SSPX communique to Rome

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mark1970
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
JReducation said:
I have to say that Bishop Fellay surprised me. He’s playing either a very dumb card or a slick card.

Let’s look at the dumb card first. Reunification is a matter that a superior general can decide unilaterally and everyone else is bound under obedience to comply or be dismissed from an institute, in this case the SSPX. You don’t have to consult anyone other than your counselors and even then, your counselors have no authority over the superior general. They are just that COUNSELORS. The superior general speaks for Christ.

The role of a general chapter is to make law for an institute, be it an order, congregation or society of apostolic life… When you put something like this on the table at a general chapter, whatever the general chapter rules, becomes the law of the institute. The superior general and his successors have no other choice but to obey the law and enforce it. In essence, you have taken something that you could have done on your own authority and everyone would have been bound to obey you or forfeit their souls and you have handed it over to the chapter to make it law. Even if you disagree, you must obey and you must comply and lead the entire Society to comply. You have tied the hands of future superiors general. Most superiors general avoid doing this by putting as little as possible on the table at a general chapter. Most general chapters discourage this. To change it, requires another general chapter.

Let’s look at the slick side. As superior general, if he had unilaterally turned down the Vatican’s offer, he would have been fully responsible for a schism, if there had been one. His immortal soul would have been in serious danger. By handing the decision to the general chapter, he is free of all moral responsibility, because it is not he who is saying no. It is the delegates to the general chapter who voted against reunification. His vote is only one. If he votes for reunification and the majority votes against it, guess who is in moral danger? It’s not Bishop Fellay, because he voted for reunification. It’s those who blocked it. He avoids a split within the Society and avoids the moral consequences to his soul for causing a schism, if there is one at all. Only those who voted against the reunification would be responsible for the schism.

I use the term “slick” because this is perfectly legal and moral. A superior general can do this. It’s the best way to get out of harm’s way. Had he signed the Preamble, he stood to lose many priests and lay followers. If he rejected the Preamble,he could potentially end up no longer being a Catholic. The law allows a superior to think of his soul first and to do whatever is best for his soul, within the law. For a traditionalist, he’s making very good use of the new laws in the books. This rule was not in the canons of 1917, because there were no such things as societies of apostolic life in 1917. He would not have been acknowledged as a superior general and the general chapter would have been a farce. You can’t give legal authority to an institution that does not legally exist. The code of 1983 acknowledges the rights of societies of apostolic life and one of those is the right to have a general chapter and to enact laws for itself.

This says to me that the SSPX supporters who are claiming adherence to the Code of 1917 are not in full communion with the SSPX, because the SSPX does not use the Code of 1917, but the Code of 1983, written by Pope Paul and promulgated by Pope John Paul. That’s perfect example of partial communion. 😃
Click to expand...
But this only protects the good bishop on the choice. As such a choice would be immoral any one voting for reunification would not be bound by such a law. If they choose to follow the law then they are as gulity as those who voted for the law.

Br.JR, FFV 🙂
 
justme said:
But this only protects the good bishop on the choice. As such a choice would be immoral any one voting for reunification would not be bound by such a law. If they choose to follow the law then they are as gulity as those who voted for the law.

Br.JR, FFV 🙂
Click to expand...
I saw the signature and thought it was Brother JR arguing with himself. 😃

It took a few moments for me to figure it out.

-Tim-
 
jwinch2 said:
I hope the conclusion to that video is incorrect.

Pax,
Click to expand...
I hope so, too…but if it is true, I have no sympathy for their souls. They were given ample opportunity to return to obedience, and yet they denied Peter. I hope many will still come “home”, even if their community does not, as to stay away would be sinful.
 
Big_Feet said:
I hope so, too…but if it is true, I have no sympathy for their souls. They were given ample opportunity to return to obedience, and yet they denied Peter. I hope many will still come “home”, even if their community does not, as to stay away would be sinful.
Click to expand...
I think we are jumping the gun here. It is pretty obvious they rejected it and I think we can be hopeful of new negotiations. There is new blood in the process and I think a solution can be reached. I think this “God have mercy on their souls” stuff is reactionary and not beneficial to the discussion.
Whatever the outcome. I think it would be foolish to think it was permanent.
 
Moore11 said:
Whatever the outcome. I think it would be foolish to think it was permanent.
Click to expand...
True…as the Orthodox (Constantinople)/Catholic (Rome) separation is not permanent, either. One day, in God’s time, all will be united and re-united in the one, true faith, or those who do not will perish eternally.

“Negotiation” in this case, I feel is an incorrect term. Rome should be stating what we believe and should be doing. The SSPX can either: agree, and come back into full communion, or reject and step back out the door. Rome cannot acquiesce to some outside influence as to what is a statement of faith and what is not. Discussion and debate from within is good, and healthy. Dissent and breaking of rules, thereby separating themselves from the Church (as the SSPX did), and then attempted reunion by “forcing the hand” is an inappropriate, and in fact, potentially sinful way of doing it.
 
We had our traditions, laws, history and our founders’ command to obey absolutely except in matters of sin. So we did exactly as we were told. We were commanded to be happy and we did that too. Feelings and preferences have no place in the life of mendicants and monks. We hang those up at the door when we come in.
Click to expand...
This is priceless! With a few minor alterations, I will try to make this my own!! 🙂

Thanks, Brother Jay! Wonderful to see you again too!! 👍
 
Big_Feet said:
I hope so, too…but if it is true, I have no sympathy for their souls. They were given ample opportunity to return to obedience, and yet they denied Peter. I hope many will still come “home”, even if their community does not, as to stay away would be sinful.
Click to expand...
But you should have sympathy for their souls, and pray all the harder for them.
 
Lormar said:
But you should have sympathy for their souls, and pray all the harder for them.
Click to expand...
No doubt, I will pray, but I do not and will not have sympathy. They will have their just reward, and I will be sad for their unwillingness to conform to God and his Church.

Sympathy indicates that I understand and am compassionate toward what they are doing. I do not have sympathy for them in their utter refusal to obey the successor of Peter.
 
jwinch2 said:
I hope the conclusion to that video is incorrect.

Pax,
Click to expand...
I hope so, too…but if it is true, it is good to know and I am satisfied that they were given ample opportunity to return to obedience. Yet they continued to deny Peter, his (the Pope’s) judgement and His (God’s) church.

I will continue to hope and pray that many of the individuals will see the error of their ways still come “home”, even if their community does not.
 
I sincerely hope that SSPX can reunite. I don’t see them as the “boogeyman”. I don’t know of any other schism the Church has had where the schismatics still are so endeared to the Church and the Holy Father; as Fellay consistently points out that Benedict is his Pope.
Personally I think Fellay dearly wants unification as does Pope Benedict. I fear there are many in the Vatican who don’t. With SSPX in the fold, the pope would have fresh and invigorated allies to combat the modernists who seem to run things.
 
et1jake said:
I sincerely hope that SSPX can reunite. I don’t see them as the “boogeyman”. I don’t know of any other schism the Church has had where the schismatics still are so endeared to the Church and the Holy Father; as Fellay consistently points out that Benedict is his Pope.
Personally I think Fellay dearly wants unification as does Pope Benedict. I fear there are many in the Vatican who don’t. With SSPX in the fold, the pope would have fresh and invigorated allies to combat the modernists who seem to run things.
Click to expand...
While I am all for reunification, the SSPX needs the Church, the Church does not need the SSPX, it wants the SSPX to come back into its fold.
 
et1jake said:
With SSPX in the fold, the pope would have fresh and invigorated allies to combat the modernists who seem to run things.
Click to expand...
While it would be a very good thing for the SSPX to come back into the Church, it is grossly unfair to the religious orders and diocesan priests in the Church to make comments like this. Such comments give the impression that the SSPX are the only people in the world faithful to Catholicism. This is patently false. It also gives the impression that 500 men are going to achieve what more than one million Franciscans, Salesians, Augustinians, Dominicans,Opus Dei priests and Carmelites have not been able to achieve overnight. These are the largest and most faithful groups in the Church and have always been very faithful. Such statements throw us under the bus. It’s little wonder when the traditionalists get little support from these religious communities, if they are treated in such a dismissive manner.

It is also a false assumption that the Modernists run things in the Church. While it is true that there are many Modernists, it is also true that this is nothing new. There have been Modernists since Modernism was born. Before them, there were other problem children. Then there are those who are called Modernists by people in the traditionalist sector, simply because they are not traditionalist, as if that were a requirement for being a faithful Catholic, a faithful religious or a faithful priest.

It’s time we drop this kind of rhetoric, if we truly want to restore Church unity. Such rhetoric as “the pope will have fresh and invigorated allies” creates the opposite effect of what the traditionalists want. It creates resistance. We have to be very careful how we use words. Words can hurt people who do not deserve to be hurt. Words can also anger people who have been doing the best we can with the little we have to work with.

There are over one million of us out here doing a darn good job at maintaining the faith, renewing the priesthood and religious life, serving the people of God in many different ways and having good days and bad days.

Can we use an extra pair of hands? Of course we can. Do we want the extra pair of hands? Of course we do. Do we want to be reminded at every turn of how “Catholic” the SSPX is? No we don’t. Because while the SSPX was out there staging its rebellion in the name of tradition and orthodoxy, the rest of us remained obedient and tried as hard as we could to do the best we could. But there seems to be no recognition of that on these threads. Then people wonder why clergy and religious come through here and disappear like rain on a hot day. The FSSP has been doing the same thing that the SSPX offers and they get very little credit around here. They’re not the only Ecclesia Dei institute doing this kind of ministry.

No one wants to spend a lot of time around people who don’t want you or who don’t appreciate what you have had to live with. In many respects, the SSPX has had it much easier than the communities that I mentioned above. While Franciscans, Augustinians, Dominicans, Carmelites, Salesians, Opus Dei and even FSSP were trying as hard as possible to keep their communities together, to recover the spirit of our founders, to deal with dissent among our brothers, and to find ways to combat a growing godless world, the SSPX simply walked and created its own bubble.

It’s very easy to be effective in a bubble where everyone is a faithful Catholic and is well formed. It’s very easy to work in a bubble where you don’t have to answer to bishops, Sacred Congregations, Prefects, committees and popes, where you can stick your tongue out at authority, if you disagree. It’s not so easy to agree, when you know that you’re right and authority is wrong. However, you also know that your founder commanded you to obey no matter what authority asks of you, as long as it does not ask you to sin. You know that you promised to obey the rule of your order, which says that you will obey with joy, meaning that you hang up at the door any feelings that you have and any wishes of your own for the sake of a loving obedience to your founder and to your hierarchy, while you gently try to get your superiors to hear you out. But you may never cross the line and demand to be heard or you will forfeit your immortal soul, because your founder said so and you vowed to obey until death.

More than a million of us have lived with this tension for almost 50 years and I think that the Church, especially Pope Benedict is very appreciative of our effort. We would welcome the SSPX as equals. But we are also offended by comments that suggest that the SSPX has all the answers that the rest of us poor idiots were too dumb to see.

We welcome them home as partners. But if the feeling is that they can do a better job than we can, let them run hospitals, schools, colleges, homes for children, pregnancy centers, soup kitchens, parishes, do street ministry, run rehabilitation centers, homes for the elderly poor, programs for displaced Catholic immigrants, family centers, the pro-life movement and several thousand parishes around the world. If the feeling is that they are such a power horse, we will gladly give it all over to them and the traditionalist movement…

We can go where the SSPX does not seem to want to go, to the jungles of the Amazon, the streets of Harlem, the Bronx, Liberty City, Calcutta, or the jungles of Africa and Australia and the leper colonies of Ecuador, Colombia, India, and Africa.

My suggestion is that we wait and see what is going to happen, that we be fair to those religious priests and brothers who have lived through this difficult generation, and that we be fair to the SSPX priests as well. Placing expectations that may be too hard to achieve is unfair to them and to the people who follow them.

Once they come into full canonical communion, they can no longer limit themselves to running chapels for traditionalists. If they become a prelature, they will have to deal with the dissenters, the beggars, the drug addict and prostitute, the young person in a crisis pregnancy, the hungry person who comes looking for breakfast or lunch and the displaced Catholic immigrant whose only friend is the Church. They won’t be able to turn them away, because they will have a canonical duty to respond.

Their traditionalist faithful will no longer be shielded from the mainstream flow of humanity with all of its strengths and weaknesses. In other words, the SSPX parish will no longer be a homogenous parish as it is now. It will be a regular open parish, with the exception that it does not belong to the diocese. However, since it does not belong to the diocese, it cannot ask the diocese or any other religious order to please take care of these other needs that present themselves at their door. Their laypeople will have to roll up their sleeves and do what the rest of the Catholic community does, feed the hungry, bathe lepers, welcome unwed mothers, spend nights sitting up with a suicidal drug addict, etc.

Let’s be gentle in our expectations and with our words. Let’s pray that all of this works out well.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV 🙂
 
Plus 1 million!

There’s not been many SSPX martyrs either in the last few decades, yet thousands of Catholics have died for their faith. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:21st-century_Roman_Catholic_martyrs en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:20th-century_Roman_Catholic_martyrs

Here are some:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shahbaz_Bhatti
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thiruchelvam_Nihal_Jim_Brown
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ragheed_Ganni
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_Pillai_Pakiaranjith

They don’t have the familiar European names we associate with Martyrs, they are called Shabhaz, and Ragheed and Thiruchelvam and Pakiaranjith. Many lived in Muslim countries and did the best they could with little aid or support. Some are priests, others are Catholic political figures or aid workers.

These are the TRADITIONAL Catholics, laying down their lives for the friends!

Read about them. Pray for them. Talk about them. Share their stories.

When they face their Maker and Judge will He ask the priests among them if they said mass ad orientem? No, He will clothe them in Martyrs’ robes of Glory.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top