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

[JReducation]

Thanks for explaining that

You’re welcome. I don’t like it when people start to make strange allegations. The only reason why the TOSF of the SSPX cannot be part of the Secular Franciscan Order is because you cannot profess obedience to two authorities. Either you obey Francis or Archbishop Lefebvre. This is not a competition between the two men. People should not turn it into that. It would be very unfair to both men.

That being said, any member of the Franciscans orders (any of them) and the TOSF who cultivates antagonistic and judgmental thoughts about the other obviously does not understand St. Francis.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[NihilObstatINRI]

Hopefully, you and your wife will lead a long happy life together. However, many widows and widowers have joined orders and have been very happy.

Augustine was not exactly a widower, but he was a dad. So were many other religious and clerics.

Your relationship with your children changes.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Thank you for your kind words. I got engaged at the end of June, and we will be getting married as soon as I’ve finished school (likely June 2013).

 

[Melchior_1]

Hopefully, you and your wife will lead a long happy life together. However, many widows and widowers have joined orders and have been very happy.

Augustine was not exactly a widower, but he was a dad. So were many other religious and clerics.

Your relationship with your children changes.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

As morbid as it sounds, my wife and I have talked about this (I wouldn’t remarry, I’d join an Order).

Thank you for your kind words. I got engaged at the end of June, and we will be getting married as soon as I’ve finished school (likely June 2013).

Congrads!

 

[JReducation]

Thank you for your kind words. I got engaged at the end of June, and we will be getting married as soon as I’ve finished school (likely June 2013).

That’s great. Send me an invitation. I promise not to dance.

As morbid as it sounds, my wife and I have talked about this (I wouldn’t remarry, I’d join an Order).

It’s not as morbid as you think. My wife and I discussed it many times. She always said that she would become a Carmelite Sister of Charity. They’re awesome.

Some people have done it in life. St. Maximilian’s parents were religious. They were both Franciscans. His father was a Conventual Franciscan Friar and his mother was a Franciscan Sister. They had three sons. I’m not sure if they had daughters.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Denise1957]

Maybe this should be posted as a new thread, but I wanted to share an interesting perspective I found on a blog from the UK on the issue of the doctrinal preamble that has been given to the SG of the SSPX. The blog author thinks that the preamble is likely about methodology, and what he writes seems to make sense, but I’d like to know what others here may think.

Here are a few excerpts from the blog article:

"From another perspective, however, we already know what the DP contains and the communique said it out loud: This preamble enunciates some of the doctrinal principles and criteria of interpretation of Catholic doctrine necessary for ensuring fidelity to the magiterium of the Church and to the entire sum Ecclesia, while leaving open to legitimate discussion the study and theological explanation of particular expressions and formulations present in the texts of the Second Vatican Council that followed it.

In other words, the doctrinal preamble is a methodology; a set of rules which legitimise conclusions ontologically, it is the doctrines that matter; logically, it is the method by which one arrives at them which matters. ‘I would not believe in the Gospel if the Church did not tell me they were true,’ says St. Augustine (or something to that effect). The quid, the what of his belief is the Gospel; the quo, the by which of his belief, is the Church’s teaching. The means by which we arrive at conclusions and the importance we accord to them, are crucial when it comes to theology and faith.

In making the DP the condition of any recognition by the Church, Rome - imposing its own conditions after meeting the conditions of the SSPX - is saying that before the SSPX is approved, it has to recognise that the Holy See is the final criterion for judging whether something is in accord with the faith. Its the methodology! The final criterion is not theological expertise, individual memory, or the positivist comparison of past and present teachings.

Oremus!"

Link to article:

thesensiblebond.blogspot.com/

 

[pnewton]

The disadvantage in the prelature is that the Pope becomes the superior and Bishop Fellay would be his vicar. An ordinariate is not quite clear to me. Prior to the Anglican situation the only other ordinariate that we had was the Military Ordinariate which included all priests who served in the Armed Forces around the world. That was disbanded and now each country has its own military diocese. But in that ordinariate those priests were not trained by them and they were not allowed to recruit.

I guess there is nothing wrong with the Holy Father starting a whole new animal by changing the disciplines involved with these options, or creating a new hybrid.

 

[JReducation]

I guess there is nothing wrong with the Holy Father starting a whole new animal by changing the disciplines involved with these options, or creating a new hybrid.

Not at all. Pope Honorius III created the secular orders to accommodate to the Secular Franciscans.

Bl. John Paul II created the Prelature for the Society of the Holy Cross (Opus Dei).

I can’t recall which pope it was, but the Holy See created religious congregations, because it wanted no new religious orders. Today, we have more congregations than orders.

Pope Paul VI creates Secular Institutes and Societies of Apostolic Life.

If Pope Benedict XVI creates a whole new animal, we’ll just have to understand how it works, like everything else.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[NihilObstatINRI]

There’s also the Personal Apostolic Administration of Saint John Mary Vianney, which as far as I know is currently unique in the Church.

 

[JReducation]

Maybe this should be posted as a new thread, but I wanted to share an interesting perspective I found on a blog from the UK on the issue of the doctrinal preamble that has been given to the SG of the SSPX. The blog author thinks that the preamble is likely about methodology, and what he writes seems to make sense, but I’d like to know what others here may think.

Here are a few excerpts from the blog article:

"From another perspective, however, we already know what the DP contains and the communique said it out loud: This preamble enunciates some of the doctrinal principles and criteria of interpretation of Catholic doctrine necessary for ensuring fidelity to the magiterium of the Church and to the entire sum Ecclesia, while leaving open to legitimate discussion the study and theological explanation of particular expressions and formulations present in the texts of the Second Vatican Council that followed it.

In other words, the doctrinal preamble is a methodology; a set of rules which legitimise conclusions ontologically, it is the doctrines that matter; logically, it is the method by which one arrives at them which matters. ‘I would not believe in the Gospel if the Church did not tell me they were true,’ says St. Augustine (or something to that effect). The quid, the what of his belief is the Gospel; the quo, the by which of his belief, is the Church’s teaching. The means by which we arrive at conclusions and the importance we accord to them, are crucial when it comes to theology and faith.

In making the DP the condition of any recognition by the Church, Rome - imposing its own conditions after meeting the conditions of the SSPX - is saying that before the SSPX is approved, it has to recognise that the Holy See is the final criterion for judging whether something is in accord with the faith. Its the methodology! The final criterion is not theological expertise, individual memory, or the positivist comparison of past and present teachings.

Oremus!"

Link to article:

thesensiblebond.blogspot.com/

It’s funny, because I said the same thing in an article that I wrote and I posted part of it on one of the forums. It may have been the news forum. I said it differently, but the same thing. My guess, based on the little that has been said about the content, is that this is a set of parameters. In essence, it says that we can discuss the documents. We can discuss how they should be implemented. We can discuss what they mean and what they do not mean. We can even write clarifications where needed. However, the discussions must take place under the same rules that apply to every other secular and religious institute. You don’t bash them from the pulpit and you don’t take it to the press.

Such discussions belong in synods, councils, workshops, meetings, theology classrooms, and any other scholarly gathering. You don’t engage the laity and spur them on. You go to these formal gathering where there are rules of order. You present your positions. You listen to what others have to say and you submit to what the pope concludes, if he makes a concluding remark. At the end of the day, you take the conclusions to the laity, not your position.

I don’t think that they are going to be silenced or told that they are wrong on every count. I think that they are going to be told what others have been told, “There is a right way and a wrong way of disagreeing.”

In fairness to everyone else, if Dominicans, Franciscans, Jesuits and others cannot stand up as a corporate body and denounce or deny what the Council and the popes say, why should one institute be the exception?

When a Dominican, Franciscan, Jesuit or other does this, he is usually singled out as an individual. No one says that the order said. It’s always Father X, Brother Y and Sister Z said. Their superiors let them hang if the Vatican or the local bishop wish to hang them. The laity does not get involved in the discussion.

If these are the rules of engagement for others, it would make sense that they be the rules of engagement for the SSPX and the laity who love them.

I don’t have an inside connection, but I believe that this is part of the condition, which the blogger seems to be saying too. “Agree or disagree, but do so within these parameters and according to these rules.”

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[jmj1984]

It’s funny, because I said the same thing in an article that I wrote and I posted part of it on one of the forums. It may have been the news forum. I said it differently, but the same thing. My guess, based on the little that has been said about the content, is that this is a set of parameters. In essence, it says that we can discuss the documents. We can discuss how they should be implemented. We can discuss what they mean and what they do not mean. We can even write clarifications where needed. However, the discussions must take place under the same rules that apply to every other secular and religious institute. You don’t bash them from the pulpit and you don’t take it to the press.

Such discussions belong in synods, councils, workshops, meetings, theology classrooms, and any other scholarly gathering. You don’t engage the laity and spur them on. You go to these formal gathering where there are rules of order. You present your positions. You listen to what others have to say and you submit to what the pope concludes, if he makes a concluding remark. At the end of the day, you take the conclusions to the laity, not your position.

I don’t think that they are going to be silenced or told that they are wrong on every count. I think that they are going to be told what others have been told, “There is a right way and a wrong way of disagreeing.”

In fairness to everyone else, if Dominicans, Franciscans, Jesuits and others cannot stand up as a corporate body and denounce or deny what the Council and the popes say, why should one institute be the exception?

When a Dominican, Franciscan, Jesuit or other does this, he is usually singled out as an individual. No one says that the order said. It’s always Father X, Brother Y and Sister Z said. Their superiors let them hang if the Vatican or the local bishop wish to hang them. The laity does not get involved in the discussion.

If these are the rules of engagement for others, it would make sense that they be the rules of engagement for the SSPX and the laity who love them.

I don’t have an inside connection, but I believe that this is part of the condition, which the blogger seems to be saying too. “Agree or disagree, but do so within these parameters and according to these rules.”

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Br Jr, are you aware that the master of the Order of Preachers greatly opposed the liberal wing and much of what eventually came to be the council documents? Regardless no one forced these orders to agree and say nothing, they chose to do so it is therefore unfair to complain about the society possibly being granted something none of these orders wanted or asked for. A classic example is the Order of Preachers disposing of their liturgy for the NO, it has only recently been revived and most friars don’t know how to celebrate it.

I do not think that the SSPX would agree to be bound by the same rules that say the FSSP or ICSKP are and Rome knows this, therefore I cannot believe they would propose such a thing.

 

[archangel04]

Not at all. Pope Honorius III created the secular orders to accommodate to the Secular Franciscans.

Bl. John Paul II created the Prelature for the Society of the Holy Cross (Opus Dei).

I can’t recall which pope it was, but the Holy See created religious congregations, because it wanted no new religious orders. Today, we have more congregations than orders.

Pope Paul VI creates Secular Institutes and Societies of Apostolic Life.

If Pope Benedict XVI creates a whole new animal, we’ll just have to understand how it works, like everything else.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Can a new order be created? Or is that no longer allowed?

 

[JReducation]

Br Jr, are you aware that the master of the Order of Preachers greatly opposed the liberal wing and much of what eventually came to be the council documents? Regardless no one forced these orders to agree and say nothing, they chose to do so it is therefore unfair to complain about the society possibly being granted something none of these orders wanted or asked for. A classic example is the Order of Preachers disposing of their liturgy for the NO, it has only recently been revived and most friars don’t know how to celebrate it.

I do not think that the SSPX would agree to be bound by the same rules that say the FSSP or ICSKP are and Rome knows this, therefore I cannot believe they would propose such a thing.

The Master is an individual. However, if you observe, the order does not make any public statements. There are things that you may not know, but we who are religious know. There is a manual known as the Modus Procdendi, which lays out exactly how orders, congregations, societies of Apostolic Life,secular institutes and secular orders may proceed, may speak and the proper rules of engagement with internal authority and the Vatican. This is what the FSSP, ICSKP, and FSSR had to agree to abide by, among other things.

For example, for a while the FSSR were not allowed to ordain, nor were they allowed to admit anyone to perpetual vows. They cross the first hurdle. They were allowed to admit new men to perpetual vows. I don’t know where they stand regarding the ordination of new priests. I have not heard if they received permission to do so or not. I know this was in the works and it was going to happen. It was a matter of time.

In other words, every institute, secular or religious has to submit to the modus procedendi established by the Sacred Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life. The only way around this to to separate the SSPX from societies of apostolic life, which they now are and create a new type of institute with laws that govern it. Even the Opus Dei priests who belong to a prelature, are bound to the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life.

As I said, we have to wait and see what how they are reintroduced into the mainstream, if at all or if they will be set apart as is the Opus Dei, with some overlaps.

We shouldn’t say what they will or will not accept. At the end of the day, Bishop Fellay is the one who accepts and the rest of the SSPX must two the line or leave. Even though the bishop said that he would not make a decision until talking to his confreres, he did not say that the decision is a corporate one. It remains his decision.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[jmj1984]

The Master is an individual. However, if you observe, the order does not make any public statements. There are things that you may not know, but we who are religious know. There is a manual known as the Modus Procdendi, which lays out exactly how orders, congregations, societies of Apostolic Life,secular institutes and secular orders may proceed, may speak and the proper rules of engagement with internal authority and the Vatican. This is what the FSSP, ICSKP, and FSSR had to agree to abide by, among other things.

For example, for a while the FSSR were not allowed to ordain, nor were they allowed to admit anyone to perpetual vows. They cross the first hurdle. They were allowed to admit new men to perpetual vows. I don’t know where they stand regarding the ordination of new priests. I have not heard if they received permission to do so or not. I know this was in the works and it was going to happen. It was a matter of time.

In other words, every institute, secular or religious has to submit to the modus procedendi established by the Sacred Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life. The only way around this to to separate the SSPX from societies of apostolic life, which they now are and create a new type of institute with laws that govern it. Even the Opus Dei priests who belong to a prelature, are bound to the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life.

As I said, we have to wait and see what how they are reintroduced into the mainstream, if at all or if they will be set apart as is the Opus Dei, with some overlaps.

We shouldn’t say what they will or will not accept. At the end of the day, Bishop Fellay is the one who accepts and the rest of the SSPX must two the line or leave. Even though the bishop said that he would not make a decision until talking to his confreres, he did not say that the decision is a corporate one. It remains his decision.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Br Jr, my point was simply that it may well be that the SSPX receives freedoms other orders do not, that is not unfair as no one forced these orders and congregations to accept the popular interpretation of Vatican II or go along with its excesses by throwing out their centuries old liturgies, or by re-writing most of their constitutions, it was a choice they made.

 

[NihilObstatINRI]

Br Jr, my point was simply that it may well be that the SSPX receives freedoms other orders do not, that is not unfair as no one forced these orders and congregations to accept the popular interpretation of Vatican II or go along with its excesses by throwing out their centuries old liturgies, or by re-writing most of their constitutions, it was a choice they made.

From my perspective of not knowing a heck of a lot about religious orders specifically, this sounds quite reasonable.

 

[pnewton]

Left to the devices of the crypto-Modernists.

That’s a new one on me. Crypto-modernists? I am picturing someone looking for a Catholic Bigfoot.

 

[NihilObstatINRI]

That’s a new one on me. Crypto-modernists? I am picturing someone looking for a Catholic Bigfoot.

Yeah, afaik I invented that just then. I was thinking at the time of the Crypto-Catholics during the persecutions in England. I could also have said neo-Modernists, but I was trying to get at the idea that there are so many Modernist positions that are held ‘under the radar’, so to speak, by Catholics that appear rather orthodox, and even claim to be orthodox.
The way I see it, the influence of Modernism is frighteningly extensive right now in the Church. For some it’s simply bad catechesis; they don’t know any better. For most it’s a combination of bad catechesis and a stubborn unwillingness to be of one mind with the Church. These two groups we can reach, the latter with a bit more work than the former, although both present very unique challenges. Of course the last group would be those ‘lost causes’ whom only God can reach. I’m thinking about Hans Kung and Karl Rahner, Leonardo Boff, and people like them. There isn’t much we can do about that group, besides limiting the damage they can do and praying for their reversion.
The first two groups could be called crypto-modernists or neo-modernists generally, while the last group are Modernists outright, the same kind condemned by Pope St. Pius X.

 

[Dragonslayer]

Maybe this should be posted as a new thread, but I wanted to share an interesting perspective I found on a blog from the UK on the issue of the doctrinal preamble that has been given to the SG of the SSPX. The blog author thinks that the preamble is likely about methodology, and what he writes seems to make sense, but I’d like to know what others here may think.

Here are a few excerpts from the blog article:

"From another perspective, however, we already know what the DP contains and the communique said it out loud: This preamble enunciates some of the doctrinal principles and criteria of interpretation of Catholic doctrine necessary for ensuring fidelity to the magiterium of the Church and to the entire sum Ecclesia, while leaving open to legitimate discussion the study and theological explanation of particular expressions and formulations present in the texts of the Second Vatican Council that followed it.

In other words, the doctrinal preamble is a methodology; a set of rules which legitimise conclusions ontologically, it is the doctrines that matter; logically, it is the method by which one arrives at them which matters. ‘I would not believe in the Gospel if the Church did not tell me they were true,’ says St. Augustine (or something to that effect). The quid, the what of his belief is the Gospel; the quo, the by which of his belief, is the Church’s teaching. The means by which we arrive at conclusions and the importance we accord to them, are crucial when it comes to theology and faith.

In making the DP the condition of any recognition by the Church, Rome - imposing its own conditions after meeting the conditions of the SSPX - is saying that before the SSPX is approved, it has to recognise that the Holy See is the final criterion for judging whether something is in accord with the faith. Its the methodology! The final criterion is not theological expertise, individual memory, or the positivist comparison of past and present teachings.

Oremus!"

Link to article:

thesensiblebond.blogspot.com/

So, this means, I think, that Rome has said to the SSPX “This is the stuff you must accept with no argument, the other stuff we can debate”. Yeah?

 

[JReducation]

Br Jr, my point was simply that it may well be that the SSPX receives freedoms other orders do not, that is not unfair as no one forced these orders and congregations to accept the popular interpretation of Vatican II or go along with its excesses by throwing out their centuries old liturgies, or by re-writing most of their constitutions, it was a choice they made.

Actually, this is not the case. Pope Paul VI commanded every order of Pontifical Right to rewrite its constitutions. Pope John Paul did it again. Everyone of those new constitutions were given apostolic approval.

We were also commanded to set aside our forms of the liturgy. Those orders that had their own rite, were commanded to set it aside.

Even now, SP and UE only allow to use those books that were in use in 1962. They do not allow us to go back futher. Pope Benedict has told the Franciscans that they may not go back to the Seraphic Missal, because it was not covered in SP. We have to rewrite the EF missal of 1962 to fit our customs, our calendar and to include our prayers, collects and pregaces. The Franciscans of the Immaculate are working on it. They have a non-clerical brother who is a genius with liturgy.

We obeyed as we promised to do. We did not like many things, but we obeyed.

That’s my point. Every institute has been given parameters. There is no reason to believe that the SSPX should not be given parameters.

They may be good people, but they are not all that and a bag of chips.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[jmj1984]

Actually, this is not the case. Pope Paul VI commanded every order of Pontifical Right to rewrite its constitutions. Pope John Paul did it again. Everyone of those new constitutions were given apostolic approval.

We were also commanded to set aside our forms of the liturgy. Those orders that had their own rite, were commanded to set it aside.

Even now, SP and UE only allow to use those books that were in use in 1962. They do not allow us to go back futher. Pope Benedict has told the Franciscans that they may not go back to the Seraphic Missal, because it was not covered in SP. We have to rewrite the EF missal of 1962 to fit our customs, our calendar and to include our prayers, collects and pregaces. The Franciscans of the Immaculate are working on it. They have a non-clerical brother who is a genius with liturgy.

We obeyed as we promised to do. We did not like many things, but we obeyed.

That’s my point. Every institute has been given parameters. There is no reason to believe that the SSPX should not be given parameters.

They may be good people, but they are not all that and a bag of chips.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Br JR, I apologise if I seem rude but in the case of the dominicans and the others who actually had their own rite, not just liturgy, thats not true. They were not commanded to set it aside but chose to do so. This is what I mean by going along with the excesses of the council. And the same applies to the extent of the re-written consitutions.

My point is simply that any effective agreement with the society will have to give them more freedoms than most religious orders and congregations have hithertoo claimed for themselves.

 

[TrueLight]

I do not think that the SSPX would agree to be bound by the same rules that say the FSSP or ICSKP are and Rome knows this, therefore I cannot believe they would propose such a thing.

Hey JMJ,

What kind of freedoms do you think the SSPX might want in addition to what is available to the FSSP?

I have been attending an FSSP parish for about 8 weeks and they are as trad as one can be.

• The chapel is bustling with young children and teens (in fact, one woman has 10 kids and looks great!);
• the homilies are excellent;
• I don’t see any modernism;
• obviously the mass is according to the 1962 missal, which means no female EMHC’s, altar girls etc ;
  – the folks do at minimum the three hour fast before communion, but a lot do the midnight fast;
  – mantillas are all over the place and the women wear skirts;
• most of the parishioners abstain on all Fridays;
• I’m going to be received into the church using the old rite;
• Although I’m not saying it is impossible, because the Pope can change his mind one day, but I am told that they are not required to say the Novus Ordo;

What other types of freedoms would the SSPX want?