SSPX communique to Rome

[Stylites]

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.

We often see such allegations of “hatred” and “bitter feelings” supposedly directed to the SSPX. I suspect that what some perceive as being directed to the Society is really directed to sin and disobedience and disunity in general. How will good will magically happen after the Society liberally confers the title of “heretic” upon the Pope and bishops, might be a related question.

 

[Justin_Swanton]

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.

The SSPX started as a small group of seminarians in Rome who approached Archbishop Lefebvre (then convent chaplain and retired ex-Superior General of the Holy Ghost Fathers) and asked him to do something for them as they were not happy with some aspects of the theological formation they were getting from, I think, the Gregorian. They were given some rooms at the Catholic university of Fribourg where they stayed for a time. It was a group of laymen, among whom the Maitre Lovey (his son later became an SSPX priest), who approached him and offered to buy for him the property of the Canons of St Bernard, then for sale at Econe. The Archbishop had been a well-known figure before and during the Council (he had been a prominent figure in the Coetus Internationale Patrum) and did not need to look for lay supporters - they came looking for him. At that stage there was no opposition with the hierarchy, nor would there be for several years. The seminary at Econe was set up with the blessing and encouragement of Mgr Mamie, bishop of Sion, who, like many other bishops of that time, was unhappy with the way the reforms in the Church were going, and wanted a conservative seminary as a counterweight. It was all done very normally, for normal motives, and money was never an issue.

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.

They tell the SSPX what it wants to hear about the horrors in the mainstream, as if it were a 24/7 reality. They come back and say horrible things about their bishops, clergy and other religious.

I can safely say I have had as intimate an acquaintance with the SSPX as anyone, and none of this is true. Abuses in the Church (of which links to several instances have been posted in this thread), are public and documented acts anyone can read about, priests as well as laymen. There have been couple of publications by Traditionalist laity that documented liturgical abuses, but it was not these that fuelled the stance of SSPX priests.

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.

What there was and still is in the SSPX was strong sense of common cause, though this varies from place to place. SSPX faithful, at least the first generation in the wake of the post-conciliar reforms, came to the SSPX chapels because they had very definite opinions about what was going on in their parishes and the Church at large. This being the case, I know of no instance in which SSPX parishioners acted like ‘stock holders’, playing the fiddle whilst the SSPX danced. The Society has always received donations without strings attached (Bishop Fellay, as has been mentioned by a previous poster, is the right man to contact about this). In fact, now that I think of it, the opposite has been the case: young and inexperienced priests who in many cases did and said things their faithful did not much like, but had to put up with (I’m not going to give any examples). A sense of order, hierarchy and place was always strong with SSPX faithful.

The SSPX also preached beautiful homilies on virtue, the end of days, the blessed mother, the Church and the laity loved it. They also used the pulpit to call their fellow clergy and religious, even their pope, Modernists and accuse of of heresy and the people cheered the on. No one stopped to think, “Hey wait a minute. The table of the Word is to feed us with the Word of God, not to feed us sour grapes.”

To some extent this is true. There is in the SSPX a deep mistrust of the mainstream Church, which can go as far as seeing it as a strange sect that does and believes bizarre things. That’s what clown and puppet masses can do.

But there’s more to it than that. The one thing the SSPX has tried, admittedly imperfectly, to do is create an environment that is totally and unambiguously Catholic, a milieu where an individual’s Catholic beliefs are all shared and affirmed by others, where his instincts for reverence in the liturgy and other devotional acts are respected, and in which errors which undermine his Catholic identity are opposed and excluded. Opposition to error always has to go hand in hand with affirmation of truth; the point is to do it with balance and charity. This is something that a few local parishes I have been to could do with.

The fact is, there are quite a few individuals in influential positions in the Church, some who are clerics, who are modernists (religious relativists) and heretics (like the priest of my local parish). The widespread failure of contemporary catechetics proves to me that their influence is still strong. Because I say it doesn’t make me an uncharitable looney .

 

[JReducation]

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

Same can be asked about the many loose canons in the Church who are allowed to spread their anti-Church teaching.

Bold is mine.

Actually, there is a difference in the mind of the Church. There are loose canons who are in good standing with the Church. Here is the big difference. They have a canonical place in the Church. The Church honors that canonical place. As long as they do not violate any law that excommunicates them, the Church has to work with them, as it is doing with the LCWR. She cannot punish them. Bishop Williamson has no place in the Church. It’s like being an illegal immigrant.

You have a citizen and an illegal immigrant who commit the same crime. The citizen has legal rights that the illegal immigrant does not have. They have to be treated differently. They both have human rights that no one can violate. The same applies to dissenters.

Bishop Williamson and Fr. Hans Kung have the same human rights. Father Hans Kung has legal rights within the Church and Bishop Williamson has none. As far as the pope is concerned he is an ordained Catholic whose legal rights are suspended pending his (Bishop Williamson’s) request to have them returned. If he does not ask to have them returned, he will not receive the same legal protection that Father Kung receives.

The moral of the story, . . . follow the pope’s directions. There are differences in the way that the pope speaks. One has to be very attentive to the nuance. Sometimes he means to be obeyed and sometimes he’s expressing a preference or a wish, nothing more. This pope will rarely tell you so directly. He will say it in such a way that you have to understand the nuance. He is a master at language.

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.

I think that what you have said is true. I would like to piggy back on that and add something else.

Bishop Fellay is the superior general of the SSPX, but he is not like other superiors general. He is not an Ordinary, because he has not canonical place in the Church. At the end of the day, the members of the SSPX can do as they please and he cannot penalize them.

I’ll use myself as an example. I can suspend any priest under my jurisdiction. I have a canonical place in the Church. If I suspend these men, their only recourse is the Holy See. There is no bishop or any other authority they can go to. It’s either me or the Holy See. Bishop Fellay cannot suspend Bishop Williamson, a) He does not have the canonical authority to do so. b) Both of them are already suspended. This is where your statement on obedience and disobedience comes in. They acquired a suspension because of disobedience. Now, there is no canonical authority to take charge.

Bishop Williamson can simply walk and there is nothing that the SSPX can do to stop him. The only possible thing would be for the Holy See to excommunicate him, if he walks.

We often see such allegations of “hatred” and “bitter feelings” supposedly directed to the SSPX. I suspect that what some perceive as being directed to the Society is really directed to sin and disobedience and disunity in general. How will good will magically happen after the Society liberally confers the title of “heretic” upon the Pope and bishops, might be a related question.

This is a very important point. You can’t go around calling the Church’s leaders heretics, Modernists, conciliarists or making statements about the Novus Ordo Church, Novus Ordo Rome, nor can you go around making statements that Rome has to convert without triggering anger, frustration, confusion, curiosity, amusement and a host of other feelings.

In addition, if you have a leak that says that you DEMAND to have the right to publicly correct people and there are no parameters, no references to laws, rules of religious orders, policies of dioceses, or the handbook of the CDF and how it handles this kind of situation, it sounds as if you’re demanding to be given carte blanche to police the Church. That just raises more eyebrows. Such wording is not useful to calming the concerns of those on the inside.

Whoever leaked all of those letters is creating more havoc for the SSPX than helping. Fortunately, the Vatican is not making any decisions based on the leaks. It’s waiting for an official statement from Bishop Fellay on behalf of the Society.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[TrueLight]

Triumphguy,

We all love and respect Br. Jr. Those of us who don’t know him that well, grow to love him.

That doesn’t mean we can’t disagree with him. I am sure he doesn’t want cronies.

None of us are in the SSPX or part of the Vatican appointees who will be making the decision. So although some of us are a lot more educated on the matter, this remains speculation and is open for charitable debate.

I don’t think it is wise to make this into a Br Jr thing. This is not personal. This is about the SSPX.

So as long as we remain respectful and give the good Brother the respect due a Religious, we should be fine, unless the mod says otherwise.

 

[triumphguy]

Triumphguy,

We all love and respect Br. Jr. Those of us who don’t know him that well, grow to love him.

That doesn’t mean we can’t disagree with him. I am sure he doesn’t want cronies.

None of us are in the SSPX or part of the Vatican appointees who will be making the decision. So although some of us are a lot more educated on the matter, this remains speculation and is open for charitable debate.

I don’t think it is wise to make this into a Br Jr thing. This is not personal. This is about the SSPX.

So as long as we remain respectful and give the good Brother the respect due a Religious, we should be fine, unless the mod says otherwise.

I know, and I probably embarrassed him with my post.

Discussion and argument is healthy.

 

[Denise1957]

I think that what you have said is true. I would like to piggy back on that and add something else.

Bishop Fellay is the superior general of the SSPX, but he is not like other superiors general. He is not an Ordinary, because he has not canonical place in the Church. At the end of the day, the members of the SSPX can do as they please and he cannot penalize them.

I’ll use myself as an example. I can suspend any priest under my jurisdiction. I have a canonical place in the Church. If I suspend these men, their only recourse is the Holy See. There is no bishop or any other authority they can go to. It’s either me or the Holy See. Bishop Fellay cannot suspend Bishop Williamson, a) He does not have the canonical authority to do so. b) Both of them are already suspended. This is where your statement on obedience and disobedience comes in. They acquired a suspension because of disobedience. Now, there is no canonical authority to take charge.

Bishop Williamson can simply walk and there is nothing that the SSPX can do to stop him. The only possible thing would be for the Holy See to excommunicate him, if he walks.

Good and useful info here, thanks!

 

[Lormar]

The truth is that the SSPX bishops and priests have no authority from the Church at all. A very long time ago, they tried to bind my conscience regarding the new Mass. That is when my eyes began to open. I knew they couldn’t do that. And I found it completely baffling that they would bind my conscience regarding the Mass that the pope, whom they acknowledge to the the Vicar of Christ, himself says.

The most amazing thing is that this thread is still in existence without being locked after 25 pages…will wonders ever cease???

 

[triumphguy]

Thinking about this scenario about the SSPX trying to get “in” it reminds me of when I was teaching a special program for kids from around the school district.

It was quite hard to get into the program and took a lot of paperwork, psych and medical tests, permissions from the local school, the parents (it was a behavioural class among other things) etc, etc., but once you were in the program we fought tooth and nail for the kid even when they were failing and bombing out of the program.

 

[Lormar]

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.

I just saw this, and I agree wholeheartedly. There once was a time when I wouldn’t even read his posts. And then, one day, I did…I’ve been a fan ever since, and he has taught me a lot by what he takes the time to explain so thoroughly. Also, he has saved me from myself more than once.

Thanks, Brother Jay! And keep the “treatises” coming!

 

[curlycool89]

This is a very important point. You can’t go around calling the Church’s leaders heretics, Modernists, conciliarists or making statements about the Novus Ordo Church, Novus Ordo Rome, nor can you go around making statements that Rome has to convert without triggering anger, frustration, confusion, curiosity, amusement and a host of other feelings.

I guess we’ll call this our first case in point:

The fact is, there are quite a few individuals in influential positions in the Church, some who are clerics, who are modernists (religious relativists) and heretics (like the priest of my local parish). The widespread failure of contemporary catechetics proves to me that their influence is still strong. Because I say it doesn’t make me an uncharitable looney .

 

[pnewton]

Franciscan men are highly intelligent, but we can’t screw in a light bulb.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

Don’t you guys have novices for that?

 

[JReducation]

Don’t you guys have novices for that?

I’ll remind the Vicar to assign these clericals to the novices. They get to change the light bulbs and unjam the copier.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Stylites]

I warn you . . . Franciscan men are highly intelligent, but we can’t screw in a light bulb.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

I can see that as a literal situation. They say that there are different facets of genius; musical, artistic, mathematical, analytical, and even athletics is a form of genius. Mysticism, though, is way above genius, where because of detachment the body doesn’t respond as well to the will.

 

[Iotaunum]

I want to try and understand the disagreement between the Vatican and the SSPX better. I know we have neither right nor authority to be involved in the actual talks or to jump to conclusions but I think things can get confusing with all press coverage and “leaks”. I think it boils down to this:

The Vatican are saying; You must accept all of Vatican II. The SSPX ask what is meant by “accept all”? The Vatican say it was an authentic exercise of the magesterium and is therefore binding on all.

The SSPX then want to know: “Does everything bind in the same way and have the same authority?”– “Do all the non infallible statements bind with the same authority?”- I think the Vatican have said that the documents contain “different levels of teaching authority.”
The SSPX must then ask how this affects the passages they take issue with. If they point out a passage they have a problem with, they can ask; “what authority does this particular teaching/idea have – are we obliged to hold it”. The Vatican can then clarify which may then satisfy the SSPX if they are not bound to hold some of the passages they are concerned about, or can interpret it in a manner which does not break with past teaching.

If I can quote something From Catholic World News:
*
“The Second Vatican Council’s declarations on non-Christian religions and religious freedom do not contain “binding doctrinal content,” Cardinal Walter Brandmüller said at a press conference on May 21.
The retired president of the Pontifical Committee for Historical Sciences, along with Archbishop Agostino Marchetto and Father Nicola Bux, is the coauthor of a newly published book, Le ‘Chiavi’ di Benedetto XVI per interpretare il Vaticano II [Benedict XVI’s ‘Keys’ for Interpreting Vatican II].
Stating that the conciliar documents have differing degrees of authority, Cardinal Brandmuller said that “there is a huge difference between a great constitution and simple declarations.”
“Strangely enough, the two most controversial documents [on religious liberty and relations with non-Christian religions] do not have a binding doctrinal content, so one can dialogue about them,” he continued. “So I don’t understand why our friends in the Society of St. Pius X concentrate almost exclusively on these two texts. And I’m sorry that they do so, because these are the two that are most easy to accept if we consider their canonical nature.”*

Correct me if I am misunderstanding the Cardinal, but I think he is saying that the passages in question, not having a binding doctrinal content, do not require the same level of assent as those which do. So the question then would be; “what level of assent is demanded of the passages?”. I think the Pope is saying that on the whole Vatican II must be accepted in its entirety, while he may agree that not all of the individual ideas within must be held on the same level. Is my understanding correct? If not, what does the Cardinal mean by; “these are the two that are most easy to accept if we consider their canonical nature.”?

The SSPX do not deny any dogma or infallible teaching of the Church. The question I believe they are asking is: “which of the new ideas/teachings/thoughts etc expressed in the documents are we obligated to hold”? I know the Pope is sincere in saying that everything must be accepted as an authentic expression of the living magesterium, and I know also that the SSPX are sincere in saying that they are willing to accept everything without question which can be understood in conformity with tradition. So I would like clarification for myself in this regard; What is “New” in the documents of Vatican II which must be accepted - which is rejected by the SSPX?, and then; having singled these out – How are these to be interpreted in conformity with tradition? If anyone can clarify this for me with examples it would help my own personal understanding of the situation.

Perhaps I am over simplifying things, but I thought this was the general idea of the talks. I personally have trouble myself understanding certain parts with a hermeneutic of continuity (which I will not go into here so as not to derail) so if anyone can help me with their thoughts I would appreciate it.

*(P.S. –all of the above ideas are just speculation – I don’t know what exactly was the format of the talks)
*

 

[Dee_S]

If one reads very carefully, Dr. Mirus is repeating the ongoing Traditionalist line.

I have much better insight, more experience and better credentials than Dr. Mirus when it comes to matters of religious institutes and the Holy See.

I fail to understand why Dr. Mirus went to older sources, rather than to the two most current sources: the Prefect for the CDF and President of the EDC and the Vice President for EDC. Even Bishop Fellay noted them in a recent interview.

How is it that the Superior General of the SSPX hears one thing and the traditionalist CatholicCulture.Org hears another or do they really hear something different?

Br.JR, FFV

Dear Brother,
I’m curious as to why you refer to Dr Mirus/Catholic Culture.org as ‘Traditionalist’ , I find him and his website present a very moderate and balanced Catholic position. Do I assume from this that you are what is referred to as a Modernist (as opposed to a Traditionalist) or how do you define the label attached to him relative to your own position?

I have a membership at CatholicCulture.org and find it highly informative and very up to date. In fact his commentaries/analysis are highly intelligent and I challenge anyone here to judge them any differently once having read this article (and some of his others),which comprehensively de-bunks the Myth of loyalty to the ‘Eternal Rome’ while refusing obedience to the Magisterium of the Church. (hardly a ‘Traditional’ position to take)

Dr Mirus - Eternal Rome vs The Magisterium; a Contemporary Myth catholicculture.org/commentary/articles.cfm?id=541

In defence of his professional good name :knight1: please don’t assume his news is out of date simply because a member posts a link to an older article :tsktsk:

I accept your word that you have much better insight, more experience and better credentials than Dr. Mirus in regard to matters of the technicalities of Religious Institutes, but I respect him for his innate kindness and fair-play which shows clearly in all his writings.:sad_yes:

 

[triumphguy]

Dear Brother,
I’m curious as to why you refer to Dr Mirus/Catholic Culture.org as ‘Traditionalist’ , I find him and his website present a very moderate and balanced Catholic position. Do I assume from this that you are what is referred to as a Modernist (as opposed to a Traditionalist) or how do you define the label attached to him relative to your own position?

I have a membership at CatholicCulture.org and find it highly informative and very up to date. In fact his commentaries/analysis are highly intelligent and I challenge anyone here to judge them any differently once having read this article (and some of his others),which comprehensively de-bunks the Myth of loyalty to the ‘Eternal Rome’ while refusing obedience to the Magisterium of the Church. (hardly a ‘Traditional’ position to take)

Dr Mirus - Eternal Rome vs The Magisterium; a Contemporary Myth catholicculture.org/commentary/articles.cfm?id=541

In defence of his professional good name :knight1: please don’t assume his news is out of date simply because a member posts a link to an older article :tsktsk:

I accept your word that you have much better insight, more experience and better credentials than Dr. Mirus in regard to matters of the technicalities of Religious Institutes, but I respect him for his innate kindness and fair-play which shows clearly in all his writings.:sad_yes:

His views are out of date if he is saying that position A is the Vatican’s position, when two high ranking Vatican officials say that B is actually the position.

And if position A is the Traditionalist view then he is presenting the Traditionalist view.

Of course that doesn’t make him a Traditionalist, and Bro JR doesn’t say that it does.

It does mean, however, that he fails to present position B.

 

[Dee_S]

His views are out of date if he is saying that position A is the Vatican’s position, when two high ranking Vatican officials say that B is actually the position.

And if position A is the Traditionalist view then he is presenting the Traditionalist view.

Of course that doesn’t make him a Traditionalist, and Bro JR doesn’t say that it does.

It does mean, however, that he fails to present position B.

Just to clear up this misunderstanding - I’m referring to the post by Justin Swanton where he gave links to older articles on CatholicCulture. The assumption derived from that was that Dr Mirus was out of date - which is not the case.

BTW i love your bike (Had my first ride on a ‘big’ bike when I was sixteen, way back in the mists of time, it was a Triumph Bonneville - have never forgotten it)

Don’t worry too much about Brother, he’ll survive me

 

[triumphguy]

What model Bonnie did you have? I’d love to restore an older one.

I’m sure Bro JR doesn’t need my help either.

I really only argue on here to get back in the groove since I haven’t discussed theology for over a decade so it’s all a learning curve for me.

I’d like to be able to just pick up a book and read, but I learn through discussion, and an argument gives me the push to go research.

The reason why I “enjoy” the SSPX threads are because they shoot to the heart of what it means to be Catholic.

I hope I don’t come across as an arrogant SOB 'cos I’m not really - but I do like a good “barney.”

 

[Dee_S]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
on a less serious note…a little something for Brother

 

[JReducation]

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_I10ImWKhq...NDEHtuyYdlc/s400/Cat_20with_20Cake_20copy.jpg
on a less serious note…a little something for Brother

Can you hold on to that until Sep 6? That’s my birthday.

By the way, I’m far from a Modernist. I can’t bet more orthodox, because there are not enough letters in the word.

You missed my point in that other post. I was trying to make the point that the article was being used in the typical traditionalist manner that is often done on TC Forum. In this case, the article was written before the interviews with the two archbishops.

I’ll give you another example to help you understand what I’m talking about. Many years ago, Cardinal Ratzinger wrote about the reforms in the liturgy.

About two years ago, in Light of the World, he is asked about those comments. He has reworked his position. In other words, he does not hold the exact same position that he did when he wrote in the past.

However, every time people want to sustain an argument against the liturgical reforms, they quote Cardinal Ratzinger, but they fail to mention that Pope Ratzinger has modified his position.

This is what happened with the articles. There was nothing wrong with what the Doctor said. His work was being used to say “this is what’s going to happen.” In the meantime, we have recent interviews with the two archbishops who are proposing something slightly different.

I hope that helps.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV