discussed a personal prelature, but we have no confirmation that this set-up won’t have some unique attributes. Personal prelatures are, after all, a new thing and can be redefined if necessary.

The eparchies are not part of the Latin Church. They answer to their own hierarchy. They’re out of the picture. A personal apostolic administration answers directly to the Holy See. The prelature, as the Opus Dei, which is the only one in existence right now, answers to the Holy Father through his vicar. I am familiar with the canons that govern them. They also come under the Sacred Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life, because their priests are a society of apostolic life. I am unfamiliar with the rules that the Sacred Congregation sets up for them. I can’t speak to that. I can speak to what I see.

They are always very careful to cultivate good relations with the local bishops and the diocesan clergy. They do follow diocesan policies. I don’t know how much is voluntary and how much is commanded from the Sacred Congregation. For example, they have a retreat house and they asked the local bishop for permission to erect it. The diocese has nothing to do with it. It’s their thing. It’s run like a religious retreat house would be. You get the local bishop’s permission and then you’re on your own. My point is that they avoid conflicts, even though they are not part of the diocese.

It will be important for the SSPX to cultivate these relationships. If they go into an area as the saviors of Catholicism, it will not go well. It will only prolong the tension that already exists. Whereas, if they go into an area as brothers to the rest of the clergy and religious, things will go better.

A lot will also depend on the laity. The lay faithful who are SSPX supporters will have to tone down their rhetoric. I have observed that the lay supporters of the SSPX hurt them more than help them. Much of what the rest of us hear regarding the SSPX is from the laity, not from their priests and bishops.

I had a very unpleasant experience with an SSPX supporter only to find out that the SSPX priest himself was not on the same page. When I shared with the local SSPX priest what had happened to me at his chapel, he was very embarrassed. He apologized for five minutes.

Sometimes, people push what they want to see in the SSPX, which is not always how the SSPX sees itself or how the SSPX sees others. People have to very careful with that too.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[NihilObstatINRI]

The eparchies are not part of the Latin Church. They answer to their own hierarchy. They’re out of the picture. A personal apostolic administration answers directly to the Holy See. The prelature, as the Opus Dei, which is the only one in existence right now, answers to the Holy Father through his vicar. I am familiar with the canons that govern them. They also come under the Sacred Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life, because their priests are a society of apostolic life. I am unfamiliar with the rules that the Sacred Congregation sets up for them. I can’t speak to that. I can speak to what I see.

They are always very careful to cultivate good relations with the local bishops and the diocesan clergy. They do follow diocesan policies. I don’t know how much is voluntary and how much is commanded from the Sacred Congregation. For example, they have a retreat house and they asked the local bishop for permission to erect it. The diocese has nothing to do with it. It’s their thing. It’s run like a religious retreat house would be. You get the local bishop’s permission and then you’re on your own. My point is that they avoid conflicts, even though they are not part of the diocese.

It will be important for the SSPX to cultivate these relationships. If they go into an area as the saviors of Catholicism, it will not go well. It will only prolong the tension that already exists. Whereas, if they go into an area as brothers to the rest of the clergy and religious, things will go better.

A lot will also depend on the laity. The lay faithful who are SSPX supporters will have to tone down their rhetoric. I have observed that the lay supporters of the SSPX hurt them more than help them. Much of what the rest of us hear regarding the SSPX is from the laity, not from their priests and bishops.

I had a very unpleasant experience with an SSPX supporter only to find out that the SSPX priest himself was not on the same page. When I shared with the local SSPX priest what had happened to me at his chapel, he was very embarrassed. He apologized for five minutes.

Sometimes, people push what they want to see in the SSPX, which is not always how the SSPX sees itself or how the SSPX sees others. People have to very careful with that too.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

I certainly agree with your post. All I meant by my post is that we don’t know for sure exactly what kind of formal authority the local ordinary will have over an SSPX structure. For all we know, it could be none at all. Lord knows, some groups have a hard time doing perfectly legitimate things in a given diocese, like celebrate the TLM at all. For instance, how do you think Mario Conti in Glasgow is going to react if the SSPX as a personal prelature asks to be allowed to operate in his diocese? As far as I know they already do, so there’s going to have to be some sort of formal documentation that allows them to bypass Archbishop Conti’s permission. Besides that, I have no trouble imagining a lot of bishops who would not be comfortable with giving the SSPX faculties in their diocese, just because they don’t like their theology and are used to the status quo of the last twenty odd years of painting the SSPX as villains.
I think some sort of provision will have to be made in whatever structure is offered that allows the SSPX to bypass episcopal authority in specific instances.

I had a thought suddenly occur to me though. Remember how bishops who don’t apply Summorum Pontificum are now (as of Universae Ecclesiae) subject to correction by Ecclesia Dei? Maybe Ecclesia Dei will be involved somehow in the operation of an SSPX structure… Just an idle thought, of course.

 

[JReducation]

That makes a lot of sense. I’m currently a theology student, and I enjoy hearing both sides of the debate regarding Vatican II. But one of the biggest turn offs for me is when people go from the acceptable “We accept the Church’s traditional teaching on (insert issue), it seems as if Vatican II contradicts that teaching and we welcome any clarifications from the Holy See in this regard” to the bashing of “Vatican II is evil and we must oppose it.” The former seems intelligent, respectable, and thought-provoking…while the latter seems to be, as you said, a declaration of war. You mentioned your talks with the FSSP…as I don’t have much experience with them, do they criticize Vatican II in an acceptable and intelligent manner?

I have had a lot of contact with them and they never mention Vatican II. They mention specific points that are in the documents or that arose because of Vatican II. That’s the difference.

I remember discussing EENS with one of them. It was very funny, because there were seven or eight of us at a table. We were at a conference. During the breaks, people ask each other the usual questions about their assignments, religious communities, dioceses and so forth. The FSSP were the new kids on the block. Everyone wanted to know a little more about them.

As the conversation progressed over lunch, one of them turned to me and mentioned EENS in Latin, a very young priest and delightful young man. I whispered to him, “You may want to use English. Not everyone at this table speaks Latin.” He calmly restated his question using only English. He made no fuss over the fact that out of the 7 at the table, he and I were the only ones fluent in Latin. Everyone joined in.

He did not speak about the Council, but about the document and his concerns with the document. This allowed others to ask questions and point out how they understood it. Everyone got to be heard.

In another encounter with them while visiting EWTN we spoke about the changes in the liturgy. They explained why they felt so strongly attached to the EF. However, they did not say dumb things like the OF is heretical, Protestant or a sacrilege. They spoke only about the EF. I asked one of them, if they ever celebrate the OF and he said that he does quite often. I was genuinely curious as to how it felt going from one to the other. He was gracious enough to share how it felt for him, without casting aspersions on anyone else. At that time, I was the local superior of one of our houses. When I returned home, they had made such a favorable impression on me, that I asked my major superior if we could have one EF for the community. I had never seen an EF mass. I converted to Catholicism in 1965 and the parish that I converted in was run by Franciscans. They never had the same Tridentine mass as the rest of the Church. By 1965, the mass was in transition anyway.

In any case, had it not been for this delightful conversation, I would have shaken the dust off my sandals and not looked back. That’s why I don’t pay much attention to some of the goofy things that people say about the OF mass on these threads. Because my experience with the FSSP and one of the Sons of the Most Holy Redeemer has been that they don’t talk this way and they don’t carry around this hostility. They talk about specific points and they listen as you try to explain how you understand things.

My experience with the FSSP has been very scholarly. I’m always very impressed by scholarship. I like talking to people who can talk like intelligent human beings rather than marines on the attack. From where I stand, if I had wanted guerrilla warfare, I would have joined the Marines, not the Franciscans.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[NihilObstatINRI]

It is unfortunate, I think most traditionalists will agree with me on this: we spend an enormous amount of time simply having to defend ourselves from very unjustified attacks… that veils are somehow an attempt to “repress women”, that the congregation isn’t able to “actively participate” at a Traditional Mass, that we’re trying to be more Catholic than the Pope by having some traditionalist ideas… the list goes on and on- I could write for hours if I were so inclined.
So we’re used to this by now. We’re very used to the idea that if we’re meeting a new Catholic, there’s a very good chance that they’re outright hostile to a lot of things that are very important to us. We’re used to our Catholic brethren, and in many cases our families not understanding what we stand for, and attacking us over it in both overt and subtle ways.
The worst part of this is that we’re nearly permanently in defence mode now, and you know how they always say that the best defence is a good offense. We’ve got so many expectations now based on lots of contact with hostile people, that whenever we see some kind of difference come up in discussions with other Catholics, we’re already digging a foxhole for when the liberal-mortars start coming in; we’re loading up our liturgical .50 cals and stockpiling anti-modernist grenades.

When you take a step back and look at it, it’s awful. I can’t talk with my own family about the Church at all because I know how it’s going to end. I have to be very wary about talking about the Church with other Catholics with whom I’m not familiar, in case the same thing happens. All of this is true now because traditionalism is in that Catholic ghetto we’ve been hearing about. Reintegration of the SSPX will change that slowly, I hope. We need to change this, in any case. If we don’t, our traditionalist renewal is going to turn bitter and suspicious and isolated and afraid.

Hm… that went on too long. [/rant]

 

[JReducation]

I certainly agree with your post. All I meant by my post is that we don’t know for sure exactly what kind of formal authority the local ordinary will have over an SSPX structure. For all we know, it could be none at all. Lord knows, some groups have a hard time doing perfectly legitimate things in a given diocese, like celebrate the TLM at all. For instance, how do you think Mario Conti in Glasgow is going to react if the SSPX as a personal prelature asks to be allowed to operate in his diocese? As far as I know they already do, so there’s going to have to be some sort of formal documentation that allows them to bypass Archbishop Conti’s permission. Besides that, I have no trouble imagining a lot of bishops who would not be comfortable with giving the SSPX faculties in their diocese, just because they don’t like their theology and are used to the status quo of the last twenty odd years of painting the SSPX as villains.
I think some sort of provision will have to be made in whatever structure is offered that allows the SSPX to bypass episcopal authority in specific instances.

I had a thought suddenly occur to me though. Remember how bishops who don’t apply Summorum Pontificum are now (as of Universae Ecclesiae) subject to correction by Ecclesia Dei? Maybe Ecclesia Dei will be involved somehow in the operation of an SSPX structure… Just an idle thought, of course.

We’re only speculating here, because we have to first hear if the SSPX accepts whatever was in that folder. Let’s assume that they agree to full reunification and the next step is to set them up.

The prelature sounds like a great idea, because they don’t get their faculties from the local bisohp. They get it from the prelature itself. The Opus Dei priests only have to get permission to hear confessions in diocesan parishes, not their own facilities. The same applies to exempt religious. Take for example the Franciscans at Franciscan University and the Holy Cross Fathers at Notre Dame. They don’t need faculties from the bishop to hear confessions on their campuses. Those do not belong to the local diocese. They need permission if they go into a diocesan Church. They can get that from the pastor.

These folks need permission from the bishop to pitch their tent in his territory, but it’s their tent. Remember the whole stink about Pres. Obama at Notre Dame? No one could touch Fr. Jenkins. He’s an exempt religious operating in an institution that belongs to a private corporation, not to the bishop. The bishop couldn’t even fire him, because he didn’t employ him.

Prelature works the same way, except that it’s not institution as are Franciscan U. and Notre Dame. It’s a diocese without boundaries. As long as they stick to their turf, they should have no problems.

As to how to get around the situation where they already have houses in certain diocesan territories, I’m going to guess that the Holy See would simply give them permission to stay. How practical is it to ask them to leave and then reques permission to come back in? That’s crazy.

The difference between a prelature and an order is confession. An order can grant faculties to anyone to hear confessions on its turf. However, it cannot open the confessional doors to the local people without the permission of the bishop. In essence, priests who are religious can hear the confessions of those who live in their houses, such as other religious, students and employees or of those who are in someway attached to their houses.

In a prelature, you can hear anyone’s confessions, because the world is your diocese, as long as you don’t use the local diocesan church.

I’m more interested in their future. Will the Holy See allow them to ordain bishops to replace these four or will they have to let these four die and settle for a superior general who is not a bishop?

Right now, no order, no congregation, not society of apostolic life and no priestly society is allowed to have its own bishop. The Vatican appoints a vicar to handle your affairs or you elect a superior whom the Vatican has to approve. The superiors general of all institutes of pontifical right have to be approved by the Vatican, even the secular orders and the priestly societies such as the FSSP and SSPX. That’s because all superiors general answer to the Holy Father.

The question will be, do they need their own bishops? The Opus Dei has a bishop at its head, but he’s the pope’s vicar. He’s not autonomous. It’s the only institute headed by a bishop, but with restrictions. The bishop answers to the pope.

I’m wondering, will they have multiple bishops, one bishop or no bishops after these die?

The Sacred Congregation for Bishops can argue that they don’t need that many bishops. The Archdiocese of NY has four bishops, but it also had several million people. This many bishops in one institute raises questions and conerns about balance in a synod. Do they get four votes, because they’re four bishops or do they get one vote?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[NihilObstatINRI]

Thanks for the detailed answer.
When you were mentioning bishops, I thought about what I read of the SSJV situation. Apparently Bishop Rangel, who was in charge at the time, was getting rather old, and asked Bl. John Paul II for an auxiliary bishop. John Paul wrote back saying “wink wink, nudge nudge Maybe you should ask for a Coadjutor Bishop instead.”

 

[Will_S]

I’m more interested in their future. Will the Holy See allow them to ordain bishops to replace these four or will they have to let these four die and settle for a superior general who is not a bishop?

From the point of view of the SSPX, the bishops are not there to lead, they are there to ordain and to confirm. I would expect the SSPX to request permission to ordain future member bishops as the need arises for the purposes of dispensing these sacraments.

Of course, we all know that such is not strictly necessary. The FSSP has no member bishop after all. But the SSPX is suspicious of the validity of the orders of non-SSPX priests. They have been known to perform conditional reordinations of priests who join them. The grounds for their suspicion, as I understand them, is not a doubt in the validity of the postconciliar rite of ordination (although polemics on that subject are not difficult to find online from other sources), but rather a lack of trust in sufficient intent to ordain to the Catholic priesthood on the part of some bishops.

They might say for example, that a bishop who denies the propitiatory nature of Christ’s passion and death, arguably lacks intent to ordain a man for the purpose of offering that propitiatory sacrifice at Holy Mass.

By the way, brother JR, when I offer my opinion as to what the SSPX wants, by no means do I intend to suggest that these things are realistically attainable. Whether or not they can come to an agreement rests largely on the SSPX deciding which of their goals are negotiable and which are non-negotiable for the time being. But even goals unattainable in the short term can remain medium- and long- term goals.

 

[freshwind]

I just want to say that this thread has been extremely educational for an old guy like me.
I grew up serving as an altar boy in the old form. Latin classes on Saturday morning, strict regs for every action one would take, extreme reverence for the altar, especially the tabernacle.

Having left the church as a teenager when I knew everything and returning after being married and starting a family and realizing maybe I didn’t know everything, the reverence did not seem to be there all the time.
Certain priests seemed to make you “feel” the same, others made you feel “protestant” … at times it was confusing.

Through it all, I tried to follow what the Holy See was saying about all this because at the end of the day I cling to the words our Saviour left us with - “the gates of hell shall not prevail” …so abuses may come and they may go, but the Holy Spirit is forever.

I do see many young priests (very encouraging) working diligently to bring the reverence back…there are many small things I was taught as a child that I never hear and rarely see…when saying the name Jesus Christ, I was taught the head should always bow…when we drove by a Catholic church, my father taught me that one is to bow your head slightly out of respect for the tabernacle inside.

One young man recently ordained in our diocese makes the Mass an extremely holy occurrence, so looking at this, and even with the fondness of the latin, it truly does seem one can have an uplifting and holy experience in either form, a great deal depends on the individual priest.
As an observer, this gave me the impression that PBXVI has it correct, and somehow the two sides need to come together with some respect, and realize that the issues hopefully lie more in the “interpretation” of many things rather than error per se.

Again, keep up the great posts folks, many of us may not be taking part, but learning from the great dialogue.

 

[simple_soul]

I just want to say that this thread has been extremely educational for an old guy like me.
I grew up serving as an altar boy in the old form. Latin classes on Saturday morning, strict regs for every action one would take, extreme reverence for the altar, especially the tabernacle.

Having left the church as a teenager when I knew everything and returning after being married and starting a family and realizing maybe I didn’t know everything, the reverence did not seem to be there all the time.
Certain priests seemed to make you “feel” the same, others made you feel “protestant” … at times it was confusing.

Through it all, I tried to follow what the Holy See was saying about all this because at the end of the day I cling to the words our Saviour left us with - “the gates of hell shall not prevail” …so abuses may come and they may go, but the Holy Spirit is forever.

I do see many young priests (very encouraging) working diligently to bring the reverence back…there are many small things I was taught as a child that I never hear and rarely see…when saying the name Jesus Christ, I was taught the head should always bow…when we drove by a Catholic church, my father taught me that one is to bow your head slightly out of respect for the tabernacle inside.

One young man recently ordained in our diocese makes the Mass an extremely holy occurrence, so looking at this, and even with the fondness of the latin, it truly does seem one can have an uplifting and holy experience in either form, a great deal depends on the individual priest.
As an observer, this gave me the impression that PBXVI has it correct, and somehow the two sides need to come together with some respect, and realize that the issues hopefully lie more in the “interpretation” of many things rather than error per se.

Again, keep up the great posts folks, many of us may not be taking part, but learning from the great dialogue.

*These are some of my thoughts too. In and earlier post someone mentioned about having to spend a lot of time defending themselves from unjustified attacks. I believe what is going to be the hardest for all of us to do is to learn to stop being so defensive of our understandings of how things “should” or “should not” be. Whether we are a “modernist,” “liberalist,” “traditionalist,” or something in-be-tween. It’s like we need to swallow our pride or something and admit that we could be wrong in our understanding and that the “impression” we are getting from what we “believe” others are saying or doing could be wrong. *

 

[JReducation]

From the point of view of the SSPX, the bishops are not there to lead, they are there to ordain and to confirm. I would expect the SSPX to request permission to ordain future member bishops as the need arises for the purposes of dispensing these sacraments.

Of course, we all know that such is not strictly necessary. The FSSP has no member bishop after all. But the SSPX is suspicious of the validity of the orders of non-SSPX priests. They have been known to perform conditional reordinations of priests who join them. The grounds for their suspicion, as I understand them, is not a doubt in the validity of the postconciliar rite of ordination (although polemics on that subject are not difficult to find online from other sources), but rather a lack of trust in sufficient intent to ordain to the Catholic priesthood on the part of some bishops.

I’m sure that this is one thing that they will not be allowed to do if they reconcile. I can’t see the Vatican allowing them to question the validity of an ordination by a valid bishop with canonical authority to ordain. I think the days of conditional ordinations are overk, if they agree to whatever the Vatican is proposing. Bishops would go ballistic if that were allowed to happen unchecked. It’s pretty obvious that they have a good reason to go ballistic.

As far as needing their own bishops to ordain or confirm, this is not a real need. Other institutes of clerics make due with the local bishop for that purpose or a bishop who is a friend of the institute. If they become a prelature, they can ordain with a letter of obedience from the Superior General. They won’t need to ask permission of the local bishop. The Superior General write a letter attesting to the qualifications of the candidate and giving permission for him to be ordained. They can pick any bishop. It’s like the orders. The orders can request that any bishop ordain. All that the ordaining bishop needs is the letter from the superior granting him permission to ordain. For confirmation, since they are not that many chapels or parishes, they can find a bishop who will perform the rite in the EF. Any bishop is allowed to do it.

By the way, brother JR, when I offer my opinion as to what the SSPX wants, by no means do I intend to suggest that these things are realistically attainable. Whether or not they can come to an agreement rests largely on the SSPX deciding which of their goals are negotiable and which are non-negotiable for the time being. But even goals unattainable in the short term can remain medium- and long- term goals.

Sometimes this is true. Sometimes it’s not. It all depends on what the Holy See commands. If it commands that you put aside an idea or goal and that you may never bring it up again and you agree to this at the starting gate, you will be called on the carpet if you back-pedal. If the response from the Holy See is simple, “No.” That does not mean that you cannot bring it up later. Wording is very important. It’s like the whole thing with the ordination of women. The wording that Bl. John Paul used made it clear that they would never entertain the question again. They consider those who bring it up to be flies.

Since no one outside of the inner circle knows what’s in that folder, we just have to wait and see.

Thanks for the detailed answer.
When you were mentioning bishops, I thought about what I read of the SSJV situation. Apparently Bishop Rangel, who was in charge at the time, was getting rather old, and asked Bl. John Paul II for an auxiliary bishop. John Paul wrote back saying “wink wink, nudge nudge Maybe you should ask for a Coadjutor Bishop instead.”

I’ve heard of that happening in dioceses too.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[NihilObstatINRI]

*These are some of my thoughts too. In and earlier post someone mentioned about having to spend a lot of time defending themselves from unjustified attacks. I believe what is going to be the hardest for all of us to do is to learn to stop being so defensive of our understandings of how things “should” or “should not” be. Whether we are a “modernist,” “liberalist,” “traditionalist,” or something in-be-tween. It’s like we need to swallow our pride or something and admit that we could be wrong in our understanding and that the “impression” we are getting from what we “believe” others are saying or doing could be wrong. *

As I’m sure you know though, certain ‘strains of though’ if you want to call it that, have been authoritatively condemned. For instance, Modernism was a heresy condemned by Pope St. Pius X, which is the same reason the Society chose him as their patron. Liberalism when applied theologically can be proven erroneous in a variety of ways.
My point is only that there are certain objective criteria, and we certainly are called to condemn that which has already been condemned by Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium.

 

[NihilObstatINRI]

I’ve heard of that happening in dioceses too.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

I found it especially touching, if you will, with the SSJV case because they had been in a similar situation to the SSPX. Even more radical in some ways. Then as soon as they were reconciled, Bl. John Paul II went way out of his way to accommodate them, as demonstrated in that instance. Very happy story, IMO.