Y
- Status
B
ByzCathCantor
Guest
It was only a matter of time …
J
jwinch2
Guest
Wow! It just never ends with him.
M
Mrs_Sally
Guest
That is just amazing. OK so this comment of his was made before the Chapter, trying to sway folks to vote out Bishop Fellay. Was this before or after Bishop Williamson was told he wouldn’t be allowed to attend the Chapter I wonder?
M
Mrs_Sally
Guest
Here’s a more hopeful point of view from Archbishop Muller - and a happier look too! 
catholicnewsagency.com/news/vaticans-doctrine-chief-pius-x-society-must-accept-vatican-ii-teachings/
catholicnewsagency.com/news/vaticans-doctrine-chief-pius-x-society-must-accept-vatican-ii-teachings/
J
JoeBowen7
Guest
I am sorry to hear that Bishop Fellay has been subject to such harsh criticism from Bishop Williamson on the one hand, and from some Catholics on this board on the other hand. It looks to me like Bishop Fellay has been making a good faith effort to reconcile the SSPX with the Church and at the same time to keep the SSPX from falling apart due to internal dissension.
J
Justin_Swanton
Guest
I can’t spend as much time on the forum as I would like to since I hold down a managerial job during the day and do freelance graphic design at night, so I will have to limit myself to making a couple of points only.Along with the points that you made, the five major superiors and some bishops have already raised the question about the part that I bolded in red. Since the Council of Trent that type of correction has been assigned by proper jurisdiction. No one has a universal right to correct and reprove, especially publicly anyone who does not fall under his jurisdiction or who is above him in rank.
Anyone who is not part of the prelature, is not under the jurisdiction of the SSPX, be they lay, clergy or religious. No one but the pope can correct a member of the Pontifical Institutes. No one but the major superior can reprove a religious who has the right of exemption. No one has the right to correct or reprove a bishop, except the Holy See. The only ones who have a right to reprove publicly in the name of the Church are bishops, religious superiors and the Holy See. Up to there, the the paragraph is fine. Then it crosses over into an issue of jurisdiction.
Archibishop DiNoia has already issued a statement on the documents of Vatican II. They must all be accepted as part of the ordinary teaching magisterium. He said that to pick and choose is sophistry and the SSPX will not be allowed to do that. He also explained that in the Dominican tradition they have a custom that allows for two opinions that contradict each other to coexist, as long as neither contradicts dogma. His hope is that the SSPX will accept the documents as error free, with the understanding that they have a different position on certain subjects, but neither their position or that of the documents is contrary to the faith. He called this the least they could do. This was in a recent article published by the EWTN newspaper. I NCR, I think it’s called.
This being the case, they cannot go around accusing statement made by Vatican II as Modernism. They can certainly ask for clarification and even express another opinion, when it is allowed. Some of the documents are open to other opinions and some are not.
The Archbishop also upheld that all of the documents of Vatican II, even though they are pastoral in nature are also dogmatic, as they build on dogma. They cannot be ignored because they do not define dogma. That too is a form of sophistry, which the Dominicans strongly condemn and which he brings to this office. I said this earlier too and no one picked up on it or decided it was not important. Archbishop DiNoia is a true Dominican.
He said that the Dominicans never had the crisis over Vatican II that others are having. The always protected themselves by following Dominic and Augustine very closely. This is the same argument that Franciscans use. We have always protected ourselves from these crises by sticking close to Francis, Clare and Bonaventure. These are men who simply did not pay attention to all the whining and crying around them. Life for the mendicants went on without any thought to the outside. We did what we were told and we never asked why we were doing it. It’s that simple. St. Dominc did not allow his friars to ask why they were doing something. Even St.Thomas had to do what was told to do without asking.
When you place this kind of friar as the Vice President of EC and you make Archbishop Mueller his boss, you’re sending a message of how things are going to be done from now on. The person who made these appointments was Pope Benedict. There is no secret here that the message is coming from Pope Benedict. He had been considering Mueller since February. He had hoped that by Pentecost the whole thing with the SSPX would be closed, Cardinal Levada could retire and Archbishop Mueller could move in and focus on new problem or pending ones.
His Holiness is getting very tough. He took away the leadership of the Legionaries from them. He sent in a team of outside bishops to deal with the Irish situation. He has asked for several bishop’s resignations. He took away the title of Catholic and Pontifical from one university. He has increased the number of friars who have been ordained bishops to an unprecedented number. Why? Because friars have a reputation for doing what the pope commands without asking why. At the same time, they have a reputation for being very fraternal with the people, not distant and they are highly educated – yes, even Franciscans. No, we’re not the last in the class. We have more Doctors of the Church than any other order. I have no idea where people get this image of the “uneducated” or “non scholarly” Franciscan.We are cute as the dickens and a little eccentric. That cuteness may distract from our intelligence. :egyptian:
In any case, unless there is more, this first item is going to cause problems.
As I said, there are trust issues. They have serious security problems in their organization. As I like to say, more leaks than old plumbing.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
I would add to this: in normal circumstances. In abnormal circumstances a different logic comes into play.
Let me give you an example: in the parish to which I belong (but no longer attend) the parish priest, who has been in place for nearly two decades, does not believe in Original sin. Yes, that’s right, he doesn’t believe in Original sin. He also forbids his catechists from teaching it. I know this because my wife spent some time as catechist in this parish and made the discovery.
Now a priest of course is superior to a mere layperson, so one cannot criticize him. What do they do? What they have been doing for the last 17 years or so is to conform to the priest’s wishes, with the result that a couple of generations of catechized children have grown up not knowing that the Redemption was necessary because of something Adam and Eve did long ago.
Approaching the priest is a waste of time. Supposing one respectfully approaches the local bishop (actually Cardinal in this case) and lodges a complaint, what will happen? One of two things:
a) the complainant will be told that this is undoubtedly a misunderstanding and that Fr. X is and has always been in very good standing in the Archdiocese.
b) if the complainant persists, Fr X will be called in and asked to explain himself. This he will certainly do, by either lying, obfuscation or evasion (he has already done this). He will be thanked and everything will return to the status quo.
If the complainant goes as far as writing to the Vatican, he will receive a short acknowledgement. The Vatican official might just contact the Cardinal in question, who will reassure him everything is fine.
Net result: nothing happens.
What is an alternative course of action? Quite simply to blow the whistle, loud and long. The issue of priestly sexual abuse in the USA is a classic example of this. For decades, despite numerous objections made to appropriate members of the hierarchy, nothing effective was done. It was only when the whistle was blown, publicly and in court, that things changed, such that today a homosexual will think long before entering a seminary, whilst the seminary director will think a good deal longer before accepting him.
Sorry to sound blunt, but this is the way things are at present in the Church. I know something of the workings of my Archdiocese and I can assure you things are far from normal, though a couple of swallows are beginning to fly overhead.
Anyhow back to work.
God bless
Justin
J
JReducation
Guest
First of all, logic tells us that you can’t give a society of 500 men jurisdiction over one billion Catholics.
Second, you cannot give 500 secular men jurisdiction over more than one million consecrated men. The consecrated men outrank the secular men. In this case, the religious outrank the secular clergy.
Third, the Right of Exemption on individual religious that belong to the five major religious orders is a canon of the Council of Trent and it was created to prevent abuse of power. Any religious brother or priest who is Dominican, Augustinian, Carmelite, Jesuit or Franciscan is not subject to any bishop or other authority except his major superior and the Holy Father. This would be a violation of their rights. As I mentioned, the fact that they are religious, they outrank secular clergy.
Fourth, diocesan clergy fall under the jurisdiction of the local bishop. No one has authority to correct them, except the local bishop. Anyone has the right to communicate concerns to the local bishop. Anyone can offer to help correct a situation. Canon Law gives the faithful that right as long as it is done with reverence.
Fifth, the faithful include clergy, religious and laity. With reverence means just that. Making a public correction of individuals by name and social security number is lacking in reverence. It violates Canon Law.
Sixth, we have to get it out of our minds that we are living in such horrific situations as never before seen. Read the stories of St. Dominic and St. Francis and the times in which they lived. Those days make today look calm by comparison. Dominic and Francis reformed and saved the Church from within, with great reverence for everyone and within the rules of proper jurisdiction.
Seventh, one also has to foresee the major consequences of granting such a request. The five major superiors and the bishops of the world are not going to stand around with their arms crossed. The result would be to reconcile 500 SSPX priests and alienated many more who have been there, have been obedient, have been faithful, and have been trying very hard to deal with the situations that come up with the limited resources that they have.
This is an unfortunate situation. The only person who has jurisdiction to fix it is the diocesan bishop. You and I do not know what the diocesan bishop may or may not have done behind the scenes. I understand that the situation continues. Having SSPX priests publicly correct this man is not the solution. That’s not their job nor the role of a prelature. That will only breed antagonism.
A crime is a different story altogether. No one has the right to hide a crime and everyone has a duty to bring it to light and to protect the innocent.
The desire of the SSPX goes beyond crimes. If the wording in this letter is accurate, they want to do the work of the Sacred Congregation for the Faith, the major superiors and the bishops all wrapped into one. That’s unacceptable by anyone’s standards.
Let’s not forget that Archbishop DiNoia is a friar. There is no way that a friar is going to yield on that point. His statements have already revealed that his approach to the things that the SSPX complains about is very Dominican and he’s going to be as is true of the Dominicans, fraternal, attentive, understanding, but he’s already pushing the Dominican vision of things on them. This is what friars do and how friars govern when they become bishops and archbishops.
Today, we have more friars then ever before being ordained bishop. Just yesterday, another Franciscan named bishop. I don’t know when he’s going to be ordained. But apparently, he is going to be ordained and assigned to a post of high responsibility, besides a diocese.
The diocesan clergy that he is selecting to be bishops are faithful to the Holy See, compliant and do not budge easily. The religious he is choosing are mostly Franciscans, Dominicans and Benedictines. They have a collective reputation of being the same, compliant, faithful, unquestioningly obedient to the Holy See, excellent theologians, fraternal in their dealings with people, but very protective of religious, especially monks and friars.
They will not tolerate criminal behavior, but they will not tolerate being dictate to either.
One will never find any diocese or religious community where everything is as it should be. It has never existed. That was one of the few statements that Archbishop Fellay made that I agree with 100%. Conversion of manners, as St. Benedict said, is a lifetime process. As Bishop Fellay himself said, one problem is resolved and it’s replaced by another.
I strongly suggest that you read about the life and times of Francis and Dominic. GK Chesterton does a very good job with that.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
J
jwinch2
Guest
Decision on Lefebvrians expected after summer
vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/homepage/the-vatican/detail/articolo/lefebvriani-lefebvrians-lefebvrianos-vaticano-vatican-17065/
vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/homepage/the-vatican/detail/articolo/lefebvriani-lefebvrians-lefebvrianos-vaticano-vatican-17065/
P
ProVobis
Guest
This was also discussed here.Here’s a more hopeful point of view from Archbishop Muller - and a happier look too!
catholicnewsagency.com/news/vaticans-doctrine-chief-pius-x-society-must-accept-vatican-ii-teachings/
J
Justin_Swanton
Guest
Again let me take just a few quick things:First of all, logic tells us that you can’t give a society of 500 men jurisdiction over one billion Catholics.
Second, you cannot give 500 secular men jurisdiction over more than one million consecrated men. The consecrated men outrank the secular men. In this case, the religious outrank the secular clergy.
Third, the Right of Exemption on individual religious that belong to the five major religious orders is a canon of the Council of Trent and it was created to prevent abuse of power. Any religious brother or priest who is Dominican, Augustinian, Carmelite, Jesuit or Franciscan is not subject to any bishop or other authority except his major superior and the Holy Father. This would be a violation of their rights. As I mentioned, the fact that they are religious, they outrank secular clergy.
Fourth, diocesan clergy fall under the jurisdiction of the local bishop. No one has authority to correct them, except the local bishop. Anyone has the right to communicate concerns to the local bishop. Anyone can offer to help correct a situation. Canon Law gives the faithful that right as long as it is done with reverence.
Fifth, the faithful include clergy, religious and laity. With reverence means just that. Making a public correction of individuals by name and social security number is lacking in reverence. It violates Canon Law.
Sixth, we have to get it out of our minds that we are living in such horrific situations as never before seen. Read the stories of St. Dominic and St. Francis and the times in which they lived. Those days make today look calm by comparison. Dominic and Francis reformed and saved the Church from within, with great reverence for everyone and within the rules of proper jurisdiction.
Seventh, one also has to foresee the major consequences of granting such a request. The five major superiors and the bishops of the world are not going to stand around with their arms crossed. The result would be to reconcile 500 SSPX priests and alienated many more who have been there, have been obedient, have been faithful, and have been trying very hard to deal with the situations that come up with the limited resources that they have.
This is an unfortunate situation. The only person who has jurisdiction to fix it is the diocesan bishop. You and I do not know what the diocesan bishop may or may not have done behind the scenes. I understand that the situation continues. Having SSPX priests publicly correct this man is not the solution. That’s not their job nor the role of a prelature. That will only breed antagonism.
A crime is a different story altogether. No one has the right to hide a crime and everyone has a duty to bring it to light and to protect the innocent.
The desire of the SSPX goes beyond crimes. If the wording in this letter is accurate, they want to do the work of the Sacred Congregation for the Faith, the major superiors and the bishops all wrapped into one. That’s unacceptable by anyone’s standards.
Let’s not forget that Archbishop DiNoia is a friar. There is no way that a friar is going to yield on that point. His statements have already revealed that his approach to the things that the SSPX complains about is very Dominican and he’s going to be as is true of the Dominicans, fraternal, attentive, understanding, but he’s already pushing the Dominican vision of things on them. This is what friars do and how friars govern when they become bishops and archbishops.
Today, we have more friars then ever before being ordained bishop. Just yesterday, another Franciscan named bishop. I don’t know when he’s going to be ordained. But apparently, he is going to be ordained and assigned to a post of high responsibility, besides a diocese.
The diocesan clergy that he is selecting to be bishops are faithful to the Holy See, compliant and do not budge easily. The religious he is choosing are mostly Franciscans, Dominicans and Benedictines. They have a collective reputation of being the same, compliant, faithful, unquestioningly obedient to the Holy See, excellent theologians, fraternal in their dealings with people, but very protective of religious, especially monks and friars.
They will not tolerate criminal behavior, but they will not tolerate being dictate to either.
One will never find any diocese or religious community where everything is as it should be. It has never existed. That was one of the few statements that Archbishop Fellay made that I agree with 100%. Conversion of manners, as St. Benedict said, is a lifetime process. As Bishop Fellay himself said, one problem is resolved and it’s replaced by another.
I strongly suggest that you read about the life and times of Francis and Dominic. GK Chesterton does a very good job with that.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
Jurisdiction
No one is asking for jurisdiction of the SSPX over anyone else. It’s about the right to publicly criticize errors perpetrated by fellow Catholics. The uniqueness of the contemporary situation is that one can get away with things today that in the past would oblige one to either recant or leave the Church. (I remember some of the affirmations regarding Scriptural Inspiration I read on the couple of sessions of an RCIA course I attended). If going through the regular channels - which obviously one must do first - does not redress the situation then one can object publicly, without that implying any sort of jursidiction.
I think prominent SSPX members have been pretty embarrassing with their critiques lately, e.g. in their criticism of Archbishop Muller, but the principle is fair enough.
Reverence
St Paul opposed St Peter to his face in Antioch when the latter obliged Jews to eat separately from baptized pagans. Was that irreverence? If something objectively serious is at stake then a public objection is quite acceptable (other means failing) provided it doesn’t get nasty and personal - or simply false, as in the case of the SSPX objections to extracts from Archbishop Muller’s texts.
**
The times of St Dominic and St Francis**
The Albigensians were certainly bad enough, but at least they had the decency to call themselves and act as a separate sect - apart from the main body of the faithful. And I’m willing to bet that St Dominic was forthright and public in his condemnation of their teachings (without insulting individuals).
**
Heresy and crime**
In terms of harm to the individual, which is worse? Sexual abuse has a permanent effect on the life of its victims, but what about Catholics who are brought up hardly knowing what they believe and what it means to live a Catholic life? Do we let that go?
And must run again.
Justin
J
JReducation
Guest
There is one very important point that must be discussed on this thread before moving forward with discussions on the SSPX.
There should be a public retraction by those who accused Cardinal Levada and the other cardinals of alterning the document behind the pope’s back. Archbishop Mueller and Archbishop DiNoia have separately stateted that the pope surprised the SSPX by adding the last minute chanes.
Cardinal Levada was unjustly accused of a grave crime on a public forum that is read around the world. The man has a right to his good name and if we’re truly as tradtional and orthodox as we say, we would do well to acknowledge that such an allegation was pemature, unwarrented and immoral.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
D
Denise1957
Guest
Regarding the supposed right to criticize errors of fellow Catholics, how is it to be determinded that the criticisms of error actually constitute an error? For example, when the Society sharply criticized the Pope for Assisi lll, and for beatifying Pope John Paul ll, they presumably believed these things to be errors, or possible errors. But according to the Holy Father, they were not errors. But the SSPX will sometimes be suspicious of something because they do not try to see it from the Popes point of view, or in light of the bigger picture. Just my opinion here.
Also, regarding the SSPX criticism of Archbishop Muller, how was the principle fair enough? I don’t think it was fair at all to criticize the Archbishop without having all the facts regarding the statements he had made. Just my opinion, again, and I don’t want to start an unpleasant debate, but I have serious concerns about a Society of priests who see their main charism as ‘criticizing’ fellow Catholics, if indeed this is how they see themselves; I could be wrong about that.
J
jwinch2
Guest
I agree with this completely.There is one very important point that must be discussed on this thread before moving forward with discussions on the SSPX.
There should be a public retraction by those who accused Cardinal Levada and the other cardinals of alterning the document behind the pope’s back. Archbishop Mueller and Archbishop DiNoia have separately stateted that the pope surprised the SSPX by adding the last minute chanes.
Cardinal Levada was unjustly accused of a grave crime on a public forum that is read around the world. The man has a right to his good name and if we’re truly as tradtional and orthodox as we say, we would do well to acknowledge that such an allegation was pemature, unwarrented and immoral.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
J
jwinch2
Guest
Müller: “Let us overcome ideological clashes in the Church”
vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/homepage/the-vatican/detail/articolo/mueller-17083/
vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/homepage/the-vatican/detail/articolo/mueller-17083/
T
triumphguy
Guest
I agree 99% - unwarranted and immoral, and therefore not premature.There is one very important point that must be discussed on this thread before moving forward with discussions on the SSPX.
There should be a public retraction by those who accused Cardinal Levada and the other cardinals of alterning the document behind the pope’s back. Archbishop Mueller and Archbishop DiNoia have separately stateted that the pope surprised the SSPX by adding the last minute chanes.
Cardinal Levada was unjustly accused of a grave crime on a public forum that is read around the world. The man has a right to his good name and if we’re truly as tradtional and orthodox as we say, we would do well to acknowledge that such an allegation was pemature, unwarrented and immoral.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
But I agree.
Forum posters, Catholics in general, and clergy - we’re all better off not criticizing each other. And I’m as bad as anyone, always up for an argument… which is fine if you see the forums as entertainment + faith development. But in many issues we’re too quick to have a go at each other. And when we see Bishops doing it…
I
Iotaunum
Guest
I have tried to stay away from threads on the SSPX for a while – mainly because I think it would be pointless to comment further. Both positions are well known and have been for some time. But as someone who aligns themselves with the SSPX position I would like to give some thoughts from my own perspective. Some people seem to be very irritated by the lack of progress of the talks. They were on both sides and expected either the Vatican to go back to the teaching of the past or the SSPX to accept all of Vatican II and modern theology. This, in my own fallible view, was never going to happen. This has left a lot of people bitter and upset. Those who were familiar with both positions knew that an agreement was always going to be hard.
I want to try and clear up some misconceptions. There are those who feel the SSPX are rebels who dictate to the Pope their demands. I understand this view – I really do. I come from a family who have always been Catholics devoted to the Papacy as far back as my research has found. When I was in Catholic School I knew of no other teenager who had read so many books on the Popes – especially Pope JPII as myself. My Father, an easygoing man would have thrown a person out of the house for saying anything derogatory about the Pope. I understand therefore the reactions of people against the SSPX. However, in my view the SSPX are not “demanding” things from the Pope. The SSPX – rightly or wrongly – believe that Catholics have a right to believe and practice their faith as Catholics have done in the past. They feel that some of the Changes of Vatican II and afterwards prevent this and that no one – even a Cardinal or Pope can force such changes on Catholics legitimately. This is the view of the SSPX and other traditional Catholics. Others will react to this and say; “The Church is infallible, the Pope is infallible, laymen have no right to second guess a Cardinal etc” – and they are right in saying so, however some, like the SSPX felt and feel they have no other option and that their faith is at risk if they don’t do something.
Often nowadays I hear people say things like; “look at those SSPX rebels saying Mass in their chapels when other priests and laity say and attend Mass in the diocesan Churches in good standing” – but I would ask them to put themselves in the shoes of those priests and laity who wanted to continue saying and attending the traditional Mass from the beginning. I have seen numerous letters sent by people who have now passed away and people I know who are still with us who asked for such permission. They had priests willing to say mass for them, they had the place, the parishioners etc and yet they were refused. This has happened in every diocese in my own country and in dioceses all over the world. I have spoken to many priests who were ordained well before Vatican II. They all tell me that they were told they had to use the new missal and that they were not permitted to celebrate the traditional Mass any longer. Most of them complied out of obedience. This is true of parishes all over the world. Pope John Paul II brought to together a commission to decide whether the traditional Mass was ever abrogated. There was obviously some doubt. So you can see why those who attended SSPX Masses can get frustrated when they hear people say “why did you break away when the traditional Mass was never abrogated and there is now one allowed once a month in my diocese?” This seems to me to be a revisionism of sorts which attempts to make the past conditions seem rosy and favourable when practically most Catholics who asked for this were denied – priests and laity. I know many will see this differently, but I am giving my own view and perspective here as well as that of those I align myself with including the SSPX.
Now some will say; “no Catholic has a right to the traditional Mass and sacraments etc – so what if they were denied it” but again I am giving the view of Catholics who do think that right exists.
With regards to the much talked about Hermeneutic of Continuity – as one who aligns myself with the SSPX position I would say that the SSPX would accept this idea if it worked out logically. I have tried to used this method of interpreting Vatican II. The documents are ambiguous at times and traditional interpretations can be taken from them. However, there are some which are hard to reconcile. I myself always think of Lumen Gentium no.16. I have sought for years with good will to understand this with a hermeneutic of continuity. I can’t. Perhaps I am stupid and cannot work this one out. I have discussed it with many priests, bishops and theologians. I can’t get it. Now the SSPX highlight different issues. The Vatican needs to take these difficult passages and say: “this is what it means”. The SSPX cannot reconcile them and people shouting ; “so what – ignore it – the Pope knows more than you – you have no right” etc does not help in the least. If the SSPX could understand these parts with a hermeneutic of continuity then they would do so. The SSPX think that the hermeneutic of continuity approach works, but just not with every part of every document. They just want answers on these issues as do I.
Regarding the “freedom to protect, correct, challenge, even publicly, the makers of any errors or innovations of modernism, liberalism , Vatican II and its consequences” – this does not mean they want to set up their own mini magisterium or inquisition. It just means that for example if the Bishops conference approves a School text book (not naming names) which teaches that Christ may not be God and that Jesus did not rise from the dead they could challenge this publically as any Catholic would want to do. It does not mean they want authority to excommunicate or punish clerics which they have no jurisdiction over. The argument that what happens outside the SSPX is of no concern to them does not hold since Catholics, especially clergy have a right and duty to oppose error in all its forms.
Brother JR always has lots of good historical information and insights to bring to the discussion on the issue but one thing brother mentions caught my attention. He stated that “Archbishop Di Noia said that the SSPX position that you can accept some parts of Vatican II and reject others is sophistry.” I don’t know if that was an exact quote but I would reject the idea that the traditional view is anything close to sophistry. In fact the SSPX has accused the liberals of sophistry and other tactics which they use to reinterpret and understand Catholic teaching. The SSPX want a sound exposition of Catholic teaching such as the scholastic method and reject the sort of sophistry and pluralim which many seem to accept.
These are my own views.
I want to try and clear up some misconceptions. There are those who feel the SSPX are rebels who dictate to the Pope their demands. I understand this view – I really do. I come from a family who have always been Catholics devoted to the Papacy as far back as my research has found. When I was in Catholic School I knew of no other teenager who had read so many books on the Popes – especially Pope JPII as myself. My Father, an easygoing man would have thrown a person out of the house for saying anything derogatory about the Pope. I understand therefore the reactions of people against the SSPX. However, in my view the SSPX are not “demanding” things from the Pope. The SSPX – rightly or wrongly – believe that Catholics have a right to believe and practice their faith as Catholics have done in the past. They feel that some of the Changes of Vatican II and afterwards prevent this and that no one – even a Cardinal or Pope can force such changes on Catholics legitimately. This is the view of the SSPX and other traditional Catholics. Others will react to this and say; “The Church is infallible, the Pope is infallible, laymen have no right to second guess a Cardinal etc” – and they are right in saying so, however some, like the SSPX felt and feel they have no other option and that their faith is at risk if they don’t do something.
Often nowadays I hear people say things like; “look at those SSPX rebels saying Mass in their chapels when other priests and laity say and attend Mass in the diocesan Churches in good standing” – but I would ask them to put themselves in the shoes of those priests and laity who wanted to continue saying and attending the traditional Mass from the beginning. I have seen numerous letters sent by people who have now passed away and people I know who are still with us who asked for such permission. They had priests willing to say mass for them, they had the place, the parishioners etc and yet they were refused. This has happened in every diocese in my own country and in dioceses all over the world. I have spoken to many priests who were ordained well before Vatican II. They all tell me that they were told they had to use the new missal and that they were not permitted to celebrate the traditional Mass any longer. Most of them complied out of obedience. This is true of parishes all over the world. Pope John Paul II brought to together a commission to decide whether the traditional Mass was ever abrogated. There was obviously some doubt. So you can see why those who attended SSPX Masses can get frustrated when they hear people say “why did you break away when the traditional Mass was never abrogated and there is now one allowed once a month in my diocese?” This seems to me to be a revisionism of sorts which attempts to make the past conditions seem rosy and favourable when practically most Catholics who asked for this were denied – priests and laity. I know many will see this differently, but I am giving my own view and perspective here as well as that of those I align myself with including the SSPX.
Now some will say; “no Catholic has a right to the traditional Mass and sacraments etc – so what if they were denied it” but again I am giving the view of Catholics who do think that right exists.
With regards to the much talked about Hermeneutic of Continuity – as one who aligns myself with the SSPX position I would say that the SSPX would accept this idea if it worked out logically. I have tried to used this method of interpreting Vatican II. The documents are ambiguous at times and traditional interpretations can be taken from them. However, there are some which are hard to reconcile. I myself always think of Lumen Gentium no.16. I have sought for years with good will to understand this with a hermeneutic of continuity. I can’t. Perhaps I am stupid and cannot work this one out. I have discussed it with many priests, bishops and theologians. I can’t get it. Now the SSPX highlight different issues. The Vatican needs to take these difficult passages and say: “this is what it means”. The SSPX cannot reconcile them and people shouting ; “so what – ignore it – the Pope knows more than you – you have no right” etc does not help in the least. If the SSPX could understand these parts with a hermeneutic of continuity then they would do so. The SSPX think that the hermeneutic of continuity approach works, but just not with every part of every document. They just want answers on these issues as do I.
Regarding the “freedom to protect, correct, challenge, even publicly, the makers of any errors or innovations of modernism, liberalism , Vatican II and its consequences” – this does not mean they want to set up their own mini magisterium or inquisition. It just means that for example if the Bishops conference approves a School text book (not naming names) which teaches that Christ may not be God and that Jesus did not rise from the dead they could challenge this publically as any Catholic would want to do. It does not mean they want authority to excommunicate or punish clerics which they have no jurisdiction over. The argument that what happens outside the SSPX is of no concern to them does not hold since Catholics, especially clergy have a right and duty to oppose error in all its forms.
Brother JR always has lots of good historical information and insights to bring to the discussion on the issue but one thing brother mentions caught my attention. He stated that “Archbishop Di Noia said that the SSPX position that you can accept some parts of Vatican II and reject others is sophistry.” I don’t know if that was an exact quote but I would reject the idea that the traditional view is anything close to sophistry. In fact the SSPX has accused the liberals of sophistry and other tactics which they use to reinterpret and understand Catholic teaching. The SSPX want a sound exposition of Catholic teaching such as the scholastic method and reject the sort of sophistry and pluralim which many seem to accept.
These are my own views.
J
JReducation
Guest
The problem here is that we’re dealing with a letter that we have no right to be reading in the first place. The closing paragraph clearly said that this is for the eyes of the SSPX only. The statement in the letter, may not be the statement that the SSPX gives to the Holy See. Let’s hope that’s the case. Because the statement in the letter is illegal
There are several grounds for it being illegal. The first is that it does not define the parameters of such corrections. It wants to be granted the right to correct and challenge people in public by name. People have a right to their good reputation. You can’t go around accusing people of things without parameters of any kind. A perfect example was the statement made by some of them and many lay followers that charges Archbishop Mueller with heresy. This was done in public and by name. The sentence in the letter gives the impression that this is what they want.
In the link that was provided above, Archbishop DiNoia himself says that this has to be said differently. It’s a polite way of saying that this is unacceptable. How can anyone sit there and truly believe that they are going to get a Dominican Friar to agree to this much freedom? How can anyone believe that a prelature is going to be allowed to call people on the carpet who are not part of the prelature, when religious superiors are not allowed to call anyone on the carpet except their own men and the laity. Bishops are not allowed to call anyone on the carpet except their own men and the laity. And both are bound only to those laymen who are under their jurisdiction. Let’s say that you’re a layman who belongs to a Salesian parish. You are under the jurisdiction of the local Salesian superior as well as the local bishop. If you do something that violates Salesian law, he can call you on the carpet, even if you’re a layman. But there are very strict parameters for this, which I can’t go into here, because they require books to explain.
The idea of a prelature is to give you an area to exercise your apostolate without outside interference and where you won’t get in other people’s way either. We’re not talking about something public that happens and everyone knows about it such as the issue of at Notre Dame. Even there, the Holy See asked the bishops of the USA not to mention Father Jenkins by name any more. He’s a religious and out of their jurisdiction. He falls under the jurisdiction of the Holy Father. They did. The talked about the issue, but not the individuals by name. Those are called parameters.
What people take exception to is the word “demand”. No one of us out here who have been here for the duration of every crisis in the history of the Church has ever been allowed to say to the Holy See, “We demand . . .”
It has to be softened to “We need, . . .” or “We request . . .” “It would be good it . . .”
Again, that’s why Archbishop DiNoia said that this has to be softened.
However, in my view the SSPX are not “demanding” things from the Pope. The SSPX – rightly or wrongly – believe that Catholics have a right to believe and practice their faith as Catholics have done in the past.
No one is going to disagree with this. But the disagreement is going to be with the how. The Holy Father made a statement to the bishops of Italy, about three years ago, that they needed to take to heart the example of St. Francis of Assisi who protected the faith by obedience to the Holy See, fidelity to the Gospel, detachment in all things, patience with all people and teaching the opposite of error by his way of life more than by his words.
He later said the same about St. Dominic and he pointed out how Dominic and the Dominicans typically try to avoid all forms of confrontations, arguments and debates against non-Catholics, heretics and non believers. This is not the Dominican way. Dominic was a man of great penance, poverty, love for fraternity, contemplation, prayer, charity and above all peaceful. His Brother Preachers were sent out to correct heresy, not heretics. In other words, they were to teach the truth, not engage the other side.
Now that we have a Dominican Vice President of Ecclesia Dei, it is very likely that this is going to be what he expects of the SSPX. Defend the faith by teaching the faith, not by engaging in arguments with people or by denouncing people in public. The Church does not do that.
The issue here has nothing to do with the mass. It has to do with lines of authority. In fact, the letter mentions the mass once.
Also, the Archbishop did say that the SSPX cannot continue to say that there is error in the Ordinary Form or be dismissive of it, nor can it continue to say that there is error in the documents of Vatican II. He said that today and in one of his early interviews.
**The councils cannot — whatever their interpretations may be by the left or right, or whatever the intentions of the authors were of the council documents — be led into error. All of the documents stand. **
He also points to another Dominican principle that he seems to want the SSPX to see.
**Another issue is there’s a failure to recognize a simple fact of the history of the Church: that all theological disagreements need not be Church-dividing. **
Here is where Pope Benedict seems to be drawing the line. It looks as if he has chosen to men to head this who are of the same belief as he is. I’ll just paraphrase. It does not have to work logically for us. The pope says this is the way it and this is the way it has to be or leave. Observe what the Archbishop said.
The Pope is bending over backwards to accommodate them, but he’s not going to give in on the issue of the authenticity of the teaching of Vatican II as a series of acts of the magisterium.
In speaking of his relationship with the SSPX he said.
**
What I’ve tried to argue is that all they have to do is to say there’s nothing in the Council that is contrary to Tradition and that every text, or every part of it that is controversial, should be read in context of the Council — and read it in light of the Tradition. It seems to me, despite their difficulties, they should be able to do that.
**
Brother JR always has lots of good historical information and insights to bring to the discussion on the issue but one thing brother mentions caught my attention. He stated that “Archbishop Di Noia said that the SSPX position that you can accept some parts of Vatican II and reject others is sophistry.”
The best way to clarify that is to give the entire context. He was answering a question. Here goes.
**
What do you say to the argument that if the Council documents are neither infallible nor unchangeable then they are therefore not binding?
To say they are not binding is sophistry. The Council contains swathes of the ordinary magisterium, which is de fide divina [of divine faith].**
ncregister.com/daily-news/archbishop-dinoia-ecclesia-dei-and-the-society-of-st.-pius-x/
All of the above quotes from the Archbishop come from one of the early interviews that he gave when he was first appointed Vice President. Above, someone linked a more recent interview.
Again, let’s remember, we’re reading and commenting on a letter that we really no right to read and no right to comment about. It was not written for us. We must tread gingerly here or we will find ourselves in a morally compromising position. You can’t judge anyone. You especially cannot judge someone who is putting some thoughts on paper that may be for information purposes, but not the final product. At the end of the day what matters is the final product that the SSPX sends to the Vatican.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
I
i_am_a_Catholic
Guest
The above paragraph resonated with me the most. I think it is good advice. The best way to combat heresy, (at least in present time where an inquisition is out of the question
) is to spread the true faith and inform people about the heresy.This will create good faithful. From the good faithful will come good priests and good families. And the church will automatically defeat heresy.
At the same time, although not in the style of the inquisition, perhaps some individuals or even societies and groups need to be directly addressed and corrected. It is done today by the Holy Father as we speak with some Universities, Organizations and Societies. So in this sense, perhaps the SSPX merely want to see this take place more often. Though it is certainly ironic that they too are part of those who should be addressed by the Church.
So while I see Br. JR’s point, I think there might be room to disagree on the interpretation and details as well.
J
JReducation
Guest
The problem is that we can’t agree or disagree at this point, because all we have as an internal letter. Even Archbishop DiNoia looked at that statement and said that it had to be softened.The above paragraph resonated with me the most. I think it is good advice. The best way to combat heresy, (at least in present time where an inquisition is out of the question
This will create good faithful. From the good faithful will come good priests and good families. And the church will automatically defeat heresy.
At the same time, although not in the style of the inquisition, perhaps some individuals or even societies and groups need to be directly addressed and corrected. It is done today by the Holy Father as we speak with some Universities, Organizations and Societies. So in this sense, perhaps the SSPX merely want to see this take place more often. Though it is certainly ironic that they too are part of those who should be addressed by the Church.
So while I see Br. JR’s point, I think there might be room to disagree on the interpretation and details as well.
No one is saying that there should not be correction. In fact, male religious are turning a corner and most of the silliness is gone. Most male superiors are very fine men; some take no prisoners.
What concerns us, I’m a superior general as well, is that our rights be respected. You cannot cure an evil by committing another evil. Violating human rights and religious rights is a sin against justice. To give one group carte blanche to correct, confront and challenge anyone at any time in any public manner is unfair to the person who is being corrected, because no one should be humiliated. It is grossly unfair to his superior general, because no one should be stepping on his toes.
The letter does not give enough information. We don’t know if they are taking all of these factors into consideration. We will not know until they present their response to the Holy Father.
My guess is that they are not going to say exactly what this paragraph says. This may have been said at the chapter and the writer is paraphrasing or summarizing. The SSPX leadership is not dumb. It knows that the pope is not going to bring one group in and lose one million male religious and thousands of diocesan priests;.
Everyone has a duty to teach truth and defend truth. But there are rules of engagement. Those rules cannot be violated. That would be doing a wrong to achieve a good.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
- Status