SSPX communique to Rome

[Iotaunum]

I don’t want to get into the whole canon law/excommunication/jurisdiction conversation. I have given my views before and I can see no point in re-posting. I would like to say however that things look different to those who come from the SSPX point of view rather than the “mainstream” view in terms of attending the new Mass and the local parish. I have been attending Mass said by the SSPX for a few years now so I think I can give the view from this side. Sure the SSPX recognise that there are many good, orthodox, hardworking priests in the diocesan parishes and religious orders. Some people can misunderstand the SSPX and take it that they condemn everyone outside their own society – this is not the case. Also, the SSPX do not say the new rite of Ordination is invalid, nor the new Mass consecrations. When observed properly they are valid – of course. The SSPX only doubts validity, and rightly so, when Bishops ad lib the formulas – something I myself have witnessed (to what effect I cannot say) or use sweet pancakes etc for Holy Communion. I often hear people say: “the SSPX misrepresent most priests and services” etc. Well if that is the impression they have got they are mistaken.

In all the pro-SSPX, pro-tradition books I have read, sermons and talks I have heard etc very rarely does the SSPX ever mention the famous cases of liturgical abuse. They come up in passing, as one would expect, but the focus is far from them. The SSPX’s critique of the New Mass is of the New Mass said in Latin with all the official rubrics observed. Why would a priest attack a liturgical abuse when this would be akin to a straw man argument - refuting something which itself is not representative of the new rite? The arguments of the SSPX and the responses of Rome are well known to most, so I will not even get into that.

With regard to the laity, again I can only state what I know myself and what others have told me. For me it seems that most of the laity who come to SSPX Masses do so because they have felt they received the final straw and had no other practical options. I have talked to some people who could no longer stomach seeing irreverence in the distribution of communion. It was the same throughout the diocese. Others were uncomfortable with the sermons which were not only not teaching the faith with clarity, but actually misrepresenting the faith in key areas. Some people will never understand the frustration one feels who cannot see any other alternative. I myself checked every parish in the diocese and in the neighbouring diocese. It was all the same. Now my outlook will be different than most people here, but I could no longer in conscience attend with these dioceses. I will not go into any detail here, but it is not just a matter of finding a good parish for me. Others feel the same which is why they seek out the SSPX. If we had a priest teaching traditional doctrine and saying the traditional Mass in the diocese most of us would never have sought out the SSPX. It is not as though we were caught in a snare when we looked for somewhere to hear Mass.

Now, as for the reason why the SSPX do not recommend attending the diocesan Mass: it is not because of any sort of cult-like mentality, as some would have it, that they do not want people attending any Mass but their own. Really it is because of their position on the New rite and the new theology which is well known. To quote a non-ecclesiastical Latin saying: “qui cum canibus concumbunt cum pulicibus surgent” – This is perhaps a bad analogy – I am not calling anyone a dog, but the point is that the SSPX feel the diocesan Mass, communion in the hand, homilies etc can lead to the danger of a weakening of the faith which is something to avoid. In no way do they “discipline” or reprimand people doing this, but they simply give their reasons and most people who attend their Masses have come to those reasons themselves, which is why they attend.

Anyway this is obviously not a defence of the SSPX position, nor was it intended to be, but merely a view from the SSPX side for those trying to figure out what draws people to them.

 

[pnewton]

Different case, really. Protestants, or ex-catholics who join Protestant denominations do not like the Mass because it is Catholic (Real Presence, Sacrifice of Cavalry renewed). The SSPX objects to the New Mass because they maintain it is too Protestant…

The irony of this positions fascinates me. I would like to reiterate that I never meant to compare the SSPX to Protestants, only this one argument. Unfortunately, the definition of Protestant that you use is different than mine, because by my definition, the more literal, the Church can not be Protestant any more than ocean can be land-like. The Catholic Church is the standard and it is deviation from the standard that is the Church that makes one more Protestant.

 

[pnewton]

. My assessment after about ten years experience of parishes is that the average Catholic is ***not ***being taught his or her Faith, and this is far more serious than whether the congregation sings He’s Got the Whole World in His Hands or not.

Maybe this has to do with where you are from. I have noted quite the opposite. Of course, I have been posting here for seven years now. Almost all the Catholics here are well instructed in their faith.

 

[Justin_Swanton]

The current law is that no bishop can ordain another bishop without a papal mandate. The law makes no exception and no exception have been made by the Holy See.

There is a canon that may create some wiggle room. It speaks about a threat to the Church. In which case, the bishop can act without waiting for Rome.

Could you clarify these two paragraphs?

I’m finding all this very interesting, by the way.

 

[Justin_Swanton]

Maybe this has to do with where you are from. I have noted quite the opposite. Of course, I have been posting here for seven years now. Almost all the Catholics here are well instructed in their faith.

My guess is that the Catholics who visit CAF take their religion seriously which means they already know it or have informed themselves about it. The Catholics I’m thinking of are those who go to church on Sunday but casually discard any Church teaching that is inconvenient and out of step with secular thinking, for example the ban against artificial contraception.

 

[JReducation]

Could you clarify these two paragraphs?

I’m finding all this very interesting, by the way.

There is not much more that I can add, because I’m not a canon lawyer. My area is theology, not law. I can only repeat what has been said already. To ordain a bishop in the Latin Church you need a papal mandate. This means that the pope must approve of the ordination before it happens. The current law is that any bishop who ordains another bishop and any priest who accepts the ordination without the papal mandate are excommunicated by the law. The act of ordaining a bishop without permission is a schismatic act. The penalty for such a serious schismatic act is excommunication of all parties involved.

One must understand that an act can be schismatic, but the person who executes the act need not be in schism as a result of the act. He is excommunicated, but not necessarily in schism. To be in schism one has to break with the Church. In the case of Archbishop Lefebvre and some of these Chinese bishops who have been excommunicated lately, they are not in schism. It is not their intent to walk away. The act is a break with the Primacy of Peter, that’s why it’s schismatic and why the penalty is excommunication.

In order for this to happen without breaking with the Primacy of Peter, there has to be a law that would allow the ordination of a bishop without the permission of the pope. There is no such law per se. However, there is canon law another canon that in a state of emergency a bishop should do what he has to do and later inform the Vatican. This is where I said there could be some wiggle room.

This law was put to the test. Archbishop Lefebvre argued that there was a state of emergency, because tradition would be lost if he had not ordained the four bishops. Bl. John Paul, through Cardinal Ratzinger said that the law did not apply to Archbishop Lefebvre. There were reasons why they felt that the law did not apply to him. That’s a whole other thread.

The bottom line is that a pope has the authority to apply law to the entire Church or to some and not to others. Christ is the Law Giver and he writes the law into the heart and mind of Peter. The law that Peter dictates comes from the authority that Christ has given him to bind and unbind. The only law that binds a pope is Divine Law as found in revelation and in natural law. We have to be careful here. We’re not saying that the pope is bound by natural law. We’re saying that he is bound to Divine Law found in natural law.

In other words, popes are not bound by previous popes, councils, doctors or saints. No one can judge them nor put them on trial and no one can apply the law to them.

That’s the best that I can tell you.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[JReducation]

My guess is that the Catholics who visit CAF take their religion seriously which means they already know it or have informed themselves about it. The Catholics I’m thinking of are those who go to church on Sunday but casually discard any Church teaching that is inconvenient and out of step with secular thinking, for example the ban against artificial contraception.

We have to be very careful. While it is true that we are called to evangelize, we are not called to police our brothers and sisters. Some of the great men and women of Catholic history became great saints, were very observant of the spiritual and material needs around them, responded as best they could, but they did police others. One never hears or sees anything in their lives such as comments about how good or not so good are their fellow Catholics.

Some examples that come to mind immediately are:

Benedict, Augustine, Bernard, Francis, Dominic, Ignatius, Teresa of Avila, Catherine, Therese, Fulton Sheen, John Newman, John Paul II, and Mother Teresa.

You have a spread here of more than 1,000 years of Church history and many critical times in the history of the Church. There has never been a time of peace in the Church. As Bishop Fellay said in one of his letters, “one crisis is replaced by another crisis.” Every generation has always believed that its crisis is the worse in history.

I also wanted to comment on something that you said about Protestants. You defined them as Catholics who have left the Church. While this definition may apply to some, it does not apply to the majority. Pope Benedict recently made a very interesting observation. He said that what had begun as heretical Catholics in rebellion, hence the term Protestant, has evolved into many faith communities and that Catholics can no longer deal with Protestants and Protestantism as did our forefathers, because today’s Protestantism is a very different phenomenon.

While many are very anti Catholic and many may teach errors, they truly believe that we’re wrong as strongly as we believe that they are wrong. This is not the same situation of the 16th century. These folks have generations of Protestantism. It is in Protestantism where they found Jesus Christ. We can’t deny that. Many, have come a long way from their origins, some for the better and others not so good. But they are neither heretics nor fallen away Catholics. Most of them were born into those faith communities.

Whether they’re fair to us or not, we must be fair to them.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Justin_Swanton]

We have to be very careful. While it is true that we are called to evangelize, we are not called to police our brothers and sisters. Some of the great men and women of Catholic history became great saints, were very observant of the spiritual and material needs around them, responded as best they could, but they did police others. One never hears or sees anything in their lives such as comments about how good or not so good are their fellow Catholics.

Sorry Brother, but I am not policing. Nowhere have I discussed whether contemporary Catholics are ‘good’ or ‘not so good’, just the fact that their religious formation is weak, looking to see what the cause is; and this, I believe, I am allowed to do. Saying that many Catholics casually discard inconvenient Church teachings does not imply that they are acting immorally (the context makes that clear) but that their understanding of the Catholic position is so imperfect that it is not an issue for them.

I also wanted to comment on something that you said about Protestants. You defined them as Catholics who have left the Church.

Not really. I was talking about Protestants ***and ***ex-Catholics who have joined Protestant denominations. I understand the distinction between them. An ex-Catholic, for example, cannot validly marry outside the Church; a Protestant can.

 

[Justin_Swanton]

There is not much more that I can add, because I’m not a canon lawyer. My area is theology, not law. I can only repeat what has been said already. To ordain a bishop in the Latin Church you need a papal mandate. This means that the pope must approve of the ordination before it happens. The current law is that any bishop who ordains another bishop and any priest who accepts the ordination without the papal mandate are excommunicated by the law. The act of ordaining a bishop without permission is a schismatic act. The penalty for such a serious schismatic act is excommunication of all parties involved.

One must understand that an act can be schismatic, but the person who executes the act need not be in schism as a result of the act. He is excommunicated, but not necessarily in schism. To be in schism one has to break with the Church. In the case of Archbishop Lefebvre and some of these Chinese bishops who have been excommunicated lately, they are not in schism. It is not their intent to walk away. The act is a break with the Primacy of Peter, that’s why it’s schismatic and why the penalty is excommunication.

In order for this to happen without breaking with the Primacy of Peter, there has to be a law that would allow the ordination of a bishop without the permission of the pope. There is no such law per se. However, there is canon law another canon that in a state of emergency a bishop should do what he has to do and later inform the Vatican. This is where I said there could be some wiggle room.

This law was put to the test. Archbishop Lefebvre argued that there was a state of emergency, because tradition would be lost if he had not ordained the four bishops. Bl. John Paul, through Cardinal Ratzinger said that the law did not apply to Archbishop Lefebvre. There were reasons why they felt that the law did not apply to him. That’s a whole other thread.

The bottom line is that a pope has the authority to apply law to the entire Church or to some and not to others. Christ is the Law Giver and he writes the law into the heart and mind of Peter. The law that Peter dictates comes from the authority that Christ has given him to bind and unbind. The only law that binds a pope is Divine Law as found in revelation and in natural law. We have to be careful here. We’re not saying that the pope is bound by natural law. We’re saying that he is bound to Divine Law found in natural law.

In other words, popes are not bound by previous popes, councils, doctors or saints. No one can judge them nor put them on trial and no one can apply the law to them.

That’s the best that I can tell you.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

Right, so the bottom line is that the Pope, being the supreme legislator, ultimately decides whether invoking a particular canon or law is justified or not. It answers the difficulty of who decides when supplied jurisdiction applies. Interesting. I’ll chew over this.

My point was that there was a seeming contradiction between the affirmation that there has never been an exception to the rule that the Holy See must approve a consecration, and the allowance made by Canon Law for something precisely like this in time of danger to the Church.

 

[Justin_Swanton]

…“To ordain a bishop in the Latin Church you need a papal mandate… The penalty for such a serious schismatic act is excommunication of all parties involved.”

“This law was put to the test. Archbishop Lefebvre argued that there was a state of emergency, because tradition would be lost if he had not ordained the four bishops…”

“The bottom line is that a pope has the authority to apply law to the entire Church…”

Fraternally, Br. JR, FFV

The illegitimacy of consecrating a bishop without mandate from the Pope has never changed. The ordination is considered, according to canon law, valid but not licit.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valid_but_illicit …despite any amount of mental ‘contortions’ or ‘wiggles’ to the contrary:juggle:

**
Even though the excommunications were lifted in 2009, the SSPX still has no canonical status in the Church******"As long as the Society [of Saint Pius X] does not have a canonical status in the Church, its ministers do not exercise legitimate ministries in the Church (…). Until the doctrinal questions are clarified, the Society has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers (…) do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church."Father Federico Lombardi, Vatican Press Office Director,
oecumene.radiovaticana.org/en1/Articolo.asp?c=501711
…and continues in the same attitude as their founder

The following extracts from the letter of Pope Paul VI to Archbishop Lefebvre, Oct 11, 1976 sheds some light on the root of the problem. Well worth a read!:compcoff:

“…You speak as if you have forgotten your scandalous words and gestures against eclesial communion - words and gestures that you have never retracted!”

“You do not manifest repentance, even for the cause of your suspension a divines. You do not explicitly express your acceptance of the authority of the Second Vatican Council and of the Holy See - and this constitutes the basis of the problem - and you continue in those personal works of yours which the legitimate authority has expressly ordered you to suspend.”

“1. In practice you put yourself forward as the defender and spokesman of the faithful and of priests “torn apart by what is happening in the church,” thus giving the sad impression that the Catholic faith and the essential values of tradition are not sufficiently respected and lived in a portion of the people of God, at least in certain countries. But in your interpretations of the facts and in the particular role that you assign yourself, as well as in the way in which you accomplish this role, there is something that misleads the people of God and deceives souls of good will who are justly desirous of fidelity and of spiritual and apostolic progress.”

“Moreover, you act as if you had a particular role in this regard. But the mission of discerning and remedying the abuses is first of all Ours; it is the mission of all the bishops who work together with Us. Indeed We do not cease to raise Our voice against these excesses:”

"Finally, your behavior is contradictory. You want, so you say, to remedy the abuses that disfigure the church; you regret that authority in the church is not sufficiently respected; you wish to safeguard authentic faith, esteem for the ministerial priesthood and fervor for the Eucharist in its sacrificial and sacramental fullness.
But how can you at the same time, in order to fulfill this role, claim that you are obliged to act contrary to the recent Council in opposition to your brethren in the episcopate, to distrust the Holy See itself - which you call the “Rome of the neo-modernist and neo-Protestant tendency - and to set yourself up in open disobedience to Us? If you truly want to work “under Our authority,” as you affirm in your last private letter, it is immediately necessary to put an end to these ambiguities and contradictions.”

“Each bishop is indeed an authentic teacher for preaching to the people entrusted to him that faith which must guide their thoughts and conduct and dispel the errors that menace the flock. But, by their nature, “the charges of teaching and governing . . . cannot be exercised except in hierarchical communion with the head of the college and with its members” (Constitution Lumen Gentium, 21; cf. also 25). A fortiori, a single bishop without a canonical mission does not have in actu expedite ad agendum, the faculty of deciding in general what the rule of faith is or of determining what tradition is. In practice you are claiming that you alone are the judge of what tradition embraces.”

“And so you claim not even to be affected by the orders of the Pope, or by the suspension a divines, as you lament “subversion” in the church.”

"Is it not in this state of mind that you have ordained priests without dimissorial letters and against Our explicit command, thus creating a group of priests who are in an irregular situation in the Church and who are under grave ecclesiastical penalties?

Moreover, you hold that the suspension that you have incurred applies only to the celebration of the sacraments according to the new rite, as if they were something improperly introduced into the church, which you go so far as to call schismatic, and you think that you evade this sanction when you administer the sacraments according to the formulas of the past and against the established norms (cf. I Cor. 14:40)."

**“We cannot accept this erroneous judgement, this unjustified accusation, nor can We tolerate that the Lord’s Eucharist, the sacrament of unity, should be the object of such divisions (cf. I Cor. 11:18), and that it should even be used as an instrument and sign of rebellion.” **

“We invite you to retract, to correct yourself and tocease from inflicting wounds upon the church of Christ.”

"In the psychological state in which you find yourself, We realize that it is difficult for you to see clearly and very hard for you humbly to change your line of conduct: is it not therefore urgent, as in all such cases, for you to arrange a time and a place of recollection which will enable you to consider the matter with the necessary objectivity?
jloughnan.tripod.com/pvi2lefebvre.htm

 

[Dee_S]

The illegitimacy of consecrating a bishop without mandate from the Pope has never changed. The ordination is considered, according to canon law, valid but not licit.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valid_but_illicit …despite ‘contortions’ or ‘wiggles’ to the contrary:juggle:

**
Even though the excommunications were lifted in 2009, the SSPX still has no canonical status in the Church**"As long as the Society [of Saint Pius X] does not have a canonical status in the Church, its ministers do not exercise legitimate ministries in the Church (…). Until the doctrinal questions are clarified, the Society has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers (…) do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church."Father Federico Lombardi, Vatican Press Office Director,
oecumene.radiovaticana.or…o.asp?c=501711

**…despite which they continue as before.****The following extracts from the letter of Pope Paul VI to Archbishop Lefebvre, Oct 11, 1976 sheds a significant amount of light on the root of the problem. **

“…You speak as if you have forgotten your scandalous words and gestures against eclesial communion - words and gestures that you have never retracted!”

“You do not manifest repentance, even for the cause of your suspension a divines. You do not explicitly express your acceptance of the authority of the Second Vatican Council and of the Holy See - and this constitutes the basis of the problem - and you continue in those personal works of yours which the legitimate authority has expressly ordered you to suspend.”

“1. In practice you put yourself forward as the defender and spokesman of the faithful and of priests “torn apart by what is happening in the church,” thus giving the sad impression that the Catholic faith and the essential values of tradition are not sufficiently respected and lived in a portion of the people of God, at least in certain countries. But in your interpretations of the facts and in the particular role that you assign yourself, as well as in the way in which you accomplish this role, there is something that misleads the people of God and deceives souls of good will who are justly desirous of fidelity and of spiritual and apostolic progress.”

“Moreover, you act as if you had a particular role in this regard. But the mission of discerning and remedying the abuses is first of all Ours; it is the mission of all the bishops who work together with Us. Indeed We do not cease to raise Our voice against these excesses:”

"Finally, your behavior is contradictory. You want, so you say, to remedy the abuses that disfigure the church; you regret that authority in the church is not sufficiently respected; you wish to safeguard authentic faith, esteem for the ministerial priesthood and fervor for the Eucharist in its sacrificial and sacramental fullness.
But how can you at the same time, in order to fulfill this role, claim that you are obliged to act contrary to the recent Council in opposition to your brethren in the episcopate, to distrust the Holy See itself - which you call the “Rome of the neo-modernist and neo-Protestant tendency - and to set yourself up in open disobedience to Us? If you truly want to work “under Our authority,” as you affirm in your last private letter, it is immediately necessary to put an end to these ambiguities and contradictions.”

“Each bishop is indeed an authentic teacher for preaching to the people entrusted to him that faith which must guide their thoughts and conduct and dispel the errors that menace the flock. But, by their nature, “the charges of teaching and governing . . . cannot be exercised except in hierarchical communion with the head of the college and with its members” (Constitution Lumen Gentium, 21; cf. also 25). A fortiori, a single bishop without a canonical mission does not have in actu expedite ad agendum, the faculty of deciding in general what the rule of faith is or of determining what tradition is. In practice you are claiming that you alone are the judge of what tradition embraces.”

“And so you claim not even to be affected by the orders of the Pope, or by the suspension a divines, as you lament “subversion” in the church.”

"Is it not in this state of mind that you have ordained priests without dimissorial letters and against Our explicit command, thus creating a group of priests who are in an irregular situation in the Church and who are under grave ecclesiastical penalties?

"Moreover, you hold that the suspension that you have incurred applies only to the celebration of the sacraments according to the new rite, as if they were something improperly introduced into the church, which you go so far as to call schismatic, and you think that you evade this sanction when you administer the sacraments according to the formulas of the past and against the established norms (cf. I Cor. 14:40)."

**“We cannot accept this erroneous judgement, this unjustified accusation, nor can We tolerate that the Lord’s Eucharist, the sacrament of unity, should be the object of such divisions (cf. I Cor. 11:18), and that it should even be used as an instrument and sign of rebellion.” **

“We invite you to retract, to correct yourself and to cease from inflicting wounds upon the church of Christ.”

“In the psychological state in which you find yourself, We realize that it is difficult for you to see clearly and very hard for you humbly to change your line of conduct: is it not therefore urgent, as in all such cases, for you to arrange a time and a place of recollection which will enable you to consider the matter with the necessary objectivity?”
jloughnan.tripod.com/pvi2lefebvre.htm

 

[Dee_S]

Sorry Brother, but I am not policing. Nowhere have I discussed whether contemporary Catholics are ‘good’ or ‘not so good’, just the fact that their religious formation is weak, looking to see what the cause is; and this, I believe, I am allowed to do. Saying that many Catholics casually discard inconvenient Church teachings does not imply that they are acting immorally (the context makes that clear) but that their understanding of the Catholic position is so imperfect that it is not an issue for them.

It does appear that you are:bluelite:; ‘good’ or ‘bad’ are moral judgements, so are not really relevant here. What is are sweeping statements like ‘their religious formation is weak’ which do come across as presenting a bias of some sort By their, I take it you mean Catholics at large?

It cannot be conceded that you have any real justification for this general accusation against the Catholics of our day:hey_bud: unless it can be supported by facts and not just ‘hear say’.

The fact that a person is “allowed to do so” only exemplifies a recognition of the freedom of speech as a right, but does not address the issue of the morality involved in generalized statements which insult or denigrate the members of the Church:tsktsk:

 

[Justin_Swanton]

It does appear that you are:bluelite:; ‘good’ or ‘bad’ are moral judgements, so are not really relevant here. What is are sweeping statements like ‘their religious formation is weak’ which do come across as presenting a bias of some sort By their, I take it you mean Catholics at large?

It cannot be conceded that you have any real justification for this general accusation against the Catholics of our day:hey_bud: unless it can be supported by facts and not just ‘hear say’.

The fact that a person is “allowed to do so” only exemplifies a recognition of the freedom of speech as a right, but does not address the issue of the morality involved in generalized statements which insult or denigrate the members of the Church:tsktsk:

Sorry, I try to make a point of not making affirmations, especially generalisations, without proof. In this case I took it for granted that the weakness of Catholic identity amongst contemporary Catholics was common knowledge and didn’t require proof.

Anyhow here are some links to surveys done of the state of Catholic belief amongst US Catholics. This is just a selection from a brief session of internet trawling. I’m sure you could find a great deal more. I’ll see what I can find concerning Catholic belief in RSA and elsewhere.

This one is comprehensive.

This one is less detailed

This one on the stance of US Catholic students on moral issues

Bear in mind that none of this implies either judging or policing fellow Catholics. It is merely the observation of a problem and the need to do something about it. Obviously is the hierarchy, not me, that must implement the answer.

 

[JReducation]

I don’t want to get into the whole canon law/excommunication/jurisdiction conversation. I have given my views before and I can see no point in re-posting. I would like to say however that things look different to those who come from the SSPX point of view rather than the “mainstream” view in terms of attending the new Mass and the local parish. I have been attending Mass said by the SSPX for a few years now so I think I can give the view from this side. Sure the SSPX recognise that there are many good, orthodox, hardworking priests in the diocesan parishes and religious orders. Some people can misunderstand the SSPX and take it that they condemn everyone outside their own society – this is not the case. Also, the SSPX do not say the new rite of Ordination is invalid, nor the new Mass consecrations. When observed properly they are valid – of course. The SSPX only doubts validity, and rightly so, when Bishops ad lib the formulas – something I myself have witnessed (to what effect I cannot say) or use sweet pancakes etc for Holy Communion. I often hear people say: “the SSPX misrepresent most priests and services” etc. Well if that is the impression they have got they are mistaken.

In all the pro-SSPX, pro-tradition books I have read, sermons and talks I have heard etc very rarely does the SSPX ever mention the famous cases of liturgical abuse. They come up in passing, as one would expect, but the focus is far from them. The SSPX’s critique of the New Mass is of the New Mass said in Latin with all the official rubrics observed. Why would a priest attack a liturgical abuse when this would be akin to a straw man argument - refuting something which itself is not representative of the new rite? The arguments of the SSPX and the responses of Rome are well known to most, so I will not even get into that.

With regard to the laity, again I can only state what I know myself and what others have told me. For me it seems that most of the laity who come to SSPX Masses do so because they have felt they received the final straw and had no other practical options. I have talked to some people who could no longer stomach seeing irreverence in the distribution of communion. It was the same throughout the diocese. Others were uncomfortable with the sermons which were not only not teaching the faith with clarity, but actually misrepresenting the faith in key areas. Some people will never understand the frustration one feels who cannot see any other alternative. I myself checked every parish in the diocese and in the neighbouring diocese. It was all the same. Now my outlook will be different than most people here, but I could no longer in conscience attend with these dioceses. I will not go into any detail here, but it is not just a matter of finding a good parish for me. Others feel the same which is why they seek out the SSPX. If we had a priest teaching traditional doctrine and saying the traditional Mass in the diocese most of us would never have sought out the SSPX. It is not as though we were caught in a snare when we looked for somewhere to hear Mass.

Now, as for the reason why the SSPX do not recommend attending the diocesan Mass: it is not because of any sort of cult-like mentality, as some would have it, that they do not want people attending any Mass but their own. Really it is because of their position on the New rite and the new theology which is well known. To quote a non-ecclesiastical Latin saying: “qui cum canibus concumbunt cum pulicibus surgent” – This is perhaps a bad analogy – I am not calling anyone a dog, but the point is that the SSPX feel the diocesan Mass, communion in the hand, homilies etc can lead to the danger of a weakening of the faith which is something to avoid. In no way do they “discipline” or reprimand people doing this, but they simply give their reasons and most people who attend their Masses have come to those reasons themselves, which is why they attend.

Anyway this is obviously not a defence of the SSPX position, nor was it intended to be, but merely a view from the SSPX side for those trying to figure out what draws people to them.

The question is, if the SSPX were to be declared in schism, what are these folks going to do? Will they stick with the SSPX and go into schism or will they return to their home parishes?

Let’s hope that the schism never happens.

Right, so the bottom line is that the Pope, being the supreme legislator, ultimately decides whether invoking a particular canon or law is justified or not. It answers the difficulty of who decides when supplied jurisdiction applies. Interesting. I’ll chew over this.

My point was that there was a seeming contradiction between the affirmation that there has never been an exception to the rule that the Holy See must approve a consecration, and the allowance made by Canon Law for something precisely like this in time of danger to the Church.

The bold is mine. That’s what I was addressing when I said that the law of emergency was put to the test and failed. Each time the “state of emergency” has been invoked by an ordaining bishop, the pope has said, “This does not apply here.”

While in print, the law seems to allow for bishops to do anything in a state of emergency, two popes now have drawn the line at the ordination of bishops. Bl. John Paul drew it with Archbishop Lefebvre and Pope Benedict drew it with the Chinese and another bishop in Africa.

As things stand right now with the SSPX, if they dare ordain another bishop, these conversations with the Vatican are over. The will be in schism.

Thus far, it seems that the law that everyone thought would give the bishops a little wiggle room, does not include ordaining other bishops.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[GloriaMaria]

“What are these folks going to do” (if the SSPX is declared in schism).

Well, in our chapel, in order to preserve peace, no one speaks openly about this. However, we know each other very well - the chapels of the SSPX, except in the larger centers, are like families.

I think it is widely understood that, in our chapel, two families will go and the rest will remain. I will give you my theory on why this is.

The two families who will go to the local parish (if there is a declaration of schism), are the families who fulfill the Sunday obligation no matter what the circumstances. If a priest cannot serve our mission church from the SSPX, we have all been counselled to avoid the Novus Ordo and simply pray in the church on Sunday. This is reality.Two families go to the parish church instead of accepting this advice.

The second indicator is this: how did we come to Catholicism? Those of us who were cradle Catholics and grew up in the Novus Ordo, have a love for the (Universal) Church, and for Rome, that is missing in converts who went directly to the SSPX, or those young people who remember only the SSPX. So, the danger is greater for these converts and second or third generation SSPX attendees.

My opinion, and observations, from attending SSPX Masses for many years now.

 

[GloriaMaria]

While it would be a very good thing for the SSPX to come back into the Church, it is grossly unfair to the religious orders and diocesan priests in the Church to make comments like this. Such comments give the impression that the SSPX are the only people in the world faithful to Catholicism. This is patently false. It also gives the impression that 500 men are going to achieve what more than one million Franciscans, Salesians, Augustinians, Dominicans,Opus Dei priests and Carmelites have not been able to achieve overnight. These are the largest and most faithful groups in the Church and have always been very faithful. Such statements throw us under the bus. It’s little wonder when the traditionalists get little support from these religious communities, if they are treated in such a dismissive manner.

It is also a false assumption that the Modernists run things in the Church. While it is true that there are many Modernists, it is also true that this is nothing new. There have been Modernists since Modernism was born. Before them, there were other problem children. Then there are those who are called Modernists by people in the traditionalist sector, simply because they are not traditionalist, as if that were a requirement for being a faithful Catholic, a faithful religious or a faithful priest.

It’s time we drop this kind of rhetoric, if we truly want to restore Church unity. Such rhetoric as “the pope will have fresh and invigorated allies” creates the opposite effect of what the traditionalists want. It creates resistance. We have to be very careful how we use words. Words can hurt people who do not deserve to be hurt. Words can also anger people who have been doing the best we can with the little we have to work with.

There are over one million of us out here doing a darn good job at maintaining the faith, renewing the priesthood and religious life, serving the people of God in many different ways and having good days and bad days.

Can we use an extra pair of hands? Of course we can. Do we want the extra pair of hands? Of course we do. Do we want to be reminded at every turn of how “Catholic” the SSPX is? No we don’t. Because while the SSPX was out there staging its rebellion in the name of tradition and orthodoxy, the rest of us remained obedient and tried as hard as we could to do the best we could. But there seems to be no recognition of that on these threads. Then people wonder why clergy and religious come through here and disappear like rain on a hot day. The FSSP has been doing the same thing that the SSPX offers and they get very little credit around here. They’re not the only Ecclesia Dei institute doing this kind of ministry.

No one wants to spend a lot of time around people who don’t want you or who don’t appreciate what you have had to live with. In many respects, the SSPX has had it much easier than the communities that I mentioned above. While Franciscans, Augustinians, Dominicans, Carmelites, Salesians, Opus Dei and even FSSP were trying as hard as possible to keep their communities together, to recover the spirit of our founders, to deal with dissent among our brothers, and to find ways to combat a growing godless world, the SSPX simply walked and created its own bubble.

It’s very easy to be effective in a bubble where everyone is a faithful Catholic and is well formed. It’s very easy to work in a bubble where you don’t have to answer to bishops, Sacred Congregations, Prefects, committees and popes, where you can stick your tongue out at authority, if you disagree. It’s not so easy to agree, when you know that you’re right and authority is wrong. However, you also know that your founder commanded you to obey no matter what authority asks of you, as long as it does not ask you to sin. You know that you promised to obey the rule of your order, which says that you will obey with joy, meaning that you hang up at the door any feelings that you have and any wishes of your own for the sake of a loving obedience to your founder and to your hierarchy, while you gently try to get your superiors to hear you out. But you may never cross the line and demand to be heard or you will forfeit your immortal soul, because your founder said so and you vowed to obey until death.

More than a million of us have lived with this tension for almost 50 years and I think that the Church, especially Pope Benedict is very appreciative of our effort. We would welcome the SSPX as equals. But we are also offended by comments that suggest that the SSPX has all the answers that the rest of us poor idiots were too dumb to see.

We welcome them home as partners. But if the feeling is that they can do a better job than we can, let them run hospitals, schools, colleges, homes for children, pregnancy centers, soup kitchens, parishes, do street ministry, run rehabilitation centers, homes for the elderly poor, programs for displaced Catholic immigrants, family centers, the pro-life movement and several thousand parishes around the world. If the feeling is that they are such a power horse, we will gladly give it all over to them and the traditionalist movement…

We can go where the SSPX does not seem to want to go, to the jungles of the Amazon, the streets of Harlem, the Bronx, Liberty City, Calcutta, or the jungles of Africa and Australia and the leper colonies of Ecuador, Colombia, India, and Africa.

My suggestion is that we wait and see what is going to happen, that we be fair to those religious priests and brothers who have lived through this difficult generation, and that we be fair to the SSPX priests as well. Placing expectations that may be too hard to achieve is unfair to them and to the people who follow them.

Once they come into full canonical communion, they can no longer limit themselves to running chapels for traditionalists. If they become a prelature, they will have to deal with the dissenters, the beggars, the drug addict and prostitute, the young person in a crisis pregnancy, the hungry person who comes looking for breakfast or lunch and the displaced Catholic immigrant whose only friend is the Church. They won’t be able to turn them away, because they will have a canonical duty to respond.

Their traditionalist faithful will no longer be shielded from the mainstream flow of humanity with all of its strengths and weaknesses. In other words, the SSPX parish will no longer be a homogenous parish as it is now. It will be a regular open parish, with the exception that it does not belong to the diocese. However, since it does not belong to the diocese, it cannot ask the diocese or any other religious order to please take care of these other needs that present themselves at their door. Their laypeople will have to roll up their sleeves and do what the rest of the Catholic community does, feed the hungry, bathe lepers, welcome unwed mothers, spend nights sitting up with a suicidal drug addict, etc.

Let’s be gentle in our expectations and with our words. Let’s pray that all of this works out well.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

I will become better at using the quote button as we progress through the topic. I meant to use it in the above post as well, as I was quoting an open question posted by the good Brother.

As for this quote, what I mean to address is the idea that the Society operates in an absolute bubble.

While I understand the indignation (justified, I am certain) that caused this generalization about the SSPX, I would like to add some information that comes from my own observations in the chapels run by the Society.

Everything runs on a smaller scale, of course, because the SSPX is a smaller organization. However, they do feed lunches regularly to the drug addicts and drunks who live in the dangerous neighbourhood of one chapel we have attended, they catechize converts, deal with mentally ill who attend chapels, not sure about lepers but they operate in Africa and India and Asia. I know they run an orphanage in India, as well as caring for those who society in general has abandoned, like the elderly. They are visible in pro-life movements and campaign against abortion. They run schools and nursing homes. So, they do in fact do these things which you have mentioned, and so it is not accurate to suggest that they have a simple mission, in reality. Or that they would be wholly unprepared for such responsibilities.

God Bless You. I am learning a lot.

 

[Dee_S]

I suspect that the SSPX opposition to the New Mass comes partly from equating the Mass itself with the way it is celebrated in many parishes. As someone pointed out, it is difficult to tell a New Mass said in Latin (especially if sung, with Gregorian Chant, incense and the rest) from a Tridentine Mass. We used to have a Latin Sung OF Mass at Harare cathedral, celebrated by a very conservative Jesuit priest. Bishop - then Father - Williamson encouraged us to go to it. Funny old world.

Very interesting, thanks. This continues to open up for discussion why Archbishop Lefebvre felt compelled to ‘restore Tradition.’

The Archbishop fathered the opposition to the New Mass, which has yet to subside, all based on what. As Justin point out above, it is difficult to tell the difference between what the two.

These further extracts from the letter of Pope Paul VI to Archbishop Lefebvre are an instructive and in a way, very sad:sad_yes: read, as the Holy Father tries his best to offer the Archbishop help in all fraternal charity, for what appears to be a warp in his thinking, expressed by his stand at the time that “the Conciliar Church was a Schismatic Church”.

“You say moreover that you do not always see how to reconcile certain texts of the Council, or certain dispositions which We have enacted in order to put the Council into practice, with the wholesome tradition of the church and in particular with the Council of Trent of the affirmations of Our predecessors. These are for example: the responsibility of the college of bishops united with the sovereign pontiff, the new Ordo Missae, ecumenism, religious freedom, the attitude of dialogue, evangelization in the modem world. . . . It is not the place, in this letter, to deal with each of these problems. The precise tenor of the documents, with the totality of it nuances and its context, the authorized explanations, the detailed and objective commentaries which have been made, are of such a nature to enable you to overcome these personal difficulties.”

“Absolutely secure counsellors, theologians and spiritual directors would be able to help you even more, with God’s enlightenment, and We are ready to facilitate this fraternal assistance for you.”

“But how can an interior personal difficulty - a spiritual drama which We respect - permit you to set yourself up publicly as a judge of what has been legitimately adopted, practically with unanimity, and knowingly to lead a portion of the faithful into your refusal?”

“What is indeed at issue is the question - which must truly be called fundamental - of your clearly proclaimed refusal to recognize in its whole, the authority of the Second Vatican Council and that of the Pope. This refusal is accompanied by an action that is oriented towards propagating and organizing what must indeed, unfortunately, be called a rebellion. This is the essential issue, and it is truly untenable.”

“If, in general, We have not judged it good to permit any further delays or exceptions to this adoption, it is with a view to the spiritual good and the unity of the entire ecclesial community, because, for Catholics of the Roman rite, the Ordo Missae is a privileged sign of their unity.** It is also because, in your case, the old rite is in fact the expression of a warped ecclesiology, and a ground for dispute with the Council and its reforms under the pretext that in the old rite alone are preserved, without their meaning being obscured, the true sacrifice of the Mass and the ministerial priesthood.”**

**We cannot accept this erroneous judgement, this unjustified accusation, nor can We tolerate that the Lord’s Eucharist, the sacrament of unity, should be the object of such divisions (cf. I Cor. 11:18), and that it should even be used as an instrument and sign of rebellion. **
jloughnan.tripod.com/pvi2lefebvre.htm

 

[Mrs_Sally]

“What are these folks going to do” (if the SSPX is declared in schism).

Well, in our chapel, in order to preserve peace, no one speaks openly about this. However, we know each other very well - the chapels of the SSPX, except in the larger centers, are like families.

I think it is widely understood that, in our chapel, two families will go and the rest will remain. I will give you my theory on why this is.

The two families who will go to the local parish (if there is a declaration of schism), are the families who fulfill the Sunday obligation no matter what the circumstances. If a priest cannot serve our mission church from the SSPX, we have all been counselled to avoid the Novus Ordo and simply pray in the church on Sunday. This is reality.Two families go to the parish church instead of accepting this advice.

The second indicator is this: how did we come to Catholicism? Those of us who were cradle Catholics and grew up in the Novus Ordo, have a love for the (Universal) Church, and for Rome, that is missing in converts who went directly to the SSPX, or those young people who remember only the SSPX. So, the danger is greater for these converts and second or third generation SSPX attendees.

My opinion, and observations, from attending SSPX Masses for many years now.

I have heard this before and it is just so sad. I cannot see how someone who says they are for tradition and turning back the clock, if you will, to a time before VII, would ever counsel a Catholic to deliberately miss Sunday Mass.

You may say the local OF general has bad homilies, horrible music, etc. But when you say it is preferable to stay home than to attend a Sunday Mass there on occasion, you are saying that you really don’t believe the locall parish is actually Catholic even though it is in full communion with Rome. That is jsut so astounding to me and so incrediably sad.

 

[Iotaunum]

The question is, if the SSPX were to be declared in schism, what are these folks going to do? Will they stick with the SSPX and go into schism or will they return to their home parishes?

Let’s hope that the schism never happens.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

Realistically, I think most people know that the SSPX will continue as they always have done regardless of the outcome of the talks and most of the faithful attending their Masses will also. I think the only people affected by a bad outcome would be those with one foot in the SSPX and the other in their local parish church.

 

[Iotaunum]

I have heard this before and it is just so sad. I cannot see how someone who says they are for tradition and turning back the clock, if you will, to a time before VII, would ever counsel a Catholic to deliberately miss Sunday Mass.

I think the point is that there would be no counsel to miss Mass before Vatican II because before Vatican II the traditional rite was observed.

You may say the local OF general has bad homilies, horrible music, etc. But when you say it is preferable to stay home than to attend a Sunday Mass there on occasion, you are saying that you really don’t believe the locall parish is actually Catholic even though it is in full communion with Rome. That is jsut so astounding to me and so incrediably sad.

I think you are missing the point as to why some Catholics avoid the Mass in their own parish. Were it purely a matter of bad taste in music or insuffiicient homilies we should stomach it. No one is saying such and such a parish is not Catholic or in communion with Rome, but only that it may be harmful to our faith. You may not believe this, but then again if you did you be be of the same position as traditionlists like myself. If you knew what was going on in the local Churches here, or what the local priest is involved in you would be shocked. I will say no more since I have no interest in revealing the sins of others but lets just say you my also prefer to say the rosary at home than attend. With regards to a more overall avoidance of the New Mass in other areas, some who take the position of the SSPX do not want to show example to people by attending a tradtional Mass one week and then going to the local New Mass the next and recieving communoion from a lay woman minister etc. Even if you do not have a problem with this, you must understand that this is the view of most who attend the SSPX Masses.

As a follow up to this, I would like to know if the Fraternity or St Peter advise people to attend the local new Mass when they are not available on certain days of obligation?