- Status
A
AdvocatusVerbum
Guest
Most illuminating. Thank you very much.
W
Wampa
Guest
Since this thread started with Fr. Z’s take Bishop Fellay’s recent speech, I thought it would be pertinent to post a differing view. The Remnant recently did a video on the speech. It’s 16:14 long.
The Remnant Forum: Bishop Bernard Fellay in his Own Words:
youtube.com/watch?v=V5oKeuR8MT8
Video of the part of the speech that Fr. Z quoted starts at 10:00.
One of the interesting parts of this piece is the observation that SSPX’s unwillingness to come to agreement with the Vatican may stem from a fear that Pope Francis might remove their ability to do the Latin Mass - as he did recently with the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate (ncronline.org/news/theology/pope-restricts-use-latin-mass-franciscan-friars-immaculate).
The Remnant Forum: Bishop Bernard Fellay in his Own Words:
youtube.com/watch?v=V5oKeuR8MT8
Video of the part of the speech that Fr. Z quoted starts at 10:00.
One of the interesting parts of this piece is the observation that SSPX’s unwillingness to come to agreement with the Vatican may stem from a fear that Pope Francis might remove their ability to do the Latin Mass - as he did recently with the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate (ncronline.org/news/theology/pope-restricts-use-latin-mass-franciscan-friars-immaculate).
C
choliks
Guest
Even so, that fear may be unfounded. I’ll refer you to Bro. JR’s post. The very nature of SSPX is very different from the FFI. The SSPX is a society of secular priests, not an institute of consecrated life like the FFI. Therefore, the Holy See will deal with them differently (They were even offered a prelature during the Papacy of Pope Benedict XVI).
The use of the EF of the Mass in the FFI was restricted (to the discretion of the Superior) because it posed a “threat” to the unity of the brothers, which must come first before the form of Mass they should use.
I just wish the SSPX can offer the same obedience as the FFI.
O
otjm
Guest
It is not confusing when one understands the differences.
The SSPX is not the laity who go to their chapels; it is the bishops, and the priests under them.
The bishops have an absolute duty to obedience, and that obedience is to the Pope. The priests have a duty to the Pope, and to their bishop and as a practical matter, most of their fealty is to the bishop. If the bishops out of sync with Rome, then they (the priests) have a difficult choice; be true to Rome and not the bishop, or turn to the bishop and not Rome. Rome does not micro manage each priest; but the bishop is practically more accountable to the Pope.
This whole issue is not similar to nuns, and the grey (and foggy ) headed groups such as
Call to Action as they are not ordained.
P
ProVobis
Guest
They’re not the only ones who express such fear. And if it’s not fear, it is the reallization of the strong probability that it won’t be promoted like the QAA (84), ED (88) and the SP (07).
O
otjm
Guest
This is not about SSPX “members” - that is, it is not about the people attending the chapels and supporting the priests and bishops.
The SSPX is the bishops, and the priests under them. And they don’t need to come here and defend themselves for a very specific reason - they owe an absolute duty of obedience to the Pope. And from the comments listed at the beginning of this thread, it appears they have said they will not obey the Pope.
This is not about the dicastery under which any negotiations have been taking part; it is about Pope Benedict as he personally signed the letter Bishop Fellay was speaking about, and it is the Pope who has made the final decision as to what the SSPX must accept in order to be reconciled with the Church.
No, that is not what it is about,. It is about the direct disobedience of the bishops.
No, it is not minor; it is stunningly direct as an example of the problems the Church has experienced since the end of Vatican 2; the only difference being that the other disobedience has been from the liberal end and this is from the conservative end. And it has been very direct, open, defiant and explicit disobedience. The disobedience of the liberals has been much more subtle, indirect, secretive, and implicit.
The bishops say they are loyal to Rome but loyalty is as loyalty does. I have said before that Bishop Fellay has played a cat and mouse game for a long time. It now appears, assuming the statement is actually his, that he is no longer playing.
This is no longer a game of “My conscience”. It is down to an explicit statement from the Pope of what the SSPX bishops (and by analogy, their priests) must accept. Approximately 2000 bishops from around the world participated in Vatican 2, and these me were not even ordained then. They have the temerity to tell the rest of the bishops of the world, and the Pope (effectively) to his face “You are wrong!”? This is not a matter of conscience. it is way, way past that issue. It is fealty to Rome; it is whether you are in union with Rome or not. And you, the bishop, does not decide that; Rome does. Game, set, match.
There is a reason the rules of the forum do not allow someone to “defend” the SSPX; hopefully the above explains the roots of that rule.
O
otjm
Guest
The Church stands for truth, and for Truth. To simply acknowledge that some, or even many people no longer accept the truth, and therefore the Truth, is not Letting people send themselves to Hell" it is a Church that preaches Christ, and him crucified. Pope Benedict is from Germany, and clearly aware of the fact that in many European countries, only about 55 or less of baptized Catholics go to Mass on a weekly basis. He was simply acknowledging reality. As in, there comes a time to call a spade a spade, and not an ecologically sensitive humus moving instrument.
And that has nothing to do with his obvious and moving desire to bring people to the Faith. It was simply an acknowledgement of reality.
A
agnes_therese
Guest
The SSPX isn’t a religious order, so it’s a completely different situation.
J
johnnyc176
Guest
Thank you for Br. I have follow up concerning the LCWR but I’ll leave it at that because this thread is about the SSPX.
P
pnewton
Guest
I guess ever since we were kids we like to point out to authority anytime we think someone else is not getting punished as much as we are. But pointing at others is irrelevant, as kids, as adults and most especially, before God. However, Call to Action is not even a Catholic group. It’s just some people trying to be political. And if anyone has followed the news or is familiar with canon law, there have been numerous excommunications for abortion or support of women priests. It is not only an irrelevant argument, it is a false argument.
J
johnnyc176
Guest
True…so much talk and concern about the SSPX. Hopefully it does not come to a formal schism. As it stands now at least someone who desires to attend the TLM can do so at a SSPX chapel if no other is available in surrounding area. I’m sure no one would like to see that option removed.
P
pnewton
Guest
I would hope that no one would want to see a schism and at least most would desire some accommodation.
W
Wampa
Guest
Thanks for pointing that out. I did gather something along those lines from the Vatican spokesman’s comments in the NCR article I posted. Still, I would not be surprised to learn that SSPX members see that as a threat, even if it’s not realistically one.
H
Hoosier_Daddy
Guest
Yes. But you can also look at that as even children understand the concept of fairness and justice.
P
pnewton
Guest
But most can not understand the difference between the two. If I am speeding and am the only one of several to be stopped and pay a fine, that is just, though it is not fair. Jesus told the parables of the workers in the vineyard who complained when they were not treated fairly, though they were treated justly.
H
Hoosier_Daddy
Guest
Yes, I agree with you, but you can understand why someone might feel picked on or slighted.
In the parable all workers were paid. That is an important point.
M
Monkey1976
Guest
While understanding and agreeing with the points brought up by BrJR, I would suggest one additional reason: The SSPX should know better. If they wave the flag of orthodoxy, they should know that part of orthodoxy is humble submission to the Pope when - for example - he requires an Institute or Society to agree that a properly-promulgated Ordo Missae is both valid and licit. Or that a particular Ecumenical Council neither stands above nor apart from others, but - when properly understood - is in continuity with them. The LCWR, Call to Action, Catholics for Choice, etc - they should know better, but it’s clear that they don’t - otherwise, they would not be clamoring for “reform” of doctrines that are immutable. The SSPX does know better.
If an average person makes a mistake on their taxes that happens to be to their advantage, it’s counted as a mistake. If a tax attorney makes that same mistake, it’s considered deliberate, because they should know better.
When Adam and Eve fell to Satan’s temptation, the window of redemption was left open. When Satan rebelled, there was no possibility of his redemption, because he knew better.
L
Lormar
Guest
Is that any different from priests such as Father Benedict Groeschel, among others in the Church, saying that popes in the past have made “fatal errors”? Just asking.
It seems to be that a lot of what we accuse the SSPX of doing, or not doing, can be applied to many in our Church as well. And yet the SSPX is always called out. How about what was done when Humanae Vitae was released? Wasn’t that temerity?
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
Wait. You’re being way too logical and consistent.
- Status