SSPX communique to Rome

[Oneofthewomen]

Lormar,
I think I can understand where you are coming from although I have been where you are on the other side of this spectrum. I was involved with a schsimatic parish that was “ultra-liberal” and looked at the ‘Institution’ as the enemy.

Through my studies in graduate level theology & ministry, my own reading, a lot of prayer and completing the Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius (I did the 19th annotation), I have come to a place where the my trustng the Church has become much easier.

It took time, patience and a complete surrender of my will to God’s will.
And I had to start listening instead of talking!! (You might as well ask a fish not to swim! )
Spiritual direction also helped a lot.

Feel free to PM me, I will be happy to share my story if you think it may help you.

In the mean time, you will be in my prayers!

Peace be with you!

I wonder if it will ever come about - the fundamental trust for the Church. Speaking for myself, I have yet to acquire it. The harm that I have done to myself and my way of thinking seems irreparable. I often think that perhaps it is part of my punishment for ever having doubted and that it is something I will have to live with until the day that I die.

If only there was some kind of former sede/SSPX rehabilitation site, or service, or help. But there isn’t.

 

[TrueLight]

No comment.

I don’t have a problem with you personally.

I have a problem with you implying the SSPX is a cult and also pairing them with sedevacantists. These are priests working with the Vatican on a resolution to their irregular situation.

But I’ll drop out of this conversation.

 

[Denise1957]

I dont think this is a good way to talk about members of the body of Christ. No matter if they are separated or working on reconciliation. it certainly is not healthy for the discussion. It is not charitable and it cant be healthy for an individual.
The SSPX is attacked ad nausium and it is frankly more divisive than some of the SSPX beliefs.

I can’t see that Lormar was attacking the SSPX. Those of us who are former adherents of the SSPX, who eventually came to terms that that are great (and some quite severe) problems with the Society, do have lasting “issues.” I can attest to that, though maybe I’ve had an easier time transitioning back to the Church than others. I too wish there were some sort of support group out there that could be a help (in a charitable manner toward the SSPX) for those who left the SSPX. It was initially quite tramatic for me to leave, but I’m doing okay now. For some, it’s a bit more difficult.

 

[Lormar]

I can’t see that Lormar was attacking the SSPX. Those of us who are former adherents of the SSPX, who eventually came to terms that that are great (and some quite severe) problems with the Society, do have lasting “issues.” I can attest to that, though maybe I’ve had an easier time transitioning back to the Church than others. I too wish there were some sort of support group out there that could be a help (in a charitable manner toward the SSPX) for those who left the SSPX. It was initially quite tramatic for me to leave, but I’m doing okay now. For some, it’s a bit more difficult.

Thank you, Denise.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Bonaventure would argue that it is faith the enlightens logic, not logic that enlightens faith. If something goes against all logic, then drop the logic and apply the faith says St. Bonaventure. It means that human logic has not reach the ability to comprehend God’s activity. From Bonaventure’s point of view, it’s not always that something contradicts logic. It can be that logic is not mature enough. At that point, we must rely on faith.

It is no wonder that many Easterners, myself included, tend to like St. Bonaventure!

Best wishes to you, Br. JR! Thanks yet again for your wisdom, charity and insight!

 

[JReducation]

Well said.

I don’t get why some people is so happy to read about a suppossed early custom for CITH.

Blessings!



P.S. Dee S… Right wing? I don’t think is very appropiate to use such terms.

This whole discussion of CITH and COTT is repeated here at least once a month. It’s interesting, because to those of us who are clergy, religious and theologians this is a mute question. The Church allows CITH, end of story. To argue that the Church should or should not allow this or that is useless. The Church will do what she will do.

There is some truth to both sides of the historical reviews. It is true that in many communities COTT caught on very early, probably as early as the 2nd century or 3rd at the latest. It is also true that there was a remnant in the Latin Church where it did not catch on until much later. The proof of this lays in the monastic and mendicant movements of the 13th century. In some provinces, COTT was the norm and in other provinces the norm was CITH. The great spiritual masters and founders such as Benard, Robert, Francis, Dominic, John de Matha and others would not have allowed CITH were it prohibited.

Even among the Dominicans there is an interesting conflict. Aquinas wrote that only the consecrated hands of the priest should touch the host. However, his order never adopted this position, nor taught it. The Church did not either. Deacons do not have consecrated hands. They are ordinary ministers of Holy Communion. Among the mendicants, acolytes do not have consecrated hands and they often carried the Eucharist in a pouch that hung from their neck as they traveled on mission from town to town., because they were friars, but they were not priests. They did not have a priest or a deacon to travel with them.

There is a tendency from both sides of this argument to pull the Church Fathers into their corner; but what we see in the development of monasticism and the mendicant movement suggests that neither position was as rigid as we would like to think. It seems to have been practiced according to regions of the Latin Church and applied to pockets of people. Even by 1963, when we all assume that communion in the Latin Church was only on the tongue, we assume wrong. There were pockets that had it on the hand, most of them were monks or friars. But they’re still Catholics.

The argument that monks or friars do not count, because they’re not part of the laity is unacceptable. If we make such an argument, then we run the risk of placing them outside of the main body of the Church, when the Church’s doctrine teaches that they are essential to her life and to her Catholic identity. They cannot be blown off to the side. Their presence and their customs have to be factored in when dealing with the liturgical and sacramental life of the Church, especially, because they preserved the liturgical life of the Church. We would not have an EF were it not for Franciscans. We would not have a LOTH were it not for Benedictines. We would not have a tabernacle were it not for Franciscans. We would not have Gregorian chant were it not for monks. We would not have the Latin language were it not for monks who preserved it.

The papacy fed itself from the monks and the mendicants through the centuries and took from the monasteries and friaries and applied to the greater body. We do have to look at the entire spectrum to understand what has happened over the years. However, we can debate the rightness or the wrongness until the moon falls out of the sky.

As I always tell the brothers, “If the Church says that it must be done, do it. If the Church says that it can be done, ask me if you can do it. If I say that it can be done, you choose.”

“If I catch you arguing about the rightness or wrongness of what the Church allows, you will have serious consequences for wasting God’s time on things that are not for you to decide. If you have that much time on your hands, I can find something for you to do.”

Guess what? Our guys never have this discussion. Personally, I receive on the tongue. I don’t know and do not pay attention to what everyone else does. It’s not my job and I have more important things to do than to police other people. Policing my friars is enough. Trust me. :yup:

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[JReducation]

It is no wonder that many Easterners, myself included, tend to like St. Bonaventure!

Best wishes to you, Br. JR! Thanks yet again for your wisdom, charity and insight!

Franciscans are very Eastern in our approach to theology.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Franciscans are very Eastern in our approach to theology.

Indeed - we now have one at the helm in Pittsburgh, and a nice little community in Sybertsville.

Blessings to you and your brothers!

 

[CesarAugustus]

…

As I always tell the brothers, “If the Church says that it must be done, do it. If the Church says that it can be done, ask me if you can do it. If I say that it can be done, you choose.”

“If I catch you arguing about the rightness or wrongness of what the Church allows, you will have serious consequences for wasting God’s time on things that are not for you to decide. If you have that much time on your hands, I can find something for you to do.”

Guess what? Our guys never have this discussion. Personally, I receive on the tongue. I don’t know and do not pay attention to what everyone else does. It’s not my job and I have more important things to do than to police other people. Policing my friars is enough. Trust me. :yup:

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

Thanks Brother, very useful information. An thanks for taking the time to answer questionsa and participate.

Over here (South America) even clergy and religious are involved in the polemic, specially, because the strange implementation of the indult for CITH in some countries (Argentina, Colombia).

Mons. Juan Rodolfo Laise O.F.M. Cap. from Argentina opposed the implementaion of CITH in his Diocese, even wrote a book about the topic:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Some extracts form the book (In Spanish):

www3.planalfa.es/santamariareina/laise.htm

And in Colombia, it was announced in a popular newspaper that CITH was going to be the new form implemented. If I remember well, the indult was for places that already had the custom, and not to introduce the practice in a country.

Blessings!

 

[Justin_Swanton]

I wonder if it will ever come about - the fundamental trust for the Church. Speaking for myself, I have yet to acquire it. The harm that I have done to myself and my way of thinking seems irreparable. I often think that perhaps it is part of my punishment for ever having doubted and that it is something I will have to live with until the day that I die.

If only there was some kind of former sede/SSPX rehabilitation site, or service, or help. But there isn’t.

I don’t know your situation, but in my case what really helped was separating the baby from the bathwater. The mistrust of the Church prevalent in Traditional circles comes from mixing things that in fact don’t belong together. The documents of Vatican II are not the same thing as the ‘spirit of Vatican II’, which was the progressist (anyone got a better word?) upheaval that came after the Council. Some non-Magisterial Conciliar passages may remain eternally problematic - I say this under caution as I am currently rereading the Council documents - but the notions pushed then - and now - in the name or with the presumed permission of the Council were certainly not in the texts (like the popular idea in my locale that the first five books of the Bible are a collection of fairy stories).

Also the New Mass / OF / NOM. As it stands in the missal nothing in it is objectionable to the extent that a Catholic would be obliged in conscience to keep away from it. Even something like the ‘for all’. The Church has had a habit of introducing or allowing alterations to Holy Scripture to better bring out hidden meanings, like the ‘ipsa conteret’ of Genesis - ‘She will crush’ rather than the more correct ‘It (the seed) will crush’ - and the ‘Mysterium Fidei’ inserted in the words of consecration of the Tridentine / EF / Old Mass. The phrase was not said by Christ. But the New Mass as celebrated in many parishes after its introduction in 1970 was another matter entirely.

(OK, so the ‘for all’ is no longer an issue, but I mentioned it as an example of what the Church could accept for at least a period of time)

I once had a conversation with Cardinal Napier in which I made the point that the New Mass (if I may call it that) had been the standard rite in the Latin Church for forty years. If it was that bad in itself Christ surely would not have allowed it to be inflicted on His faithful for so long. Personally I have been to New Masses that are reverent and prayerful and New Masses that are awful. It depends on the creativity of parish liturgists who are not guaranteed to act with the mind of the Church.

I manage best with a quiet Mass said by a hospital chaplain and a couple of Marist brothers; parishes tend to be a lucky dip.

Trust in the Church is a supernatural confidence in its divine mission of teaching and sanctifying its members. This it always does at least to the extent that is necessary. But one needs to keep this apart from the human element that can sometimes wreak havoc. Christ did warn us that his Church would have cockle and wheat within itself to the end of time.

Hope this helps.

 

[Moore11]

I can’t see that Lormar was attacking the SSPX. Those of us who are former adherents of the SSPX, who eventually came to terms that that are great (and some quite severe) problems with the Society, do have lasting “issues.” I can attest to that, though maybe I’ve had an easier time transitioning back to the Church than others. I too wish there were some sort of support group out there that could be a help (in a charitable manner toward the SSPX) for those who left the SSPX. It was initially quite tramatic for me to leave, but I’m doing okay now. For some, it’s a bit more difficult.

Honestly that sounds like something that should be dealt with personally.
But arguing that it is not attacking a group to equate them with a cult and needing deprogramming and comparing it to something you need “rehab” for is ludicrous. Imagine if someone said that about the Fransiscans. Not to equate the two. One is in communion one is not. But you could not make the argument that you are not attacking the Fransicans if you use the terminology that he did.

Thread = over 400 post, about the SSPX, branching about communion in the hand and SSPX as a cult. thread wobbling, about to go out of orbit. send help…
See you on the next thread!

 

[Dee_S]

I did not see that anyone was called a heretic in the interview.

Sorry, that page on their site deals with an interview with the priest of the SSPX that has made the accusation of heresy. This link (on the same site) states his allegations, the following extract being one of them.

“Bishop Mueller denies in his Dogmatik [currently a standard work in Germany about Dogmatics] the dogma of the Virginity of Mary”
sspx.org/miscellaneous/fr_gaudron_on_bishop_mueller_7-6-2012.htm

It is interesting to note that Archbishop Muller is not bothering to dignify them with a reply. He is quoted as saying several times in the media
Müller on SSPX challenge: "I must not give an answer to every stupidity"

I think this is relevant to the thread, as it followed immediately after the communique, raising the question "Where exactly do they (the SSPX) hope to go with this line of conduct?

 

[ByzCathCantor]

I think this is relevant to the thread, as it followed immediately after the communique, raising the question "Where exactly do they (the SSPX) hope to go with this line of conduct?

Who knows, but if one thinks it is possible to reject Vatican II in whole or in part, then its probably not a stretch to assume that same individual might believe they could challenge an appointment of the Holy Father that they find objectionable.

There is a fundamental lack of depth in the cited article that seems characteristic of these critiques of late. For example, it is asserted that the Archbishop is in error in that he has suggested that transubstantiation may not occur exactly at the moment of the words of institution. While inconsistent with major thought in Latin Catholicism, it is not at all a foreign concept to Catholicism taken as a whole. In fact, the Archbishop’s analysis reflects a rather Eastern perspective on the subject. By extension, if this is a particular charge of heresy, it also makes Eastern Catholics guilty of the same.

 

[Dee_S]

Well said.

I don’t get why some people is so happy to read about a suppossed early custom for CITH.

Blessings!



P.S. Dee S… Right wing? I don’t think is very appropiate to use such terms.

The Right Wing is on the side of a stage that the actors use to exit after their performance. They normally enter the stage using the Left Wingopcorn:
Not sure why I used that term actually, just getting a little confused on this thread as to what is acceptable terminology it’s not like I called anyone an X-man?

 

[CesarAugustus]

The Right Wing is on the side of a stage that the actors use to exit after their performance. They normally enter the stage using the Left Wingopcorn:
Not sure why I used that term actually, just getting a little confused on this thread as to what is acceptable terminology it’s not like I called anyone an X-man?

I thought it was the political term.

Blessings!

 

[Dee_S]

I dont think this is a good way to talk about members of the body of Christ. No matter if they are separated or working on reconciliation. it certainly is not healthy for the discussion. It is not charitable and it cant be healthy for an individual.
The SSPX is attacked ad nausium and it is frankly more divisive than some of the SSPX beliefs.

You sound a very nice person, and I agree on (trying) being charitable, but I must disagree with your interpretation… it is a matter of justice that people be protected from mind & soul altering propaganda. That is, there is a distinction between criticizing their motives/intentions (which would be wrong) and criticizing their erroneous affirmations and actions which can be damaging.

They are not in full communion with the Church and do not have a Canonical Status - that is not for want of trying on the part of Mother Church. And that in itself…speaks volumes!

 

[Dee_S]

I thought it was the political term.

Blessings!

:imsorry:sorry, must admit it was,sort of. Just not sure how to describe their extreme and hard viewpoint without tramping on any toes. Left… right, left… right…something of a ‘goose-step’. (p.s. think I’m overtired - will head off to sleep now:hypno

 

[Moore11]

You sound a very nice person, and I agree on (trying) being charitable, but I must disagree with your interpretation… it is a matter of justice that people be protected from mind & soul altering propaganda. That is, there is a distinction between criticizing their motives/intentions (which would be wrong) and criticizing their erroneous affirmations and actions which can be damaging.

They are not in full communion with the Church and do not have a Canonical Status - that is not for want of trying on the part of Mother Church. And that in itself…speaks volumes!

What speaks volumes is that this sort of attitude would not be tolerated about our fully schismatic eastern brethren. Imagine someone posting that they needed rehab and support from the eastern orthodox church. I just cannot understand the hate on both sides. People talk about how extreme the SSPX rhetoric is and then use extremities themselves.
WHEN there is a union, WHEN the SSPX come home, there will be more sadness than joy I am afraid.

 

[Lormar]

Comment Deleted -

 

[triumphguy]

Who knows, but if one thinks it is possible to reject Vatican II in whole or in part, then its probably not a stretch to assume that same individual might believe they could challenge an appointment of the Holy Father that they find objectionable.

There is a fundamental lack of depth in the cited article that seems characteristic of these critiques of late. For example, it is asserted that the Archbishop is in error in that he has suggested that transubstantiation may not occur exactly at the moment of the words of institution. While inconsistent with major thought in Latin Catholicism, it is not at all a foreign concept to Catholicism taken as a whole. In fact, the Archbishop’s analysis reflects a rather Eastern perspective on the subject. By extension, if this is a particular charge of heresy, it also makes Eastern Catholics guilty of the same.

Here’s Dr. Jeff Mirus’s take on this: catholicculture.org/commentary/otc.cfm?id=983

Archbishop Gerhard Müller—the brand new Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith—has also come under Traditionalist attack. A case in point is the July 9th Remnant Online blog entry, New Head of CDF Dissents from Certain Doctrines of Faith?, by “a concerned Catholic priest.” All this does is make me concerned for the priest.

Essentially this anonymous author, in his zeal to condemn Archbishop Müller for heresy, has gone to the extreme trouble of looking up information about his ideas on, well, Wikipedia. However, not all of the cited material is from the English Wikipedia page. The German-language page is far more extensive, but one problem is that the alleged damning quotations are somewhat difficult to interpret, and they are all translations.

And then he goes through the various points.