SSPX communique to Rome

[Alfonsus]

But given the leaked letters, even if regularization took place, may give us ground for suspicion that SSPX has hidden agenda of being an illegal parallel magisterium.

That is what they asked, to correct anyone, to be the inquisition that can say “this is right interpretation, this is wrong, this must be discarded.” Like you said, Brother JR, taking for themselves not only the office of CDF, but the whole magisterium too…

 

[piouswoman]

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.

You are wrong.

 

[i_am_a_Catholic]

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.

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

Very good point. It would certainly lead to some disastrous consequences to give someone else an unchallenged authority to criticize. And it seems a more awkward request in that the group asking for it is also worth of criticism for being outside the church.

But if I may simply speculate, it might be that they just want to initiate stricter stance toward deviation from teaching. So as someone said, they might have an agenda, not to make themselves the inquisition, but to make everyone in the church start an inquisition. Perhaps an active participation of all members of the church in condemning errors in each others positions, ideas etc.

So it might be that lets say a priest of a certain order is teaching errors. Then lets say that the superiors of that order are made aware but not taking any action on the matter. Perhaps the SSPX want to be able to condemn the actions of the superiors in this case rather than the direct condemnation of the priest.

It does seem like to ask for such an act of condemnation is a reasonable request, given that this accommodation be made for everyone, and not just the SSPX. It could lead to some positive improvements in the overall church political structure.

But as you said, if it takes place by directly condemning a priest in some order, and as an exclusive right for the SSPX, that would be like an inquisition, could cause serious problems, and could infact be less effective as well. Because the problem they want to condemn might lie deeper within the orders hierarchy itself after all.

 

[JReducation]

But given the leaked letters, even if regularization took place, may give us ground for suspicion that SSPX has hidden agenda of being an illegal parallel magisterium.

That is what they asked, to correct anyone, to be the inquisition that can say “this is right interpretation, this is wrong, this must be discarded.” Like you said, Brother JR, taking for themselves not only the office of CDF, but the whole magisterium too…

I think these are intelligent men. I certainly do not think that they are evil men trying to achieve some kind of hostile takeover. I think the statement is over the top or the person who wrote the letter is paraphrasing.

You are wrong.

You’re not sharing with her or us why you disagree. She makes some very good points.

Very good point. It would certainly lead to some disastrous consequences to give someone else an unchallenged authority to criticize. And it seems a more awkward request in that the group asking for it is also worth of criticism for being outside the church.

But if I may simply speculate, it might be that they just want to initiate stricter stance toward deviation from teaching. So as someone said, they might have an agenda, not to make themselves the inquisition, but to make everyone in the church start an inquisition. Perhaps an active participation of all members of the church in condemning errors in each others positions, ideas etc.

This would make perfect sense. It has to be worded better than it is in the letter.

So it might be that lets say a priest of a certain order is teaching errors. Then lets say that the superiors of that order are made aware but not taking any action on the matter. Perhaps the SSPX want to be able to condemn the actions of the superiors in this case rather than the direct condemnation of the priest.

This is more difficult to execute on a number of levels. Let’s start with them.

1. Most priests do not belong to religious communities. They belong to a diocese. For a “lowly” priest to openly challenge or question why a bishop did not do what he was supposed to do, is against proper protocol.
2. If anyone outside of that diocese does so, Canon Law if being violated. Canon Law is very clear that every diocese constitutes an autonomous Church run by a bishop. The only person who has universal jurisdiction is the pope. Outside of the bishop, only the pope can interfere in the affairs of a diocese. The most that any of us can do at this point is to report our concerns to Rome.
3. Religious communities of men are not all priests. Some don’t even have priests. Are they going to monitor only priests? Any male community that does not have priests is off the hook?
4. Religious, be they priests or brothers, are higher in rank than a secular priest, which is what the SSPX priests are, unless the secular priest involved is incardinated into the diocese. In that case, he is of higher rank, because it’s his diocese. Religious belong to no diocese, not even the diocese where we were baptized. That’s how we come to have a higher rank. Once our community has Pontifical Right, we have universal jurisdiction. No secular priest or bishop can make demands on us, other than whatever we have contracted to do for the diocese. That would imply that said priest is part of the diocese. In this case the SSPX is part of a prelature.
5. Let’s go another route. Let’s say that we give everyone the right to openly criticize and correct everyone else. Let’s use your example, someone criticizes me because they reported something to me and it’s still happening. Now this person takes my good name and trashes it by hanging out my laundry for everyone to see.

 

[JReducation]

This may work when dealing with bishops, because a diocesan priest is an ordained secular Catholic. He has no special rule of life and belongs to no community; therefore, he is not protected by laws and traditions.

However, in the case of religious, that’s not the case. You have to be very careful when you criticize a religious superior for what you assume to be inaction. I’ll give you an example.

In the Franciscans tradition, this is the way things go down.

1. The fault has to be one that is condemned either by St. Francis or by the Church and it must be on paper. If the Church has never formally declared it a fault, the superior has no case.
2. The superior has to present the problem to his brother and offer to help. He may not correct or discipline him.
3. If the problem is not corrected or the brother does not follow through, the superior has to ask two brothers to help the failing brother. He cannot punish.
4. If after these steps, nothing improves, the superior has to put the order in writing and place the brother under obedience.
5. If there is no improvement, then the superior may penalize.
6. The superior can only use those penalties allowed by St. Francis, which he specifically authorizes in the rule. He cannot get creative with disciplines.

No one in the Church has the authority to change that, because the Franciscan Rule was accepted by Pope Honorius III as being revealed to Francis and he attached a Papal Bull to it that no one can ever change Francis’ words or wishes. The only way for this to change would be for another pope to write another bull. Now we have to wait for this other bull.

The problem is that no SSPX priest, diocesan priest, Jesuit or Salesian is going to know all of this. Why should they? It’s not their order. They have no need to study its founder and his rules.

The Dominicans are the only ones who would know this, because Franciscans and Dominicans are closely connected and we study each other’s rules and life. However, the Dominican can say nothing, because in the writings of St. Dominic he says the following:

1. You are never to see any fault in a Franciscan.
2. You are to venerate them when you see them.
3. You are to care for them when they need it.
4. You are to protect them at all times.

The other group would be the Trinitarians. However, their founder, St. John de Matha said to them

1. Wherever you meet a Franciscan,no matter how sinful he is, even if he’s a heretic, you shall honor him for his is the son of the Seraphic Father.
2. You are to receive the Franciscans n our houses.
3. You are not to entertain abuse or mistreat them in memory of our Seraphic Father.

Like this, there are many rules, laws, papal bulls and agreements that go back hundreds of years, some more than1,000 years.

For example. The Church teaches that the highest vocation in the world is the call to the monastic life. She recognizes monks and friars as having a more solemn call than any other Christian. Monks and friars are outside of the reach of anyone who is not their superior, because all other Christians are not their equal, not even the clergy.

And yadda yadda yadda . . . there are so many of these rules and regulations that each of us can only keep straight what applies to us. How the CDF and the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life keeps it all straight is a miracle.

The point is that one has to be very careful when one criticizes and attempts to correct, because the person whom you may be criticizing, such as the superior, may not have the power to do more than he has done.

Dismissing someone who is in simple vows is fairly easy. Dismissing a secular priest is easy. Dismissing someone in solemn vows is almost as impossible as undoing baptism, because solemn vows are tied into the sacrament of baptism. The Church views them as an extension of the sacrament. There is a whole theology there that the person on the outside may not know. I can assure you that most diocesan priests don’t even know that there are religious in solemn vows and religious in simple vows. If they have heard the terms, they don’t know the theology and legal implications.

I know that I’ve thrown a lot on the table. But I just want to impress all of our friends with how difficult it would be to execute such a plan where everyone becomes everyone’s overseer. Unless, you know the rules for each situation, you can be doing an injustice in an attempt to do a good thing.

That’s why the best thing to do is always to send a letter to the Vatican. The Vatican knows what can and cannot be done in the Benedictines, but does not apply to the Franciscans or what applies to Franciscans, but if you do it to a Carthusian, you’ll burn in hell. They are practically untouchable by any law except their statutes. The Church views them as so superior to the rest of us, that she does not require a rule of life for them. They have statutes that they democratically change as needed. These men are so solemnly consecrated, that they need nothing from the rest of us by way of oversight.

If I saw one peeing on a rose bush and the Prior allows it, I can’t blow the whistle on the Prior. I’m in solemn vows as well, but I’m only a mendicant. He’s a hermit. I can only advise the Vatican, not become the town crier. That is only allowed for certain crimes.

But as you said, if it takes place by directly condemning a priest in some order, and as an exclusive right for the SSPX, that would be like an inquisition, could cause serious problems, and could infact be less effective as well. Because the problem they want to condemn might lie deeper within the orders hierarchy itself after all.

That would just be too strange and would alienate many men. I’m not saying that two million male religious are going to walk. Where are we going to go to? We have no money. But that many men can make life very interesting if they choose not to play by these new rules. If you close them down, who takes up their work and who keeps up their charism?

The whole idea is too complicated. The more I think about it, the more I believe that it is just not well stated in that letter. At the end of the day,there is now are now a friar and a clerk regular at the CDF, besides Archbishop Mueller. They’re not going to let anyone start an inquisition or declare open season on witches.

Fraternally,

Br.JR, FFV

 

[LightBound]

You are wrong.

Please elaborate. A few months ago, you shared how you finally broke free from the SSPX - has that changed again?

 

[pnewton]

You are wrong.

Please elaborate. A few months ago, you shared how you finally broke free from the SSPX - has that changed again?

Giving the most favorable interpretation, as the poster has not responded, I would guess that the statement was a response to the phrase, " I could be wrong", which referred to the SSPX priest who see their primary charism as criticizing the Church. No doubt there are some priest of the SSPX who prefer to mind their own adherents and steer clear of the politics of criticism. Perhaps the priest that this poster know is one such priest.

Of course one can not derive conclusions from the whole society just by the priests one knows, just like one can not generalized from unfortunate leaks like the one being discussed. There seems to be quite a range of opinions about the Catholic Church within the SSPX.

 

[Denise1957]

Giving the most favorable interpretation, as the poster has not responded, I would guess that the statement was a response to the phrase, " I could be wrong", which referred to the SSPX priest who see their primary charism as criticizing the Church. No doubt there are some priest of the SSPX who prefer to mind their own adherents and steer clear of the politics of criticism. Perhaps the priest that this poster know is one such priest.

Of course one can not derive conclusions from the whole society just by the priests one knows, just like one can not generalized from unfortunate leaks like the one being discussed. There seems to be quite a range of opinions about the Catholic Church within the SSPX.

I’m glad to see your post here, pnewton, because I now realize that I phrased one part of my post badly.

When I wrote about ‘a Society of priests who see their main charism as that of criticizing fellow Catholics,’ I didn’t mean individual priests - but rather the Society as a whole, including bishops. I see now that it looks like I meant individual priests. Maybe this is what pious woman has a problem with. Actually, all of the SSPX priests whom I knew when I was an SSPXer, save one, were not very critical at all. It’s mostly the SSPX leadership (priests and bishops) who are so critical, in writings and public stances. That’s what bothers me so much.

 

[pnewton]

IWhen I wrote about ‘a Society of priests who see their main charism as that of criticizing fellow Catholics,’ I didn’t mean individual priests - but rather the Society as a whole, including bishops.

Unfortuanately, those that are most critical get most of the press. Yet your rather insightful post does highlight the danger of the SSPX’s position.

 

[JReducation]

www.gloria.tv/?media=314171

I had not taken the time to watch this video, thinking it was going to require more time. The two minutes of it so so, raise some serious concerns.

I won’t say religious life, because it does not apply to the Society. In this history of community life, I have never see or heard of anyone going out into the public to denounce their superior. There are systems for that purpose.

The term fraternity was first coined by the Mendicants. Hence the title Frater in Latin, Frere in French and Friar in English. It has always been understood that unless someone in the fraternity commits a crime that must be denounced in public, you NEVER speak to the general public about the internal affairs of your fraternity. That’s like going on TV and speaking about what happens in your home. The term “fraternity” has a very real meaning to us (the mendicants). It means that the man with whom I disagree is truly my brother. He is more my brother than my biological brother, because *“that which is of the flesh is flesh,but that which is of the spirit is spirit. If we love our brothers according to the flesh, how much more so should we love our brothers according to the spirit,” *(Francis of Assisi).

Then there is the use of the expression, “the good guys”.. The implication is that you are looking at your own brothers and calling them bad guys. You are categorically stating that their intentions a malicious. Which can be. It has happened in other communities. The difference was that these other communities reformed from within. They did not make their internal issues public. They had a sense of dignity and respect about them. They defended and protected the good name of their community and their founder.

Internal disagreements have given birth to many wonderful renewals and reforms of many communities in the Church. The operative word is that they’re internal. They’re no one else’s business.

When you call for a coup against your superior general, you have literally withdrawn your obedience. Even Aquinas says that if authority commands sin, it must not be obeyed. But if authority commands anything else, it must be obeyed. The authority here is two-fold. The general chapter is the highest law making body in any community. The superior general is the highest ranking officer of any community. He implements the laws and where there are no laws, he creates them for the short-term. It is enough for a general chapter to steer the superior general.

It is against Church law and immoral to call for a coup against a superior general. If he is incompetent for health reasons, it must be proven before he is removed. If he is a heretic, it must be proven in a trial. To make such comments to the general public is very Protestant.

I know that many people are not going to like this. However, it’s true. We are Catholics. We do not run our religious institutes, societies of secular life, secular orders or monasteries as Protestants run their churches. Our system is not a democracy. No one outside has a right to know or to become involved in such disagreements.

Now we have one bishop who goes online and calls for a coup and we have letters being leaked to the world. That’s not how fraternities operate. Fraternities operate like any other family. People do discuss problems outside of the fraternity, but with trusted friends, not the word at large.

If Bishop Williamson is speaking about good guys and bad guys, this means that he perceives that there are two factions. The most important part in my mind is that he says that they have to find a way to get rid of “Fellay”. He does not even dignify him by his title. Canonically, a superior general remains in office until the next election. Elections can only be held at the time determined by the constitutions, not by the membership. He’s calling “the good guys” to violate their constitution. Where is the respect for law? Where is the guarantee that this will not continue after reconciliation?

Now I understand why Pope Benedict has said that Bishop Williamson was never Catholic. This is a very Protestant approach to an issue.

We can’t do things that way. They won’t last. It just sets a precedent.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Melchior_1]

I think it’s safe to say, at this point, that His Grace Williamson won’t be making the trip back to the house party called “Rome”.

 

[Justin_Swanton]

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 problem is that this is an internal letter that describes in general terms things that are either understood in their particular application by its recipients or can be ironed out with them before the Society makes an announcement.

As I tried to demonstrate in an earlier post, going public on a serious matter is not per se wrong; it depends how serious the matter is and how one goes about it. St Paul did oppose St Peter publicly. It also depends on whether recourse to regular means has been tried and has failed. There is a good and a bad way of doing this kind of thing.

I think it also necessary to point out that the situation in the Church in general is not the same as that in a particular religious order (which is why there are religious orders in the first place). I can’t imagine that blowing the whistle would be a good idea in the context of an order, however it can be necessary in the context of the Church at large.

I personally would see more benefit in publicly decrying abuses as such (like the widespread catechetical disaster) whilst avoiding naming names unless absolutely necessary. I could say, for example, that the RCIA course in a certain city contains serious errors, without having to name the moderators of that course.

Having said all that I admit I don’t do much tooting myself - probably too much of a coward.

 

[Mrs_Sally]

I personally would see more benefit in publicly decrying abuses as such (like the widespread catechetical disaster) whilst avoiding naming names unless absolutely necessary. I could say, for example, that the RCIA course in a certain city contains serious errors, without having to name the moderators of that course.

The correct procedure is to go through the channels created for this process. You speak to the person in question to see if you can help them improve their teaching. Then you go to their pastor, or in the case of a diocesean program, the person in charge of the program. Then that person’s boss, and continue up to the Bishop. Then you finally go to the Vatican office in charge of the program in question.

This can all take a long time. You also won’t always get a response about what was done. You can report a problem, but you don’t have the right to know every detail about what was said to whom, etc.

If your example, you’d know that something was done if, say, the books used in the program were changed. However, the problem might not be in the materials but in some details of the presentation. In that case, unless you took the course again (is, sat through RCIA) you wouldn’t necessarily know.

Again, that is to protect the dignity of the person in question. Not everyone who does something wrong is a bad person. They may be poorly trained, not a gifted teacher, liturgist, etc.

As Br JR said, reform is best done from within, and “sweeping house” etc is not the method used by great reforms in the Church’s past.

 

[Iotaunum]

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.

I agree with this. I think obedience is of the upmost importance. Of all the books I have read on the lives of the Saints this idea of obedience really stands out in their lives. I would never want to deviate from the faith in any way and I hate to see groups who rebel against legitimate authority in the Church and try to turn it into a sort of relativistic democracy. I know this may sound almost hypocritical coming from one such as myself who takes the position I do, but the point I was trying to make is that the SSPX feel that what they are doing is necessary for the faith and their dissention on certain issues since Vatican II is legitimate. I am not asking anyone else to accept this idea, but I was just trying to let people know what the situation looks like from my perspective. Some paint it all too black and white when it is a more complex issue. If you look at what I was saying before about the Mass; people say “what was the problem? The Pope said the traditional rite was never suppressed”etc – when this does not accurately describe the situation traditional Catholics have found themselves in since Vatican II.

Also, many Catholics have been upset and confused with their experiences in diocesan parishes since Vatican II. Take my own parish for example. I will not say where I am from, but the Current parish priest teaches classes on the Scriptures. He is currently teaching that “there is no such thing as Mortal Sin”. Someone objected in the class and he was told “that was the old understanding we understand sin differently now”. He asked the Priest enough questions to know what he was teaching. Now another person in this class wrote to the Bishop and got a reply basically to the effect that the priest taking the classes is competent and perhaps those objecting misunderstood.” This is a paraphrase of course, but you can see how people take issue. The same applies to other issues. Some Catholics genuinely felt they had no other option but to stop attending these Chapels and started attending the traditional Mass, be it SSPX or another. The problem was, in the beginning the “other” was rare so most went to the SSPX. It was not a case of “lets reject the priests legitimate authority over us” but rather “the priest has the authority, but he is not teaching the faith correctly – therefore we reject those things which are in error and accept the rest”. Perhaps if the traditional Mass was allowed from the start things would be different. The SSPX may not even have been in the countries it is in now if that were the case.

So regarding the “How” issue, those like myself feel that there is no other way. Many have exhausted all avenues, asking nicely for permission, organising everything, making compromise etc only to be told; “no, you don’t need a Latin Mass or traditional catechism”. How then does one proceed? Either go along with all the changes and attend the New Mass, or continue going to the traditional Mass said by SSPX priests. I know it may seem like were joining the protestants or leaving the Pope, but people such as myself feel there is no other “how” to practice the faith in this day and age. I wish things were different. Often traditionalists become disheartened when they see the way Masses are said in the diocese, hear the priest teach things the opposite of the catechism they memorised as a child or see the text books used in Catholic Schools approved by Catholic Bishops (some of the things in there you would not believe unless you seen it in person). This is not an accusation against any particular priest, parish, or bishop but it is just an insight into how Catholics like myself feel about the situation.

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.

I get that. I don’t think however that the SSPX would say there is error in the New Missal - translation perhaps (e.g. pro multis = for all) yes, but I think there are theological critiques of the new rite which are now being written by mainstream priests in Rome and even from bishops which are very much in line with what the SSPX have been saying and seem to be acceptable by the Vatican. I don’t think one could ask to stop this sort of criticism. It would be different if the SSPX were saying the new Mass teaches errors and that it is invalid - this sort of criticism only happens when say a priest or bishop adlibs the words of consecration or attempts to consecrate cakes and juice etc, but even then the SSPX realise this is a departure form the ordinary text and rubrics.
Regarding Vatican II – the criticism of the SSPX is well known. Now they admit most is good, but say there are some suspect parts we are not bound to accept. My point before was that if the Vatican are to say; “you must accept all of Vatican II, new or not, without question” then I feel the Vatican must give official interpretation to some of the “difficult” passages. This, I think is only fair. After all, If it can be understood with a true hermeneutic of continuity then we have an agreement on all sides. I personally feel this is yet to happen – at least what has been disclosed of the talks.

 

[Justin_Swanton]

The correct procedure is to go through the channels created for this process. You speak to the person in question to see if you can help them improve their teaching. Then you go to their pastor, or in the case of a diocesean program, the person in charge of the program. Then that person’s boss, and continue up to the Bishop. Then you finally go to the Vatican office in charge of the program in question.

I appreciate that this is the correct procedure in a normal situation, having described it myself in a previous post, but…

Take my own parish for example. I will not say where I am from, but the Current parish priest teaches classes on the Scriptures. He is currently teaching that “there is no such thing as Mortal Sin”. Someone objected in the class and he was told “that was the old understanding we understand sin differently now”. He asked the Priest enough questions to know what he was teaching. Now another person in this class wrote to the Bishop and got a reply basically to the effect that the priest taking the classes is competent and perhaps those objecting misunderstood.”

…doesn’t this tell you something?

There are a growing number of individuals, some prelates (I know a couple), who realise that things as they are will not do, but the structures in place are not ready to teach the faithful in a clear and unambiguous way the Catholic Faith, nor can anyone seem to make them do so. I pass judgement on no-one in saying this. I know one individual who teaches catechism to the confirmation class at another parish and who was quite clear that the first few books of the Bible were pure fiction, Adam and Eve and all the rest. She is obviously in good faith; it is the structures that formed her that are in need of a good loud whistle.

 

[ProVobis]

I get that. I don’t think however that the SSPX would say there is error in the New Missal - translation perhaps (e.g. pro multis = for all) yes,

For the record, this was the translation (1967, I believe) in the interim Mass BEFORE the New Missal. And there seem to be a few vernaculars which still employ the “for all” in their consecrations.

 

[JoeBowen7]

I agree with this. I think obedience is of the upmost importance. Of all the books I have read on the lives of the Saints this idea of obedience really stands out in their lives. I would never want to deviate from the faith in any way and I hate to see groups who rebel against legitimate authority in the Church and try to turn it into a sort of relativistic democracy. I know this may sound almost hypocritical coming from one such as myself who takes the position I do, but the point I was trying to make is that the SSPX feel that what they are doing is necessary for the faith and their dissention on certain issues since Vatican II is legitimate. I am not asking anyone else to accept this idea, but I was just trying to let people know what the situation looks like from my perspective. Some paint it all too black and white when it is a more complex issue. If you look at what I was saying before about the Mass; people say “what was the problem? The Pope said the traditional rite was never suppressed”etc – when this does not accurately describe the situation traditional Catholics have found themselves in since Vatican II.

Also, many Catholics have been upset and confused with their experiences in diocesan parishes since Vatican II. Take my own parish for example. I will not say where I am from, but the Current parish priest teaches classes on the Scriptures. He is currently teaching that “there is no such thing as Mortal Sin”. Someone objected in the class and he was told “that was the old understanding we understand sin differently now”. He asked the Priest enough questions to know what he was teaching. Now another person in this class wrote to the Bishop and got a reply basically to the effect that the priest taking the classes is competent and perhaps those objecting misunderstood.” This is a paraphrase of course, but you can see how people take issue. The same applies to other issues. Some Catholics genuinely felt they had no other option but to stop attending these Chapels and started attending the traditional Mass, be it SSPX or another. The problem was, in the beginning the “other” was rare so most went to the SSPX. It was not a case of “lets reject the priests legitimate authority over us” but rather “the priest has the authority, but he is not teaching the faith correctly – therefore we reject those things which are in error and accept the rest”. Perhaps if the traditional Mass was allowed from the start things would be different. The SSPX may not even have been in the countries it is in now if that were the case.

So regarding the “How” issue, those like myself feel that there is no other way. Many have exhausted all avenues, asking nicely for permission, organising everything, making compromise etc only to be told; “no, you don’t need a Latin Mass or traditional catechism”. How then does one proceed? Either go along with all the changes and attend the New Mass, or continue going to the traditional Mass said by SSPX priests. I know it may seem like were joining the protestants or leaving the Pope, but people such as myself feel there is no other “how” to practice the faith in this day and age. I wish things were different. Often traditionalists become disheartened when they see the way Masses are said in the diocese, hear the priest teach things the opposite of the catechism they memorised as a child or see the text books used in Catholic Schools approved by Catholic Bishops (some of the things in there you would not believe unless you seen it in person). This is not an accusation against any particular priest, parish, or bishop but it is just an insight into how Catholics like myself feel about the situation.

I get that. I don’t think however that the SSPX would say there is error in the New Missal - translation perhaps (e.g. pro multis = for all) yes, but I think there are theological critiques of the new rite which are now being written by mainstream priests in Rome and even from bishops which are very much in line with what the SSPX have been saying and seem to be acceptable by the Vatican. I don’t think one could ask to stop this sort of criticism. It would be different if the SSPX were saying the new Mass teaches errors and that it is invalid - this sort of criticism only happens when say a priest or bishop adlibs the words of consecration or attempts to consecrate cakes and juice etc, but even then the SSPX realise this is a departure form the ordinary text and rubrics.
Regarding Vatican II – the criticism of the SSPX is well known. Now they admit most is good, but say there are some suspect parts we are not bound to accept. My point before was that if the Vatican are to say; “you must accept all of Vatican II, new or not, without question” then I feel the Vatican must give official interpretation to some of the “difficult” passages. This, I think is only fair. After all, If it can be understood with a true hermeneutic of continuity then we have an agreement on all sides. I personally feel this is yet to happen – at least what has been disclosed of the talks.

I agree with most of what you say here. I also think it is OK for someone to present a reasoned argument, in a professional manner, as to why he believes a certain teaching to be out of line with previous preVatican II teachings.
Where I disagree with SSPX is where they go and disrupt ceremonies in Catholic Churches, tearing down posters, and interrupting scheduled services. This was done, for example by Father Michael McMahon, SSPX, and his followers in Feb. 2004, at St. Adelbert basilica in Grand Rapids MI as they disrupted an interreligious Buddhist ceremony in progress at the Church. The SSPX priest insulted the Buddhists and something was said about their prayers being demonic prayers. Police had to be called.

 

[YoungTradCath]

I agree with most of what you say here. I also think it is OK for someone to present a reasoned argument, in a professional manner, as to why he believes a certain teaching to be out of line with previous preVatican II teachings.
Where I disagree with SSPX is where they go and disrupt ceremonies in Catholic Churches, tearing down posters, and interrupting scheduled services. This was done, for example by Father Michael McMahon, SSPX, and his followers in Feb. 2004, at St. Adelbert basilica in Grand Rapids MI as they disrupted an interreligious Buddhist ceremony in progress at the Church. The SSPX priest insulted the Buddhists and something was said about their prayers being demonic prayers. Police had to be called.

I can assure you that this type of behavior is that of the individual and is not an official action of the SSPX or anything they would support.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

I don’t think however that the SSPX would say there is error in the New Missal - translation perhaps (e.g. pro multis = for all)

For the record, this was the translation (1967, I believe) in the interim Mass BEFORE the New Missal. And there seem to be a few vernaculars which still employ the “for all” in their consecrations.

BTW - not to intentionally derail, but didn’t His Holiness recently speak directly on this one, much to the disappointment of his fellow German bishops?

Pontiff tells German bishops that pro multis must be translated literally (CWN 30 April 2012)

 

[Iotaunum]

For the record, this was the translation (1967, I believe) in the interim Mass BEFORE the New Missal. And there seem to be a few vernaculars which still employ the “for all” in their consecrations.

I don’t understand. Do you mean the Latin intrim version said “pro omnis”? I did not know that. I know the official Latin version of the New Missal said “pro multis” but almost all of the vernacular translations read: “for all” or the equivalent. Now either a lot of translators and conferences did not know much Latin, or there was an agenda to change the signification for whatever reason. “For all” is not a translation of “pro multis” in any way. My point was that this is the only type of error - i.e. one of translation which the SSPX would have poitned out in the vernacular versions of the New Missal.