SSPX Bishop to Elevate Monastery?

[Pregustator]

As sacristan of my parish church I often come across various tracts, pamphlets, and other literature that individuals leave in pews or on our bulletin tables advocating this or attacking that. The anti-Catholic “Chick” tracts get deposited in our vestibule regularly. The Scientologists, too, leave literature. It all gets picked up and tossed out, of course, once discovered.

This weekend, however, I came across literature from the Society of St. Pius X. First time I’ve ever come across that in my parish, and having been a “Lefebvrist” myself at one point, I was most intrigued. As it was, it was not anything inflammatory or even in any way proselytizing. It was a perfectly benign monthly newsletter, replete with photographs of the SSPX-affiliated Monastery of Our Lady of Guadelupe in New Mexico. It was in a pew, and I’m under the impression it was left behind by accident rather than strategically placed.

What intrigued me about it, however, was the announcement within the newsletter that SSPX bishop–apparently we can’t mention their names for some reason so I’ll just make one up–SSPX bishop “Alonzo dePurplebiretta” will soon elevate the monastery to the level of conventual priory. The newsletter went on to say that to do so would be the next step toward elevating the monastery to an abbey.

My question is, what authority would a non-jurisdictional SSPX bishop have to raise a monastery to a priory and later to an abbey? As SSPX bishops are devoid even of faculties at this moment, much less territorial jurisdiction, wouldn’t this be tantamount to yet another act of schism, insofar as Bishop dePurplebiretta is assuming unto himself an authority that is not his? Or would it simply be a meaningless gesture without effect? If it is not a schismatic action, does it not, at least, imply something of a schismatic tendency or mentality? How could this be explained or justified?

 

[malphono]

What intrigued me about it, however, was the announcement within the newsletter that SSPX bishop–apparently we can’t mention their names for some reason so I’ll just make one up–SSPX bishop “Alonzo dePurplebiretta” will soon elevate the monastery to the level of conventual priory. The newsletter went on to say that to do so would be the next step toward elevating the monastery to an abbey.

My question is, what authority would a non-jurisdictional SSPX bishop have to raise a monastery to a priory and later to an abbey? As SSPX bishops are devoid even of faculties at this moment, much less territorial jurisdiction, wouldn’t this be tantamount to yet another act of schism, insofar as Bishop dePurplebiretta is assuming unto himself an authority that is not his? Or would it simply be a meaningless gesture without effect? If it is not a schismatic action, does it not, at least, imply something of a schismatic tendency or mentality? How could this be explained or justified?

It does indeed seem a bit strange for an organization, (even if it had already been “regularized”) which is itself a “priestly fraternity” (and one not of Pontifical right – it was at one time of Diocesan Right and aspired to Pontifical Right, but it never happened) to raise a house to the level of conventual priory (much less an abbey). OK, the house as it is could be said to be an extension of the “fraternity” but not so a conventual priory or abbey. Unless memory fails, an abbey (and by extension its subordinate conventual priories) pretty much require Pontifical Right (at least I can’t recall any true abbey that is not of same), which is obviously something that the SSPX cannot offer.

 

[Pregustator]

What is also odd is that the monastery calls itself a “Benedictine Monastery”. ???

How could that be? Doesn’t the Benedictine order have to found its own monasteries? Can a group of men just band together and “become” Benedictines, just like that? And then, once again, what authority does a SSPX bishop have in relation to a Benedictine Monastery?

 

[malphono]

What is also odd is that the monastery calls itself a “Benedictine Monastery”. ???

How could that be? Doesn’t the Benedictine order have to found its own monasteries? Can a group of men just band together and “become” Benedictines, just like that?

Any group of males could theoretically form a “religious community” following the Rule of S Benedict, but unless the community is recognized by the Church as being Benedictine and granted Pontifical Right, I don’t believe they would have legitimate claim to the designation OSB. If my understanding is correct, that would also be true even if the group were of Diocesan Right (which is how it seems to me the SSPX group would consider itself). Take, e.g, the Wyoming Carmelites: they do not use “O.Carm” and as far as I know, do not lay claim to it.

 

[HCC]

Archbishop Lefebvre was very concerned with not wanting the creation of his fraternity (later society) to appear as though he was setting up a parallel church. In ordaining the 4 bishops, he only hoped that the transmission of the sacraments would continue, e.g. Holy Orders, Confirmation, etc, in the traditional form.

Creating an abbot, which is on par with a bishop, would seem to be very serious. I don’t know if raising a monastery to a priory carries the weight of a schismatic act, though. Then again they ordain more priests every year, so what else is new?

 

[roadsend]

As sacristan of my parish church I often come across various tracts, pamphlets, and other literature that individuals leave in pews or on our bulletin tables advocating this or attacking that. The anti-Catholic “Chick” tracts get deposited in our vestibule regularly. The Scientologists, too, leave literature. It all gets picked up and tossed out, of course, once discovered.

This weekend, however, I came across literature from the Society of St. Pius X. First time I’ve ever come across that in my parish, and having been a “Lefebvrist” myself at one point, I was most intrigued. As it was, it was not anything inflammatory or even in any way proselytizing. It was a perfectly benign monthly newsletter, replete with photographs of the SSPX-affiliated Monastery of Our Lady of Guadelupe in New Mexico. It was in a pew, and I’m under the impression it was left behind by accident rather than strategically placed.

What intrigued me about it, however, was the announcement within the newsletter that SSPX bishop–apparently we can’t mention their names for some reason so I’ll just make one up–SSPX bishop “Alonzo dePurplebiretta” will soon elevate the monastery to the level of conventual priory. The newsletter went on to say that to do so would be the next step toward elevating the monastery to an abbey.

My question is, what authority would a non-jurisdictional SSPX bishop have to raise a monastery to a priory and later to an abbey? As SSPX bishops are devoid even of faculties at this moment, much less territorial jurisdiction, wouldn’t this be tantamount to yet another act of schism, insofar as Bishop dePurplebiretta is assuming unto himself an authority that is not his? Or would it simply be a meaningless gesture without effect? If it is not a schismatic action, does it not, at least, imply something of a schismatic tendency or mentality? How could this be explained or justified?

Pastoral reasons.

(One of the reasons I have been given frequently, when I have asked about a local pastor or bishop doing or approving something obviously illicit.)

 

[Pregustator]

The SSPX, from my observations and experiences, have always seemed to say one thing but do another; to define themselves one way, but then to act in another.

I have so often heard the SSPX state that they claim for their bishops no jurisdiction and that they are in no wise a parallel church…but then their actions state otherwise. The four bishops have ordained a bishop (who has since reconciled with Rome). The SSPX have established their own Benedictines, their own Dominicans, and so forth. They continue to ordain priests each year, as has been stated.

They say their bishops are only there to maintain the traditional clergy until the “crisis” is over. They are acting in an ecclesiastical “state of emergency”, so they say. I understand their argument and their perspective, even though I no longer subscribe to it.

But where is the “emergency” argument in something like this, I wonder? How could there ever be an emergency need to elevate a “Benedictine” monastery to a conventual priory or abbey? Isn’t this just a blatant pretense to some sort of jurisdictional authority…an authority they continually deny pretending to?

The excommunications have been lifted by Rome. I assume that Rome would expect a good faith response in which the SSPX bishops begin to demonstrate obedience and to desist in activities like this one. Yes? Actions like this, however, seem to me to amount to a flipping of the bird at legitimate authority and a callous disregard for the Society’s fragile position with Rome.

Am I reading too much into all of this?

 

[roadsend]

I don’t know much about the SSPX and have never had a serious face to face discussion with a member or adherent.
SSPX Masses have for the most part only been available to me when traveling.
I know very little about Church politics and technicalities such as jurisdiction.

What I do know is that when I walk out of a SSPX chapel, I feel like I have been to a Catholic Mass.
When I walk out of Mass in my home parish, I feel like I am stepping out of an episode of Alice in Wonderland.

 

[malphono]

They say their bishops are only there to maintain the traditional clergy until the “crisis” is over. They are acting in an ecclesiastical “state of emergency”, so they say. …

But where is the “emergency” argument in something like this, I wonder? How could there ever be an emergency need to elevate a “Benedictine” monastery to a conventual priory or abbey? Isn’t this just a blatant pretense to some sort of jurisdictional authority…an authority they continually deny pretending to?

So it would seem, even to me, and I’m not the average casual observer.

The excommunications have been lifted by Rome. I assume that Rome would expect a good faith response in which the SSPX bishops begin to demonstrate obedience and to desist in activities like this one. Yes? Actions like this, however, seem to me to amount to a flipping of the bird at legitimate authority and a callous disregard for the Society’s fragile position with Rome.

Am I reading too much into all of this?

Could be, and I say that because the “reconciliation” seems to be centered on doctrinal issues. If Rome had concerns about the establishment of parallel religious “orders,” that probably would have entailed further disciplinary action rather than an effort toward regularization.

The SSPX have established their own Benedictines, their own Dominicans, and so forth.

As a partial aside, I had never heard they had their own “Dominicans” and I have to ask if those are males and if there are priests among them? For that matter, I assumed at first that the Benedictines were male, but I suppose it could be otherwise.

I find it rather cheeky that a “priestly fraternity” would presume to establish religious communities of men, including priests, according to the Rules of recognized Orders and actually refer to those communities by the name of the recognized Orders. If the communities are strictly female, though, and while the action is still cheeky, I seem to think the principles involved may be a bit looser.

 

[Pregustator]

As a partial aside, I had never heard they had their own “Dominicans” and I have to ask if those are males and if there are priests among them? For that matter, I assumed at first that the Benedictines were male, but I suppose it could be otherwise.

They have female Dominicans and, evidently, male Benedictines in the US, alone. I don’t know about elsewhere.

These SSPX-affliate Benedictines do number priests, all ordained by SSPX bishops. The newsletter I have cited also congratulates newly-ordained Benedictine “Father Thomas Aquinas” on his ordination by Bishop DePurplebiretta.

 

[Momofmyangels]

What I do know is that when I walk out of a SSPX chapel, I feel like I have been to a Catholic Mass.
When I walk out of Mass in my home parish, I feel like I am stepping out of an episode of Alice in Wonderland.

This is too sad to be funny! But, it is my experience as well.

 

[roadsend]

This is too sad to be funny! But, it is my experience as well.

Sorry. I was not trying to be funny. I just cannot think of any better way to express how I feel, when leaving Mass.
The visual and auditory impact of Mass as currently offered at my parish (and so many others) is so different from the Mass I grew up with as to make it seem like I have no business being there.

I will never forget leaving Easter Mass some years ago to the tune of “Here comes Peter Cottontail” on the piano after listening to a rather nice Protestant Hymn recessional.
“Lord of the Dance” at the Offertory didn’t help either.
Oh, well.
At least the padre had faculties and was “in Communion” with the diocese.

 

[Momofmyangels]

Sorry. I was not trying to be funny. I just cannot think of any better way to express how I feel, when leaving Mass.
The visual and auditory impact of Mass as currently offered at my parish (and so many others) is so different from the Mass I grew up with as to make it seem like I have no business being there.

I will never forget leaving Easter Mass some years ago to the tune of “Here comes Peter Cottontail” on the piano after listening to a rather nice Protestant Hymn recessional.
“Lord of the Dance” at the Offertory didn’t help either.
Oh, well.
At least the padre had faculties and was “in Communion” with the diocese.

Absolutely no apologies necessary. I understand completely what you are saying, as my experiences are quite similar to yours. I was not however, as fortunate as you to have grown up with the TLM. My experience has been that of a TLM in basements, living rooms, or traveling 3 or more hours to attend one.

My worries now are having to bring my children to Masses as you have described above and having them as impressionable as they are, think it is OK. Somehow, I feel cheated.

 

[roadsend]

…

My worries now are having to bring my children to Masses as you have described above and having them as impressionable as they are, think it is OK. Somehow, I feel cheated.

You have been cheated as have we all.
Two generations have grown up now with these worship practices. No small wonder that so many of them see no real differences between us and our Protestant brothers. Makes it a lot easier for them to marry outside the faith and attend at the most convenient place, if at all.

 

[rben20]

Absolutely no apologies necessary. I understand completely what you are saying, as my experiences are quite similar to yours. I was not however, as fortunate as you to have grown up with the TLM. My experience has been that of a TLM in basements, living rooms, or traveling 3 or more hours to attend one.

My worries now are having to bring my children to Masses as you have described above and having them as impressionable as they are, think it is OK. Somehow, I feel cheated.

I just discovered the TLM last year. Up until that point I never knew it existed. I grew up with the OF. I feel extremely…extremely cheated! I still do not know why the Church ever abandoned this beautiful Mass for the OF. I don’t think I will ever understand.

 

[Momofmyangels]

I just discovered the TLM last year. Up until that point I never knew it existed. I grew up with the OF. I feel extremely…extremely cheated! I still do not know why the Church ever abandoned this beautiful Mass for the OF. I don’t think I will ever understand.

I KNOW I will never understand. Neither that, nor the fact that we still can’t attend one.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I think this thread was about the SSPX Bishop and his attempt to elevate a Monastery to something he has no right to do.

Its not about the availability of the EF Mass.

I suggest that someone start a new thread for that if you want otherwise this one might be closed.

 

[Momofmyangels]

I think this thread was about the SSPX Bishop and his attempt to elevate a Monastery to something he has no right to do.

Its not about the availability of the EF Mass.

I suggest that someone start a new thread for that if you want otherwise this one might be closed.

Quite right, sorry. It is just too easy to go off on tangents when having good discussions!

 

[OraLabora]

This is too sad to be funny! But, it is my experience as well.

Well you could go to any Benedictine monastery of the Solesmes congregation, and it definitely won’t be your experience, whether it is an OF Mass such as at our abbey, or at Solesmes itself, or an EF Mass such as at Fontgombault Abbey. All use Gregorian chant.

And outside our congregation, I’ve been to Monte Cassino in Italy where it was an OF Mass, ad orientum, in Latin and Gregorian chant.

Because our parishes have most of the abuses that make your experience all too frequent, our abbey church is full every Sunday.

I was also at a weekday Mass on an ordinary day this week (Tuesday). The Mass followed the rubrics and missal to the letter, the priest used a bit of plainchant here and there, and his homily was short and brilliant. A perfect weekday Mass, even if all the plainchant, and the rest of the Mass, was all in the vernacular (in this case French). That was at St. Joseph’s Oratory in Montreal.

 

[Lormar]

This is too sad to be funny! But, it is my experience as well.

And mine!