SSPX Info, updates and interviews

[EcceAgnusDei]

The pope is not going to say to them, “You’re the exception.”

The Pope could say this if he wanted to

Either you trust your superior general or you leave, but you don’t threaten the man, insult him and undermine his work . . . unless he’s doing evil, then you can lynch him.

Get a rope!

Ah, the dangers of leadership… I’d rather just remain a lay-puke

• PAX

 

[JReducation]

The Pope could say this if he wanted to

Except that one must always use common sense and choose the greater good. The greater good in this case would be to stick with what he said in SP.

Get a rope!

Hey, wait a minute. I’m a superior. I don’t think I like this idea as much, now that I think about it.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[wasserfall]

The issue of the OF is not going to be allowed and the Bishop knows this. SP clearly says that no priest can refuse to celebrate the OF just out of principle. The pope is not going to say to them, “You’re the exception.” However, the fact that no one can refuse to celebrate the OF out of principle, does not mean that one has to celebrate it at all.

I think you might be wrong on this one Brother JR. This has been the hammer and anvil used by the SSPX to bash the FSSP since 1999 when this very situation came up. The Holy See removed the Superior General of the FSSP over this very question. It is an extremely sensitive topic for the SSPX. If the Pope cannot accomodate them on this point it will make it very, very difficult for the leadership to accept regularization.

I have no doubt that the handling of this question in 1999 with respect to the FSSP has been (or will be) explicitly brought up by Bishop Fellay in his discussions with the Holy See.

 

[wasserfall]

Except that one must always use common sense and choose the greater good. The greater good in this case would be to stick with what he said in SP.

The greater good would be to regularize the SSPX, and this may be required for that purpose.

 

[EcceAgnusDei]

I have no doubt that the handling of this question in 1999 with respect to the FSSP has been (or will be) explicitly brought up by Bishop Fellay in his discussions with the Holy See.

I agree. At my SSPX chapel, in a few informal discussions, it has been this very issue with the FSSP that has been raised.

• PAX

 

[JReducation]

But the issue is not that they have to celebrate the OF. No one has said this. The issue is that they comply with SP and not reject it out of principle. You can’t come into communion with the Church and reject the Church’s normal way of celebrating the mass. The Ordinary Form is called “ordinary” for a reason. No one has said that they have to celebrate it.

The superior general of the FSSP landed in trouble precisely because he badmouthed the Ordinary Form, not because he didn’t celebrate it. He prohibitted his priests from celebrating it.

There were two legal issues there.

First: These are not religious. These are secular men. No superior can prohibit this. That power is reserved only for religious superiors. He violated Canon Law.

Second: He badmouthed the Ordinary Form. You don’t have to like it, but you cannot say that it is less efficacious. That’s what he said.

The Trad community made a big deal over this man’s dismissal, because of its passion for the EF. As often happens, when passions drive us, instead of us driving passion, law and order go out the window. The man violated laws that included the rights of his priests. Canon Law is very explicit in speaking about priestly societies of apostolic life. It explicitly says that it’s priests are secular men. Therefore, no superior can bind them as if they were religious. The superior must comply with the statutes.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[wasserfall]

But the issue is not that they have to celebrate the OF. No one has said this. The issue is that they comply with SP and not reject it out of principle. You can’t come into communion with the Church and reject the Church’s normal way of celebrating the mass. The Ordinary Form is called “ordinary” for a reason. No one has said that they have to celebrate it.

The superior general of the FSSP landed in trouble precisely because he badmouthed the Ordinary Form, not because he didn’t celebrate it. He prohibitted his priests from celebrating it.

There were two legal issues there.

First: These are not religious. These are secular men. No superior can prohibit this. That power is reserved only for religious superiors. He violated Canon Law.

Second: He badmouthed the Ordinary Form. You don’t have to like it, but you cannot say that it is less efficacious. That’s what he said.

The Trad community made a big deal over this man’s dismissal, because of its passion for the EF. As often happens, when passions drive us, instead of us driving passion, law and order go out the window. The man violated laws that included the rights of his priests. Canon Law is very explicit in speaking about priestly societies of apostolic life. It explicitly says that it’s priests are secular men. Therefore, no superior can bind them as if they were religious. The superior must comply with the statutes.

All very true. I didn’t mean to imply that the Holy See somehow acted improperly.

I just mean to say that the SSPX will likely have to be handled differently if they are to be regularized.

 

[EcceAgnusDei]

But the issue is not that they have to celebrate the OF. No one has said this. The issue is that they comply with SP and not reject it out of principle. You can’t come into communion with the Church and reject the Church’s normal way of celebrating the mass. The Ordinary Form is called “ordinary” for a reason. No one has said that they have to celebrate it.

I may be wrong (or may have misunderstood) as I have not looked further into the issue. But I do recall at one discussion with my SSPX priest that he said that at ordination they took a vow (promise?) to not celebrate the Novus Ordo.

Does anyone know if this is the case at SSPX ordinations?

If so, it would seem that they have promised (or vowed) not to celebrate the OF. Would that mean a rejection out of principle? If this is the case, I’m sure it is something that would have to be dealt with.

I personally have a very hard time imagining my SSPX priest celebrating the OF, even if it were at the once-a-year Chrism Mass.

But I know so very little, so I may easily be wrong about most of what I just posted.

• PAX

 

[TrueLight]

I personally have a very hard time imagining my SSPX priest celebrating the OF, even if it were at the once-a-year Chrism Mass.

But I know so very little, so I may easily be wrong about most of what I just posted.

• PAX

Some FSSP priests will not celebrate the Chrism mass either.

 

[JReducation]

All very true. I didn’t mean to imply that the Holy See somehow acted improperly.

I just mean to say that the SSPX will likely have to be handled differently if they are to be regularized.

I didn’t mean to imply that you had. I’m sorry if I came across that way.

I may be wrong (or may have misunderstood) as I have not looked further into the issue. But I do recall at one discussion with my SSPX priest that he said that at ordination they took a vow (promise?) to not celebrate the Novus Ordo.

Does anyone know if this is the case at SSPX ordinations?

If so, it would seem that they have promised (or vowed) not to celebrate the OF. Would that mean a rejection out of principle? If this is the case, I’m sure it is something that would have to be dealt with.

I personally have a very hard time imagining my SSPX priest celebrating the OF, even if it were at the once-a-year Chrism Mass.

But I know so very little, so I may easily be wrong about most of what I just posted.

• PAX

That’s a good question.

I’M GOING TO SPECULATE.

It may be handled as the Church handles religious vows. I’ll use my own profession. When I made vows, I said,

“I Brother Jason Richard, vow and promise to almighty God, the Glorious Virgin Mary, and you brother, to observe the Rule of the Friars Minor, in obedience to our Holy Father Francis and to his elected successors, WITHOUT PROPERTY, and in chastity until death.”

Now, the Church does not interpret this to mean that I am opposed to the ownership of property. It means that I agree to forfeit my soul, if I own property.

Maybe, this can be interpreted as they promise not to celebrate the OF, but this promise is not to be taken as a statement against the OF. I would imagine that if they include that in their formation, everyone would be happy.

I’M SPECULATING.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[wasserfall]

Some FSSP priests will not celebrate the Chrism mass either.

True. And then the bishop calls the superior and says “get this priest out of my diocese”.

It has happened. That is why I cannot imagine the SSPX regularizing without a guarantee.

 

[JReducation]

Some FSSP priests will not celebrate the Chrism mass either.

It’s their choice. It’s not imposed from above and the Holy See would not have a problem with that. It’s when you start dictating to secular priests that you get into serious trouble. Unless it’s in the statutes to which they have agreed, you’re violating their human rights.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[wasserfall]

Unless it’s in the statutes to which they have agreed, you’re violating their human rights.

I’m sorry but I’m going to have to run with this…

“Brother JR says that requiring me to attend the OF violates my human rights”

 

[EcceAgnusDei]

“I Brother Jason Richard…”

Oh dear, now we know your name

Maybe, this can be interpreted as they promise not to celebrate the OF, but this promise is not to be taken as a statement against the OF. I would imagine that if they include that in their formation, everyone would be happy.

That would seem to be a happy compromise. We can all have our cake and eat it, too

• PAX

 

[EcceAgnusDei]

I’m sorry but I’m going to have to run with this…

“Brother JR says that requiring me to attend the OF violates my human rights”

laugh

Of course, “rights” is such an enlightenment, non-Catholic idea, right?

• PAX

 

[JReducation]

True. And then the bishop calls the superior and says “get this priest out of my diocese”.

It has happened. That is why I cannot imagine the SSPX regularizing without a guarantee.

Actually, bishops and superiors sign contracts before the community moves in. If this was agreed to beforehand, the bishop cannot make such a telephone call. We always think the worst about our leaders. Jeesh. Lighten up folks. See----> :juggle:

I’m sorry but I’m going to have to run with this…

“Brother JR says that requiring me to attend the OF violates my human rights”

Actually, I didn’t say it. Vatican II did. It’s in the document on religious freedom. No one can force another person to worship against his will.

It does not apply to religious, because we surrender our will to the superior.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[ProVobis]

But the issue is not that they have to celebrate the OF. No one has said this. The issue is that they comply with SP and not reject it out of principle. You can’t come into communion with the Church and reject the Church’s normal way of celebrating the mass. The Ordinary Form is called “ordinary” for a reason. No one has said that they have to celebrate it.

The superior general of the FSSP landed in trouble precisely because he badmouthed the Ordinary Form, not because he didn’t celebrate it. He prohibitted his priests from celebrating it.

Br Jr, it wasn’t called the Ordinary Form back in 1999 but point taken.

And as far as celebrating it, maybe not, but I’m sure they’ll now have to learn and keep current on the GRIM/GIRM, something which I’m sure many even-non-FSSPXers aren’t too keen on doing.

 

[JReducation]

Br Jr, it wasn’t called the Ordinary Form back in 1999 but point taken.

In 1999, the EF was called the “Indult Mass”. Indult still means, out of the norm.

And as far as celebrating it, maybe not, but I’m sure they’ll now have to learn and keep current on the GRIM/GIRM, something which I’m sure many even-non-FSSPXers aren’t too keen on doing.

That only makes sense, since the EF and OF are the same Latin Rite Mass. If you belong to the Latin Church, you must study the rubrics for both forms of the Latin Rite.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[tradcathusa]

The greater good would be to regularize the SSPX, and this may be required for that purpose.

Wassefall, you are so very correct, and I am afraid those in the novus ordo church can’t grasp the crisis of Vatican II. Wasserfall I have a question for you, I am not aware of any FSSP priest that attends a chrism mass in the USA. They do go and collect oils but they do not attend the mass. Are you aware of any FSSP priest going to a novus ordo chrism mass? Keep up the good work!

 

[JReducation]

Wassefall, you are so very correct, and I am afraid those in the novus ordo church can’t grasp the crisis of Vatican II. Wasserfall I have a question for you, I am not aware of any FSSP priest that attends a chrism mass in the USA. They do go and collect oils but they do not attend the mass. Are you aware of any FSSP priest going to a novus ordo chrism mass? Keep up the good work!

This is troublesome language. It does not promote unity or reconciliation. It speaks as if we belonged to two different Catholic Churches. I think this is what Bishop Fellay and the Vatican are trying to get through our heads. There is only one Catholic Church with many voices.

Bishop Fellay also speaks to that in his letter. He’s saying that while things are not what they should be, there has been an exaggeration of the crisis too. He speaks very clearly about the difference between what people did with Vatican II and what Vatican II wants to do for the Church. People are blending the two into one in this kind of statement. This does not help the Bishop’s attempt to pull the SSPX together and to follow him back to Rome.

I think that both sides have to be very careful how we use language these days. This has reached a very delicate page in what we hope is the final chapter of this tome. A phrase or word that triggers fireworks can undo the whole reconciliation for some people. Those on the Traditionalist side will run back into their ghetto and those in the mainstream will put up as many roadblocks as possible to keep them out.

We don’t want anymore roadblocks and we don’t want anymore ghettos. I believe St. Francis said it best, “Make me an instrument of your peace . . . it is in pardoning that we are pardoned.”

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV