SSPX communique to Rome

[TrueLight]

But they are in the middle of an important internal dialogue about their future, and extremely delicate negotiations with the Vatican. Wouldn’t it be important to maintain a “professional” front?

Of course.

But after Bishop Williamson was was not included in the Chapter, he posted another video blasting Bishop Fellay. He doesn’t care about reconciliation. So what can the Society do? You just ignore him and focus on what you want to achieve.

It’s just like with the LCWR and the HHS mandate. You would think there is an organized front, but there is not.

 

[ProVobis]

At the request of the Pope and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, two points were added again to the preamble: the first relates to the mass according to the Novus Ordo, the new rite of mass promulgated after the Second Vatican Council. Lefebvrians are asked to recognise not only the validity of the new mass but its legitimacy as well.

Br JR, if their answer to this is in the negative, then I would ask them further if they accept the legitimacy of MB’s changes to the liturgical Holy Week in 1955, the changes in the very canon of the Mass in 1962, and the change in the communion formula of 1964. I find it difficult to believe the FSSPX has/had a problem only with the post-1969 changes, which is being suggested here. They seem to have no problem with the 1962 Missal. Just saying.

 

[Melchior_1]

Regarding Bishop Williamson, I don’t think anyone can take the SSPX to task for not kicking him out. Without any canonical status within the Church, I don’t think they have the ability to do so.

The can exclude him, mind you, but he’s going to be a full SSPX member until;

1. He leaves on his own.
2. They go back to Rome fully.
3. They leave entirely.

 

[curlycool89]

I think it’s important to take a charitable approach to the SSPX and realize that as Dee alluded to, whether you think they’re right or wrong or delusional, their intentions as a society are not nefarious. They truly believe what they teach.

That is sometimes known as “they’ve been drinking their own kool-aid”.

When they do reconcile, these bitter feelings toward the SSPX are not going to magically transform into good will. So please look internally and pray that some of these feelings expressed here are true indignation and are not feelings of hatred.

I don’t think there’s many people here who hate the SSPX. “Hate” and “hater” are terms mostly thrown out to try and discredit people without having to respond to their objections and criticisms, which can be valid points.

The SSPX, for example, certainly have major obedience issues, not just to the Church but within their own internal structure. My worry is actually becoming more and more whether they can actually survive as a society inside the Church. They certainly cannot act like they have been acting lately, and I’d say it’s a legitimate question whether they can make the transition.

I’m afraid that if they don’t reconcile soon, they’re going to tear themselves apart. They’re definitely not presenting a unified front, and post-General Chapter do we even know who the Vatican is suppose to negotiate with anymore? It’s pretty clear that Bishop Fellay has lost control of his own society. Is there even going to be negotiations? Is talking to Bishop Fellay just a fruitless process now?

 

[RogerDeCourcy]

But they are in the middle of an important internal dialogue about their future, and extremely delicate negotiations with the Vatican. Wouldn’t it be important to maintain a “professional” front?

A bishop can largely do what he wants. He has to go pretty far before a Pope will rein him in.

 

[Melchior_1]

The SSPX, for example, certainly have major obedience issues, not just to the Church but within their own internal structure. My worry is actually becoming more and more whether they can actually survive as a society inside the Church. They certainly cannot act like they have been acting lately, and I’d say it’s a legitimate question whether they can make the transition.

I’m afraid that if they don’t reconcile soon, they’re going to tear themselves apart. They’re definitely not presenting a unified front, and post-General Chapter do we even know who the Vatican is suppose to negotiate with anymore? It’s pretty clear that Bishop Fellay has lost control of his own society. Is there even going to be negotiations? Is talking to Bishop Fellay just a fruitless process now?

Valid questions. Those who see His Grace Fellay as the sanctioned and legitimate leader will follow him where he goes, as will his supporters and benefactors.

The rest? They probably won’t be making the trip back, tragically.

A bishop can largely do what he wants. He has to go pretty far before a Pope will rein him in.

In addition to what I said above, there’s this too. Bishops are hard enough to control sometimes, throw in no Canonical status and all you can do is try to marginalize him and hope for the best.

 

[ProVobis]

The SSPX, for example, certainly have major obedience issues, not just to the Church but within their own internal structure. My worry is actually becoming more and more whether they can actually survive as a society inside the Church. They certainly cannot act like they have been acting lately, and I’d say it’s a legitimate question whether they can make the transition.

You touch on a very important issue, IMO, but maybe not in the way you see it. If they “come home” as a personal prelature, they know they will have to be self-sustaining. If they can’t get all their benefactors in line, then their chances of survival are obviously diminished. Judging by the polls taken within, even if they’re remotely accurate, I would say they wouldn’t function very long as a PP. But that is only my opinion.

 

[JReducation]

Dear Brother, if you feel that ‘uncomfortable’ then take it as a better instinct telling you to rather say nothing…rather than to hypothesize about the intentions of, and to cast aspersions on the character of those who attend/ed the Masses offered by the SSPX

In regard to the SSPX taking ‘advantage’ of the laymen who came to them - is nothing but pure conjecture on your part and is in violation of the law of Charity.

As to the lay people ‘taking advantage’ of them - to the point of doing them harm…is really an outrageous proposition which I do hope you will retract.

Generalizing is a dangerous practice. I can agree that the examples you give to support your hypothesis may very well exist in a few isolated and bizarre instances, BUT, they are certainly not reflective of the true intentions of the SSPX in existing to offer the Sacraments to the Faithful who have requested them or have been in need of them.

Stating they had ‘Lay Stock Holders’ is also a distortion of the truth, and the SSPX certainly did not dance to anyone’s tune in this regard. Bishop Fellay, I’m sure would be happy to answer any correspondence in this regard if clarification is needed, as he was the Bursar for many years before he became Superior General.

**“Experience teaches that the man who exercises a frequent and rigid censorship over his thoughts, words and actions, is better capable of hating and avoiding evil and of cultivating earnestly what is good”

• St Pius X**

I have not cast aspersions anyone’s character. I said that the relationship has been a symbiotic one. That is not an insult or a character analysis.

As to taking advantage, I have not said that anyone manipulated or exploited anyone. It is true that there were unhappy lay Catholics out there and there was an unhappy SSPX. They took advantage of their mutual need. This does not imply any malice on either part. In fact I have mentioned this over and over again through this thread. I don’t think that things are done because anyone is trying to do harm.

What has done them harm is that they disobeyed, found themselves suspended, four bishops were excommunicated and people continued to flock to them. This sent the wrong message to them. Bloggers and posters all over the internet argued in their defense and against the excommunications and suspension. What this did was validate a grave mistake that they made. That is does harm to any group that has made a mistake.

Stockholders is a very commonly used term in the religious life and in the Church. It does not have the same meaning as Wall Street. It means that there are interested parties. In this case, if we look around the internet, we find hundreds, maybe thousands of people who are SSPX supporters who fear that they may lose something in this reconciliation. The truth is that we don’t know what will be gained or lost. I was using this term to distinguish between the members of the SSPX who are also interested parties, but their relationship with the SSPX is a canonical one.

Take an example a diocese. The clergy incardinated into the diocese has a lot to gain or lose, depending on the decisions made by the diocesan bishop. The laity in the diocese has a lot to gain or lose as well. However, the laity is not canonically bound to remain in the diocese. People can move to the diocese across the state. The clergy does not have that flexibility. When the laity gets up in arms about whatever is on the table, they’re acting like stockholders.

This has nothing to do with the bishop. It is a behavior that independent of the bishop in that he does not control it or encourage it. The mistake that they have made over the years has been to tell it all from the pulpit. People would have been less upset if they had been more discreet about their discussions with Rome. They were always very open about it. Now, they have to keep secrets and people are upset about it, because they fear what they don’t know. Had they been used to not knowing all the details, they would not have these fears.

I’m not sure why you mention Bishop Fellay. If you read back my posts, I have very positive feelings for Bishop Fellay. I disagree with most of his positions. I was surprised that he waited for the General Chapter rather than sign the preamble before the chapter. However, I have always said that I admire his intelligence, respect his sincerity, am impressed by his humility and feel sorry for him, because of the way that some members of the Society are treating him and the way that some people on threads and blogs are talking about the man, as if he had betrayed his country or some such thing. One can disagree with the man without villainizing him. There are among his own those who place him among “the bad guys.”

I apologize if my statements offended. It was not my intention. I do not make that my habit of going around offending. I was trying to describe what something looks like from my point of view, because the poster asked for my point of view.

I hope this clarifies matters and that we can continue in a fraternal manner.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[JReducation]

Of course.

But after Bishop Williamson was was not included in the Chapter, he posted another video blasting Bishop Fellay. He doesn’t care about reconciliation. So what can the Society do? You just ignore him and focus on what you want to achieve.

It’s just like with the LCWR and the HHS mandate. You would think there is an organized front, but there is not.

It’s a little different in that you can’t leave a bishop floating out there. That’s how schisms begin. That’s the danger there. The LCWR cannot start a church.

The Holy See has authority over the LCWR, but it has very little authority over Bishop Williamson. Even though Cardinal Levada had said that the door was open for the other SSPX bishops to independently negotiate their re-entry, Bishop Williamson has not taken advantage of that offer and it looks like he may not do so. Who knows? Life is full of surprises.

Br JR, if their answer to this is in the negative, then I would ask them further if they accept the legitimacy of MB’s changes to the liturgical Holy Week in 1955, the changes in the very canon of the Mass in 1962, and the change in the communion formula of 1964. I find it difficult to believe the FSSPX has/had a problem only with the post-1969 changes, which is being suggested here. They seem to have no problem with the 1962 Missal. Just saying.

I’m not sure I’m understanding what you’re saying. Can you help me out here?

A bishop can largely do what he wants. He has to go pretty far before a Pope will rein him in.

Certainly a bishop who is suspended and has no canonical see can do almost anything. What else is left? The only thing that I can think of is excommunication. We’ve been there and that did not have the medicinal effect that excommunication should have.

I will tell you this. Bishops today are much more regulated by the Holy See than they were before Vatican II.

You touch on a very important issue, IMO, but maybe not in the way you see it. If they “come home” as a personal prelature, they know they will have to be self-sustaining. If they can’t get all their benefactors in line, then their chances of survival are obviously diminished. Judging by the polls taken within, even if they’re remotely accurate, I would say they wouldn’t function very long as a PP. But that is only my opinion.

But remember, there are many people who would make use of the prelature, because it’s legal. These folks don’t make use of the SSPX, because of its canonical status. For example. many religious communities and diocesan seminaries made good use of the FSSP to train them in the EF, because they’re legal. EWTN gave the FSSP and the Canons of St. John Cantius an opportunity to shine before the Catholic world, because they’re legal. That’s good for them. It tells people that they’re there and it’s OK to approach them. And it’s free publicity. I love free stuff.

I don’t see them starving if they become a prelature. I think they will thrive.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Dee_S]

I think it’s important to take a charitable approach to the SSPX and realize that as Dee alluded to, whether you think they’re right or wrong or delusional, their intentions as a society are not nefarious. They truly believe what they teach.

So please keep them in prayer instead of making snide remarks and reveling in witty put-downs.

When they do reconcile, these bitter feelings toward the SSPX are not going to magically transform into good will. So please look internally and pray that some of these feelings expressed here are true indignation and are not feelings of hatred.

Thank you TrueLight - it’s something like a voice crying in the wilderness… but your point about the bitter feelings not magically going away is more than valid.

The psychology and morality of criticism in human nature is of interest to me, particularly in threads and discussions such as this one. How is it that the duty of charity and other finer feelings become suspended, in fact, almost totally disappear, when a discussions turns ‘intellectual’ or ‘theological’ - then no-holds-barred statements are made which appear justified in the minds of the participants - all in the name of academic debate.

Your call to look internally and pray…highlights that ‘feelings’, as warned by the great spiritual writers and saints, are not to be trusted, nor acted upon…lest we become guilty of that which we criticize in others…of “the end justifying the means”

 

[triumphguy]

Let’s be fair to Brother JR, and in being fair the realise how thankful we should be…

Canonically he has the same status as each of our own Bishops (or ordinary). He is taking a great deal of time to work through and explain from the point of view of an Ordinary. He has a perspective that non of the laity have, and so none of us here (with 99.9% certainty).

He knows what it is to set up an Apostolic Society since he has done so successfully. Therefore he knows the traps and pitfalls to avoid.

From this perspective he is offering his view of the current debate.

From reading his many varied, detailed, and on point posts for some time I know that he is speaking from a place of humility and experience. He doesn’t make his points lightly, or for effect, or to win brownie points, or to score points.

He is really trying to educate his.

Just to give some idea of his background: He was personally taught by Joseph Ratzinger, before he was made Pope.

He knows what he is talking about.

Instead of trying to see where we can score points off him, or to misconstrue what he is saying, maybe we should take to opportunity to listen with an open mind and an open heart in order to learn what we can.

Instead of arguing with, maybe we should take the chance to learn from while he has the energy and the charity to share.

Just my two cents.

 

[Dee_S]

I have not cast aspersions anyone’s character.I feel very uncomfortable making such a strong statement about anyone, especially people whom I don’t know and who have a right to their good name. I will say this…

I said that the relationship has been a symbiotic one. Rather than milking, I would say that there has been a relationship that is symbiotic That is not an insult or a character analysis.

As to taking advantage, I have not said that anyone manipulated or exploited anyone.Did they take advantage of the fact that there were unhappy Catholic laymen out there, many who had money? I don’t think that they did so with malice. I think they were on a sinking ship. They had no funds, not place to go to get funds. You can have many vocations, but you have to feed them and cloth them. These lay folks were an answer to their prayers.

It is true that there were unhappy lay Catholics out there and there was an unhappy SSPX. They took advantage of their mutual need.On the other hand, the lay folk took advantage of them too. I believe that the lay folk did them more harm. The lay folk encouraged their disobedience. Many lay people did everything they could and still do everything they can to plant hatred between the SSPX and mainstream clergy and religious. The biggest sin they commit is to carry tales back and forth. This does not imply any malice on either part. In fact I have mentioned this over and over again through this thread. I don’t think that things are done because anyone is trying to do harm.

Stockholders is a very commonly used term in the religious life and in the Church. It does not have the same meaning as Wall Street. It means that there are interested parties.Did they take advantage of the fact that there were unhappy Catholic laymen out there, many who had money? I don’t think that they did so with malice.

I’m not sure why you mention Bishop Fellay…One can disagree with the man without villainizing him.
There may not have been lay members, but there were certainly lay stock holders, something that no other community has. These people played the fiddle and the SSPX danced.

I apologize if my statements offended. It was not my intention. I do not make that my habit of going around offending. I was trying to describe what something looks like from my point of view, because the poster asked for my point of view.

I hope this clarifies matters and that we can continue in a fraternal manner.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

I’m all for peace and goodwill thank you for the apology.

 

[ProVobis]

But remember, there are many people who would make use of the prelature, because it’s legal. These folks don’t make use of the SSPX, because of its canonical status.

Br. JR, you may very well be right, but I don’t see such pickups happening overnight. They have a badly tarnished image if I’m reading all the comments on various websites properly. The current concern could be whether they could survive before they reach some kind of break-even point in financial support but I’m just guessing. I’m still thinking about St. John’s of Scanton which failed in their mission though it was perfectly legitimate.

 

[JReducation]

Let’s be fair to Brother JR, and in being fair the realise how thankful we should be…

Thank you for your kindness. Just some minor corrections

Just to give some idea of his background: He was personally taught by Joseph Ratzinger, before he was made Pope.

I was never made pope. However, I did take a course with then Cardinal Ratzinger. I had the privilege of being a student in Rome when he was at the CDF. He enjoyed teaching a course here and there at the pontifical universities. I took advantage and took one. I had never met him, but had heard that he was a genius. Actually, someone described him to me as another Bonaventure and Augustine wrapped into one. They were not wrong. He’s brilliant.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[triumphguy]

Thank you for your kindness. Just some minor corrections

I was never made pope. However, I did take a course with then Cardinal Ratzinger. I had the privilege of being a student in Rome when he was at the CDF. He enjoyed teaching a course here and there at the pontifical universities. I took advantage and took one. I had never met him, but had heard that he was a genius. Actually, someone described him to me as another Bonaventure and Augustine wrapped into one. They were not wrong. He’s brilliant.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

Oh - I thought you WERE the Pope.

So I don’t have to be so deferential then!

 

[JReducation]

Oh - I thought you WERE the Pope.

Nahh . . . my robe is grey. His is white

So I don’t have to be so deferential then!

You can be, but I still won’t make you a cardinal.

If you’re really nice to me, I’ll let you have my job. I warn you . . . Franciscan men are highly intelligent, but we can’t screw in a light bulb.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[JReducation]

Here is an interview with Archbishop Muller which quotes what he actually says about the need to accept Vatican II.

One extract from the interview:

“The assertion that the ***authentic teachings*** of Vatican II formally  contradict the tradition of the Church is false,” Archbishop Muller  stated. 



He added, however, that between various texts of the council there are  “gradations” of teaching authority. By way of an example, Archbishop  Muller drew a comparison between the council’s document on social  communications, “Inter Mirifica,” which carries “less weight” than  “dogmatic declarations” like the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church,  “Lumen Gentium.” 



“Whatever is ***dogmatic*** can never be negotiated,” he said [my emphasis]

This particular article may be very helpful in understanding what I’m trying to say.

catholicbiker.blogspot.ca/2012/07/extracts-from-new-article-in-todays-26.html

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Denise1957]

I was serious.

I had just spent a few minutes viewing a class by Bishop Williamson in which he admits to being a conspiracy nut, and claims among other things that the bombing in London in July 07 was perpetrated by the British Government, and that they are to do the same thing again in these Olympics.

2 things come to mind. Why would the SSPX even allow the filming of such a class, and then let it go public, unless they have no control over their own society?

How can you hear opinions such as these and then give credence to their opinions on Vatican II?

youtube.com/watch?v=lo4yAa2xk6k

Regarding having no control over their own Society, I think that Bp. Fellay has tried very hard to rein in Bp. Williamson, but has only been able to control his physical location and circumstances, but not much else. Just my opinion here, but I think that disobedience begets more disobedience, which formally began in 1975, for the SSPX.

When the branch is partially severed from the tree, as the SSPX is from the authority of the Catholic Church, there will be problems, especially with obedience, since they are not under the authority and jurisdiction of the Catholic Church. It’s only logical. That’s one of the main reasons (IMO) that reconciliation is so important, because I think the situation will only get worse, though I think it unlikely that they will reconcile.

And of course some here may say…“Well, what about those disobedient liberals who are under the authority and jurisdiction of the Church?” To which I would reply that two wrongs don’t make a right.

 

[TEPO]

Oh - I thought you WERE the Pope.

So I don’t have to be so deferential then!

Nice bike.

 

[Stylites]

Bishop Williamson is a loose canon in my opinion. He sort of does what he wants.

Losing his canons was his own idea, afterall.