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

[JReducation]

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.

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

 

[NihilObstatINRI]

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?

Essentially, what they want on top of that is the ability to criticize what they see as ambiguous, contradictory, or modernist elements of VII.

 

[TrueLight]

Essentially, what they want on top of that is the ability to criticize what they see as ambiguous, contradictory, or modernist elements of VII.

This is where there is room for compromise in my opinion. The Vatican can admit there were abuses in the spirit of VII. The SSPX promises not to outright say Vll was sacrilegious from the pulpit or to media. Once they are regularized they can preach by example like St Francis did.

 

[Will_S]

This is where there is room for compromise in my opinion. The Vatican can admit there were abuses in the spirit of VII. The SSPX promises not to outright say Vll was sacrilegious from the pulpit or to media. Once they are regularized they can preach by example like St Francis did.

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.

 

[TrueLight]

I understand,

Some things have to happen in baby steps though. I believe taking an all or nothing approach interferes with the SSPX’s ability to save souls.

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.

What is meant by work outside their chapels? Door to door preaching? Asking to celebrate masses in diocesan parishes? The second part is always up to the Bishop I guess.

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.

I totally agree. Bishops can definitely block what they don’t want.

The SSPX is unwilling to be confined in this manner, and wants the freedom to open chapels anywhere at all.

Does any group have that capability? If that’s the case, then the FSSP needs to push for the same status as well, because if it were possible for them, I am sure they would want to evangelize in the same way.

 

[NihilObstatINRI]

What is meant by work outside their chapels? Door to door preaching? Asking to celebrate masses in diocesan parishes? The second part is always up to the Bishop I guess.

Well this would mean moving from strictly a set of chapels, to parishes. Technically private Masses (now) to public (when they have jurisdiction). The difference is a subtle one and not necessarily something a layperson like us will pick up on, but it does have certain implications for their mission.

I totally agree. Bishops can definitely block what they don’t want.

It’s sad, isn’t it? Many bishops have worked against Tradition and the Church in recent years and decades. I can point out two specific examples off the top of my head, but I won’t do so right now because I’m not clear if it’s against CAF rules or not.

 

[At_Trent]

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.

I don’t know about Carmelites, but the Dominicans did no such thing. In fact they asked for permission to adopt the Roman Rite.

newliturgicalmovement.org/2007/10/dominican-rite-requiem-for-all-souls-in.html

 

[paul11b]

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?

I’m so envious of you, I wish I had a FSSP parish near me.

 

[TrueLight]

I’m so envious of you, I wish I had a FSSP parish near me.

It’s 2.5 hours away, ha ha.

 

[NihilObstatINRI]

I guess I’m a lucky one. The SSPX edit: I meant FSSP, but was too distracted] shares a diocesan parish that is a 25 minute drive from me, and there is a TLM every day, twice on Sundays.

 

[Dan_Daly]

I guess I’m a lucky one. The SSPX shares a diocesan parish that is a 25 minute drive from me, and there is a TLM every day, twice on Sundays.

?

If they share a diocesan parish, does that mean they operate with the approval of your Bishop? Where are you located and which diocese is this?

Pax and God Bless.

 

[ProVobis]

I’m so envious of you, I wish I had a FSSP parish near me.

Don’t be. My diocese has a daily and Sunday Mass said by an FSSP priest. They also have a full slate of OF Masses. It still amazes me that so many come to that parish to say the rosary or to visit the Blessed Sacrament or to loiter the place, just so that they can leave (and give gnarly looks many times) just as the Latin Mass begins. I have to say that hurts.

OTOH, the FSSPX parishes (and most ICRSS parishes, I think) operate only on an EF basis only, so you probably won’t find any EF-bashers there to bother you.

 

[AntiqueCatholic]

Sounds weird. Do you think they’re making a protest or just find the commencement of Mass an interruption?

 

[NihilObstatINRI]

?

If they share a diocesan parish, does that mean they operate with the approval of your Bishop? Where are you located and which diocese is this?

Pax and God Bless.

Lol, oops! I meant FSSP. I wasn’t paying enough attention when I wrote that.

 

[Dan_Daly]

Lol, oops! I meant FSSP. I wasn’t paying enough attention when I wrote that.

That makes MUCH more sense.

Although hopefully, you will be able to write “SSPX” in the same sentence soon.

Pax and God Bless.

 

[NihilObstatINRI]

That makes MUCH more sense.

Although hopefully, you will be able to write “SSPX” in the same sentence soon.

Pax and God Bless.

There’s an SSPX priory in a different direction about five minutes closer. Lovely little place, based on the pictures I’ve seen.
http://www.ihom.ca/_Media/pastedgraphic-5_med.jpeg
Immaculate Heart of Mary, Calgary Alberta.
They also run a private school, which I think is quite cool. The public Catholic system here is really in poor shape in terms of actual religious teaching right now.

 

[jmj1984]

Essentially, what they want on top of that is the ability to criticize what they see as ambiguous, contradictory, or modernist elements of VII.

Couldn’t have said it better myself, the right to preach the truth without fear of reprisal.

 

[TrueLight]

I guess I’m a lucky one. The SSPX edit: I meant FSSP, but was too distracted] shares a diocesan parish that is a 25 minute drive from me, and there is a TLM every day, twice on Sundays.

I am lucky too because the diocesan TLM that I attend in the City has daily weekday TLMs, a Saturday TLM and a sung mass on Sundays. So I’m blessed.

But I wish the FSSP was in the City.

 

[ProVobis]

Sounds weird. Do you think they’re making a protest or just find the commencement of Mass an interruption?

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.

 

[Dan_Daly]

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.

Excellent point. In the past I was a member at a couple different parishes that had English and Spanish speaking communities with liturgies in both. Now I am a member of a parish with a OF and EF community. The dynamics at the OF/EF Church are very similar in some way so to the English/Spanish ones.

Pax and God Bless.