SSPX Crisis

[JReducation]

Maybe you can explain their hostility then. I can think of no other reasons. The incidents that I described are 100% accurate. If the truth is a serious accusation then so be it. I for one am not afraid to speak the truth, no matter who it concerns.You will note that I did not name the various Bishops who did these things. Suffice to say it is a matter of public record and easily verifiable by anyone who lived it, as I did, or who cares to look.

Actually what I have written is accurate and easily verifiable. Most of the institutes you speak of have only come into existance in the past twenty five years or so and several are either splintered off from the SSPX or were affilaited with it in some way. Those are easily verifiable facts as well.

As I recall the Norbertines, while founded hundreds of years ago started to celebrate the Extraordinary Form again in the 80’s if I am not mistaken, well after the SSPX was founded and suppressed and only after the indult. If I remember the Norbertines did have a small group who were especially conservative that came to the US from Hungary in the 50’s, but after Vatican II they followed suit with just about everyone else and switched over to the Ordinary Form. they may have been the ones who began celebrating the Extraordinary Form with them prior to the 80’s if they in fact did so, and I really don’t think they did. I know they did after the indult but before, I don’t think so.

I’m sorry Brother, but those are facts, not rumors. not inventions but cold hard facts. Sorry if they upset you, but too many people refuse to accept that at one time there was a definite movement within the Clergy to abolish the Extraordinary Form completely. If we forget that or ignore it then we are just burying our heads in the sand.

And that really isn’t a good place to be at even if it is comfortable at times.

You have two issues going on here. The first is the fact that too much credit is being given to the SSPX. The fact that they have been great defenders of the Tridentine form does not mean that they singlehandedly preserved it. That would be an injustice to the other communities who also preserved it.

Even in the case of communities like the Franciscans and Norbertines, which celebrate both forms, the fact that they celebrate the Ordinary Form was never a statement against the Extraordinary Form. They had to submit to the authority of the general chapter. The general chapter never ruled against the EF. It was left to the priors and guardians to decide. There was never any anti EF sentiment in these older communities.

The younger communities are not SSPX guided, just because they’re younger. They’re guided by Ecclesia Dei. They follow the norms laid down by Ecclesia Dei and do so with great reverence for the CDF.

The other issue is the comments about the bishops, even if you saw it, it is not helpful to anyone to air the dirty laundry in a public forum. If one feels that it’s important to put the issue on the table, then it should done with those involved present. Regardless of our agreements or disagreements with the bishops they remain the successors of the apostles and must be spoken about with reverence and respect, even when they are not mentioned by name. Everyone has a right to their good name.

A non Catholic reading this would be very confused or very discouraged to see what appears as “us vs the bishops”. That is not the image of the Catholic Church that we want others to have, because it does not do justice to the Church.

The FSSP broke off from the SSPX.

Yes and no. These were members of the Society who broke off from the Society. They had no intention of creating another society. The didn’t even have an idea of what to do next. When the crisis struck the SSPX, these men showed up in Rome requesting help from the Holy See. It was Bl. John Paul who founded the FSSP. That was the SSPX connection.

However, one must listen to their story. Despite their love for the Tridentine form of the mass, they were willing to give up the Tridentine form, if necessary, in order to remain in full communion with the Holy See.

I believe that making the Tridentine form a central issue in the SSPX crisis does not faithfully represent the side of the Church. Benedict XVI said that the crisis with the SSPX had nothing to do with the Tridentine form. He denied that the SSPX had preserved the Tridentine form. On a number of occasions he repeated that the Tridentine form was preserved by Ecclesia Dei, not the SSPX. The SSPX did not have that kind of influence inside the Holy See.

For this reason, many believe that the Holy Father issued SP to bring home the SSPX, not to protect the EF. The EF was already covered by Ecclesia Dei. SP clarified the mistaken notion that the Tridentine form had been abrogated, but it did not reinstate it. It did not need to be reinstated. It was already allowed by Ecclesia Dei. What needed was a clarification of the law and lifting of any other restrictions that may have been around, except for those proper to religious orders, which SP does not overrule.

The crisis of the SSPX is a doctrinal one, not a liturgical one. It was always a doctrinal crisis, as Pope Paul VI indicated many times. The Holy Fathers did not challenge the SSPX’s desire to celebrate the EF. They challenged the SSPX’s ecclesiology. That remains the challenge.

 

[Dee_S]

… ** The first is the fact that too much credit is being given to the SSPX. The fact that they have been great defenders of the Tridentine form does not mean that they singlehandedly preserved it**. That would be an injustice to the other communities who also preserved it.

The younger communities are not SSPX guided, just because they’re younger. They’re guided by Ecclesia Dei. They follow the norms laid down by Ecclesia Dei and do so with great reverence for the CDF.

… Benedict XVI said that the crisis with the SSPX had nothing to do with the Tridentine form. He denied that the SSPX had preserved the Tridentine form. On a number of occasions he repeated that the Tridentine form was preserved by Ecclesia Dei, not the SSPX. The SSPX did not have that kind of influence inside the Holy See.

The crisis of the SSPX is a doctrinal one, not a liturgical one. It was always a doctrinal crisis, as Pope Paul VI indicated many times.** The Holy Fathers did not challenge the SSPX’s desire to celebrate the EF. They challenged the SSPX’s ecclesiology. That remains the challenge.**

(my bold)
:thumbsup:well said Br JR - that settle’s that, for sure.

The following site is very helpful to those who love the Tridentine Rite and gives good Tridentine Mass links etc.

Wasn’t the Tridentine Mass banned? No, but following the Second Vatican Council, its public use was restricted by most Bishops.
After the introduction of Pope Paul VI’s new Mass, the only priests given permission to say the Tridentine Mass publicly were priests of England and Wales, thanks to an indult (or permission) granted by the Vatican to Cardinal Heenan of Westminster.
Other priests - such as Blessed Padre Pio and Blessed Josemaria Escriva, the founder of Opus Dei - continued to use the old Mass privately in preference to the new rite.
askacatholic.com/_Mass_and_Adoration/Holy_Mass/TridentineRomanMissal.cfm

 

[Dee_S]

This thread and the comments I’ve read give me great hope.

Like many, I’ve always loved the TLM and am drawn to it. But my experiences with traditionalists in general have been uncomfortable. My experiences with the SSPX or Sedvacantists have been nothing short of very unpleasant and distasteful.

We must remember we are one Church, with one deposit of faith, under one God and shepherded by one Holy Father.

The things I’ve read here give me great hope. Thank you.

:thumbsup:nicely put

 

[JReducation]

I think there is a danger of being unfaithful to the Church and unfair to the SSPX, both of which must be avoided. From my days as a novice, it was always drilled into us that one could not be Catholic and be hostile toward the hierarchy, must less openly paint our bishops and pope in a negative light. It is something that our Holy Father Francis would never tolerate.

We learned by observing him. He lived during a time when the Church was in a greater crisis than today, as much as we would like to credit ourselves with having created the perfect crisis. That dubious honor still goes to the Catholics of the Middle Ages who led us straight into the Protestant Reformation. We learned many things from Francis. One of the most important things that we learned from him was discretion.

Francis was a very wise man. He certainly did not live with his head in the sand. However, there is not a single piece of writing, nor is there a single public statement by him that is critical of or hostile toward the hierarchy of his day. Quite the contrary, he constantly refers to the bishops as his Lords. Yet, we know that he enjoyed a very special friendship with the bishops, Pope Honorius III and Pope Gregory IX. In fact, he was Pope Gregory’s superior and friend. It was said by bishops and pope alike that Francis would often say things to them that put them to shame. However, we will never know what those things are, because Francis never said them where anyone else could hear him.

My point is that we need another Francis of Assisi to teach us how to deal with a Church in crisis and how to behave in public. We have developed a sense of entitlement. We believe that we are entitled to be publicly critical and at times hostile toward our bishops and to pretend that this does no harm, which is not true at all. It is very harmful to the person making the comments and to the outsider looking in. The virtue of discretion must go hand in hand with the wisdom to recognize problems and solutions. Without discretion, we run the risk of being like the spouse who badmouths his wife before all his friends and colleagues, then goes home to bed with her. At the end of the day, the bigger fool is he who sleeps with his dirty laundry.

That being said, we must also be fair to the SSPX. While it is true that its crisis is a doctrinal one, it is also true that it deserves our compassion and everything should be done not to leave it out in the cold. I for one believe that its heart is in the right place. It is its methods that are mistaken.

In fairness to the SSPX I have to say that it does not have a monopoly on this type of error. Many of us go about doing the right thing via the wrong means. Nonetheless, we have to correct the means. I truly believe that if the SSPX practiced greater discretion and took its issues with the Church behind closed doors to the appropriate authorities, rather than air out the laundry in public, there would be less opinions, less arguing and less factions. History has proven that republics have short lifespans. The Church is not a republic and we can’t deal with her as if she were one.

 

[Melchior_1]

Quite true, however, in all honesty an unbiased reading of their history would seem to indicate that they have good reason to be wary of what is said to them by Vatican and Diocesian officials in some cases Politics often rears its ugly head in these areas.

Not excusing their actions by any stretch of the imagination, but I think I can understand them, at least to a degree.

The Right of Exemption would have protected them from those officials. The only people who could give them grief would have been the Congregation of Societies of Apostolic Life & the Consecrated Life, and the Pope.

Of course, pre-Vatican II, the Right of Exemption was trampled on. It took Perfectae Caritatis (at Vatican II) to correct this. Ironically, Vatican II would have given the SSPX everything they needed to succeed within the existing framework of the Church, but instead they went their own way.

 

[Lormar]

The other issue is the comments about the bishops, even if you saw it, it is not helpful to anyone to air the dirty laundry in a public forum. If one feels that it’s important to put the issue on the table, then it should done with those involved present. Regardless of our agreements or disagreements with the bishops they remain the successors of the apostles and must be spoken about with reverence and respect, even when they are not mentioned by name. Everyone has a right to their good name.

A non Catholic reading this would be very confused or very discouraged to see what appears as “us vs the bishops”. That is not the image of the Catholic Church that we want others to have, because it does not do justice to the Church.

Brother, thank you so much. You are so very right. I am afraid that most Catholics, whether in the Church or in the SSPX, have lost this. We have many lessons to learn and this is not the least of them. I always remember that story about St. Robert Bellarmine and how he dealt with an actual heretic that taught with him at a university. He never ever, even though he did try to undo the damage done by the heretic, mention him by name. When he had any dealings with him, he was always cordial, treating the priest with the utmost charity. When asked his opinion about the priest, he never said an unkind word about him or mentioned his heretical ideas.

We have lost that. We think we are the arbiters of truth. We think ourselves infallible in our thoughts. If the Church says different than what we have concluded, we follow ourselves or another Pied Piper who thinks like us. We rip priests, bishops, cardinals and popes to shreds.

I can only pray that God will be merciful to me for having done these very things for years.

 

[Lormar]

I think there is a danger of being unfaithful to the Church and unfair to the SSPX, both of which must be avoided. From my days as a novice, it was always drilled into us that one could not be Catholic and be hostile toward the hierarchy, must less openly paint our bishops and pope in a negative light. It is something that our Holy Father Francis would never tolerate.

We learned by observing him. He lived during a time when the Church was in a greater crisis than today, as much as we would like to credit ourselves with having created the perfect crisis. That dubious honor still goes to the Catholics of the Middle Ages who led us straight into the Protestant Reformation. We learned many things from Francis. One of the most important things that we learned from him was discretion.

Francis was a very wise man. He certainly did not live with his head in the sand. However, there is not a single piece of writing, nor is there a single public statement by him that is critical of or hostile toward the hierarchy of his day. Quite the contrary, he constantly refers to the bishops as his Lords. Yet, we know that he enjoyed a very special friendship with the bishops, Pope Honorius III and Pope Gregory IX. In fact, he was Pope Gregory’s superior and friend. It was said by bishops and pope alike that Francis would often say things to them that put them to shame. However, we will never know what those things are, because Francis never said them where anyone else could hear him.

My point is that we need another Francis of Assisi to teach us how to deal with a Church in crisis and how to behave in public. We have developed a sense of entitlement. We believe that we are entitled to be publicly critical and at times hostile toward our bishops and to pretend that this does no harm, which is not true at all. It is very harmful to the person making the comments and to the outsider looking in. The virtue of discretion must go hand in hand with the wisdom to recognize problems and solutions. Without discretion, we run the risk of being like the spouse who badmouths his wife before all his friends and colleagues, then goes home to bed with her. At the end of the day, the bigger fool is he who sleeps with his dirty laundry.

That being said, we must also be fair to the SSPX. While it is true that its crisis is a doctrinal one, it is also true that it deserves our compassion and everything should be done not to leave it out in the cold. I for one believe that its heart is in the right place. It is its methods that are mistaken.

In fairness to the SSPX I have to say that it does not have a monopoly on this type of error. Many of us go about doing the right thing via the wrong means. Nonetheless, we have to correct the means. I truly believe that if the SSPX practiced greater discretion and took its issues with the Church behind closed doors to the appropriate authorities, rather than air out the laundry in public, there would be less opinions, less arguing and less factions. History has proven that republics have short lifespans. The Church is not a republic and we can’t deal with her as if she were one.

I always think you have written your best post and then you write another one which is even better! You understand everything so well and all is so clear in your mind.

All I can say is thank you, Brother. I don’t know if you fully realize all the good you are doing. If it wasn’t for you, I’d still be out in the cold.

 

[gentle_atheist]

Originally Posted by gentle atheist

Have you forgotten that Ecclesia Dei was issued in direct response to Lefebvre’s consecration of 4 bishops for the SSPX? It is referenced throughout the document. Now the SSPX was in a position to offer the TLM in perpetuity, much to the chagrin of JP2, who, I believe, was hoping for the TLM to die off once there were no more bishops willing to ordain priests to offer it.

Where could the Catholic laity attend a Vatican approved TLM before 1988, when Ecclesia Dei was issued? Nowhere, as far as I know. Your only recourse was SSPX, or its offshoot, SSPV, or an independent priest hired by the laity to offer the TLM, often in a rented conference room at a Holiday Inn until they could scrape up enough money to buy a building. Those were the dark, dark, days of the 1970’s and 80’s.

My point is: no SSPX, no Ecclesia Dei. No Ecclesia Dei, no TLM offered in the Catholic Church.

So even though, you can find the TLM offered now in the Catholic Church, it is only because of the SSPX and the courage of Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop de Castro Mayer to consecrate bishops to ensure its continuity.

 

[Genesis315]

Permissions were given on more individual bases continually since the reform. Examples of broader permissions before 1988 were the UK indult in 1971 and Pope John Paul’s universal indult of 1984. These came due to requests from Catholics, not through acts of disobedience. The TLM’s constant and continual lawful use in various places in the Church was one of the bases for the judgment that it was never abrogated.

Also, regarding the Ecclesia Dei groups, you said:

My point is: no SSPX, no Ecclesia Dei. No Ecclesia Dei, no TLM offered in the Catholic Church.

Analogously, one could say: no Eastern Orthodox church, no Union of Brest, no DL offered in the Catholic Church. Those historical circumstances don’t therefore justify the schism of the Eastern Orthodox, just as it doesn’t justify the “irregular” existence of the SSPX (especially since the “no TLM” conclusion is false, as I stated above).

 

[Melchior_1]

So even though, you can find the TLM offered now in the Catholic Church, it is only because of the SSPX and the courage of Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop de Castro Mayer to consecrate bishops to ensure its continuity.

I gave concrete evidence of how His Grace had the means to continue his ministry and affect positive change within the Church, without the actions he wound up doing. Care to respond?

 

[1AugustSon7]

I think there is a danger of being unfaithful to the Church and unfair to the SSPX, both of which must be avoided. From my days as a novice, it was always drilled into us that one could not be Catholic and be hostile toward the hierarchy, must less openly paint our bishops and pope in a negative light. It is something that our Holy Father Francis would never tolerate.

We learned by observing him. He lived during a time when the Church was in a greater crisis than today, as much as we would like to credit ourselves with having created the perfect crisis. That dubious honor still goes to the Catholics of the Middle Ages who led us straight into the Protestant Reformation. We learned many things from Francis. One of the most important things that we learned from him was discretion.

Francis was a very wise man. He certainly did not live with his head in the sand. However, there is not a single piece of writing, nor is there a single public statement by him that is critical of or hostile toward the hierarchy of his day. Quite the contrary, he constantly refers to the bishops as his Lords. Yet, we know that he enjoyed a very special friendship with the bishops, Pope Honorius III and Pope Gregory IX. In fact, he was Pope Gregory’s superior and friend. It was said by bishops and pope alike that Francis would often say things to them that put them to shame. However, we will never know what those things are, because Francis never said them where anyone else could hear him.

My point is that we need another Francis of Assisi to teach us how to deal with a Church in crisis and how to behave in public. We have developed a sense of entitlement. We believe that we are entitled to be publicly critical and at times hostile toward our bishops and to pretend that this does no harm, which is not true at all. It is very harmful to the person making the comments and to the outsider looking in. The virtue of discretion must go hand in hand with the wisdom to recognize problems and solutions. Without discretion, we run the risk of being like the spouse who badmouths his wife before all his friends and colleagues, then goes home to bed with her. At the end of the day, the bigger fool is he who sleeps with his dirty laundry.

That being said, we must also be fair to the SSPX. While it is true that its crisis is a doctrinal one, it is also true that it deserves our compassion and everything should be done not to leave it out in the cold. I for one believe that its heart is in the right place. It is its methods that are mistaken.

In fairness to the SSPX I have to say that it does not have a monopoly on this type of error. Many of us go about doing the right thing via the wrong means. Nonetheless, we have to correct the means. I truly believe that if the SSPX practiced greater discretion and took its issues with the Church behind closed doors to the appropriate authorities, rather than air out the laundry in public, there would be less opinions, less arguing and less factions. History has proven that republics have short lifespans. The Church is not a republic and we can’t deal with her as if she were one.

Thank you Brother JR! We can all learn from your calmness and coolness, and I do always love to learn more about St. Francis. I liked how Lormar also brought up the example of St. Bellarmine.

Thank you again Brother!

 

[gentle_atheist]

Permissions were given on more individual bases continually since the reform. Examples of broader permissions before 1988 were the UK indult in 1971 and Pope John Paul’s universal indult of 1984. These came due to requests from Catholics, not through acts of disobedience. The TLM’s constant and continual lawful use in various places in the Church was one of the bases for the judgment that it was never abrogated.

The Agatha Christie indult restricted the TLM to special occasions and only for special groups. In other words, it treated the TLM as some kind of ancient artifact that was to be taken out and examined infrequently by a select group and then put back into its case. However, I have no idea how often the TLM was actually celebrated under this indult.

The indult of 1984 produced virtually no results as local ordinaries refused requests for the TLM.

 

[gentle_atheist]

…I think for most of the best and truest Catholics in the Magisterium, their aversion to the Latin Mass is because it has become for so many a symbol of opposition to the Magisterium, be it the living one now reigning or a symbol of opposition to Vatican II or to the Ordinary Form of the Mass…

So, on the contrary - and far from helping the Latin Mass - the rebel, dissident and disobedient groups are in fact vitiating its promotion and success insomuch or insofar as they necessarily force it to become - as a symbol - a sign of opposition to the Church, rather than the sign of unity that it is and is meant to be, which is oc fource the very antithesis of what the Mass is.

All that some of the laity wanted was to continue to attend the TLM at their local church. What was so terrible about that?

It was the Vatican that made a big issue out of it. It was the Vatican that created the war between the Old Mass and the New Mass. It was the Vatican that used the New Mass as a litmus test for loyalty to the Pope.

If the Vatican hadn’t waged war against the TLM, wiping it out in every diocese throughout the world, the TLM would not have become so closely identified with schismatic groups.

 

[gentle_atheist]

I gave concrete evidence of how His Grace had the means to continue his ministry and affect positive change within the Church, without the actions he wound up doing. Care to respond?

Well, here’s an interview where Lefebvre explains why he proceeded with the consecrations:
sspx.org/archbishop_lefebvre/one_year_after_the_consecrations.htm

And here’s a follow-up interview:
sspx.org/archbishop_lefebvre/two_years_after_the_consecrations.htm

I don’t know what “concrete evidence” you are referring to.

 

[Melchior_1]

I don’t know what “concrete evidence” you are referring to.

When I posted this;

The SSPX was given a “Godfather” offer, rights and privileges that no group since the Jesuits has received, yet it was turned down. This offer included a Right of Exemption, meaning no diocesan bishops could touch them. Like it or not, they could have had a huge impact staying within the Church.

The Right of Exemption would have protected them from those officials. The only people who could give them grief would have been the Congregation of Societies of Apostolic Life & the Consecrated Life, and the Pope.

Of course, pre-Vatican II, the Right of Exemption was trampled on. It took Perfectae Caritatis (at Vatican II) to correct this. Ironically, Vatican II would have given the SSPX everything they needed to succeed within the existing framework of the Church, but instead they went their own way.

They would have had ample flexibility and autonomy, all within the structure of the Church. They’d have faculties, licit Masses, be able to promote their charisms, all with the same Right of Exemption that members of religious orders have (explained above).

 

[JReducation]

Have you forgotten that Ecclesia Dei was issued in direct response to Lefebvre’s consecration of 4 bishops for the SSPX?

What the Archbishop did was a crime against the Primacy. There is nothing to thank here.

It is referenced throughout the document. Now the SSPX was in a position to offer the TLM in perpetuity,

As Pope Benedict said, there was no reason for them not to be able to celebrate the Extraordinary Form. They had permission to do so.

much to the chagrin of JP2, who, I believe, was hoping for the TLM to die off once there were no more bishops willing to ordain priests to offer it.

That’s a very serious accusation to make against a Pontiff, especially one whose sanctity is not in question.

So even though, you can find the TLM offered now in the Catholic Church, it is only because of the SSPX and the courage of Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop de Castro Mayer to consecrate bishops to ensure its continuity.

The commission of a crime against the Primacy of Peter it not a courageous act, unless we consider treason to be courageous. This is what Bl. John Paul and Pope Benedict XVI called the ordination of the bishops, a crime against the Primacy.

One cannot justify an evil for the sake of a good. An ordination of bishops without a papal mandate is a schismatic act. A schismatic act is evil, even when the intent is good. We cannot cheer the Archbishop or Bishop Castro for their wrongdoing. That wold make us complicit in such wrong doing. We can certainly sympathize with their vision. Their vision was noble. The means was evil.

All that some of the laity wanted was to continue to attend the TLM at their local church. What was so terrible about that?

Nothing at all.

It was the Vatican that made a big issue out of it. It was the Vatican that created the war between the Old Mass and the New Mass. It was the Vatican that used the New Mass as a litmus test for loyalty to the Pope.

That also is a very serious accusation for one to make. On the other hand, if one is not a Catholic, as you say you’re not, then such an accusation is meaningless. In the end, it does not affect you one way or the other. If that accusation is made by a Catholic, it borders on serious sin.

If the Vatican hadn’t waged war against the TLM, wiping it out in every diocese throughout the world, the TLM would not have become so closely identified with schismatic groups.

Another serious accusation. You do understand that such serious accusations against the Holy See should never be made lightly. If one believes them to be true, then one is morally bound to produce the evidence and to present such evidence to the proper authorities, not to the world over on the Internet. On the Internet, such comments only scandalize. They do no one any good. Whereas when they’re presented to the proper authorities, some good can come out of it and no one is scandalized.

My question to you is this. If you’re an atheist, then is there a reason that we should take seriously what you have to say on this subject, since it is a well known fact that many atheists today delight in making the Church look badly in the eyes of the world?

On the other hand, if you’re a Catholic hiding behind the label of atheist, should we take you seriously, since you’re using the label atheist to attack your own Church.

If you’re openly Catholic and you have this evidence, have you considered taking it to the proper authorities?

We must be very careful not to be careless in how we speak about the Church and about the papacy. We can hurt many people and not repair any of the damage that has been done. Our life must be about restoration of all things to Christ, not about the destruction of the Church.

 

[HumbleCatholic]

JReducation:

What the Archbishop did was a crime against the Primacy. There is nothing to thank here.

We must be very careful not to be careless in how we speak about the Church and about the papacy. We can hurt many people and not repair any of the damage that has been done. Our life must be about restoration of all things to Christ, not about the destruction of the Church.

Brother JR:

I am a new member here, and was just received back into the loving arms of our one, holy, catholic, apostolic, Church this past Wednesday night.

I had been attending Mass at an independent chapel for almost 5 years. Before that, i was SSPX for almost 4 1/2 years.

This last meeting with SSPX Society and Pope Benedict, was so disheartening to me. I still can not understand why SSPX turned down the Pope’s offer to come back into the Church so we won’t be a divided Roman Catholic Church anymore.

Could you shed some light on this subject? Am I on the right thread for this question? Or has this question been answered somewhere else on this site?

Thank you for your wonderful posts. I enjoy reading what you write.

 

[JReducation]

Brother JR:

I am a new member here, and was just received back into the loving arms of our one, holy, catholic, apostolic, Church this past Wednesday night.

I had been attending Mass at an independent chapel for almost 5 years. Before that, i was SSPX for almost 4 1/2 years.

This last meeting with SSPX Society and Pope Benedict, was so disheartening to me. I still can not understand why SSPX turned down the Pope’s offer to come back into the Church so we won’t be a divided Roman Catholic Church anymore.

Could you shed some light on this subject? Am I on the right thread for this question? Or has this question been answered somewhere else on this site?

Thank you for your wonderful posts. I enjoy reading what you write.

I think it’s a wonderful question that none of us except the leadership of the SSPX can answer. The rest of us can only speculate. Speculation does no one any good. I can only repeat what both sides have said.

Bishop Fellay has said that the general chapter decided that the Holy Father’s addition to the Preamble is a stumbling block.

Accept the Pauline Mass as valid AND licit.

Accept that Vatican II is part of tradition

Accept that the pope decides whether something is or is not tradition

Accept that the Council is error free.

However, Archbishop Mueller has repeatedly said that the Holy See has not received a response from the SSPX.

From where I sit it seems that the SSPX leadership assumes that the Holy See will see its comments on the Internet and accept those as its final answer. If that is true, it is quite offensive. One does not send the Pontiff a response via the Internet, unless it’s an email. Even that I’m not so sure is appropriate. Archbishop Mueller is correct in saying that they have not received an answer.

I bring this up in response to your question. The answer is the SSPX has not formally rejected the Holy Father’s offer, because it has not sent its rejection to Rome in a formal letter. The SSPX has said much all over the globe and has been quoted on the Internet and elsewhere. However, as we all know, the Internet is like statistics. It can lie. Until the Holy See has a letter from the SSPX in its hand with the SSPX seal and the Superior General’s signature, the Vatican is still waiting and the SSPX has not in fact rejected or accepted the offer.

The $20.00 question is why hasn’t the SSPX leadership not sent a letter saying what the Internet claims the general chapter decided?

We can’t say that the SSPX was holding out for Pope Benedict to abdicate in the hope that the next pope would accept its terms. No one knew that the Holy Father was going to abdicate. One could say that out of respect and even affection for the Holy Father, they find it difficult to decline, but their constituency is making it difficult to accept. The leadership is stuck. My only observation here is that when one is stuck, it is better to say nothing to the public until you get unstuck.

The answer to your question is really another question. Why hasn’t the SSPX put its response on paper and sent it in a formal letter to the Vatican?

 

[MikeDunphy]

Do you have any references for St. Thomas More’s support for Mass in the Vernacular? I’d be interested in reading what he wrote on the subject.

Vernacularism began as a legitimate and very civil debate within the Catholic world before Protestantism became something objective and radical. Saint Thomas More was, for example, one of its greatest proponents all his life. Many other contemporary, faithful Catholic scholars and theologians also promoted it, based on the fact that the Latin Mass was originally, itself, a vernacularization of the Greek, itself a vernacular Mass.* …*

Vernacularsm did not originally nor even after necessarily equal ("=") Protestantism, as many examples coud show, but the Protestants so fixated on, promoted and flag-shipped the idea that in the popular mind the vernacular Mass became a symbol of Protestantism, rebellion, dissidence, etc. However, calm, cool, thoughtful and utterly faithful Catholic heads could distinguish and defend the originally Catholic idea even to their deaths, with the difference that they ultimately reserved the decision to the Church’s living Magisterium, who alone could authorize such changes.

So the answer to our question is: the vernacular Mass was killed by Protestants and Protestantism, because they converted (and perverted) the idea such that it, in the contemporary, popular mind, irrevocably became identified with rebellion against the Church. Vernacularism = Protestantism; and while there were no shortage of learned Catholics -be they learned layman, theologians or bishops- who knew that the idea was originally a truly Catholic one and remained such so long as it was understood to be ultimately up to the Church’s Magisterium, notwithstanding, in the popular mind vernacularism was effectively equated to Protestantism.

 

[JReducation]

Vernacularism began as a legitimate and very civil debate within the Catholic world before Protestantism became something objective and radical. Saint Thomas More was, for example, one of its greatest proponents all his life. Many other contemporary, faithful Catholic scholars and theologians also promoted it, based on the fact that the Latin Mass was originally, itself, a vernacularization of the Greek, itself a vernacular Mass.

This is actually very accurate. One of the contributing factors to St. Thomas More’s desire to see the mass said in English, which is the vernacular to which he referred, was probably the fact that More was a Franciscan.

The Franciscans already had a very different mass. They were using the Mass of St. Peter, which would later become the Tridentine Mass. At the time, they were the only ones using it. But there were so many ordained Franciscans that it became very popular, so popular that Trent adopted it and Pius V promulgated it as the official form of the mass for the Latin Church. It was Pius V who added the Gregorian chant, the final Gospel, the prayers at the foot of the altar, the communion rail and changed Confeteor and the Canon so that it did not mention St. Francis and several other Franciscan saints, that the friars had inserted into it.

The mass that St. Thomas knew was a very simple and austere mass that already had hymns in the vernacular, which was the Franciscan custom and did not have Gregorian Chant, which was banned by St. Francis. The scriptures could be read in Latin or the local language. It was left to the discretion of the local superior. Since most Franciscan friars were not priests, they didn’t all speak Latin.

The secular Franciscan brothers and sisters, known as the Brothers of Penance during Thomas More’s time were not usually educated in Latin. Many couldn’t read either. The first big change for the Church in England came with the translation of the Bible into English, which the Franciscans championed, being the order of the common man.

This was Thomas More’s experience of faith and the Franciscan ideal was his own as well. He shared in the order’s desire to translate not only the bible, but also the missal and the breviary. However, they (Franciscans) being obedient sons of the Church waited because they were told to wait. Little did they know that the Council of Trent would take their mass and make it the norm for the Latin Church. They also did not know that the Pope would impose Gregorian chant, create a high mass and a low mass, which the friars did not have and they would have to beg to keep celebrating it as they had done for about 250 years. More was part of this environment and of this vision…

We will never know whether he supported the idea because he liked it or whether he was commanded by the superior of the Franciscans to like the idea. We must remember that in the Franciscan rule and in the constitutions of St. Dominic, unlike other communities, the superior (Franciscan) and the prior (Dominican) reserve for themselves to command both the religious and the laity attached to their parishes and institutions. These folks were not under the bishop. They were under the friars. The local superior and prior had been given authority by Christ himself to command obedience. One of the statutes in the Rule of St. Francis and the Constitution of St. Dominic was that the friars, nuns and laity adapt their thinking and their preferences according to the mind of the superior. Whatever the superior ordered, the rest followed. Whatever the superior opined, everyone opined. Whatever the superior liked, everyone liked. This has not changed to this day.

A faithful Franciscan and a faithful Dominican thinks and feels with his fraternity. The faithful fraternity thinks and feels with the founder who in turn thinks and feels withe the hierarchy. For Thomas More the natural thing to do would have been to like whatever the superior liked and promoted what the superior promoted. He had no choice in the matter. Saints seldom have more than one choice in life, the choice to love. Once they make that choice, the rest is decided for them. God uses whatever means are available to him to mold them, give them courage to step outside the box, and and obey without questions, other than one: “Does the Church consider this a sin?” If the Church does not, the saint professes what the Church professes and does what the Church does. Again, More understood this and was bound to live this way. His opinion could very well be the product of his Franciscan way of life. We certainly know that he was faithful to the King and Church until the very end.